Prof. Dr. Turan GÜVEN
Gazi University faculty of Education Biology Department, Ankara (Emeritus)
[email protected]

Science and Ideology

In today’s scientific community, some atheistic and materialistic scientists are ardent advocates of the theory of evolution. Those scientists use biology as a tool and distort the truth in order to legitimatize their ideologies.

Although scientists are the ones who know the fundamental differences between science and ideology in terms of structure, some scientists present science to society like an “ideology”. What makes scientific knowledge reliable is that it is methodological. It is based on concrete observations and experimental data, as well as original and objective interpretations of the scientists. Those interpretations are scientific explanations about the solution of a natural event or a problem. It is definitely necessary for the explanations and interpretations to pass the ruthless criticisms of the scientific community and receive a general acceptance in order to be included in the category of “scientific knowledge”.

It is not true that many theories will maintain their validity forever.

Doubtlessly, not every scientific research results in a great theory but it forms small steps on the road to great theories. It is not true that many theories will maintain their validity forever. The theories that contradict the facts are replaced by new theories that explain the facts better. As Sinanoğlu (2009) says, “Sometimes in science, we hear the following: ‘everything is now understood; the secrets of life are solved’ but observations, experiments and evidences that contradict existing theories accumulate; the structure of current understanding begins to crack. New theories, a new system of understanding (paradigms),become necessary.

Science is a dynamic process just like life.

Indeed, science is a process; it constantly renews itself and never ends. The last word is not said in science; changes in scientific research techniques andmentality can change the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of scientific knowledge. In other words, science is a dynamic process just like life.

Ideologies are built on dogma, and these dogmas are fixed by their nature; they never change. Criticizing dogma is regarded as betrayal of ideology.

None of the features of the structure summarized above exists in ideologies. First of all, ideology comes from the mind of a person called “ideologue”. The universe (the world, man and social structures) consists of what the ideologue sees and interprets. Primitive people sanctified the statues that they made with their own hands and blessed them in the course of time; the attitude of ideologues towards their own thoughts and ideas was like that. Ideologies are built on dogma, and these dogmas are fixed by their nature; they never change. The basic idea on which ideology is based is an indisputable dogma by the proponents of ideology. Criticizing dogma is regarded as betrayal of ideology.

When science is presented to society like an “ideology”, the results of all scientific research and theories become ideological dogmas.

To sum up, there is a contradiction between science and ideology that is completely opposite and uncompromising. When science is presented to society like an“ideology”, the results of all scientific research and theories become ideological dogmas. This means the destruction  of the tradition of criticism necessary for the development of science.

In today’s scientific community, some people think that they serve science by defending scientific theories as if they arebeyond time and space. However, real scientists should not be ardent advocates of scientific theories; they should be modest and objective critics. As a matter of fact, the ones that clear the way for science arethe scientists who continue this reasonable tradition of criticism.

Where does scientific theory take its strength from?

The power of scientific theory does not increase with the number of its supportersor with atheist-ideological additions to science. What determines the strength of theory is its internal consistency and the degree of its relation to reality. That is, the more consistent a theory is, the closer it is to reality and the more resistant it is to time; the further away from explaining the truth a theory is, the weaker and less resistant it is to time. The most typical examples of how scientific facts are distorted by irrational and unreasonable interpretations in biology are seen in the supporters of the theory of evolution as if it is a religion. Dawkins writes the following related to evolution in his book, "The Selfish Gene":

Intelligent life on a planet comes of age when it first works out the reason for its own existence. If superior creatures from space ever visit earth, the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization, is: ‘Have they discovered evolution yet?’ Living organisms had existed on earth, without ever knowing why, for over three thousand million years before the truth finally dawned on one of them. His name was Charles Darwin. To be fair, others had had inklings of the truth, but it was Darwin who first put together a coherent and tenable account of why we exist.”.[1]

