THE MYTH OF BIRD EVOLUTION

THE MYTH OF BIRD EVOLUTION

Recently, a 140-million-year-old fossil called Shenzhouraptor sinensis was discovered in the Yixian region of China. According to the evolutionary paleontologist Ji Qiang, this fossil was a missing link between dinosaurs and birds. The fact is, however, that this fossil possesses features that clash with the evolutionists' claims about the origin of birds. Not just this fossil, but also the whole paleontological data on the subject is at odds with the evolutionary theory. "Evolution of birds", like other claims of Darwinism, is no more scientific than a fairy tale.

Shenzhouraptor sinensis, The Impossible Transitional

Alan Feduccia

Evolutionists suggest that Shenzhouraptor sinensis was a transitional form that was able to fly and possessed both bird and dinosaur characteristics. This is, however, is in contradiction with other evolutionist claims on the origin of birds.

Archaeopteryx, the oldest known bird, lived 150 million years ago and is in many respects no different from flying birds living today. Shenzhouraptor sinensis, however, lived 140 million years ago, making it younger than Archaeopteryx. For that reason, it is impossible for it to be a transitional form, because birds with perfect feathers and the necessary anatomical structure for flight were living before it.

At this point, we need to make it clear that the evolutionist claims regarding Archaeopteryx, one of the principle icons of the theory of evolution for the last 100 years or so, have lost a great deal of their validity. It has been realized that this creature was a flying bird, possessing a flawless flight mechanism. Attempts to compare Archaeopteryx to a reptile have failed entirely.

As Alan Feduccia, one of the leading ornithologists of the world, has stated, "Most recent workers who have studied various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx have found the creature to be much more birdlike than previously imagined," and "the resemblance of Archaeopteryx to theropod dinosaurs has been grossly overestimated."1

Another problem regarding Archaeopteryx is that the theropod dinosaurs, which many evolutionists suggest were Archaeopteryx' ancestors, actually emerge after it in the fossil record, not before it. This, of course, leaves no room for any "evolutionary family tree" to account for the origin of birds.

The Discontented Evolutionists

The reason for the "dino-bird" and "feathered dinosaur" stories that frequently appear in the evolutionist press is simply an effort on their part to show that their claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs has been proven by fossil discoveries. The fact is, however, that none of these fossils has offered any scientific evidence at all for that claim.

What is more, many evolutionists do not believe it either. For instance, renowned ornithologists Alan Feduccia and Larry Martin believe that it is totally an erroneous scenario. A college textbook, Developmental Biology reads:

Not all biologists believe that birds are dinosaurs... This group of scientists emphasizes the differences between dinosaurs and birds, claiming that the differences are too great for the birds to have evolved from earlier dinosaurs. Alan Feduccia, and Larry Martin, for instance, contend that birds could not have evolved from any known group of dinosaurs. They argue against some of the most important cladistic data and support their claim from developmental biology and biomechanics.2

Feduccia has this to say regarding the thesis of reptile-bird evolution:

Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century.3

Larry Martin, a specialist on ancient birds from the University of Kansas, also opposes the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Discussing the contradiction that evolution falls into on the subject, he states:

To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it.4

The disagreement amongst evolutionists themselves stems from the fact that there is no evidence supporting an evolutionary origin for birds. They can only build up speculations, just so stories which are imposed to the public, misleadingly, as "scientific theories".

The Significant Structural Differences Between Birds And Dinosaurs

Most evolutionists hold that birds evolved from small theropod dinosaurs. However, a comparison between birds and such reptiles reveals that the two have very distinct features, making it unlikely that one evolved from the other.

IMAGINARY CREATURES The imaginary transitional forms existing in the fantasy of evolutionists ought to have missing and defective organs. For instance, a creature in between birds and and reptiles would have half wings and half avian lungs. However, no fossil of such a creature has yet been found, as it is not possible for such a "weird" creature as we see in these pictures to survive. All fossils that are discovered belong to complete and perfectly designed creatures.

There are various structural differences between birds and reptiles, one of which concerns bone structure. Due to their bulky natures, dinosaurs-the ancestors of birds according to evolutionists-had thick, solid bones. Birds, in contrast, whether living or extinct, have hollow bones that are very light, as they must be in order for flight to take place.

Another difference between reptiles and birds is their metabolic structure. Reptiles have the slowest metabolic structure in the animal kingdom. (The claim that dinosaurs had a warm-blooded fast metabolism remains a speculation.) Birds, on the other hand, are at the opposite end of the metabolic spectrum. For instance, the body temperature of a sparrow can rise to as much as 48°C (118°F) due to its fast metabolism. On the other hand, reptiles lack the ability to regulate their body temperature. Instead, they expose their bodies to sunlight in order to warm up. Put simply, reptiles consume the least energy of all animals and birds the most.

Yet, despite all the scientific findings, the groundless scenario of "dinosaur-bird evolution" is still insistently advocated. Popular publications are particularly fond of the scenario. Meanwhile, concepts which provide no backing for the scenario are presented as evidence for "dinosaur-bird evolution."

In some popular evolutionist publications, for instance, emphasis is laid on the differences among dinosaur hip bones to support the thesis that birds are descended from dinosaurs. These differences exist between dinosaurs classified as Saurischian (reptile-like, hip-girdled dinosaurs) and Ornithischian (bird-like, hip-girdled dinosaurs). This concept of dinosaurs having hip girdles similar to those of birds is sometimes wrongly conceived as evidence for the alleged dinosaur-bird link. However, the difference in hip girdles is no evidence at all for the claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That is because, surprisingly for the evolutionist, Ornithischian dinosaurs do not resemble birds with respect to other anatomical features. For instance, Ankylosaurus is a dinosaur classified as Ornithischian, with short legs, a giant body, and skin covered with scales resembling armor. On the other hand, Struthiomimus, which resembles birds in some of its anatomical features (long legs, short forelegs, and thin structure), is actually a Saurischian.5

The Unique Structure Of Avian Lungs

Michael Denton

Another factor demonstrating the impossibility of the reptile-bird evolution scenario is the structure of avian lungs, which cannot be accounted for by evolution.

Land-dwelling creatures have lungs with a two-directional flow structure. Upon inhaling, the air travels through the passages in the lungs (bronchial tubes), ending in tiny air sacs (alveoli). The exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide takes place here. Then, upon exhaling, this used air makes its way back and finds its way out of the lung by the same route.

In birds however, air follows just one direction through the lungs. The entry and exit orifices are completely different, and thanks to special air sacs all along the passages between them, air always flows in one direction through the avian lung. In this way, birds are able to take in air nonstop. This satisfies birds' high energy requirements. Michael Denton, an Australian biochemist and a well-known critic of Darwinism, explains the avian lung in this way:

This one-directional flow of air is maintained in breathing in and breathing out by a complex system of interconnected air sacs in the bird's body, which expand and contract in such a way as to ensure a continuous delivery of air through the parabronchi… The structure of the lung in birds, and the overall functioning of the respiratory system, are quite unique. No lung in any other vertebrate species in any way approaches the avian system. Moreover, in its essential details it is identical in birds.6

Bird lungs function in a way that is completely contrary to the way the lungs of land animals function. The latter inhale and exhale through the same passages. The air in bird lungs, in contrast, passes continuously through the lung in one direction. This is made possible by special air sacs throughout the lung. Thanks to this system, whose details can be seen overleaf, birds breathe nonstop. This design is peculiar to birds, which need high levels of oxygen during flight. It is impossible for this structure to have evolved from reptile lungs, because any creature with an "intermediate" form between the two types of lung would be unable to breathe.

The important thing is that the reptile lung, with its dual-direction air flow, could not have evolved into the bird lung with its single-direction flow, because it is not possible for there to have been an intermediate model between them. In order for a living thing to live, it has to keep breathing, and a reversal of the structure of its lungs with a change of design would inevitably end in death. According to evolution, this change must happen gradually over millions of years, whereas a creature whose lungs do not work will die within a few minutes.

Reptiles (and mammals) breathe in and out from the same air vessel. In birds, while the air enters into the lung from the front, it goes out from the back.

BREATHING IN: The air which enters birds' respiratory passages goes to the lungs, and to air sacs behind them. The air which is used is transferred to air sacs at the front.

BREATHING OUT: When a bird breathes out, the fresh air in the rear air sacs goes into the lungs. With this system, the bird is able to enjoy a constant supply of fresh air to its lungs. There are many details in this lung system, which is shown in very simplified form in these diagrams. For instance, there are special valves where the sacs join the lungs, which enable the air to flow in the right direction. All of these show that there is a clear design at work here. This design not only deals a death blow to the theory of evolution, it is also clear proof of creation.

Parabronchial tubes, which enable air to circulate in the right direction in birds' lungs. Each of these tubes is just 0.5 mm. in diameter.

This distinct design is specially made for birds, which need great amounts of oxygen during flight.

It is impossible for such a structure to evolve from the reptile lung.

Michael Denton also states that it is impossible to give an evolutionary account of the avian lung:

... In the case of birds, however, the major bronchi break down into tiny tubes which permeate the lung tissue. These so-called parabronchi eventually join up together again, forming a true circulatory system so that air flows in one direction through the lungs. ... Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes. Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are co adapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner.7

In brief, the passage from a terrestrial lung to an avian lung is impossible, because an intermediate form would serve no purpose.

