![\"01](\"images\/07_GodScie\/07_DawConf\/01_image12150%20fingerprint%20evidence%2045.jpg\")
Ocak 2005\u2019te iki \u00f6nemli olay oldu. Birincisi Oxford\u2019lu ateist ve Darwinci bilim adam\u0131 Richard Dawkins\u2019e a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a kan\u0131tlayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ama inand\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015feyin ne oldu\u011fu soruldu. Bu \u00e7ok ilgin\u00e7 bir soru, \u00f6yle de\u011fil mi? \u00d6zellikle de bulgular\u0131n\u0131 amprik kan\u0131tlara dayand\u0131ran bir bilim adam\u0131na soruldu\u011funda.<\/p>\n
\u201cKan\u0131tlayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131z halde neyin do\u011fru oldu\u011funa inan\u0131yorsunuz?\u201d<\/p>\n
Dawkins, kan\u0131t olmadan bir \u015feye inanmamam\u0131z gerekti\u011fini s\u00f6yledi\u011fi i\u00e7in de daha ilgin\u00e7 bir hal al\u0131yor durum. \u015eimdi kabul ediyor, \u201cBu evrendeki her ya\u015fam, ak\u0131l, yarat\u0131c\u0131l\u0131k ve tasar\u0131m\u0131n, Darwinci do\u011fal se\u00e7icili\u011fin do\u011frudan ya da dolayl\u0131 \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc oldu\u011funa inan\u0131yorum, ama bunu kan\u0131tlayam\u0131yorum.\u201d (1) \u015e\u00f6yle devam etti, \u201cTasar\u0131m, evrimden \u00f6nce olamaz ve bu nedenle evrenin temelinde olamaz.\u201d Di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle inand\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00e7o\u011fu \u015feyin, ki buna evren hakk\u0131nda temel varsay\u0131mlar\u0131 da dahil, kan\u0131tlarla desteklenmeyen k\u00f6r bir iman ad\u0131m\u0131 oldu\u011funu kabul ediyor. Bunun alt\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7izin. Kan\u0131tlarla desteklenmeyen k\u00f6r bir iman ad\u0131m\u0131.<\/p>\n
Di\u011fer s\u0131rad\u0131\u015f\u0131 olay ise, \u015fu an 81 ya\u015f\u0131nda olan, felsefe ateizminin duayeni Profes\u00f6r Anthony Flew\u2019un, ateizmi terk etti\u011fini ve bunu bilimsel savlar\u0131 temel alarak yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131 oldu. Bu bilimsel savlar\u0131n art\u0131k kendisini bir Tanr\u0131\u2019n\u0131n oldu\u011funa ikna etti\u011fini s\u00f6yledi.<\/p>\n
Ne kadar ilgin\u00e7! Alanlar\u0131nda en \u00f6nde gelen ateistlerden ikisi \u00e7arp\u0131c\u0131 itiraflarda bulundurlar. Bilim adam\u0131 inanc\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fcy\u00fck k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n bilimsel kan\u0131tlarla desteklenemedi\u011fini kabul ederken, felsefeci, kendisini \u00fcnl\u00fc yapan ateizmi, tam da bilimsel kan\u0131tlardan \u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fc terk ediyor. Bana bug\u00fcn bundan daha ilgin\u00e7 olan bir \u015fey s\u00f6ylesenize!!!<\/p>\n
![\"02](\"images\/07_GodScie\/07_DawConf\/02_image12151%20examine%20magnifying%20glass%20gray%2045.jpg\")
Dawkins\u2019in kan\u0131tlayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 evrenin yarat\u0131l\u0131\u015f\u0131yla ilgilidir. Flew\u2019u, bir Tanr\u0131 oldu\u011funa ikna eden \u015fey ise evrenin k\u00f6kenleriyle ilgili bilimsel kan\u0131tlard\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Roger Highfield\u2019\u0131n Telegraph <\/i>gazetesinde not etti\u011fi gibi, Dawkins\u2019in, evrendeki t\u00fcm ya\u015fam\u0131, yarat\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131, akl\u0131 ve tasar\u0131m\u0131, evrimin a\u00e7\u0131klad\u0131\u011f\u0131na olan inanc\u0131, \u2018evreni tasarlamak i\u00e7in tanr\u0131ya ihtiya\u00e7 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anlam\u0131na geliyor.\u2019 (2)<\/p>\n
