By A. O.
Why Is the Theory of Evolution Not the “Basis of Biology”?
One claim that is frequently repeated by evolutionists is the lie that the theory of evolution is the basis of biology… Those who put forward this claim suggest that biology could not develop, or even exist, without the theory of evolution.
This claim actually stems from a demagogy born out of despair. The philosopher Professor Arda Denkel, one of the foremost names in Turkish science, makes the following comment on this subject:
For instance, it is quite wrong to suggest that “Rejecting the theory of evolution means rejecting the biological and geological sciences and the discoveries of physics and chemistry.” Because in order to make such an inference (here a modus tollens) there need to be some propositions regarding chemical, physical, geological and biological discoveries that imply the theory of evolution. However, the discoveries, or statements of them, do not imply the theory. Therefore, they do not prove it.”
It is enough to look at the history of science to realize what an invalid and irrational thing it is to claim that “evolution is the basis of biology.” If the claim were true, it would mean that no biological sciences had developed in the world before the emergence of the theory of evolution and that they were all born after it. However, many branches of biology, such as anatomy, physiology, and paleontology, were born and developed before the theory of evolution. On the other hand, evolution is a hypothesis that emerged after these sciences, which Darwinists are trying to impose on these sciences by force.
A similar method to that employed by evolutionists was used in the USSR in Stalin’s time. In those days communism, the official ideology of the Soviet Union considered the philosophy of “dialectical materialism” to be the basis of all the sciences. Stalin had ordered that all scientific research should conform to dialectical materialism. In this way, all books on biology, chemistry, physics, history, politics, and even art had introductory sections to the effect that those sciences were based on dialectical materialism and the views of Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
However, with the collapse of the USSR, this obligation was lifted, and books returned to being ordinary technical, scientific texts containing the same information. The abandoning of such nonsense as dialectical materialism did not leave science in the shade, but rather lifted pressure and obligations from it.
In our day, there is no reason why science should remain tied to the theory of evolution. Science is based on observation and experimentation. Evolution, on the other hand, is a hypothesis regarding an unobservable past. Furthermore, the theory’s claims and propositions have always been disproved by science and the laws of logic. Science will suffer no loss, of course, when this hypothesis is abandoned. The American biologist G. W. Harper has this to say on the subject:
It is frequently claimed that Darwinism is central to modern biology. On the contrary, if all references to Darwinism suddenly disappeared, biology would remain substantially unchanged…
In fact, quite to the contrary, science will progress in a much faster and healthier manner when it is freed from the insistence of a theory full of dogmatism, prejudice, nonsense, and fabrication.
Taken with slight editorial modifications from Harun Yahya’s book, The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution in 20 Questions.
A. O. is a Turkish writer and author.