Is the theory of evolution a scientific theory?


Science is defined as the whole correct knowledge that has its own methods and that has been classified (Arslan, A. Felsefeye Giriş. Adres Yayınları. Ankara, 2005, p. 63 -64).



Scientific information needs to be systematic, to be able to develop by increasing, to be coherent, to allow to be checked and to be objective.  (Ural, Ş. Bilim Tarihi. Kırk Ambar  Yayınları. İstanbul, 1998, p. 13). 



What is the characteristic of scientific theory?



Scientific theory is defined as the whole knowledge and explanation that is put forward during the process of obtaining knowledge and whose validity and reliability have been determined through scientific methods and that is coherent in itself (http://www.canertaslaman,com/kitap/1.htm). 



Definition of philosophy 



Philosophy is a way of thinking and reasoning; it is not a way of doing and bringing something about. Science deals with phenomena but philosophy deals with both phenomena and values.



That is, science cannot judge and express opinions of evaluation like good-bad, right-wrong, just-unjust about the phenomena that it deals with. The right to do it belongs to philosophy. 



Scientific value of the theory of evolution 



The theory of evolution is a philosophical way of thinking that does not have scientific criteria, that is, that cannot be experimented in laboratory and that includes views that are mostly based on metaphysics. Metaphysics is defined as all kinds of philosophical thoughts whose results cannot be expressed scientifically and cannot be verified scientifically.



Although they try to give evolution a scientific appearance, it is observed that metaphysical theories are adhered to. It is not possible to avoid that metaphysical thought because as long as most of the issues like the existence of matter and the realm, the real nature of  life, the identity and attributes of the Creator are on the agenda of evolution, metaphysical approaches are inevitable. 



Hunter states that Darwin presented the thought of evolution that has existed since ancient times and that is based on metaphysics in a theological way, that is, based on an approach of faith. (Hunter, C.G. Darwin’in Tanrısı. Gelenek Yayıncılık. Çev. Orhan Düz. İstanbul, 2003, p. 195).



The strong commitment of evolutionists to the theory of evolution caused them to make all kinds of metaphysical speculations. The main evidence of evolution and their success does not originate from its scientific support but from the fact that it is against creationism. It is often put forward that evolution is the best explanation that is available. Such a claim is a judgment that is not scientific.



To accept in the first place that evolution is true and then to search scientific evidence is an act that is deliberate but not scientific. 



Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks state that evolution is not examined through a scientific method and is based on some presuppositions and say the following:



It is not enough to say that evolution is wrong because it will be regarded as true until a better solution is found. However, science cannot be done like that. In this defense, evolution has been given a special place that does not exist in science. It is not a scientific approach to give a special place to those theories beforehand. “(Geisler, N.L. and Brooks, R. M. Come let us Reason. Grand Rapids: Bakir,  1990, p. 95-96).



Servier, a famous anthropologist points out that evolutionism has become a laic theological dogma and it is necessary to break its domination:



Evolutionism has become a laic theological dogma. It is necessary to reject evolutionism first in order to be able to introduce new institutions and evaluations.(Servier, J. Etnoloji. Translation: M. Ali Kayabal. İletişim Yayınları, 1992, p. 113, 124.



According to Hunter, there is a fundamental but secret theological effect in the theory of evolution. Both Darwin and modern materialist evolutionists of today use metaphysical hypotheses. (Hunter, C. G. Darwin’in Tanrısı. Gelenek Yayıncılık. Trns. Orhan Düz. İstanbul, 2003, p. 12, 15, 208).



In his book, Critique of Pure Reason, Kant states that a science is regarded as real science to the extent that it is mathematical.



According to Kant, the fact that there are very few mathematical arguments in the theory of evolution makes it disputable whether it is a scientific theory or not. (Mayr, E.  The Growth of Biological Thought. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1982, s. 862).



Bernard Russell, the famous philosopher, states that evolution is not scientific knowledge in terms of both its method and the problems it deals with:



Evolutionism, in one form or another, is the prevailing creed of our time. Evolutionism is not a truly scientific philosophy, either in its method or in the problems which it considers” (Russell, B. Dünya Üzerine Bildiğimiz. Trns. Vehbi Hacıkadiroğlu. Alaz Yayınları. İstanbul, 1980, s. 24-25).



Hunter also states that the method of evolution is not scientific:



Evolution is a regulatory thought that is based on non-scientific claims. Evolution refers to various science disciplines but it is not scientific itself. Therefore, a better scientific explanation cannot be expected from it. (Hunter, C. G. Darwin’in Allah’ı. Gelenek Yayıncılık. Çev. Orhan Düz. İstanbul, 2003, p. 212).



According to Karl Popper, the distinguished philosopher of science, the criterion for being scientific is not verifiability but falsifiability. According to him, the characteristic of knowledge or a result is falsifiability. However, it cannot be said that Darwinism is suitable for such a test. It is possible to show some phenomenal data to verify Darwinism. However, the criterion for being scientific is not verifiability but falsifiability. In other words, Darwinists have not stated with what possible observation results can their theory be falsified. Therefore, Darwinism has a metaphysical structure rather than being a scientific theory.  (Popper, K. Unended Quest, Fontana-Collins, 1976, p. 171).



To sum up, this theory does not comply with scientific criteria. It is not scientific information but a philosophical way of thinking whose metaphysical aspect outweighs.

Read 10.011 times
In order to make a comment, please login or register