The author’s ideas in the book are ideological delusions from start to finish, and no sentence corresponds to any scientific knowledge and fact. First of all, I do not think that the theory of evolution has the purpose of “explaining the meaning of life”. For, the main purpose of this theory is to explain how biodiversity on Earth emerged. Besides, it is far from being scientific for the author to divide the history of biology into two as  pre-Darwin and post-Darwin by accepting Darwin as a milestone. Moreover, the fact that the writer says the people who lived before Darwin could not comprehend why they lived in the world is a typical indication of being unaware of history of humanity. Here we see how Dawkins diverted the theory of evolution from its scientific context and essence, and made it approach ideology. Now, let us have a look at the same author’s view of genes and how he presented biology as an ideology to the society. The writer states the following in the same book in the chapter titled “Why Are People”:

At the gene level, altruismmust be bad and selfishness good.” “...The gene is the basic unit of selfishness.” He summarizes the ideas he defends as follows in his book:

The thesis in this book is that we are machines created by our genes just like the other animals. ... I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a gene is ruthless selfishness This gene selfishness will usually give rise to selfishness in individual behavior.” He states the following in another chapter: “... A body is really a machine blindly programmed by its selfish genes”.[2]

Dawkins shows that he is an ardent advocate of biological determinism or neurogenetic determinism. Since he cannot get out of the materialisticquagmirein which he is stuck, he depicts a passive human being who has no mind, will and freedom, who cannot build himself, and who is only a prisoner of his biological equipment. In his eyes, man is an ordinary being that occupies room in space with its organic mass. Today’s materialistic-positivistic paradigm evaluates man only with his biological equipment and ignores his mental and spiritual equipment (such as reason, will, freedom, spirit). Man’s biological equipment is definitely important but this equipment is only the visible part of the iceberg.

In molecular biology, the concept of gene is defined as a DNA fragment of a certain length with protein information. The term “genome” refers to the all DNAs in a cell or an organism, or the genetic information in all DNAs. Even if this genetic information is put in front of us (that is, if we know all sequences of DNA), we cannot predict what creature it belongs to unless we have a reference. Moreover, it does not give us any information as to how this genetic information will assume a body and appear as a living being. The “biological equipment”genes provide forms only abasis for human behavior.

The famous geneticist Lewontin criticizes Dawkins’ interpretations of reductionism and strained interpretation, which see man as a machine at the disposal of his genes as follows:

We are, in Richard Dawkins’s metaphor, lumbering robots created by our DNA, body and mind. But the view that we are totally at the mercy of internal forces present within ourselves from birth is part of a deep ideological commitment that goes under the name of reductionism…First of all, our genes definitely affect us but they cannot decide what we are going to be... Even if I knew all of the molecular properties of a gene in an organism, I could not guess what kind of an organism it would be... In this context, we need to have an unchangeable human nature theory that is encoded in our genes for the completion of the ideology of biological determinism”.[3]

Lewontin emphasizes that human behavior cannot be explained by the outdated “biological determinism”.

An Ideology Disguised as Science: Darwinism

Darwin is the first person that comes to mind when the term “the theory of evolution” is used in the scientific world, and more specifically in biology. When we look at what he did and wrote in the 1830s, we see that he is one of the people who really deserved it. He made observations on vegetation and animal diversity (especially reptiles and birds) on the volcanic Galapagos islands to the west of South America, where he went with a British ship called Beagle. After five years of research and travel, he returned to England (1836), assessed the specimens he collected with bio-systematists and learned that they were species specific to the Galapagos islands. Based on his careful observations on those islands and other data he had, he collected his ideas about biodiversity in his book called “The Origin of Species” 22 years later.

It would be unfair to expect Darwin, like any researcher, to be independent of the beliefs and cultural values ​​of the society while interpreting the observations he made in nature. That is not the mistake that Darwin made; the real mistake is to see the political and ideological thoughts of the era in which he lived as the truth itself. For instance, while interpreting his observations of the animal kingdom, Darwin was unable to think independently of the ideology of capitalism that had dominated the Western world in the 19th century. “In fact, Darwin’s theory of natural selection and evolution bears an uncanny resemblance to the political economic theory of early capitalism as developed by the Scottish economists”.[4]

Besides, Darwin does not deny that he was influenced by the economist and statistician Thomas R. Malthus’book called “An Essay on the Principle of Population”. Thus, observations on the animal kingdom were interpreted from the point of view of an ideology (referred to in Darwin’s book as “the doctrine of Malthus”) containing socio-economic, political and religious elements; from this, he reached the idea of ​​“natural selection” known as the mechanism of evolution.