Dawkins d\u00fcnyadaki<\/i> t\u00fcm ya\u015fam, ak\u0131l, yarat\u0131c\u0131l\u0131k ve (\u00e7ok \u00f6nemli) tasar\u0131m\u0131, evrimin a\u00e7\u0131klad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kan\u0131tlayabilece\u011fini d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcyor ama evrendeki<\/i> t\u00fcm<\/i> ya\u015fam, ak\u0131l, yarat\u0131c\u0131l\u0131k ve tasar\u0131m\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kan\u0131tlayamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6yl\u00fcyor. Bu nedenle d\u00fcnyada ya\u015fam\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131 olarak evrimi nas\u0131l de\u011ferlendirirsek de\u011ferlendirelim (3), \u015funu g\u00f6rmeliyiz; ancak, evrendeki t\u00fcm ya\u015fam, ak\u0131l, yarat\u0131c\u0131l\u0131k ve (\u00e7ok \u00f6nemli) tasar\u0131m\u0131n Darwinci evrimle a\u00e7\u0131klanabilece\u011fine ili\u015fkin kan\u0131tlanmam\u0131\u015f genellemeyle<\/i>, \u2018Tasar\u0131m, evrimden \u00f6nce olamaz ve bu nedenle evrenin temelinde olamaz\u2019 sonucuna var\u0131l\u0131yor. (4) Nitekim, bu belirgin \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131m, ancak evrimin, evrendeki t\u00fcm ya\u015fam\u0131, akl\u0131, yarat\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve (\u00e7ok \u00f6nemli) tasar\u0131m\u0131, (a\u00e7\u0131klad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011fil<\/i>) a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131<\/i> gerekti\u011fi<\/i> \u00f6nermesinden \u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fc ortaya \u00e7\u0131k\u0131yor. Bu tip bir pe\u015fin h\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc varsay\u0131m, bilimsel olmaktan uzak, do\u011fas\u0131 gere\u011fi metafizikle ilgilidir. O halde, \u015fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r; Dawkins evrimin hem evrendeki t\u00fcm \u2018tasar\u0131m\u0131\u2019 a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine inan\u0131yor hem de ilahi bir tasar\u0131mc\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na inan\u0131yor \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc metafizikle ilgili nat\u00fcralizmin do\u011fru oldu\u011funa inan\u0131yor. Phillip E. Johnson\u2019un not etti\u011fi gibi: \u2018Genel olarak Darwinizm\u2019 benzeyen biyoloji k\u00f6kenler kuram\u0131, do\u011frudan, Tanr\u0131\u2019n\u0131n bir yan\u0131lg\u0131 oldu\u011fu ve bu nedenle var olan tek \u015feyin do\u011fa oldu\u011fu \u00f6nermesinden \u00e7\u0131kar\u2026\u2019(5) B\u00f6ylece: \u2018Darwinizm felsefi nat\u00fcralizmden ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan belirgin bir sorunun cevab\u0131d\u0131r\u2026soru \u015fu: E\u011fer Tanr\u0131\u2019n\u0131n bu i\u015fle hi\u00e7bir ilgisi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 varsayarsak, yarat\u0131l\u0131\u015f nas\u0131l ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmi\u015f olmal\u0131d\u0131r?\u2019 (6) Bu sorunun yan\u0131tlanmas\u0131 \u015fu<\/i> sorunun yan\u0131tlanmas\u0131yla hi\u00e7 de ayn\u0131 de\u011fildir: \u2018Yarat\u0131l\u0131\u015f nas\u0131l oldu?\u2019 Dawkins gibi bir nat\u00fcralistin her iki soruya da ayn\u0131 cevab\u0131 vermesi gerekir<\/i>, fakat agnostik veya teist olan ki\u015fi iki soruya olduk\u00e7a farkl\u0131 cevaplar verebilir de, vermeyebilir de. Cevab\u0131 verecek olan kan\u0131tlard\u0131r. (7)<\/p>\n
[Not: Teist nedir? Teizm en az\u0131ndan bir tanr\u0131 oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin inan\u00e7t\u0131r- ne daha az\u0131, ne daha fazlas\u0131. Teizm, ki\u015finin inand\u0131\u011f\u0131 tanr\u0131 say\u0131s\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 de\u011fildir. Teizm, \u2018tanr\u0131\u2019 teriminin nas\u0131l tan\u0131mland\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 de\u011fildir.]<\/p>\n
![\"03](\"images\/07_GodScie\/07_DawConf\/03_image7935%20search%20life%20long%2045.jpg\")