Another point that needs to be mentioned here is that reptiles have a diaphragm-type respiratory system, whereas birds have an abdominal air sac system instead of a diaphragm. These different structures also make any evolution between the two lung types impossible, as John Ruben from the Oregon State University, an acknowledged authority in the field of respiratory physiology, observes in the following passage:

The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal air sac system from a diaphragm-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia in taxa transitional between theropods and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage.8

Another interesting structural design of the avian lung which defies evolution is the fact that it is never empty of air, and thus never in danger of collapse. Michael Denton explains the situation:

Just how such a different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design without some sort of direction is, again, very difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of the organism. Moreover, the unique function and form of the avian lung necessitates a number of additional unique adaptations during avian development… because first, the avian lung is fixed rigidly to the body wall and cannot therefore expand in volume and, second, because of the small diameter of the lung capillaries and the resulting high surface tension of any liquid within them, the avian lung cannot be inflated out of a collapsed state as happens in all other vertebrates after birth. The air capillaries are never collapsed as are the alveoli of other vertebrate species; rather, as they grow into the lung tissue, the parabronchi are from the beginning open tubes filled with either air or fluid.9

In other words, the passages in birds' lungs are so narrow that the air sacs inside their lungs cannot fill with air and empty again, as with land-dwelling creatures. If a bird lung ever completely deflated, the bird would never be able to re-inflate it, or would at the very least have great difficulty in doing so. For this reason, the air sacs situated all over the lung enable a constant passage of air to pass through, thus protecting the lungs from deflating.

Of course this system, which is completely different from the lungs of reptiles and other vertebrates, and is based on the most complex design, cannot have come about with random mutations, stage by stage, as evolution maintains. Thus, as Denton also mentions, the avian lung is enough to answer Darwin's challenge: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."10

Bird Feathers And Reptile Scales

Another impassable gap between birds and reptiles is feathers, which are peculiar to birds. Reptile bodies are covered with scales, a completely different structure. The hypothesis that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales is completely unfounded, and is indeed disproved by the fossil record, as the evolutionist paleontologist Barbara Stahl once admitted:

How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis... It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition.11

A. H. Brush, a professor of physiology and neurobiology at the University of Connecticut, accepts this fact, although he is himself an evolutionist: "Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in feathers and scales]."12 Moreover, Professor Brush examines the protein structure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique among vertebrates."13

There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales. On the contrary, feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record, Professor Brush observes, as an "undeniably unique" character distinguishing birds.14 Besides, in reptiles, no epidermal tissue has yet been detected that provides a starting point for bird feathers.15

National Geographic's great hit, the perfect "dino-bird" Archaeoraptor soon turned out to be a hoax. All other "dino-bird" candidates remain as speculation.

Many fossils have so far been the subject of "feathered dinosaur" speculation, but detailed study has always disproved it. Alan Feduccia once wrote the following in an article called "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers":

Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama (discovered 1969 Russia) ... as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are.16

More recently, Feduccia, quoting Brush, has the following passage on the origin of feathers:

Even birds' most scalelike features-the leg scutes (scales), claws, and the epidermally derived beak-are formed from a single category of protein, the Ø-keratins. As Alan Brush has written regarding feather development, "The genes that direct synthesis of the avian Ø-keratins represent a significant divergence from those of their reptilian ancestor."17 (Note that the authors assume a reptilian ancestor for birds, but accept the genetic gap between these.)

All news about "dino-birds" are speculative. Many allegations turned out to false. For example, "feathered dinosaur" claim that was put forward in 1996 with a great media fanfare was also disproved soon. A reptilian fossil called Sinosauropteryx was found in China, but paleontologists who examined the fossil said that it had bird feathers, unlike modern reptiles. Examinations conducted one year later, however, showed that the fossil actually had no structure similar to a bird's feather.18

Every other fossil that has been put forward as "feathered dinosaur" in the last 10 years is debatable. Detailed studies have revealed that the structures suggested to have been "feathers" are actually collagen fibers.19 The speculations in fact stems from evolutionist prejudice and wishful thinking. As Feduccia says, "Many dinosaurs have been portrayed with a coating of aerodynamic contour feathers with absolutely no documentation."20 (One of the "feathered dinosaurs" in question, namely Archaeoraptor, proved to be a fossil forgery). Feduccia sums the position up in these terms: "Finally, no feathered dinosaur has ever been found, although many dinosaur mummies with well-preserved skin are known from diverse localities."21

The Design Of The Feathers

When bird feathers are studied closely, a very delicate design emerges. There are even tinier hairs on every tiny hair, and these have special hooks, allowing them to hold onto each other. The pictures show progressively enlarged bird feathers.

Another problem for the evolutionists is the fact that there is such a complex design in bird feathers that the phenomenon can never be accounted for without referring to intelligent design. As we all know, there is a long, stiff part that runs up the center of the feather. Attached to the shaft are the vanes. The vane is made up of small thread-like strands, called barbs. These barbs, of different lengths and rigidity, are what give the flying bird its aerodynamic nature. But what is even more interesting is that each barb has thousands of even smaller strands attached to them called barbules. The barbules are connected to barbicels, with tiny microscopic hooks, called hamuli. Each strand is hooked to an opposing strand, much like the hooks of a zipper. On just one crane feather, there are up to 650 hairs on the central tube. Each one of these is covered with some 650 tinier hairs. And these tiny hairs are linked together by 350 hooks. The hooks come together like the two sides of a zipper. If the hooks come apart for any reason, it is sufficient for the bird to shake itself, or, in more serious cases, to straighten its feathers out with its beak, for the feathers to return to their previous positions.

To claim that the complex design in feathers could have come about by the evolution of reptile scales through chance mutations is quite simply a dogmatic belief with no scientific foundation. Even one of the doyens of Darwinism, Ernst Mayr, made this confession on the subject some years ago:

It is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations.22

The design of feathers also compelled Darwin to ponder them. Moreover, the perfect aesthetics of the peacock's feathers had made him "sick" (his own words). In a letter he wrote to Asa Gray on April 3, 1860, he said, "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of complaint..." And then continued: "... and now trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!"23

In short, the enormous structural differences between bird feathers and reptile scales, and the astonishingly complex-and beautiful-design of feathers, clearly demonstrate the invalidity of the claim that feathers evolved from scales through blind natural mechanisms.

Conclusion

The "dino-bird" stories that appear in the evolutionist press consist of biased analyses by evolutionist paleontologists, and sometimes even of distortions of the truth. (In fact, one of the best-known "dino-bird" discoveries, the Archaeoraptor portrayed by National Geographic as incontrovertible proof of bird evolution, turned out to be a forgery produced by combining fossils of five separate specimens). The "dino-bird" fossils in question are either those of extinct species of bird or of dinosaurs, and not one of them represents a "missing link" between birds and dinosaurs. In fact, as we have seen above, it is impossible for dinosaurs to have evolved into birds and assumed bird characteristics by means of chance mutations.

Thus the "dino-bird" hype that rages through the media consists of nothing more than a last-ditch attempt to shore up the collapsed theory of evolution. However, science and reason will always prevail over such misconceptions.

1. Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 1999, p. 81.
2. Scott F. Gilbert, "Did Birds Evolve from the Dinosaurs?," Developmental Biology, Sixth Edition, chapter 16.4 (http://www.devbio.com/chap16/link1604.shtml).
3. Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist, February 1, 1997, p. 28.
4. Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist, February 1, 1997, p. 28.
5. Duane T. Gish, Dinosaurs by Design, Master Books, AR, 1996. pp. 65-66.
6. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London, Burnett Books Limited, 1985, p. 210-211.
7. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, 1986, pp. 210-212.
8. J. A. Ruben, T. D. Jones, N. R. Geist, and W. J. Hillenius, "Lung Structure And Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds," Science, vol. 278, p. 1267.
9. Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny, Free Press, New York, 1998, p. 361.
10 . Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.
11. Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover, 1985, pp. 349-350.
12. A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.132.
13. A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.131.
14. A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.133.
15. A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 9, 1996, p.131.
16. Alan Feduccia, "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers," The Beginning of Birds, Eichstatt, West Germany: Jura Museum, 1985, p. 76.
17. Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 1999, p. 128
18. Ann Gibbons, "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur," Science, vol. 278, no. 5341, 14 November 1997, pp. 1229 - 1230
19. Ann Gibbons, "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur", Science, volume 278, Number 5341 Issue of 14 Nov 1997, pp. 1229 - 1230
20. Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 1999, p. 130
21. Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 1999, p. 132
22. Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species, Dove, New York, 1964, p. 296.
23. Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume II, From Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, April 3rd, 1860

THE FOSSIL RECORD REFUTES EVOLUTION

THE FOSSIL RECORD REFUTES EVOLUTION

The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin

According to the theory of evolution, every living species has sprung from a predecessor. A previously-existing species turned into something else in time and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.

If this was the case, then numerous intermediary species should have existed and lived within this long transformation period.

For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles should have lived in the past which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile-birds, which acquired some bird traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already had. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms".

If such animals had really existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than the present animal species and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin explained:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.1

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. It was his hope that they would be found in the future. Despite his hopefulness, he realized that the biggest stumbling-block in his theory was the missing transitional forms. Therefore in his book The Origin of Species he wrote the following in the chapter "Difficulties of the Theory":

... Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.2

The single explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found.