According to Darwin’s ideological perspective, which he called the “Malthus doctrine”, food production in the world increasedat an arithmetic rate and the natural population increasedat a geometric rate. The Malthus doctrine predicted that in the near future, people would engage in a fierce battle for life and deathdue to food.Indeed, in later years,humanity suffered great wars for life and death but inadequacy of food production was not the main cause in any of those wars. The main reason for the wars was that the boons of the world, which were abundant enough for everyone, could not be shared fairly. In other words, it was the greed of people and the ambition to dominate the world. Having been influenced by the Malthus doctrine, Darwin thought that living beings fought a ruthless “war of survival“.In this war, the strong survived and continued their progeny. The individuals who could not adapt to the environment in terms of biological equipment and who were not strong in the competition of nutrition and reproduction were eliminated. Darwin called this natural event “natural selection”. In other words, according to Darwin, nature was always in favor of the strong. Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, was inspired by the ideas of ​​“natural selection” and “survival of the fittest”, which came to the forefront in the book “The Origin of Species” and added them to the science of eugenics, which means “improvement of human race“. Since the weak ones of the living beings are eliminated by natural selection and the strong ones survive, why should we not form a superior race through “artificial selection”from the people who are superior in terms mental and physical qualities?The parents with appropriate genetic characteristics should be encouraged to have large families (positive eugenics) while the parents with inappropriate genetic characteristics should be prevented from having children (negative eugenics).

Galton went so far in his ideas that Darwin opposed these ideas of his cousin in his book “The Descent of Man”  he wrote in 1871.[5] As it is clearly seen, “Most of the ideological effects that penetrate into science are not noticed immediately. Those ideological effects appear as basic assumptions that scientists do not notice yet, that have great effects on their explanations and that help to support the attitude of the community that give birth to them”.[6]

Ideologies Froze the Intellectual Abilities of Humanity for two Hundred Years

It is neither scientific nor ethical to mislead the community by producing and exhibiting imaginary ape-like human beings from a half-skull fossil using plastic arts.

The biased ideological mental structure of the Western societies lies in the background of modern science and technology’s becoming a means of destruction for humanity. Cemil Meriç states the following regarding the issue: “Imperialist culture is the culture of imperialist countries; the purpose of this culture is to spread and exploit. In fact, some branches within this culture, such as political ideologies and internal ideologies, are imperialist. It is a very good determination. We cannot call the whole culture imperialist. Aggression is not a quality of culture, but of ideology.[7]

Ideologies froze the mental and intellectual abilities of humanity for nearly 200 years, from the 19th century to the last quarter of the 20th century, causing serious problems in the correct definition and perception of the reality of “human”; they made humanity suffered great pains and agonies. Although Nazism and communism remainedin the dump of history as the most typical practices ideologies, capitalism is still alive.

The theory of evolution is the name of an ideology presented by atheists and opponents of religion under the disguise of science.

Regarding evolution, nobody ignores changes in individuals and populations (variation, polymorphism), mutations in genes, and natural selection to a certain extent. The discussions focus on the model of “passive living beings” and “formation of a new species with the accumulation of variation” (speciation). It is seen that the living being observed in nature has no relation with the living being described by Darwinists. Indeed, something like that has not been observed in nature so far. Most scientists do not regard them scientific and logical.

Today’s atheists, positivists and materialists cling to the theory of evolution as a lifesaver. This theory supposedly gives atheism and materialism a scientific legitimacy by explaining the diversity of living beings, the most important part of the world of beings.

It is neither scientific nor ethical to mislead the community by producing and exhibiting imaginary ape-like human beings from a half-skull fossil using plastic arts. It has not yet been forgotten how well-meaning researchers working on human origins were deceived by “Piltdown man hoax”. One of the main questions that Darwinists cannot answer is this: If evolution is an ongoing process, why do not many transitional forms emerge in this process? In that case, is“the accumulation of variation”, which transforms one species into another, not nonsense just like the last straw? What remains is “punctuated speciation”, which means the transformation of a species into another all of a sudden and which has not yet been observed in nature so far.

