Are the explanations made as “the Evolution Theory has been proved” true to a certain extent? It is said that the receptor gene of the Aldosterone hormone has been detected and all scientists of the West supported the evolution?
A Brief Description of the Question:
Are the explanations made as “the Evolution Theory has been proved” true to a certain extent? It is said that the receptor gene of the Aldosterone hormone has been detected and all scientists of the West supported the evolution?
The Answer:
If the evolution theory has been proved, then it cannot be a theory but a law. Then, there is no need to dispute it. If you wish, let us ask the question as follows:
What kind of works are needed to be done and achieved in order to prove the theory of evolution?
What kind of works are needed to be done and achieved in order to prove the theory of evolution?
In order to answer this question, we need to know what the evolution theory prescribes; that is, the things that it claims. We can briefly explain the thought claimed by evolution theory as follows:
The foundation of all creatures in the universe is a single cell. This single cell came into existence coincidently and all other creatures reproduced from each other in succession. According to this theory, the universe is not an art of a creator but coincidence.
Such a claim can neither be proved by finding of a teeth or a skull nor exposing the formation of a gene. More precisely, it is a philosophical view which is related to the emergence of this realm and creatures. And the proving of it is not possible.
Leave the creatures aside. Can you prove that a lifeless thing came into existence coincidentally? For example, is the shirt made coincidentally and dressed on you by itself? Or your shoe, has it been made coincidentally without a doer and again put on your feet without your noticing; is that right?
The foundation of all creatures in the universe is a single cell. This single cell came into existence coincidently and all other creatures reproduced from each other in succession. According to this theory, the universe is not an art of a creator but coincidence.
Such a claim can neither be proved by finding of a teeth or a skull nor exposing the formation of a gene. More precisely, it is a philosophical view which is related to the emergence of this realm and creatures. And the proving of it is not possible.
Leave the creatures aside. Can you prove that a lifeless thing came into existence coincidentally? For example, is the shirt made coincidentally and dressed on you by itself? Or your shoe, has it been made coincidentally without a doer and again put on your feet without your noticing; is that right?
If you listen to your conscience, then you will never be able to answer these questions as “Yes”. You cannot even make small children believe it, if you claim that a readymade shoe has been put on your feet coincidentally let alone the production of a shoe.
Since non-living things cannot come into existence without a doer, then how can living things come into existence in the same way?
In the second part of the question, the hormone of Aldosterone is mentioned. This hormone has the role of balancing the electrolyte and water in human body. It is secreted from the crust part of the suprarenal gland. It is impossible for such a hormone to function as a hormone single without a living creature. As every organism has some elements in its basis, the main elements of this hormone are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen.
Some derivations and compounds of them may have been brought into existence or compounded before living things. After understanding the form of a hormone or a molecule, putting forward that the theory of evolution has been proved as explained above is not the product of a healthy mind.
In the second part of the question, the hormone of Aldosterone is mentioned. This hormone has the role of balancing the electrolyte and water in human body. It is secreted from the crust part of the suprarenal gland. It is impossible for such a hormone to function as a hormone single without a living creature. As every organism has some elements in its basis, the main elements of this hormone are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen.
Some derivations and compounds of them may have been brought into existence or compounded before living things. After understanding the form of a hormone or a molecule, putting forward that the theory of evolution has been proved as explained above is not the product of a healthy mind.
As for the story of intervening the genetic formation of a chimpanzee and forming of the human; it has two aspects.
Firstly, creating living things and giving them life is peculiar to God. What a human should do is to direct the work of a genetic form. God has given this will to man. Giving life and sustenance to every creature, meeting all the demands of those cells, multiplying and differentiating those cells, changing the dead ones with the new ones are made by the will and power of God.
That a living thing is produced from another living thing through outside intervention, or that God creates for example a human being out of a chimpanzee cannot force us to make a generalization and to accept that all human beings are like that. Such a generalization does not comply with scientific thought and the rule of science. It is necessary to receive correct answers for each question that we ask in terms of genetics, biochemistry and biology for such generalization. An accidental occurrence of a living being from another living being cannot be evidence for generalization for the species of that living being unless you obtain the same result after each trial.
That all of the scientists in the West support the theory of evolution is not true. Many scientists accept evolution as a form of philosophical thought. Some scholars accept creation directly.
Firstly, creating living things and giving them life is peculiar to God. What a human should do is to direct the work of a genetic form. God has given this will to man. Giving life and sustenance to every creature, meeting all the demands of those cells, multiplying and differentiating those cells, changing the dead ones with the new ones are made by the will and power of God.
That a living thing is produced from another living thing through outside intervention, or that God creates for example a human being out of a chimpanzee cannot force us to make a generalization and to accept that all human beings are like that. Such a generalization does not comply with scientific thought and the rule of science. It is necessary to receive correct answers for each question that we ask in terms of genetics, biochemistry and biology for such generalization. An accidental occurrence of a living being from another living being cannot be evidence for generalization for the species of that living being unless you obtain the same result after each trial.
That all of the scientists in the West support the theory of evolution is not true. Many scientists accept evolution as a form of philosophical thought. Some scholars accept creation directly.
However, those who oppose the theory of evolution are under academic pressure; therefore, some of them avoid opposing evolution openly. The views of some scientists that are opposite to evolution are not published in scientific periodicals and books because the administrators of even the religious periodicals are evolutionists who believe that man has evolved from the ape. They will never let any views that oppose evolution. It does not matter whether the thought about it is scientific or not for them. What matters is the article not including any views against evolution.
Thus, those who do not know the inside of the story think that all scientists support evolution.
Besides, evolutionists spread the lie that everybody supports evolution.
Besides, evolutionists spread the lie that everybody supports evolution.
Prof. Dr. Adem Tatlı
0 comments :
Post a Comment