Ayr\u0131ca, Dawkins, tasar\u0131m\u0131n \u2018evrenin temeli olamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131\u2019 kan\u0131tlamak i\u00e7in Darwinci genellemeyi temel ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in (8), Darwinci genellemeyi kan\u0131tlayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ama inand\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir \u015fey oldu\u011funu kabul etmesi, Dawkins\u2019in tasar\u0131m\u0131n evrenin temeli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na inanc\u0131n\u0131n, kan\u0131tlayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 halde inanc\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir \u015fey oldu\u011funu g\u00f6stermektedir.<\/i> Bu, metafizikle ilgili nat\u00fcralizmin<\/i>, kan\u0131tlayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 halde Dawkins\u2019in inand\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir \u015fey oldu\u011funu s\u00f6ylemekle ayn\u0131 \u015fey gibidir.<\/p>\n
Bir tasar\u0131mc\u0131ya (Tanr\u0131 gibi) inanca sald\u0131rmak i\u00e7in evrimi devaml\u0131 bir sopa olarak kullanan Dawkins\u2019in, sopas\u0131n\u0131n sadece bir faraziye oldu\u011funu g\u00f6rmek ne kadar ilgin\u00e7! \u0130nanc\u0131n\u0131n, dini inanca sahip olan ki\u015filere atfetti\u011fi ve onlarda hor g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc t\u00fcrde bir inan\u00e7 oldu\u011fun kabul etti\u011fini g\u00f6r\u00fcyoruz. \u00d6rne\u011fin, Edinburgh International Science Festival\u2019da<\/i> verdi\u011fi bir konferansta Dawkins \u015f\u00f6yle dedi: \u2018E\u011fer insanlara dinlerinin ger\u00e7ekli\u011fi konusunda nas\u0131l ikna olduklar\u0131n\u0131 sorarsan\u0131z kan\u0131ta ba\u015fvurmazlar. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc kan\u0131t yoktur\u2026E\u011fer hakl\u0131 g\u00f6sterebilirseniz g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerinize sayg\u0131 duyar\u0131m. Ama e\u011fer g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerinizi sadece, inan\u0131yorum diyerek hakl\u0131 g\u00f6sterirseniz g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerinize sayg\u0131 duymam.\u2019 (9) Dawkins\u2019in anlamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015fey, \u0130sa\u2019ya inananlar\u0131n \u2018iman\u2019 derken bunu kast etmediklerdir. Kan\u0131tla do\u011frulanan imand\u0131r. Denenen imand\u0131r, t\u0131pk\u0131 Tanr\u0131\u2019n\u0131n bizlere yapmam\u0131z\u0131 buyurdu\u011fu gibi. \u201cHer \u015feyi s\u0131nay\u0131n, iyi olana s\u0131ms\u0131k\u0131 tutunun.\u201d (1.Selanikliler 5:21, \u0130ncil)<\/p>\n
Alban McCoy\u2019un yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi, \u2018\u0130man olmadan ak\u0131l olmaz ve ak\u0131l olmadan iman olmaz. Bunlar ayr\u0131lmaz bi\u00e7imde birbiriyle ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131d\u0131r. Ancak Ak\u0131l, pozitivizm anlam\u0131nda dar bir \u015fekilde ve iman, fideizm (inanc\u0131l\u0131k) anlam\u0131nda dar bir \u015fekilde anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda birbirinden ayr\u0131 gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcrler.\u2019(10)<\/p>\n
Bir daha biri sana, \u00f6nemli gibi gelen bir \u015fey s\u00f6yledi\u011finde kendi kendine d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn: \u2018Bu, insanlar\u0131n kan\u0131tlar sayesinde bildikleri bir \u015fey mi? Yoksa insanlar\u0131n sadece gelenek, yetki veya vahiy sayesinde bildikleri bir \u015fey mi?\u2019 Bir daha birisi sana bir \u015feyin do\u011fru oldu\u011funu s\u00f6yledi\u011finde neden onlara \u015f\u00f6yle sormuyorsun: \u201cBunun i\u00e7in ne gibi kan\u0131tlar var?