According to Darwinists, every scientist must understand, perceive and interpret the biosphere, life in the biosphere and the diversity of life as they do. They oversimplify the complex and perfect reality called “life” and to make matters worse, they try to impose this ideology on the community and humanity  as“philosophy of life”and“science”. The theory of evolution is the name of an ideology presented by atheists and opponents of religion (Christianity in the West, Muslim in the East) under the disguise of science. Today’s atheists, positivists and materialists cling to the theory of evolution as a lifesaver. This theory supposedly gives atheism and materialism a scientific legitimacy by explaining the diversity of living beings, the most important part of the world of beings.

None of the Experiments and Observations Indicates the Evolution Defined by Darwinists

The claim that today’s living species evolved from a primitive common ancestor has not been confirmed by observations.

There is one more thing that Darwinists repeat like a parrot in the scientific world. They portray the scientists who criticize the theory of evolution - especially Muslim scientists - as the people who cannot understand the change in living things with the historical aspect. That has nothing to do with reality. First of all, the current content of the theory of evolution argues not only the change in living organisms, but also that this change is limitless enough to form new species. The process of change in populations can be observed but the formation of a new species cannot be observed. In this context, if a scientist narrates something that he has not observed as if he has observed it and makes a lot of fiction on it, an ethical issue is in question because “change” is a phenomenon in the universe but speciation (the formation of a completely different species through the change of a species) is neither a process observed in nature nor a phenomenon. The biologists that criticize evolution emphasize two points. Firstly, they say that an organism is too perfect and complex to come into being by chance, contrary to the views of evolutionists,. Secondly, it is a fact that living organisms do not have unlimited changeability. None of the data of the experiments and observations that modern biology displays points to the evolution defined by Darwinists. Moreover, the differences (variations) that occur among the individuals of one species do not have the potential to accumulate over a long period of time to form another species (a new branch in the evolutionary tree).

Let us consider, for example, a mouse species; no matter how much such variations accumulate, there will be no transformation into a winged species because variations are small intra-species changes; they vary to the extent that the biological equipment of the species allows.There is no such thing as “accumulation of variation” that will force the biological equipment and go beyond it. The living being described as “new species” is the variations of the species that lived before.Speciation or the emergence of new species in the form of punctuated speciation is a hypothetical idea, not a phenomenon observed in nature. The claim that today’s living species evolved from a primitive common ancestor by looking at the basic life events (energy production-transformation, protein synthesis, reproduction) and the similarities in the structure of controlled biological systems (at the anatomical-morphological, cellular and molecular level) has not been confirmed by observations.

The Reductionist View Prevented Life from Being Understood Truly

Atheistic evolutionist biologists and the anthropologists that are influenced by them are almost delighted to describe man as an ordinary species.

Ignoring the diversity and complexity of life on Earth and simplification of it means removing the issue from its real context. Indeed, Darwinist ideology has a reductive view of the universe, the world, and life that no other ideology has. Darwinists define a world much simpler than the world we live in today. This reductionist view never reflects a realistic and scientific view that makes life understandable.

Evolutionists fall into the greatest error while defining man. Atheistic evolutionist biologists and the anthropologists that are influenced by them are almost delighted to describe man as an ordinary species. According to them, the first ancestor of a human being was a mammal that once lived by eating insects on trees. This ancestral organism evolved through a "natural selection" that lasted for millions of years, and coincidences brought about the modern man living today. How can Darwinists reach such a conclusion even though they have no concrete evidence? How can the data of biology and anthropology be distorted in this way? If the universe, the world, and life were as simple as they say, there would be no unresolved issues, and science would come to an end. If a biologist who recognizes even the simplest creature says that the complex living being called “man” emergedfrom a primitive animal ancestor through natural selection, it means he has a mental problem.