LIVING FOSSILS

Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionists have been searching for fossils and digging for missing links since the middle of the 19th century all over the world. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations showed that contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.

The theory of evolution claims that species continuously evolve into other species. But when we compare living things with their fossils, we see that they have remained unchanged for millions of years. This fact is a clear evidence that falsifies the claims of evolutionists.

Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionists have been searching for fossils and digging for missing links since the middle of the 19th century all over the world. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations showed that contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. Trying to prove their theory, the evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.

A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:

The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.3

Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.4

They have also had to deal with the futility of waiting for "missing" transitional forms to appear in the future, as explained by a professor of paleontology from Glasgow University, T. Neville George:

There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration… The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.5

Life Emerged On Earth Suddenly And In Complex Forms

An illustration of the Cambrian Period

When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to be seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years.

The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record-there are no pre-existing ancestors. The fossils found in the Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.

Most of the life forms found in this stratum have complex systems like eyes, gills, circulatory system, and advanced physiological structures no different from their modern counterparts. For instance, the double-lensed, combed eye structure of trilobites is a wonder of design. David Raup, a professor of geology in Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities, says: "the trilobites used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today".6

These complex invertebrates emerged suddenly and completely without having any link or any transitional form between them and the unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them.

THE EYE OF THE TRILOBITE The trilobites that appeared in the Cambrian period all of a sudden have an extremely complex eye structure. Consisting of millions of honeycomb-shaped tiny particles and a double-lens system, this eye "has an optimal design which would require a well-trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today" in the words of David Raup, a professor of geology. This eye emerged 530 million years ago in a perfect state. No doubt, the sudden appearance of such a wondrous design cannot be explained by evolution and it proves the actuality of creation. Moreover, the honeycomb eye structure of the trilobite has survived to our own day without a single change. Some insects such as bees and dragonflies have the same eye structure as did the trilobite.* This situation disproves the evolutionary thesis that living things evolved progressively from the primitive to the complex. (*) R. L. Gregory, Eye and Brain : The Physiology of Seeing, Oxford University Press, 1995, p.31

Richard Monastersky, the editor of Earth Sciences, which is one of the popular publications of evolutionist literature, states the following about the "Cambrian Explosion" which came as a total surprise to evolutionists:

A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures. The large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and they were as distinct from each other as they are today.7

How the earth came to overflow with such a great number of animal species all of a sudden and how these distinct types of species with no common ancestors could have emerged is a question that remains unanswered by evolutionists. The Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost advocates of evolutionist thought in the world, comments on this reality that invalidates the very roots of all the arguments he has been defending:

For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.8

As Dawkins is forced to acknowledge, the Cambrian Explosion is strong evidence for creation, because creation is the only way to explain the fully-formed emergence of life on earth. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionist biologist admits this fact and states: "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."9

Darwin himself recognized the possibility of this when he wrote: "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection."10

The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin's "fatal stroke". This is why the Swiss evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengston confesses the lack of transitional links while he describes the Cambrian Period and says "Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us".11

As may be seen, the fossil record indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to the advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden and in a perfect state. In short, living beings did not come into existence by evolution, they were created.

1. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 179.
2. Ibid, pp. 172, 280.
3. Derek V. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record", Proceedings of the British Geological Association, Vol 87, 1976, p. 133.
4. Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56.
5. T. Neville George, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective", Science Progress, Vol 48, January 1960, pp. 1, 3.
6. David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology", Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, Vol 50, January 1979, p. 24.
7. Richard Monastersky, "Mysteries of the Orient", Discover, April 1993, p. 40.
8. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, London: W. W. Norton 1986, p. 229.
9. Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, New York: Pantheon Books, 1983, p. 197.
10 . Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 302.
11. Stefan Bengston, Nature, Vol. 345, 1990, p. 765.

COULD LIFE HAVE COME FROM OUTER SPACE?

COULD LIFE HAVE COME FROM OUTER SPACE?

Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe

When Darwin put forward his theory in the middle of the nineteenth century, he never mentioned how the origin of life, in other words the first living cell, came to be. Scientists looking for the origin of life at the beginning of the twentieth century began to realise that the theory was invalid. The complex and perfect structure in life prepared the ground for many researchers to perceive the truth of creation. Mathematical calculations and scientific experiment and observation demonstrated that life could not be the "product of chance," as the theory of evolution claimed.

With the collapse of the claim that coincidence was responsible and the realisation that life was "planned," some scientists began to look for the origin of life in outer space. The best-known of the scientists who made such claims were Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. These two cobbled together a scenario in which they proposed that there was a force which "seeded" life in space. According to the scenario, these seeds were carried through the emptiness of space by gas or dust clouds, or else by an asteroid, and eventually reached the Earth, and life thus started here.

Francis Crick

Nobel Prize-winner Francis Crick, co-discoverer with James Watson of the double helix structure of DNA, is one of those who has sought the origin of life in outer space. Crick came to realise that it is quite unreasonable to expect life to have started by chance, but he has claimed instead that life on Earth was started by intelligent "extraterrestrial" powers.

The idea that life came from outer space has influenced prominent scientists. The matter is now even discussed in writings and debates on the origin of life. The idea of looking for the origin of life in outer space can be considered from two basic perspectives.

Scientific Inconsistency

The key to evaluating the "life began in outer space" thesis lies in studying the meteorites that reached the Earth and the clouds of gas and dust existing in space. No evidence has yet been found to support the claim that celestial bodies contained non-earthly creatures that eventually seeded life on Earth. No research that has been carried out so far has revealed any of the complex macromolecules that appear in life forms.

Furthermore, the substances contained in meteorites do not possess a certain kind of asymmetry found in the macromolecules that constitute life. For instance, amino acids, which make up proteins, which are themselves the basic building blocks of life, should theoretically occur as both left- and right-handed forms ("optical isomers") in roughly equal numbers. However, only left-handed amino acids are found in proteins, whereas this asymmetric distribution does not occur among the small organic molecules (the carbon-based molecules found in living things) discovered in meteorites. The latter exist in both left- and right-handed forms.1

That is by no means the end of the obstacles to the thesis that bodies and substances in outer space gave rise to life on Earth. Those who maintain such an idea need to be able to explain why such a process is not happening now, because the Earth is still being bombarded by meteorites. However, study of these meteorites has not revealed any "seeding" to confirm the thesis in any way.

Another question confronting the defenders of the thesis is this: Even if it is accepted that life was formed by a consciousness in outer space, and that it somehow reached Earth, how did the millions of species on Earth come about? That is a huge dilemma for those who suggest that life began in space.

Alongside all of these obstacles, no trace has been found in the universe of a civilisation or life form that could have started life on Earth. No astronomical observations, which have picked up enormous speed in the last 30 years, have given any indication of the presence of such a civilisation.

What Lies Behind The "Extraterrestrial" Theory?

Allah created the heavens and the earth with truth. There is certainly a Sign in that for the believers. (Qur'an, 29:44)

As we have seen, the theory that life on Earth was begun by extraterrestrials has no scientific basis to it. No discoveries have been made to confirm or support it. However, when the scientists who put forward the suggestion began to look in that direction, they did so because they perceived one important truth.

The truth in question is that a theory that seeks to explain life on Earth as being the result of chance is no longer tenable. It has been realised that the complexity revealed in the life forms on Earth can only be the product of intelligent design. In fact, the areas of expertise of the scientists who sought the origin of life in outer space give a clue as to their rejection of the logic of the theory of evolution.

Both are world-renowned scientists: Fred Hoyle is an astronomer and bio-mathematician, and Francis Crick a molecular biologist.

He who created the heavens and the earth and everything in between them in six days, and then established Himself firmly on the Throne; the All-Merciful - ask anyone who is informed about Him. (Qur'an, 25:59)

One point which needs to be considered is that those scientists who look to outer space to find the origin of life do not actually make any new interpretation of the matter. Scientists such as Hoyle, Wickramasinghe, and Crick began to consider the possibility that life came from space because they realised that life could not have come about by chance. Since it was impossible for life on Earth to have begun by chance, they had to accept the existence of a source of intelligent design in outer space.

However, the theory put forward by them on the subject of the origin of this intelligent design is contradictory and meaningless. Modern physics and astronomy have revealed that our universe originated as a result of a huge explosion some 12-15 billion years ago known as "The Big Bang." All matter in the universe came about from that explosion. For this reason, any idea that seeks the origin of life on Earth in another matterbased life form in the universe has to explain in turn how that form of life came into existence. The meaning of this is that such a suggestion does not actually solve the problem, but takes it one step further back.

As we have seen, the thesis that "life came from outer space" does not support evolution, but is a view that reveals the impossibility of evolution and accepts that there can be no other explanation for life than intelligent design. The scientists who suggested this began with a correct analysis but then went down a false road, and started the silly search for the origin of life in outer space.

It is obvious that the concept of "extraterrestrials" cannot account for the origin of life. Even if we accept for one moment the hypothesis that "extraterrestrials" actually exist, it is still clear that they could not have come into being by chance, but must themselves be the product of intelligent design. (That is because the laws of physics and chemistry are the same everywhere in the universe, and they make it impossible for life to emerge by chance.) This shows that God, Who is beyond matter and time, and possesses infinite might, wisdom, and knowledge, created the universe and everything in it.