\u201d E\u011fer iyi bir cevap veremezlerse, s\u00f6yledikleri tek bir kelimeye bile inanmadan \u00f6nce dikkatli bir \u015fekilde d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnece\u011fini umut ediyorum. (13)<\/p>\n Dawkins, inanmak i\u00e7in iyi bir neden say\u0131lma ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131 o kadar s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131yor ki (kan\u0131t\u0131, amprik kan\u0131tlarla birle\u015ftiriyor) te\u015fvi\u011fi asl\u0131nda kendi kendisiyle \u00e7eli\u015fiyor. Nas\u0131l m\u0131? Kan\u0131t olarak sayabilece\u011fi herhangi bir \u015feyle hakl\u0131 g\u00f6sterilemez. Bu durumda Dawkins\u2019in ifadeleri bize, s\u00f6yledi\u011fi tek bir s\u00f6ze bile inanmamam\u0131z\u0131 s\u00f6yl\u00fcyor!!! Bu nedenle kan\u0131t talebi, kendi kendisini \u00e7\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcyor. Bilginin, bilimsel bilgiye e\u015fit oldu\u011funa inanc\u0131, bilimsel olarak bilinebilecek bir \u015fey de\u011fil. Aksine, \u2018pozitivizm\u2019 ad\u0131 verilen felsefi bir dogmad\u0131r.<\/p>\n Dawkins, tasar\u0131mdan \u00f6nce evrimin gelemeyece\u011fini ve bu nedenle evrenin temeli olamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6sterdi\u011fini s\u00f6yl\u00fcyor. Bu ger\u00e7ekten de \u00f6nemli bir iddia gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcyor, bu nedenle kendisine, \u2018Bunun i\u00e7in elinde ne gibi kan\u0131tlar var?\u2019 diye sordu\u011fumuzda, hi\u00e7bir kan\u0131t yoktur! Aksine, Dawkins\u2019in tasar\u0131ma kar\u015f\u0131 sav\u0131, kan\u0131tlarla desteklenen bir ger\u00e7e\u011fe de\u011fil, naturalizmin do\u011fru oldu\u011fu varsay\u0131m\u0131na<\/i> dayanmaktad\u0131r. Dawkins, evrimi ve sonra evrimin \u2018tasarlanmam\u0131\u015f bir d\u00fcnyaya\u2019 (14) i\u015faret etti\u011fin savunurken, g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015fte naturalizm i\u00e7in ve Tanr\u0131\u2019ya kar\u015f\u0131 savunma yap\u0131yor gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcnse de, asl\u0131nda naturalizmin ger\u00e7ek oldu\u011fu varsay\u0131m\u0131yla ba\u015fl\u0131yor. Evrimin tasar\u0131mm\u0131\u015f gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcnen her \u015feyi a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi genellemesini \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131yor ve sonra bu genellemeyi sanki naturalizmi hakl\u0131 g\u00f6sterirmi\u015f\u00e7esine sunuyor! B\u00fct\u00fcn sav s\u00fcreci kan\u0131tlanm\u0131\u015f gibi farz ediliyor.<\/p>\n Bana \u00f6yle geliyor ki, Richard Dawkins s\u00fcrekli olarak, Darwin\u2019in T\u00fcrlerin K\u00f6kenleri<\/i> adl\u0131 kitab\u0131n\u0131n on d\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnde, sav\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn, halihaz\u0131rda \u00fcreme yetisine sahip olan bir varl\u0131kla ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131na i\u015faret etti\u011fini g\u00f6z ard\u0131 ediyor. Ger\u00e7ekten kapsaml\u0131 olan bir evrim kuram\u0131n\u0131n bu varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir \u015fekilde a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131 gerekir. Darwin\u2019in kendisi b\u00f6yle bir a\u00e7\u0131klama getirmedi\u011finin \u00e7ok iyi fark\u0131ndayd\u0131. \u015eimdi bana \u00f6yle geliyor ki, elli y\u0131ldan fazla bir s\u00fcredir devam eden DNA ara\u015ft\u0131rmalar\u0131, tasar\u0131m i\u00e7in yeni ve muazzam g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc bir sav i\u00e7in malzeme sa\u011flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. (20)<\/p>\n Nitekim, bu yeni tasar\u0131m arg\u00fcman\u0131 o kadar kuvvetlidir ki \u2018onlarca y\u0131ld\u0131r iman etmeyen insanlar i\u00e7in bir ikon ve \u015fampiyon say\u0131lan\u2019 (21), kendisi i\u00e7in \u2018d\u00fcnyan\u0131n en etkili felsefi ateisti\u2019 (22) denilen Flew, bu nedenle fikrini de\u011fi\u015ftirmi\u015ftir. Aral\u0131k 2004\u2019te herkesin art\u0131k bir teist oldu\u011funu bilmesini sa\u011flayacak \u015fekilde bir a\u00e7\u0131klama yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (23). Neden? \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc \u2018G\u00fc\u00e7 ve ayn\u0131 zamanda ak\u0131l sahibi olma \u00f6zelliklerine sahip Aristocu Tanr\u0131 savunmas\u0131, daha \u00f6nce olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kadar g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fcd\u00fcr art\u0131k.