Open Letter
The 8th International Congress on Creation in the Light of Sciences was held at Üsküdar University between October 24-26, 2024. The papers presented in the Congress were reviewed and evaluated by the referees.
The “Creation Manifesto" was published with the intention of addressing the issue scientifically, with the condition of being open to criticism and opposing viewpoints that may arise.
Upon the feedback received later, 132 sources used in the congress, which were the basis for the preparation of the manifesto, were added to the manifesto.
When we look at the criticisms and feedback reflected in various media channels, it is seen that most of them were prepared without following the congress. Only 1 of the 9 main topics in the congress was related to evolution.
It was deemed appropriate to provide the following answers to the objections made under 11 articles in the form of an "open letter".
On behalf of the Organizing Committee and Science Board of the Congress
Honorary President of the Congress
Prof. Nevzat TARHAN
We have deemed it appropriate to declare and state that we are open to discussing and analyzing the "Creation Manifesto", which was prepared by consensus in a scientific environment. It would be more scientific and methodological to make an analysis of Creation, which is based on rationality rather than the view of speculative accidental existence.
1- The feedback we have received so far has been evaluated. Valid criticisms regarding the methodology have been taken into consideration. There has been no evidence-based feedback regarding the core principles and fundamentals. The manifesto reached over 6000 signatures in seven days.
2- The criticisms do not specify which articles of the 10-article Manifesto are being objected, nor the reasons for the objected. However, the criticism regarding the absence of references were found to be justified, therefore unused and unwritten references were added to the Manifesto.
3- When the manifesto is read carefully, it will be seen that reasoning methods have been used intensively. The participants of the congress, primarily focused on presentations related to Basic Sciences such as Physics, Mathematics, Biology as well as Molecular Biology and Genetics, Engineering, Neuroscience, Psychiatry, Psychology, Medicine, and Health Sciences, have authored and opened this manifesto for signature.
4- The manifesto provides scientific justifications for the argument that accidental existence is impossible, and a designed existence is the necessary option. The view emphasized in the Manifesto is the groundlessness of Accidental Existence. For this reason, those who object are expected to read the manifesto carefully and state which articles are not scientific.
5- In the criticisms examined, ideological prejudices, doctrinal fanaticism and advocacy of non-evidence-based views of pseudoscience draw attention.
6- Another point that draws attention in the criticisms is that the dominant viewpoint there reduces science to only experiment and observation; excludes fields such as theoretical physics, computational biology, Fuzzy logic that is the mathematics of artificial intelligence, and probability calculations from sciences; does not accept the methods of mathematical reasoning. Today, narrow-minded ideas, especially those based only on Newtonian physics are being abandoned. Artificial Intelligence and Industry 4.0 developments provide new answers to old questions.
7- In some objections, there are things that even ChatGPT AI does not say. In the inquiry that we made, the relevant artificial intelligence said, "According to today's scientific knowledge, there is no complete roadmap showing how thought emerged. The fact that atoms can spontaneously create thoughts and produce consciousness is not a scientifically proven fact, and it is not understood how it could exist without a Creator directly."
Question: Is it possible for living things to emerge from non-living matter without a conscious cause? Answer: The fact that inanimate matter comes to life through random processes without a conscious cause contradicts both the laws of nature and logical processes. While even artificial intelligence does not reject Conscious Design, arguing that there is no Conscious Design means resigning from reason and not using the human brain that works with the law of theory of mind and neurobiologically necessitates the production of assumptions and meaning.
8- There are criticisms from those who are unaware that variations and mutations do not provide verified evidence for evolution. In all genetic studies, no experimental evidence has been found that goes to more complexity with serial mutations or creates a new species.
9- Conscious existence is focused on development. Accidental existence, on the other hand, is focused on survival. The complex structure of nature refutes random simplification. Natural selection proves variation in nature, not evolution. The complexity of life refutes evolution's simple model of life tree. Evolution did not emerge from the water. Because mutation experiments were carried out in drosophila flies and bacteria by creating a crisis with radiation, and consequently always sick and crippled creatures appeared. Mutation is destructive and causes damage. The chaotic order of genes makes one think that God did it to refute evolution. The design of the cell suggests the presence of a designer. [1]
10- Furthermore, excluding the search for meaning and purpose from the realm of science is an epistemological error. As stated in Neuroscience-based Psychology and Psychiatry studies on the search for meaning and purpose, and in the latest published version of Maslow's hierarchy of psychosocial needs, the "search for purpose and meaning that transcends itself" is seen as a need. [2] The dogmatic understanding of science, which is closed to new scientific developments, and which does not question materialism, is contrary to the essence and methodology of science.
11- In 16 states in the USA, the subject of creation was included in the textbooks. [3]
We declare that we are always open to opposing opinions to the views expressed in the 11 articles above.
References:
[1] Dr. Robert Carter Ph.D. University of Miami, Marine Biology
[2] Venter, Henry (2017). "Self-Transcendence: Maslow’s Answer to Cultural Closeness." Journal of Innovation Management, 4(3). DOI: 10.24840/2183-0606_004.004_0002
[3] World Population Review – "States that Don't Teach Evolution 2024"
Access Link: worldpopulationreview.com.
Access Date: November 11, 2024.