1. Massimo Pigliucci, Rationalists of East Tennessee Book Club Discussion, October 1997.

CAN LIFE RESULT FROM COINCIDENCES AS EVOLUTION ARGUES?

CAN LIFE RESULT FROM COINCIDENCES AS EVOLUTION ARGUES?

The theory of evolution holds that life started with a cell that formed by chance under primitive earth conditions. Let us therefore examine the composition of the cell with simple comparisons in order to show how irrational it is to ascribe the existence of the cell-a structure which still maintains its mystery in many respects, even at a time when we are about to set foot in the 21^st century-to natural phenomena and coincidences.

With all its operational systems, systems of communication, transportation and management, a cell is no less complex than any city. It contains power stations producing the energy consumed by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down imported raw materials into their usable parts, and specialized cell membrane proteins for the control of incoming and outgoing materials. These constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system.

Far from being formed under primitive earth conditions, the cell, which in its composition and mechanisms is so complex, cannot be synthesized in even the most sophisticated laboratories of our day. Even with the use of amino acids, the building blocks of the cell, it is not possible to produce so much as a single organelle of the cell, such as mitochondria or ribosome, much less a whole cell. The first cell claimed to have been produced by evolutionary coincidence is as much a figment of the imagination and a product of fantasy as the unicorn.

Proteins Challenge Coincidence

Proteins are giant molecules consisting of amino acids arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. We can easily demonstrate, with simple probability calculations anybody can understand, that the functional structure of proteins can by no means come about by chance.

And it is not just the cell that cannot be produced: the formation, under natural conditions, of even a single protein of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up a cell is impossible.

Proteins are giant molecules consisting of amino acids arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. These molecules constitute the building blocks of a living cell. The simplest is composed of 50 amino acids; but there are some proteins that are composed of thousands of amino acids. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein in living cells, each of which has a particular function, causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Incapable of demonstrating the "accidental formation" of amino acids, the theory of evolution founders on the point of the formation of proteins.

If the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible, it is billions of times more impossible for approximately one million of those proteins to come together by chance in an organized fashion and make up a complete human cell.

We can easily demonstrate, with simple probability calculations anybody can understand, that the functional structure of proteins can by no means come about by chance.

There are twenty different amino acids. If we consider that an average-sized protein molecule is composed of 288 amino acids, there are 10³⁰⁰ different combinations of acids. Of all of these possible sequences, only "one" forms the desired protein molecule. The other amino-acid chains are either completely useless or else potentially harmful to living things. In other words, the probability of the coincidental formation of only one protein molecule cited above is "1 in 10³⁰⁰". The probability of this "1" occurring out of an "astronomical" number consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros is for all practical purposes zero; it is impossible. Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is rather a modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" becomes inadequate.

If the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible, it is billions of times more impossible for approximately one million of those proteins to come together by chance in an organized fashion and make up a complete human cell. Moreover, a cell is not merely a collection of proteins. In addition to proteins, cells also include nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, and many other chemicals such as electrolytes, all of which are arranged harmoniously and with design in specific proportions, both in terms of structure and function. Each functions as a building block or component in various organelles.

The probability of an average protein molecule comprising five hundred amino acids being arranged in the correct proportion and sequence in addition to the probability of all of the amino acids it contains being only left-handed and being combined only with peptide bonds is "1" divided by 10⁹⁵⁰. We can write this number, which is formed by putting 950 zeros after 1.

As we have seen, evolution is unable to explain the formation of even a single protein out of the millions in the cell, let alone explain the cell.

Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution) Prof. Ali Demirsoy

Prof. Ali Demirsoy, one of the foremost authorities of evolutionist thought in Turkey, in his book Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), discusses the probability of the accidental formation of Cytochrome-C, one of the essential enzymes for life:

The probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realized once in the whole universe. Otherwise, some metaphysical powers beyond our definition should have acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate to the goals of science. We therefore have to look into the first hypothesis.1

After these lines, Demirsoy admits that this probability, which he accepted just because it was "more appropriate to the goals of science", is unrealistic:

The probability of providing the particular amino acid sequence of Cytochrome-C is as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter-taking it for granted that the monkey pushes the keys at random.2

In the heavens and the earth there are certainly signs for the believers. And in your creation and all the creatures He has scattered about there are signs for people with certainty. (Qur'an, 45:3-4) He is Allah - the Creator, the Maker, the Giver of Form. To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names. Everything in the heavens and earth glorifies Him. He is the Almighty, the All-Wise. (Qur'an, 59:24)

The correct sequence of proper amino acids is simply not enough for the formation of one of the protein molecules present in living things. Besides this, each of the twenty different types of amino acid present in the composition of proteins must be left-handed. Chemically, there are two different types of amino acids called "left-handed" and "right-handed". The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person's right and left hands. Amino acids of either of these two types are found in equal numbers in nature and they can bond perfectly well with one another. Yet, research uncovers an astonishing fact: all proteins present in the structure of living things are made up of left-handed amino acids. Even a single right-handed amino acid attached to the structure of a protein renders it useless.

Let us for an instant suppose that life came into existence by chance as evolutionists claim. In this case, the right and left-handed amino acids that were generated by chance should be present in nature in roughly equal amounts. The question of how proteins can pick out only left-handed amino acids, and how not even a single right-handed amino acid becomes involved in the life process is something that still confounds evolutionists.

We created you so why do you not confirm the truth? Have you thought about the sperm that you ejaculate? Is it you who create it or are We the Creator? (Qur'an, 56:57-59)

In the Britannica Science Encyclopaedia, an ardent defender of evolution, the authors indicate that the amino acids of all living organisms on earth and the building blocks of complex polymers such as proteins have the same left-handed asymmetry. They add that this is tantamount to tossing a coin a million times and always getting heads. In the same encyclopedia, they state that it is not possible to understand why molecules become left-handed or right-handed and that this choice is fascinatingly related to the source of life on earth.3

It is not enough for amino acids to be arranged in the correct numbers, sequences, and in the required three-dimensional structures. The formation of a protein also requires that amino acid molecules with more than one arm be linked to each other only through certain arms. Such a bond is called a "peptide bond". Amino acids can make different bonds with each other; but proteins comprise those and only those amino acids that join together by "peptide" bonds.

Research has shown that only 50 % of amino acids, combining at random, combine with a peptide bond and that the rest combine with different bonds that are not present in proteins. To function properly, each amino acid making up a protein must join with other amino acids with a peptide bond, as it has only to be chosen from among the left-handed ones. Unquestionably, there is no control mechanism to select and leave out the right-handed amino acids and personally make sure that each amino acid makes a peptide bond with the other.

Under these circumstances, the probabilities of an average protein molecule comprising five hundred amino acids arranging itself in the correct quantities and in sequence, in addition to the probabilities of all of the amino acids it contains being only left-handed and combining using only peptide bonds are as follows:

- The probability of being in the right sequence =

1/20⁵⁰⁰ =1/10⁶⁵⁰

- The probability of being left-handed =

1/2⁵⁰⁰ =1/10¹⁵⁰

- The probability of combining using a "peptide bond"

= 1/2⁴⁹⁹ =1/10¹⁵⁰

TOTAL PROBABILITY =

1/10⁹⁵⁰ that is, "1" probability in 10⁹⁵⁰

As you can see above, the probability of the formation of a protein molecule comprising five hundred amino acids is "1" divided by a number formed by placing 950 zeros after a 1, a number incomprehensible to the human mind. This is only a probability on paper. Practically, such a possibility has "0" chance of realization. In mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 over 10⁵⁰ is statistically considered to have a "0" probability of realization.

While the improbability of the formation of a protein molecule made up of five hundred amino acids reaches such an extent, we can further proceed to push the limits of the mind to higher levels of improbability. In the "haemoglobin" molecule, a vital protein, there are five hundred and seventy-four amino acids, which is a much larger number than that of the amino acids making up the protein mentioned above. Now consider this: in only one out of the billions of red blood cells in your body, there are "280,000,000" (280 million) haemoglobin molecules. The supposed age of the earth is not sufficient to afford the formation of even a single protein, let alone a red blood cell, by the method of "trial and error". The conclusion from all this is that evolution falls into a terrible abyss of improbability right at the stage of the formation of a single protein.

Looking For Answers To The Generation Of Life

Stanley Miller with his experimental apparatus.

Well aware of the terrible odds against the possibility of life forming by chance, evolutionists were unable to provide a rational explanation for their beliefs, so they set about looking for ways to demonstrate that the odds were not so unfavorable.

They designed a number of laboratory experiments to address the question of how life could generate itself from non-living matter. The best known and most respected of these experiments is the one known as the "Miller Experiment" or "Urey-Miller Experiment", which was conducted by the American researcher Stanley Miller in 1953.

With the purpose of proving that amino acids could have come into existence by accident, Miller created an atmosphere in his laboratory that he assumed would have existed on primordial earth (but which later proved to be unrealistic) and he set to work. The mixture he used for this primordial atmosphere was composed of ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water vapor.

Even if they manage to synthesize amino acids, how would evolutionists get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins like the one seen on the right? That is impossible.

Miller knew that methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen would not react with each other under natural conditions. He was aware that he had to inject energy into the mixture to start a reaction. He suggested that this energy could have come from lightning flashes in the primordial atmosphere and, relying on this supposition, he used an artificial electricity discharge in his experiments.