\u2019(24)<\/p>\n \u00d6te yandan, diyor Flew, \u2018naturalist \u00e7abalar, bu karma\u015f\u0131k molek\u00fcllerin bu basit varl\u0131klardan nas\u0131l evrimle\u015fti\u011fi hakk\u0131nda akla uygun bir varsay\u0131m \u00fcretmekte ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131z olmu\u015ftur\u2019 (27) ve ilk \u00fcreyen organizman\u0131n evrimi hakk\u0131nda nat\u00fcralist bir kuram hakk\u0131nda d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmek bile iyice zorla\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.\u2019 (28) \u00d6te yandan: \u2018Sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n ortaya \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n muazzam karma\u015f\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131 bana akl\u0131n i\u015fin gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcyor.\u2019(29)<\/p>\n Richard Dawkins, kan\u0131tlayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ama inand\u0131\u011f\u0131 genellenmi\u015f evrim varsay\u0131m\u0131na dayanarak Tanr\u0131\u2019ya kar\u015f\u0131 savunma yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u00d6te yandan Antony Flew, Tanr\u0131 i\u00e7in art\u0131k, evrimin ilkesel olarak<\/i> a\u00e7\u0131klayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bilimsel kan\u0131tlar temelinde savunma yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dawkins, Tanr\u0131\u2019n\u0131n \u2018\u0130nsanlar\u0131n inand\u0131klar\u0131 ama kan\u0131tlayamad\u0131klar\u0131 \u015feyler\u2019 kutusuna girdi\u011fi izlenimi vermektedir. Fakat son ayda, Dawkins\u2019in ateizmi, Flew\u2019un Tanr\u0131\u2019y\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kard\u0131\u011f\u0131, tam da ayn\u0131 kutuya koydu\u011funu g\u00f6stermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n Nitekim Occam\u2019\u0131n Usturas\u0131, yer\u00e7ekimi kanunu veya termodinami\u011fin ikinci yasas\u0131 gibi bir yasa de\u011fildir. Sadece belirli d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce alanlar\u0131nda genel olarak kullan\u0131\u015fl\u0131 buldu\u011fumuz y\u00f6ntemle ilgili bir varsay\u0131md\u0131r. Yanl\u0131\u015f bir \u015fekilde y\u00f6nlendirebilir ve y\u0131llar boyunca bir fenomeni, \u00fc\u00e7 ya da d\u00f6rt ilke gerekli iken, bir ya da iki ilkeyle a\u00e7\u0131klamaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmakla sonu\u00e7lanabilir. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Ateistler genellikle, Occam\u2019\u0131n Usturas\u0131\u2019n\u0131, Tanr\u0131\u2019n\u0131n gereksiz bir hipotez oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle Tanr\u0131\u2019n\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 savunma yaparken s\u0131k\u00e7a kullan\u0131rlar. \u0130lahi Varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n ekstra metafiziksel y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fc varsaymadan her \u015feyi a\u00e7\u0131klayabilece\u011fimizi s\u00f6ylerler.<\/p>\n Yarat\u0131l\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131lar, Occam\u2019\u0131n Usturas\u0131\u2019n\u0131n evrimden \u00e7ok yarat\u0131l\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 desteklemek i\u00e7in kullan\u0131labilece\u011fini savunmaktad\u0131rlar. Ne de olsa, Tanr\u0131\u2019n\u0131n her \u015feyi yaratmas\u0131, \u00e7ok karma\u015f\u0131k bir mekanizma olan evrimden \u00e7ok daha basittir.<\/p>\n Evrimciler, hayat\u0131n k\u00f6kenini bilimsel bir d\u00fczeyde tutmay\u0131 arzulamaktad\u0131r. Oysa Tanr\u0131\u2019ya inananlar bunu belirlemek i\u00e7in ba\u015fka bir ger\u00e7eklik d\u00fczeyine ihtiya\u00e7 duyuldu\u011funu iddia etmektedirler ve bunda da hakl\u0131d\u0131rlar. