It is true that I have been rethinking on the issue of biological origins. The rethinking continues, at the background of the many other issues that I am more deeply involved these days, and that's why I have been avoiding making strong statements on this topic.I don't endorse this reliance of the "God of the gaps" arguments (though he is open to reinterpretation if the gaps are filled...) nor of the crutch of "fine-tuning". Nevertheless, this is consistent with Akyol's recent (English) writings and confirms his move away from ID. I haven't read Denton's book, but from what I know, he has also moved away from ID and into the fine-tuning realm (sigh!). I can see why Akyol would find his views appealing.
Yet I can still say the following: I feel certain is that neither the biological world nor the physical universe can be explained according to the presuppositions of philosophical naturalism, i.e., matter is all there is, and there is no purpose, intention and meaning to it. On the other hand, biological evolution seems to be a scientific fact. There are still "gaps" in this evolution, especially in the very beginning of it ("abiogenesis"), and if this means that methodological naturalism is wrong, too, then that's fine. Intelligent Design would be the best explanation, in that case, to explain these "gaps." But there might not be "gaps" at all, and methodological naturalism can be confirmed as we learn more about the nature of these "gaps." Would this vindicate philosophical naturalism? No. Because the very laws of nature, under which evolution and all other natural processes operate, seem to have been "fine-tuned" and "designed."
To date, I have found the most intellectually satisfying example of this latter argument in Michael Denton's remarkable book, "Nature's Destiny." If you ask me what I think about evolution these days, I can probably say that I think along the lines Denton articulates in that book. In the future, I am ready to go wherever the evidence leads.
As per our prior discussion, I also inquired about the difference between his Turkish and English language websites, and this is what he had to say:
There is no difference between what I write in Turkish or English on this matter. My Turkish website only has the visible section of my ID-related articles, with which I have no problem keeping there. I am not renouncing my older writings, I am just trying to approach the issue in a different way.I leave this to my Turkish speaking friends to interpret. But I'm still puzzled as to why highlight ID (the Disco. version) on his Turkish website when he doesn't really agree with its basic premise anymore. Removing it from the website would not mean a renunciation of older writings. It may simply reflect an evolution in thinking - nothing wrong with that.