Miller boiled this gas mixture at 100°C for a week, and, in addition, he introduced an electric current into the chamber. At the end of the week, Miller analyzed the chemicals that had been formed in the chamber and observed that three of the twenty amino acids, which constitute the basic elements of proteins, had been synthesized.

This experiment aroused great excitement among evolutionists and they promoted it as an outstanding success. Encouraged by the thought that this experiment definitely verified their theory, evolutionists immediately produced new scenarios. Miller had supposedly proved that amino acids could form by themselves. Relying on this, they hurriedly hypothesized the following stages. According to their scenario, amino acids had later by accident united in the proper sequences to form proteins. Some of these accidentally formed proteins placed themselves in cell membrane-like structures, which "somehow" came into existence and formed a primitive cell. The cells united in time and formed living organisms. The greatest mainstay of the scenario was Miller's experiment.

However, Miller's experiment was nothing but make-believe, and has since been proven invalid in many respects.

The Invalidity Of Miller's Experiment

Nearly half a century has passed since Miller conducted his experiment. Although it has been shown to be invalid in many respects, evolutionists still advance Miller and his results as absolute proof that life could have formed spontaneously from non-living matter. When we assess Miller's experiment critically, without the bias and subjectivity of evolutionist thinking, however, it is evident that the situation is not as rosy as evolutionists would have us think. Miller set for himself the goal of proving that amino acids could form by themselves in earth's primitive conditions. Some amino acids were produced, but the conduct of the experiment conflicts with his goal in many ways, as we shall now see.

Miller isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed, by using a mechanism called a "cold trap". Had he not done so, the conditions of the environment in which the amino acids formed would immediately have destroyed the molecules.

It is quite meaningless to suppose that some conscious mechanism of this sort was integral to earth's primordial conditions, which involved ultraviolet radiation, thunderbolts, various chemicals, and a high percentage of free oxygen. Without such a mechanism, any amino acid that did manage to form would immediately have been destroyed.

The primordial atmospheric environment that Miller attempted to simulate in his experiment was not realistic. Nitrogen and carbon dioxide would have been constituents of the primordial atmosphere, but Miller disregarded this and used methane and ammonia instead.

Why? Why were evolutionists insistent on the point that the primitive atmosphere contained high amounts of methane (CH₄), ammonia (NH₃), and water vapor (H₂O)? The answer is simple: without ammonia, it is impossible to synthesize an amino acid. Kevin McKean talks about this in an article published in Discover magazine:

Miller and Urey imitated the ancient atmosphere of earth with a mixture of methane and ammonia. According to them, the earth was a true homogeneous mixture of metal, rock and ice. However in the latest studies, it is understood that the earth was very hot at those times and that it was composed of melted nickel and iron. Therefore, the chemical atmosphere of that time should have been formed mostly of nitrogen (N₂), carbon dioxide (CO₂) and water vapor (H₂O). However these are not as appropriate as methane and ammonia for the production of organic molecules.4

After a long period of silence, Miller himself also confessed that the atmospheric environment he used in his experiment was not realistic.

Another important point invalidating Miller's experiment is that there was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere at the time when evolutionists thought that amino acids formed. This oxygen concentration would definitely have hindered the formation of amino acids. This situation completely negates Miller's experiment, in which he totally neglected oxygen. If he had used oxygen in the experiment, methane would have decomposed into carbon dioxide and water, and ammonia would have decomposed into nitrogen and water.

On the other hand, since no ozone layer yet existed, no organic molecule could possibly have lived on earth because it was entirely unprotected against intense ultraviolet rays.

In addition to a few amino acids essential for life, Miller's experiment also produced many organic acids with characteristics that are quite detrimental to the structures and functions of living things. If he had not isolated the amino acids and had left them in the same environment with these chemicals, their destruction or transformation into different compounds through chemical reactions would have been unavoidable. Moreover, a large number of right-handed amino acids also formed. The existence of these amino acids alone refuted the theory, even within its own reasoning, because right-handed amino acids are unable to function in the composition of living organisms and render proteins useless when they are involved in their composition.

To conclude, the circumstances in which amino acids formed in Miller's experiment were not suitable for life forms to come into being. The medium in which they formed was an acidic mixture that destroyed and oxidized any useful molecules that might have been obtained.

Evolutionists themselves actually refute the theory of evolution, as they are often wont to do, by advancing this experiment as "proof". If the experiment proves anything, it is that amino acids can only be produced in a controlled laboratory environment where all the necessary conditions have been specifically and consciously designed. That is, the experiment shows that what brings life (even the "near-life" of amino acids) into being cannot be unconscious chance, but rather conscious will-in a word, Creation. This is why every stage of Creation is a sign proving to us the existence and might of Allah.

The Miraculous Molecule: DNA

The molecule called DNA contains the complete construction plan of the human body.

The theory of evolution has been unable to provide a coherent explanation for the existence of the molecules that are the basis of the cell. Furthermore, developments in the science of genetics and the discovery of the nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) have produced brand-new problems for the theory of evolution.

In 1955, the work of two scientists on DNA, James Watson and Francis Crick, launched a new era in biology. Many scientists directed their attention to the science of genetics. Today, after years of research, scientists have, largely, mapped the structure of DNA.

Here, we need to give some very basic information on the structure and function of DNA:

The molecule called DNA, which exists in the nucleus of each of the 100 trillion cells in our body, contains the complete construction plan of the human body. Information regarding all the characteristics of a person, from the physical appearance to the structure of the inner organs, is recorded in DNA by means of a special coding system. The information in DNA is coded within the sequence of four special bases that make up this molecule. These bases are specified as A, T, G, and C according to the initial letters of their names. All the structural differences among people depend on the variations in the sequence of these bases. There are approximately 3.5 billion nucleotides, that is, 3.5 billion letters in a DNA molecule.

Ever since the very first human being, the trillions of examples of DNA in the billions of human cells have been appearing in the same state of perfection and complexity as present.

The DNA data pertaining to a particular organ or protein is included in special components called "genes". For instance, information about the eye exists in a series of special genes, whereas information about the heart exists in quite another series of genes. The cell produces proteins by using the information in all of these genes. Amino acids that constitute the structure of the protein are defined by the sequential arrangement of three nucleotides in the DNA.

At this point, an important detail deserves attention. An error in the sequence of nucleotides making up a gene renders the gene completely useless. When we consider that there are 200 thousand genes in the human body, it becomes more evident how impossible it is for the millions of nucleotides making up these genes to form by accident in the right sequence. An evolutionist biologist, Frank Salisbury, comments on this impossibility by saying:

A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 4¹⁰⁰⁰ forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms), we can see that 4¹⁰⁰⁰ =10⁶⁰⁰. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.5

The number 4¹⁰⁰⁰ is equivalent to 10⁶⁰⁰. We obtain this number by adding 600 zeros to 1. As 10 with 11 zeros indicates a trillion, a figure with 600 zeros is indeed a number that is difficult to grasp.

Evolutionist Prof. Ali Demirsoy was forced to make the following admission on this issue:

In fact, the probability of the random formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is inconceivably small. The chances against the emergence of even a particular protein chain are astronomic.6

In addition to all these improbabilities, DNA can barely be involved in a reaction because of its double-chained spiral shape. This also makes it impossible to think that it can be the basis of life.

Moreover, while DNA can replicate only with the help of some enzymes that are actually proteins, the synthesis of these enzymes can be realized only by the information coded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, either they have to exist at the same time for replication, or one of them has had to be "created" before the other. American microbiologist Jacobson comments on the subject:

Direction for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth-all had to be simultaneously present at that moment (when life began). This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance, and has often been ascribed to divine intervention.7

The quotation above was written two years after the disclosure of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick. Despite all the developments in science, this problem remains unsolved for evolutionists. To sum up, the need for DNA in reproduction, the necessity of the presence of some proteins for reproduction, and the requirement to produce these proteins according to the information in the DNA entirely demolish evolutionist theses.

Two German scientists, Junker and Scherer, explained that the synthesis of each of the molecules required for chemical evolution, necessitates distinct conditions, and that the probability of the compounding of these materials having theoretically very different acquirement methods is zero:

Until now, no experiment is known in which we can obtain all the molecules necessary for chemical evolution. Therefore, it is essential to produce various molecules in different places under very suitable conditions and then to carry them to another place for reaction by protecting them from harmful elements like hydrolysis and photolysis.8

In short, the theory of evolution is unable to prove any of the evolutionary stages that allegedly occur at the molecular level.

To summarize what we have said so far, neither amino acids nor their products, the proteins making up the cells of living beings, could ever be produced in any so-called "primitive atmosphere" environment. Moreover, factors such as the incredibly complex structure of proteins, their right-hand, left-hand features, and the difficulties in the formation of peptide bonds are just parts of the reason why they will never be produced in any future experiment either.

Even if we suppose for a moment that proteins somehow did form accidentally, that would still have no meaning, for proteins are nothing at all on their own: they cannot themselves reproduce. Protein synthesis is only possible with the information coded in DNA and RNA molecules. Without DNA and RNA, it is impossible for a protein to reproduce. The specific sequence of the twenty different amino acids encoded in DNA determines the structure of each protein in the body. However, as has been made abundantly clear by all those who have studied these molecules, it is impossible for DNA and RNA to form by chance.