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n REFERANSLAR<\/p>\n (1) Dawkins, Broadcasting House, BBC Radio 4, Pazar Ocak, 2005<\/p>\n (2) <\/a>http:\/\/www.arn.org\/docs\/williams\/pw_comparingdawkinsflew.htm<\/a><\/p>\n (3) Kr\u015f. Robert C. Newman et al<\/i>, \u2018The Status of Evolution as a Scientific Theory\u2019 @ www.arn.org\/docs\/newman\/rn_statusofevolution.htm<\/a><\/p>\n (4) Dawkins @ www.edge.org\/q2005\/q05_6.html<\/a><\/p>\n (5) Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance<\/i>, (Downers Grove: IVP), s. 16.<\/p>\n (6) Phillip E. Johnson, \u2018What is Darwinism\u2019, Objection Sustained<\/i>, (Downers Grove: IVP, 1998), s. <\/i>33.<\/p>\n (7) Kr\u015f. Alvin Plantinga, \u2018When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible\u2019 @ www.asa3.org\/ASA\/dialogues\/Faith-reason\/CRS9-91Plantinga1.html<\/a><\/p>\n (8) Dawkins @ www.edge.org\/q2005\/q05_6.html<\/a><\/p>\n (9) Richard Dawkins, lecture at the Edinburgh International Science Festival.<\/p>\n (10) Alban McCoy, An Intelligent Person\u2019s Guide to Catholicism<\/i>, (Continuum), s. 3.<\/p>\n (11) Richard Dawkins, A Devil\u2019s Chaplain<\/i>, (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2003), s. 242.<\/p>\n (12) Dawkins, A Devil\u2019s Chaplain<\/i>, s. 242.<\/p>\n (13) Dawkins, A Devil\u2019s Chaplain<\/i>, s. 248.<\/p>\n (14) Kr\u015f.. The Blind Watchmaker<\/i> kitab\u0131n\u0131n alt ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131.<\/p>\n (15) In \u2018The Check Is In The Mail: Why Darwinism Fails to Inspire Confidence\u2019 (William A. Dembski ed., Uncommon Dissent<\/i>: Intellectuals who find Darwinism Unconvincing<\/i>, ISI Books, 2004), felsefeci Robert C. Koons \u015f\u00f6yle g\u00f6zlemliyor: \u2018Bat\u0131 felsefe gelene\u011fi bizlere, birbiriyle rekabet i\u00e7inde iki metafizik modeli vermi\u015ftir: Birinde her \u015fey nihai olarak k\u00f6r ve ama\u00e7s\u0131z g\u00fc\u00e7lerle a\u00e7\u0131klan\u0131r (maddeci model); ve di\u011feri ama\u00e7, temel ve \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131lamaz bir ger\u00e7ekliktir (teolojik model).\u2019 \u2018Epistomolojik a\u00e7\u0131dan\u2019 en \u00f6nemli soru \u015fu, diye yaz\u0131yor Koons : \u2018hangisine ger\u00e7ek varsay\u0131m\u0131n\u0131, hangisine kan\u0131tlama y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fc atfetmeliyiz?\u2019 Koon \u015f\u00f6yle savunuyor:<\/p>\n Kan\u0131tlama sorumlulu\u011funu maddeci modele y\u00fckleme konusunda g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc nedenler vard\u0131r. Stalwart Darwinciler bile\u2026biyolojinin, g\u00f6revinin, tasarlanm\u0131\u015f gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcnen \u015feylerin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamak oldu\u011funu kabul etmektedirler. \u00c7icero, On the Nature of the Gods<\/i>, Book II adl\u0131 kitab\u0131nda, Aristo\u2019nun ma\u011fara benzetmesini aktar\u0131yor: Bir grup insan, t\u00fcm hayatlar\u0131n\u0131 yer alt\u0131nda ge\u00e7irmi\u015f olsalard\u0131 ve sonra y\u00fczeye \u00e7\u0131ksalard\u0131, burada ke\u015ffettikleri biyolojik a\u00e7\u0131dan zengin d\u00fcnyan\u0131n akl\u0131n bir \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc oldu\u011funu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcrlerdi mutlaka. Do\u011fadaki ustal\u0131k kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda hayret etme duyumuzu duyars\u0131zla\u015ft\u0131ran tek \u015fey tan\u0131d\u0131k olmas\u0131d\u0131r. On sekizinci y\u00fczy\u0131lda ya\u015fam\u0131\u015f olarak \u0130sko\u00e7yal\u0131 felsefeci Thomas Reid \u0130nsan\u0131n Entellekt\u00fcel Yetileri<\/i> adl\u0131 denemesinde, ak\u0131ll\u0131 olan\u0131n i\u015faretlerini tan\u0131ma kapasitesini insan akl\u0131n\u0131n temel donan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n bir par\u00e7as\u0131 oldu\u011funu yazm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u2026Akl\u0131 tan\u0131makla ilgili bu temel b\u00f6l\u00fcm, ya\u015fayan \u015feylerin makinas\u0131n\u0131 de\u011ferlendirdi\u011finde verdi\u011fi net yan\u0131t, evet yan\u0131t\u0131d\u0131r. Evet, bu makinada ak\u0131l ve ama\u00e7 vard\u0131r.