Eggs and sperm are two short-lived cells when considered separately. Through fertilization, the nuclei of these cells combine in the egg to form a new cell (zygote) with a great potential for survival.In the process of building the cells of a perfect organism starting with zygote, nothing can be explained by chance. Let alone the construction of a complex beinglike a human by chance, even a simpler DNA and protein molecule is impossible to emerge by chance. Millions of years,and even the age of the world, are not enough to build a cell as a perfect “biological system”through random events. For some reason, atheisticevolutionists never evaluate the biological, spiritual and mental-intellectual equipment peculiar to human within a system integrity. They just seem to focus coarsely on biological equipment.

All of the statements of atheistic scientists hold the view that there is no “given” characteristic of man. They have a prejudice that believing in creation cannot go together with scientific thought and research. According to them, the verse “Allah created man in the best mold” has no value in the presence of the aphorism “man was built by natural selection”. Robert L. Trivers of Harvard University states the following in a foreword he wrote for Richard Dawkins’ book called “The Selfish Gene”:

The chimpanzee and the human share about 99.5 per cent of their evolutionary history, yet most human thinkers regard the chimp as a malformed, irrelevant oddity while seeing themselves as stepping-stones to the Almighty. To an evolutionist this cannot be so. There exists no objective basis on which to elevate one species above another. Chimp and human, lizard and fungus, we have all evolved over some three billion years by a process known as natural selection.”…“Natural selection has built us, and it is natural selection we must understand if we are to comprehend our own identities”

Hoagland, who owns an important scientific discovery in biology, repeats in every chapter of his book called “The Roots of Life” that life came about by chance and he believes in the following ideas:

“ … Every step in evolution is an incident based on coincidence and chance; therefore, it is unpredictable. All living creatures, including human beings, are the product of extremely random incidents. It can be said that the way we know ourselves as humans is a very rare coincidence and chance.” (…) “We end by saying change and natural selection are ‘enough’ to explain the existence of man”.[8]

I think this scientist must be confusing the concepts such as obscurity and unpredictability with the concepts of coincidence and chance. People of all ages know that no living thing can come into being throughcoincidence and chance.

In his famous book, “Introduction to Psychology”, Morgan describes human beings as follows in the chapter  titled “Evolution, Genetics and Behavior”:

We may think that we are only a little lower than angels, but we must not forget that we are a species of animal. Homo sapiens is our name. We have a family tree spanning the millions of years life has been evolving on this planet. We are remarkable creatures with bodily structures and psychological capacities that have come into being through evolutionary pressures over the millennia.  …Therefore, our animal side or behaviors related to our main genetic structure need to be searched”.[9]

As it is clearly seen here, evolutionary psychologists who study the evolutionary processes of human behaviors constitute a separate problem for biology and anthropology. For, as McKinnon puts it, “The institutions of the people related to the community(marriage, divorce)and their values ​​(standards, preferences) are attributed to non-human species; the terms describing animal behaviors are used to describe human behaviors(marriage is persistently regarded to be equal to mating). In this process, especially the institutions of the community in the center of human relations and values ​​are completely pigeonholed”.[10]

The theory of evolution has an ideological character today since Darwinists’ ideas are now accepted as dogma and as an indisputable fact.

Ethologists and some Darwinists who work on primates go so far as to say that belief in God in humans derives from the behavior of individuals who flattered the leader in the hierarchical primate communities.[11] This approach is a reductionist reasoning that deals with animal behavior patterns as intact natural prototypes of human behavior. Man is a being that encounters many problems in the universe he lives in and can develop many strategies of solution. It is a great mistake to see such a beingas consisting of merely biological equipment by imprisoning him in ideological patterns and to describe it as an ordinary member of the living world. Besides, one of the fundamental mistakes of evolutionists is that they see human beings as an ordinary living being.

The excerpts above reveal the view of Western civilization and the system of thought on human beings without leaving any room for  doubt. At the center of such a civilization is an irresponsible human model that evolved from an animal ancestor and could return to those animal behaviors at any time. This human being can only be controlled by worldly laws, the pressures of the society and organized forces. The main difference between our civilization and the Western civilization becomes apparent in outlook on man and theunderstanding of humanity. As a matter of fact, today, science and technology have become a tool for the bloodiest wars of the 20th and 21st centuries in the hands of the West. The West was the first to invent and use nuclear, chemical and biological weapons on humans. Their attempted torture, genocide and mass murder (holocaust in Germany, pogroms in Russia) and their insensitivity to inhuman atrocities are based on this distorted “understanding of humanity”. The only thing the West understands is power. Darwin’s introduction of the “natural selection” mechanism into biology as “the strong live, the weak are eliminated” served to justify the current colonial philosophy of life of Western society. Thus, science was sacrificed to ideology.