The Fact Of Creation

With the collapse of the theory of evolution in every field, prominent names in the discipline of microbiology today admit the fact of creation and have begun to defend the view that everything is created by a conscious Creator as part of an exalted creation. This is already a fact that people cannot disregard. Scientists who can approach their work with an open mind have developed a view called "intelligent design". Michael J. Behe, one of the foremost of these scientists, states that he accepts the absolute being of the Creator and describes the impasse of those who deny this fact:

The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell-to investigate life at the molecular level-is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design!" The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. This triumph of science should evoke cries of "Eureka" from ten thousand throats.

But, no bottles have been uncorked, no hands clapped. Instead, a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. When the subject comes up in public, feet start to shuffle, and breathing gets a bit labored. In private people are a bit more relaxed; many explicitly admit the obvious but then stare at the ground, shake their heads, and let it go like that. Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling discovery? Why is the observation of design handled with intellectual gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the [issue] is labeled intelligent design, the other side must be labeled God.9

Today, many people are not even aware that they are in a position of accepting a body of fallacy as truth in the name of science, instead of believing in Allah. Those who do not find the sentence "Allah created you from nothing" scientific enough can believe that the first living being came into being by thunderbolts striking a "primordial soup" billions of years ago.

As we have described elsewhere in this book, the balances in nature are so delicate and so numerous that it is entirely irrational to claim that they developed "by chance". No matter how much those who cannot set themselves free from this irrationality may strive, the signs of Allah in the heavens and the earth are completely obvious and they are undeniable.

Allah is the Creator of the heavens, the earth and all that is in between. The signs of His being have encompassed the entire universe.

1. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara: Meteksan Yayinlari 1984, p. 61.
2. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara: Meteksan Yayinlari 1984, p. 61.
3. Fabbri Britannica Science Encyclopaedia, Vol. 2, No. 22, p. 519.
4. Kevin McKean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), No. 189, p. 7.
5. Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution", American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336.
6. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara: Meteksan Publishing Co., 1984, p. 39.
7. Homer Jacobson, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life", American Scientist, January, 1955, p.121.
8. Reinhard Junker & Siegfried Scherer, "Entstehung Gesiche Der Lebewesen", Weyel, 1986, p. 89.
9. Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, New York: Free Press, 1996, pp. 232-233.

THE SCIENTIFIC COLLAPSE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

THE SCIENTIFIC COLLAPSE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

Charles Darwin

When the theory of evolution was first advanced by Charles Darwin in the middle of the 19^th century, it was not taken so seriously. The ideological meaning of the theory, however, caused it to become wide-spread in a short time. This ideological meaning lied with the theory of evolution coming forth as an alternative to the belief of creation, which constitutes the essence of all divine religions. Atheist, materialist and positivist movements immediately claimed ownership of Darwin's theory and began to use it as a propaganda tool against the religious beliefs. It was discovered in the 20^th century that the theory is in fact a complete fallacy and is not based on any scientific evidence. The evolutionist propaganda, however, did not cease.

The Birth Of Darwinism

Darwinism originated with the book of Charles Darwin, an amateur biologist, titled The Origin of Species published in 1859. In this book, which he defined as a "long argument", Darwin argued that all living species have a common ancestor and they evolved from one another by means of natural selection.

Darwin argued that, by natural selection, only the individuals that adapted to the habitat in the best way transferred their qualities to subsequent generations. These advantageous qualities accumulated in time and transformed the individual into a species totally different from its ancestors. Man was the most developed outcome of this mechanism. Darwin thought he had found the "origin of species": the origin of one species was another species.

However, Darwin was unaware of the science of genetics when he advanced his theory.

While the echoes of Darwin's book reverberated, an Austrian botanist by the name of Mendel discovered the laws of inheritance in 1865. Not much heard of until the end of the century, Mendel's discovery gained great importance in the early 1900s. In the first quarter of the 20th century, the structure of the genes and the chromosomes was discovered.

These developments were in fact refuting Darwin's "long argument". Nevertheless, those who were determined to follow Darwin somehow revised the theory of evolution, which fell out of favor because of the science of genetics. Consequently "The Modern Synthetic Evolution Theory" was put forward in 1940. According to this theory, the cause of the variations in Darwin's theory, in other words, the power that supposedly caused living organisms to evolve, was "mutations".

This neo-Darwinism, however, was not enough to save the theory of evolution. Each development in genetics dealt new blows to Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. The discovery, in the 1950s, of the structure of the DNA molecule that incorporates genetic information threw the theory of evolution into a great crisis.

IMAGINARY MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION

The Neo-Darwinist model argues that the origin of evolutionary modifications are random mutations that take place in the genetic structure of living beings. The traits brought about by the favorable mutations are selected by the mechanism of natural selection and therefore the living things evolve. According to this model, as a result of the accumulation of the beneficial features which bring advantages to the living being in its habitat, these modifications, after a while, take such a form that they can even cause the being to change in species. The living being that undergoes evolution "promotes" from a certain species to a more advanced species.

Therefore, the neo-Darwinist approach, which we shall take as the "mainstream" theory of evolution today, puts forward two basic mechanisms to explain how living beings evolved: "natural selection" and "mutation". Either mechanism, however, has the capacity to make a living being evolve into another being.

Does Natural Selection Have Evolutionary Power?

Natural selection only selects out the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a species. It cannot produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs.

According to the theory of evolution, the magical mechanism that formed the first living beings, that brought together the first single-celled organisms, that taught the eye to see, that developed organs such as hand, foot, ear and kidney, that inspires birds to migrate to thousands of kilometers away every year is natural selection. It is absolutely impossible for a mechanism such as natural selection that lacks consciousness and wisdom to accomplish all these things. On the other hand, it is also scientifically established that natural selection does not have the power to cause living beings to evolve and to equip them with new features.

Natural selection holds that those living beings that are stronger and more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will prevail. For example, in a zebra herd under the threat of lions, naturally those that can run faster will survive. But survival of fast running zebras will not transform these zebras into another living species, for example into horses. Natural selection only selects out the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a species. It cannot produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs.

Stephen Jay Gould

Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard paleontologist and a world-wide famous evolutionist, refers to this deadlock of natural selection as follows;

The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.1

However there has not been a single shred of evidence observed showing that natural selection causes living beings to evolve. Colin Patterson, a British paleontologist, who is also a prominent evolutionist by the way, acknowledges this fact as follows:

No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question.2

Why Can't Mutations Cause A Living Being To Evolve?

Mutations cannot transform a living organism into a more advanced form and into another creature. They only cause harm to that being or cause its death.

We have stated above that the neo-Darwinist theory presented natural selection and mutation as two complementary mechanisms. After examining the invalidity of the first part of this bilateral mechanism, that is natural selection, we can now examine mutations.

Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the genetic information. They affect the DNA molecule, which is found in the nucleus of the cell, and modify its structure.

When the structure of DNA is studied, it is clearly understood that random effects can only cause harm to such a complex mechanism. Consequently, mutations do not have the ability to cause a living being to make progress by evolving. Researchers expert on this subject confirm this opinion. B.G. Ranganathan states:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes;any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.3

Mutations result in irreversible damages and the organism whose genetic structure is modified, depending on the extent of the genetic damage, undergoes changes that cannot be pre-estimated. If the damage caused by the mutation has happened in the reproductive cells of the organism, it is also transferred to the next generation. Eventually, random mutations cannot transform a living organism into a more advanced form and into another creature. They only cause harm to that being or cause its death. All hereditary diseases such as cancer, anemia, and Down syndrome are the results of mutations.

THE DEADLOCK OF INTERMEDIATE TRANSITIONAL FORMS

Despite all the researches conducted and all the expenditures made in the last 150 years, no evidence to support the theory of evolution has yet been uncovered. However, if evolution had really taken place, millions of evidence should have been found.

These "evidences" that the evolutionists should have found in millions are the fossils of beings called "intermediate transitional forms". According to the evolutionary theory, living beings have evolved from each other. For example, according to this claim, man evolved from apes. Since this evolutionary period did not last only one day, but millions and even hundreds of millions of years, millions of half ape-half man creatures should have existed. The same principle applies also to transition from water to land or from land to air. Millions of half fish-half reptile or half reptile-half bird creatures should have lived. These "fantastic" creatures that allegedly display transformations in the evolutionary process are called intermediate transitional forms.

If evolution had occurred, hundreds of thousands of these transitional forms should have reached our day by being fossilised.

This is the deadlock of evolution: evolutionists have been making feverish investigations in order to find the fossils of these transitional links for more than a century, however there is not even a single trace of the fore-mentioned transitional forms. Some confessions of the evolutionists on the subject are very striking. For example, the famous nature scientist A. H. Clark says, "Since we have not the slightest evidence, either among the living or the fossil animals, of any intergrading types following the major groups, it is a fair supposition that there never have been any such intergrading types."4

After confessing that there is no such thing as transitional form, Richard B. Goldschmidt, a well-known geneticist and evolutionist goes on to accept that the species "emerged suddenly" by saying, "In the fossil record, all present animal species emerge suddenly without any known transitional forms."

Evolutionists also accept the meaning of the absence of transitional forms. Living things emerged "suddenly" and it is evident that to "emerge suddenly" means to be created.