<\/p>\n \u2018Ak\u0131l\u0131m\u0131z\u0131n do\u011fal bulgular\u0131 yan\u0131labilecek olsa da,\u2019diyor Koons: \u2018\u00d6nce yerine getirilmesi gereken inkar edilemez kan\u0131t sorumlulu\u011fu vard\u0131r.\u2019<\/p>\n (16) Kr\u015f. C. Stephen Evans, \u2018The Mystery of Persons and Belief in God\u2019 @ www.leaderu.com\/truth\/3truth07.html<\/a>; Alvin Plantinga, \u2018Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments\u2019 @ www.homestead.com\/philofreligion\/files\/Theisticarguments.html<\/a>; Victor Reppert, \u2018The Argument from Reason\u2019 @ <\/a>http:\/\/go.qci.tripod.com\/Reppert-interview.htm<\/a><\/p>\n (17) Kr\u015f. Michael J. Behe, \u2018Molecular Machines\u2019 @ www.arn.org\/docs\/behe\/mb_mm92496.htm<\/a>; Stephen C. Meyer et al<\/i>, \u2018The Cambrian Explosion: Biology\u2019s Big Bang\u2019 @ www.discovery.org\/scripts\/viewDB\/filesDB-download.php?id=29<\/a>; Jonathan Wells, \u2018Survival of the Fakest\u2019 @ www.discovery.org\/articleFiles\/PDFs\/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf<\/a>; John Angus Campbell &<\/p>\n Stephen C. Meyer\u2019s (ed.\u2019s), Darwinism, Design, And Public Education<\/i>, (Michigan State University Press, 2003); William A. Dembski, No Free Lunch<\/i>, (Rowman & Littlefield, 2002); William A. Dembski (ed.), Uncommon Dissent<\/i>: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing<\/i>, (ISI Books, 2004); David Swift, Evolution Under the Microscope<\/i>, (Leighton Academic, (2002).<\/p>\n (18) Kr\u015f. Stephen C. Meyer, \u2018DNA and Other Designs\u2019 @ www.arn.org\/docs\/meyer\/sm_dnaotherdesigns.htm<\/a><\/p>\n (19) Kr\u015f. William Lane Craig, \u2018Review: The Design Inference \u2013 Eliminating chance through small possibilities\u2019 @ www.leaderu.com\/offices\/billcraig\/docs\/design.html<\/a><\/p>\n (20) Antony Flew, \u2018My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: An Exclusive Interview with Former British Atheist Professor Antony Flew\u2019 @ www.biola.edu\/antonyflew\/flew-interview.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n (21) Craig J. Hazen, \u2018My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: An Exclusive Interview with Former British Atheist Professor Antony Flew\u2019 adl\u0131 kitab\u0131n \u00f6zs\u00f6z\u00fcnde s\u00f6yl\u00fcyor, @ www.biola.edu\/antonyflew\/flew-interview.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n (22) Bu yorum Gary R. Habermas taraf\u0131ndan aktar\u0131lmaktad\u0131r, \u2018My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: An Exclusive Interview with Former British Atheist Professor Antony Flew\u2019, ibid<\/i>.<\/p>\n (23) Kr\u015f. ABC News, \u2018Famous Atheist Now Believes in God\u2019 @ abcnews.go.com\/US\/wireStory?id=315976<\/a><\/p>\n (24) Flew, \u2018My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: An Exclusive Interview with Former British Atheist Professor Antony Flew\u2019 @ www.biola.edu\/antonyflew\/flew-interview.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n![\"04](\"images\/07_GodScie\/07_DawConf\/04_image12196%20child%2045.jpg\")
Onuncu ya\u015f g\u00fcn\u00fcnde k\u0131z\u0131 Juliet\u2019e yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir mektupta (Dawkins’in \u015eeytan\u2019\u0131n Papaz\u0131 <\/em>adl\u0131 kitab\u0131nda<\/em> yay\u0131nlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r), Dawkins k\u0131z\u0131na ancak kan\u0131tlarla desteklenen inan\u00e7lar\u0131 kabul etmeyi tavsiye ediyor. \u2018Bildi\u011fimiz \u015feyleri nas\u0131l bildi\u011fimizi merak ettin mi hi\u00e7?\u2019 (11), diye soruyor Dawkins. Yan\u0131t\u0131n \u015f\u00f6yle oldu\u011funu s\u00f6yl\u00fcyor (ve bunun tek cevap oldu\u011funu kast ediyor gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcyor), \u2018kan\u0131t.\u2019 (12) Dawkins Juliet\u2019e tavsiyede bulunuyor:<\/p>\n![\"05](\"images\/07_GodScie\/07_DawConf\/05_image12155%20arrows%20circular%2045.jpg\")