The Fallacy “Mutations are the raw material of evolution” remained in the agenda for about 50 years

Darwinist ideology tries to explain the evolution of living things and the biodiversity in the world through two basic ideas. The first one is the accumulation of small differences or variations in the population; the second one is the survival of the fittest through natural selection. According to Darwinists, variations - which are based on mutations and genetic combinations - increase the likelihood of survival through natural selection and accumulate to form new species branches in the evolutionary tree. The theory of evolution has an ideological character today since Darwinists’ ideas are now accepted as dogma and as an indisputable fact. These explanations are not sufficient and convincing explanations for the formation of new species. Atheistic Darwinist scientists added whatever was discovered and whatever was shown empirically related to biology to the Darwinist worldview. This has been going on since the beginning of the 20th century. There were once Neo-Darwinists. They clung to the mutation that was discovered then. They said, “Mutations are the raw material of evolution”. The “Neo-Darwinists” based their arguments on that aphorism for about 50 years. Afterwards, major advances in biology revealed that the rate of occurrence of mutations was as low as 10-6 and 10-9 (one in a million and one in a billion) and that most mutations were lethal to living beings. More importantly, it was discovered that DNA repair mechanisms stepped in when mutations occurred in the cell. All of this caused the Neo-Darwinists to be silenced and mutation toretreat into background.

Lack of Transition Forms is an Unsolvable Problem for Evolutionists

The theory of evolution tries to explain how biodiversity emerged by remaining within the present paradigm. Unfortunately, it has not introduced a satisfactory explanation for the speciation of new species yet.There are hypotheses that are not supported by observations. Difficult issues such as the inadequacy of skull fossils that were found for human evolution and the lack of transitional forms between the chimpanzee and man are not even brought up. Evolutionist atheists also caused a worldwide scandal to cover the lack of forms between humans and ape. This scandal is known as the “Piltdown Man Hoax”. Found in Sussex, England, the Piltdown skull was introduced to the world as a fossil with common characteristics of humans and apes. When the scientists working in the field of human evolution went to study this fossil, they examined the pattern of the fossil, not the original, and included wrong information in their books. One of them was L. S. B. Leakey. In his book called“Adam’s Ancestors”, this researcher blamed himself for not being meticulous and inquisitive while explaining how he was deceived. He wrote the following about the Piltdown man skull in the book:

The work of Weiner, Oakley and La Gros Clark showed that Piltdown was a hoax, that the jaw was that of a modern ape, while the skull was that of a modern type of manand that the supposedly associated fossil fauna had been brought to spot from distant lands”.[12]

This researcher, who devoted his life to searching for human fossils in Africa, accused himself of failing to act with the meticulousness of the scientist; he did not try to blame others. He expresses his ideas regarding the issue as follows:

First, I thought of removing the pages in which I had studied the Piltdown skull and replacing it with a new one. Then, I decided to give up, to write the Introduction and to leave the Piltdown part in the book as it was. So I wanted to point out the danger of unquestionably accepting evidence which, in itself, is contrary to all that we know of biology”.[13]

Species have a Limited Quality of Variability

One of the important issues that all biologists, whether they are atheistic or religious, agree on is that species have flexible and changeable equipment.

No species in the biosphere chose its habitat itself; they were created in their habitat. First, space was created; then, living beings were  created. While living beings were exposed to the influence of the environment on the one hand, they were beings that changed the environment by using the organic and inorganic resources of the environment to the extent of their mental abilities and biological equipment on the other hand. In other words, there is a mutual and continuous interaction between living beings and the environment.Darwinist evolutionists say that it is natural selection, that is, the environment, that shapes the living being and kneads it like dough. This leads us to a “passive” living being model that has no equivalent in the biosphere.