The fact that living beings emerged "suddenly", that is the fact that they were created, however, are unacceptable to evolutionists because of "ideological" reasons. Although some scientists, whose statements are quoted above, admit this, evolutionists in general do not accept the fact that "no intermediate transitional forms exists".

EVOLUTION FIASCOS

There is only one thing the evolutionists do against the absence of transitional forms. They find fossils of some extinct species that lived millions of years ago and claim that these fossils are "transitional forms". These so-called transitional forms are presented to the whole world as "great evidences to evolution". However, none of the several living beings presented as transitional forms by the evolutionists bear such a quality and this reality has been unveiled in the course of time.

Darwin asserted that "living beings evolved gradually." If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. Yet there was no trace of these theoretical creatures in the fossil record.

Fossil Whose "Living" Prototype Is Found

When they only had fossils of coelacanths, evolutionary paleontologists put forward a number Darwinist assumptions regarding them. When living examples were found, all these assumptions were shattered.

For example a fish called Coelacanth (Rhipitistian Crossopterigian), which was presented as an extinct living species that disappeared 70 million years ago and shown as the transitional form from water to land by the evolutionists, was found alive in the coast of Madagaskar in 1939 to the great astonishment of the evolutionists. The same fish was later caught nearly fifty times in the open seas and it was seen that its inner ear alcoves, head typed backbone, and swimming pouch, which are the organs which caused it to be presented as a transitional form, did not at all carry qualities that would cause the being to be called as a "transitional form". Furthermore, this fish, which was introduced as "a reptile candidate getting prepared to pass from sea to land", was in reality a fish that lived in the depths of the oceans.

Imaginary Ancestor Of Birds

Archaeopteryx

The second living being presented as a great evidence by the evolutionists was a 135 million year old fossil of a bird named Archaeopteryx. Because of its claw-like organs on the edge of its wings, small teeth and backbones in its tail, this animal was presented by the evolutionists to be a "transitional form from reptiles to birds". But in the following years, a 225 million year old bird fossil was found in the Western Texas desert in 1984 which refuted this claim. This animal called Protoavis was a complete bird although it was 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx which is claimed to be the "ancestor of birds". Besides, the claw-like paws of Archeaopteryx, which caused it to be designated as a transitional form, do not mean anything neither. Today, a bird species living in South America called Opisthocomus Hoatzin has similar paws.

These claims of the evolutionists definitely collapsed against the fossil of Archaeopteryx found in 1997. In this fossil, the "sternum", that is the chest bone, which is utterly peculiar to birds and enables flight actually existed. This discovery invalidated the claims of evolutionists that Archaeopteryx was a half-bird / half-dinosaur, but verified that it was a flying bird in the real sense.

In addition to this, the fossil of a bird has been recently unearthed in China, which lived in a much earlier period than Archaeopteryx and had the complete features of a modern bird. According to the discovery that was announced by famous scientific magazines such as Science and Nature, this 220 million-year-old bird shared the same features as today's birds. Even evolutionist publications announced this discovery saying "The ancestor of birds proved to be a bird; not dinosaurs".

EVOLUTION FORGERIES

Piltdown Man

As evolutionists were unable to find even a single fossil to prove evolution which they allege to have continued for millions of years, they decided to produce them themselves. Through television, press and textbooks, they deceived millions of people by producing false evidence which they pretended to have acquired after a long research. Here are some of these frauds:

1- Piltdown Man Fraud

A British researcher, Charles Dawson came out with an assertion that he had found a jawbone with two teeth and some cranial fragments in South England in 1912. The jawbone was more ape-like, and the skull was like a man's. It was thought to be an important evidence of human evolution. Alleged to be 500 thousand years old, the fossil was displayed in British Museum for 40 years.

It could be revealed only in 1949 that this was indeed a big evolution forgery. In 1949, Kenneth Oakley from the museum's paleontology department tried the method of "fluorine testing", a new test used for determining the date of some old fossils, on the jawbone and the skull. The result was astounding. The jawbone had remained buried no more than a few years. The skull was only a few thousand years old. This showed that the fossils were unearthed from different locations, were brought to Piltdown, and that the jawbone and the skull by no means belonged to the same creature.

It was clearly a forgery. Moreover, it was determined that that the primitive tools-alleged to be discovered with the fossils by C. Dawson-were simple imitations that had been sharpened with steel implements. The joints of the jawbone had been filed in order to conceal the difference between the jawbone and the skull. The two teeth in the jawbone had been worn down artificially.

Another forgery of Charles Dawson was to stain the fossils to give them a dated appearance. In 1953 the researches of Le Gros Clark and J.S. Weiner from the Anatomy Department of Oxford University, on the skull and the jawbone revealed that the fossils had been artificially stained with a chemical (potassium dichromate). These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid.

In the chemical analysis made in 1953 to precisely date the bones, scientists discovered that Piltdown Man was a huge forgery. The skull belonged to a modern man, and the mandibular bone belonged to a modern orangutan.

But evolutionists did not give up. They attempted to support the theory, which they wanted to prove no matter how, by committing further forgeries.

2- Nebraska Man Fraud

In 1922, based on a fossil tooth found in the USA, Nebraska, it was declared that this tooth had belonged to an intermediate creature between man and ape. For five years, this fossil was presented as an important evidence of evolution. Well known magazines and newspapers made imaginary drawings with the inspiration they drew from a single tooth. The Illustrated London newspaper even pictured Nebraska Man with his wife. However, in 1927, it was revealed that the fossil belonged to an extinct pig species!

False Drawings

The biased interpretation of fossils and outright fabrication of many imaginary reconstructions are an indication of how frequently evolutionists have recourse to tricks.

All we have told so far are false evidences put forward by the evolutionists. However, all those experiences demonstrated that these false evidence were not of much use and that the reality is always uncovered in the course of time. For this reason, many evolutionists preferred smaller forgeries rather than venturing into such dangerous tricks.

"Reconstruction" drawings are an example to this deceit. When we look at evolutionist publications, we frequently come across with such drawings. In these drawings, half man-half ape figures are usually pictured along with their family. These creatures with hairy bodies, a bent posture, and a face in between a man and an ape are claimed to have been drawn by evolutionist scientists supposedly by relying on the fossils available.

However, these drawings bear no meaning, because the fossils found only yield information about the bone structure of the living being. Neither any information can be obtained from these fossils about the nose, the ears, the mouth, and the hair of the living being. However, in the drawings, the evolutionists depict the organs such as the nose, the mouth, and the ears shaped as half-man half-ape.

CONCLUSION

What have been told so far are only a few of the evidence proving the invalidity of the theory of evolution and that it is a non-scientific theory. All the facts proclaimed by modern disciples of science such as microbiology, biochemistry, and anatomy prove that the world of living things has an extremely complex structure and that even the simplest living being has outstanding features that could in no way come into being by chance. In addition to invalidating the coincidence theories of evolutionists, these developments also point out a crystal-clear fact: the fact that life is the work of an intelligent design and God has created it flawlessly.

1. Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of the Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, vol. 86, July-August 1977, p. 28.
2. Colin Patterson, "Cladistics," Interview with Brian Leek, Peter Franz, March 4, 1982, BBC.
3. B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania:The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988, p. 12.
4. A. H. Clark, The New Evolution, Zoogenesis Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, 1930, p. 196.

CHAPTER II REFUTATION OF DARWINISM THE SCIENTIFIC COLLAPSE OF M

CHAPTER II
REFUTATION OF DARWINISM

THE SCIENTIFIC COLLAPSE OF MATERIALISM

Materialism can no longer claim to be a scientific philosophy. Arthur Koestler, 20th-Century British Social Philosopher (Arthur Koestler, Janus: A Summing Up, New York: Vintage Books, 1978, p. 250.)

How did the endless universe we live in come into being? How did the equilibrium, harmony, and order of this universe develop? How is it that this Earth is such a fit and sheltering place for us to live in?

Questions such as these have attracted attention since the dawn of the human race. The conclusion reached by scientists and philosophers searching for answers with their intellects and common sense is that the design and order of this universe are evidence of the existence of a supreme Creator ruling over the whole universe.

This is an indisputable truth that we may reach by using our intelligence. Allah declares this reality in His holy book, the Qur'an, which He inspired as a guide for humanity fourteen centuries ago. He states that He has created the universe when it was not, for a particular purpose, and with all its systems and balances specifically designed for human life.

Allah invites people to consider this truth in the following verse:

Are you stronger in structure or is heaven? He built it. He raised its vault high and made it level. He darkened its night and brought forth its morning light. After that He smoothed out the earth… (Surat an Naziat: 27-30)

Elsewhere it is declared in the Qur'an that a person should see and consider all the systems and balances in the universe that Allah has created for him and derive a lesson from his observations:

Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler

He has made night and day subservient to you, and the sun and moon and stars, all subject to His command. There is certainly Signs in that for people who pay heed. (Surat an-Nahl: 12)

In yet another verse of the Qur'an, it is pointed out:

He makes night merge into day and day merge into night, and He has made the sun and moon subservient, each one running until a specified time. That is Allah, your Lord. The Kingdom is His. Those you call on besides Him have no power over even the smallest speck. (Surah Fatir: 13)

This plain truth declared by the Qur'an is also confirmed by a number of the important founders of the modern science of astronomy. Galileo, Kepler, and Newton all recognised that God created the structure of universe, the design of the solar system, the laws of physics and their states of equilibrium and they arrived at that conclusion as a result of their own research and observations.