Dawkins\u2019in genellenmi\u015f evrim ger\u00e7e\u011fi hakk\u0131nda varsay\u0131m\u0131na ili\u015fkin s\u00f6ylenebilecek en fazla \u015fey, tasar\u0131mla ilgili herhangi bir a\u00e7\u0131klamadan daha basit oldu\u011fu ve bu nedenle Occam\u2019\u0131n Usturas\u0131\u2019na** g\u00f6re, yeterli g\u00f6r\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc s\u00fcrece<\/i> ge\u00e7ici olarak tercih edilmesi gerekti\u011fidir. \u00d6te yandan, kan\u0131tlama sorumlulu\u011funun kime ait oldu\u011funu belirlemenin do\u011fru yolu bu olsa da (15), tasar\u0131ma inanca destek verecek tasar\u0131m arg\u00fcman\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra arg\u00fcmalar\u0131 d\u0131\u015flasak da (16) ve bilimsel bir teori olarak evrimin yeterlili\u011fini sorgulamaya itecek olan bir dizi de\u011ferlendirmeyi d\u0131\u015far\u0131da tutacak olsak da (17), evrimin kendi \u00f6nko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131 ele al\u0131yormu\u015f veya bunlar\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131yormu\u015f rol\u00fc yapamayaca\u011f\u0131 <\/i>ger\u00e7e\u011fini g\u00f6z ard\u0131 edemeyiz. Evrimin \u00f6nko\u015fullar\u0131, ki bunlara biyolojik makromolek\u00fcller (18) ve kozmozun ince ayar\u0131 yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f temel fiziksel yasalar\u0131 (19) da dahildir, evrimle a\u00e7\u0131klanamaz. Felsefeci Antony Flew\u2019un not etti\u011fi gibi:<\/p>\n![\"06](\"images\/07_GodScie\/07_DawConf\/06_image12156%20science%20data%20analyze%2045.jpg\")
Flew\u2019un de\u011ferlendirmesine g\u00f6re bilimsel veriler, eskiden oldu\u011fu gibi, art\u0131k \u2018bu do\u011fal evrenin arkas\u0131nda ya da \u00f6tesinde bir \u015fey\u2019 (25) olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve \u2018bu nedenle, her \u015feyin neden bu \u015fekilde oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin bir dizi soruya verilen cevaplarda do\u011fan\u0131n en temel yasalar\u0131n\u0131n nihai s\u00f6z\u00fc s\u00f6yledi\u011fini\u2019 (26) savunmak i\u00e7in \u2018iyi kan\u0131tlar\u2019 yoktur. Bunun yerine, Flew art\u0131k \u015funu savunuyor; \u2018tam da<\/i>, her \u015feyin neden bu \u015fekilde oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin bir dizi soruya verilen cevaplarda do\u011fan\u0131n en temel yasalar\u0131n\u0131n nihai s\u00f6z\u00fc olarak kabul edilemeyece\u011fi i\u00e7in, do\u011fal evrenin \u00f6tesinde bir \u015feyin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 varsaymak i\u00e7in art\u0131k iyi nedenler vard\u0131r. \u00d6zellikle de ya\u015fam\u0131n k\u00f6keni konusunda bu yasalar\u0131 nihai s\u00f6z olarak kabul edemeyiz.<\/p>\n
\n![\"07](\"images\/07_GodScie\/07_DawConf\/07_image4751%20einstein%2045.jpg\")
NOT: ** Occam\u2019\u0131n Razor\u2019u nedir? Herhangi bir fenomeni a\u00e7\u0131klamak i\u00e7in m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011fu kadar az varsay\u0131m yap\u0131lmas\u0131, a\u00e7\u0131klay\u0131c\u0131 hipotez veya kuramla ilgili g\u00f6zlemlenebilir \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclerden fark yaratmayanlar\u0131n \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini s\u00f6yleyen bir ilkedir. \u2018En basit a\u00e7\u0131klamay\u0131 se\u00e7mekten\u2019 daha fazla anlam ta\u015f\u0131r. A\u00e7\u0131klamalar gerektirmedi\u011fi takdirde, kavramlar\u0131n varsay\u0131lmamas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini s\u00f6yler. Ya da Einstein\u2019a atfedilen di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle, \u2018Her \u015fey, m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011fu kadar basitle\u015ftirilmeli ama daha basit yap\u0131lmamal\u0131d\u0131r.\u2019<\/p>\n