The issue that they cannot agree on is the limits of variability in species.

One of the important issues that all biologists, whether they are atheistic or religious, agree on is that species have flexible and changeable equipment. If itwere not like that, no living being would survive inthe current world conditions because every living being meets different stimuli of the environment almost every day and they respond to those stimuli and adapt to them according to their degree of development,.

The biggest mistake of the scientists who are attracted by the theory of evolution is that they simplify the universe and life with a reductionist reasoning.

The issue that they cannot agree on is the limits of variability in species. Darwinist evolutionists say that species have an unlimited potential for change due to environmental influences; it is very easy to explain the transformation of one species into another through the accumulation of variation but it has nothing to do with the truth. Our observations show that each species in the biosphere has a limited variability. It is possible to explain better this concept of “limited variability” with an example of a theoretical coefficient.If we define the lower and upper limits of the coefficient as 0 (zero) - 1 (one), we can say that in some species, this coefficient can be 0.1 and in some species 0.9. No species can show any variation that exceeds these limits of variability. It may seem logical that large taxa (phylum, class, order, etc.) can be conceived as a tree according to the proximity to one another (cladogenesis) but the scientific evidence showing that they are derived from one another is not convincing. When the biological properties of various species groups like bacteria, vertebrates, mammals, etc. are examined, the impossibility of their occurrence through random events and interactions is clearly seen. It is an appropriate approach to try to figure out how living and non-living beings in the universe came into being by rational scientific methods but it has been seen that  a short distance has been covered with it and solution is very far away.


The theory of evolution is presented as an unchangeable  universal truth to the community. So much so that information from all branches of biology, such as anthropology, psychology, ethology, physiology and molecular biology is added

The atheist scientists, who could not get rid of their prejudices, turned biology into an ideology by poisoning it with a distorted idea of evolution.

to this theory by strained interpretations; and biology is transformed almost into an ideology. The biggest mistake of the scientists who are attracted by the theory of evolution is that they simplify the universe and life with a reductionist reasoning. Supposedly, the only thing they believe in is science but they use it to justify their atheistic ideology. The atheist scientists, who could not get rid of their prejudices, turned biology into an ideology by poisoning it with a distorted idea of evolution. If science becomes an ideology, it loses its prestige and credibility in the community.


[1] Dawkins, R. (2001). Gen Bencildir, (3rd Impression), TÜBİTAK Popüler Bilim Kitapları: 19, (Translated by: Asuman Ü. Müftüoğlu).
[2] Dawkins, R, 2001. ibid
[3] Lewontin R.C. (1991). İdeoloji olarak biyoloji: DNA doktrini. (Tercüme: Cengiz Adanur, (2015). Kollektif Kitap Bilişim ve Tasarım Ltd. Şti. Istanbul.
[4] Lewontin R.C. (1991). ibid
[5] Snustad D. Peter & Simmons Michael J. (2000). Principles of Genetics. Second Edition. New York-Toronto.
[6] Lewontin R.C. (1991). ibid
[7] Meriç C. (1978). Mağaradakiler. Ötüken Neşriyat, Istanbul.
[8] Hoagland, Mahlon B. (1994). “Hayatın Kökleri” (3. Basım), TÜBİTAK Popüler Bilim Kitapları Dizisi: 1. (Translated by Şen Güven, Alev Serin).
[9] Morgan, C.T. (1991). Psikolojiye Giriş,  (9.Baskı), H. Ü. Psikoloji Bölümü Yayınları, Yayın No: 1. (Translated by Sirel Karakaş et al.).
[10] McKinnon S. (2010). Neo-liberal genetik: Evrim psikolojisinin mitleri ve meselleri (Translated by: Mehmet Doğan). Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi, Istanbul.
[11] Morris, Desmond (1977). Çıplak Maymun (Translated by: Engin Darıca). 3. Baskı, Sander Yayınları, Istanbul.
[12] Leakey L.S.B. (1971). İnsanın Ataları (Translated by Güven Arsebük). Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, Ankara.
[13] Leakey L.S.B. (1971). ibid

Was this answer helpful?
Read 186 times
In order to make a comment, please login or register