Materialism: A 19^th-Century Fallacy

The reality of the creation of which we speak has been ignored or denied since the earliest times by a particular philosophical point of view. It is called "materialism". This philosophy, which was originally formulated among the ancient Greeks, has also made an appearance from time to time in other cultures and has been advanced by individuals as well. It holds that matter alone exists and that it has done so for an infinity of time. From these tenets, it claims that the universe has also "always" existed and was not created.

In addition to their claim that the universe exists in an infinity of time, materialists also assert that there is no purpose or aim in the universe. They claim that all the equilibrium, harmony and order that we see around us are merely the product of coincidence. This "coincidence assertion" is also put forward when the question of how human beings came into being comes up. The theory of evolution, widely referred to as Darwinism, is another application of materialism to the natural world.

We just mentioned that some of the founders of modern science were faithful people who were in agreement that God created and organised the universe. In the 19^th century, an important change took place in the attitudes of the scientific world with respect to this matter. Materialism was deliberately introduced to the agenda of modern science by various groups. Because the 19^th century's political and social conditions formed a good basis for materialism, the philosophy gained wide acceptance and spread throughout the scientific world.

The findings of modern science however undeniably demonstrate how false the claims of materialism really are.

The Findings Of 20^th-Century Science

Scientists are certain that the universe came into being from nothingness as the result of an unimaginably huge explosion, known as the "Big Bang". In other words, Allah created the universe.

Let us recall the two assertions of materialism about the universe:

The universe exists in infinite time and, because it has no beginning or end, it was not created.

Everything in this universe is merely the result of chance and not the product of any intentional design, plan, or vision.

Those two notions were boldly advanced and ardently defended by 19^th-century materialists, who of course had no recourse other than to depend upon the limited and unsophisticated scientific knowledge of their day. Both have been utterly refuted by the discoveries of 20^th-century science.

The first to be laid in the grave was the notion of the universe existing in infinite time. Since the 1920s, there has been mounting evidence this cannot be true. Scientists are now certain that the universe came into being from nothingness as the result of an unimaginably huge explosion, known as the "Big Bang". In other words, the universe came into being-or rather, Allah created it.

The 20th century has also witnessed the demolition of the second claim of materialism: that everything in the universe is the result of chance and not design. Research conducted since the 1960s consistently demonstrates that all the physical equilibriums of the universe in general and of our world in particularly are intricately designed to make life possible. As this research deepened, it was discovered each and every one of the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, of the fundamental forces such as gravity and electromagnetism, and of the details of the structure of atoms and the elements of the universe has been precisely tailored so that human beings may live. Scientists today call this extraordinary design the "anthropic principle". This is the principle that every detail in the universe has been carefully arranged to make human life possible.

To sum up, the philosophy called materialism has been utterly refuted by modern science. From its position as the dominant scientific view of the 19^th century, materialism collapsed into fiction in the 20^th.

How could it have been otherwise? As Allah indicates "We did not create heaven and earth and everything between them to no purpose. That is the opinion of those who are disbelievers." (Surah Sad: 27) it is wrong to suppose that the universe was created in vain. A philosophy so utterly flawed as materialism and systems based on it were doomed to failure from the very beginning.

THE BELIEVERS ARE THE GUARDIANS OF ONE ANOTHER

THE BELIEVERS ARE THE GUARDIANS OF ONE ANOTHER

And (as for) the believing men and the believing women, they are guardians of each other. They command what is right and forbid what is wrong... (Qur'an, 9:71)

There are several verses in the Qur'an that relate to us of believers as the guardians of one another. The following is one of them:

And (as for) the believing men and the believing women, they are guardians of each other. They command what is right and forbid what is wrong, and establish prayer and pay alms, and obey Allah and His Messenger. They are the people on whom Allah will have mercy. Allah is Almighty, All-Wise. (Surat at-Tawba: 71)

The word "guardian" means intimate, protector, helper and supporter. In this sense, believers, honest, sincere and conscientious people with high moral values, should support each other, and be helpers and protectors of one another. Our Beloved Prophet (pbuh) also stated this in his following saying:

A believer is a mirror to another believer. A believer is a brother to another believer. He saves him from losses. He safeguards his interests in his absence. (Hadith of Abu Dawud, On the Authority of Abu Hurayrah)

The stories related in the Qur'an about the prophets provide many examples about this practice. Moses, for instance, killed a man by mistake when he sided with a man who was in trouble. Then, he had to run away from the city to save himself from the cruelty of the Pharaoh and the leaders of the city. This is related in the verses as follows:

A man came running from the furthest part of the city, saying, 'Moses, the Council are conspiring to kill you, so leave! I am someone who brings you good advice.' So he left there fearful and on his guard, saying, 'My Lord, rescue me from the people of the wrongdoers!' (Surat al-Qasas: 20-21)

The Prophet Moses (as) managed to leave the city through a man who helped him as a favour to him. He then reached a watering place in the land of Madyan and helped two women who kept back their flocks because they did not want to mix with the shepherds near the water. Upon their return home, the women mentioned to their father, the Prophet Shu'ayb (as), the help Moses had offered them. Upon this, Prophet Shu'ayb (as) invited prophet Moses to his home. This is revealed in the verses as follows:

One of them came walking shyly up to him and said, 'My father invites you so that he can pay you your wage for drawing water for us.' When he came to him and told him the whole story he said, 'Have no fear, you have escaped from wrongdoing people.' (Surat al-Qasas: 25)

Because Prophet Shu'ayb (as) recognized the inherent goodness and trustworthiness of the Prophet Moses (as), he helped him in his difficult time and allowed him to stay in his household and to work for him. Shu'ayb's manner sets an example for the good in protecting and guarding other good people who encounter hardship. Unless the good offer help and support to one another in times of adversity, then they will leave each another alone and unable to defend themselves against the cruel people. In a verse of the Qur'an, Allah commanded our Prophet (pbuh): "...take the believers who follow you under your wing" (Surat ash-Shu'ara': 215). Taking believers under one's wing, protecting them against dangers and difficulties is a command of our Lord, and also a Sunnah of our Prophet to follow.

Unity, cooperation, solidarity, friendship, self-sacrifice, support, and similar other qualities are some of the beautiful attributes which are the underlying foundation of the Qur'anic morality. This is stated in many sayings of Our Prophet (pbuh). One of them reads:

'Believers are like the different parts of a building, each one supporting the other.' Then he demonstrated what he meant by interlocking his fingers. (Hadith of Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

The religion of Islam ensures the establishment of a better world where there is love, peace, tolerance and understanding to one another. Societies possessing these features experience rapid development and achieve greater power. Once unity and cooperation are attained, individuals of such a society could channel their strength and energy towards goodness and good deeds rather than into disputes, fights, conflicts and wars. Essentially, a cause to which people commit themselves and devote all their effort, power, zeal and support, both material and spiritual, results in an ultimate success and beauty. What is more important is that Allah gives glad tidings that individuals working in unity and solidarity for good will receive Allah's help, support and power. In the Qur'an He says:

Allah has promised those of you who believe and do right actions that He will make them successors in the land as He made those before them successors, and will firmly establish for them their religion with which He is pleased and give them, in place of their fear, security. 'They worship Me, not associating anything with Me.' Any who are disbelieving after that, such people are deviators. (Surat an-Nur: 55)

THE PROPHET'S (SAAS) PATIENCE

THE PROPHET'S (SAAS) PATIENCE

Be patient. But your patience is only by Allah... (Qur'an, 27:127)

Throughout the period of his mission, the Prophet Muhammad (saas) experienced all manner of difficulty. Deniers and polytheists, from among his own people, insulted him most terribly, even calling him a magician or a madman. Others wanted to kill him and even schemed to do so. Despite all that, the Prophet (saas) tried to teach people of all backgrounds and cultures about the Qur'an, and therefore about proper morality and good behavior.

As Allah revealed in the verses of the Qur'an, some people had not the slightest idea of the basics of good manners, for which reason it never entered their minds that they might appall someone who possessed superior morality. The Prophet (saas) displayed the greatest patience in this circumstances, turning to Allah and asking for His help in all situations and encouraging believers to patience and submission.

In many verses in the Qur'an, Allah advises the Prophet (saas) to be patient despite the words of unbelievers:

So be patient in the face of what they say and glorify your Lord with praise before the rising of the sun and before it sets. (Surah Qaf: 39)

Do not be grieved by what they say. All might belongs to Allah. He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing. (Surah Yunus: 65)

We know that your breast is constricted by what they say. (Surat al-Hijr: 97)

Perhaps you are leaving aside part of what has been revealed to you and your breast is constricted by this because they say, "Why has treasure not been sent down to him or an angel not accompanied him?" You are only a warner and Allah is Guardian over all things. (Surah Hud: 12)

Believers must remember the kind of things Allah's Messenger (saas) was patient for, and take him as a model when dealing with their own difficulties. Those who despair at the slightest problem, who are unable to bear the smallest objection, who stop preaching the religion of Allah, or who lose hope when their business dealings go wrong, must be aware that such behavior is incompatible with Allah's holy book and the sayings and deeds of the Prophet (saas). Believers must always be patient, take Allah as their helper and give thanks to Him, adopt the superior morality of the Prophet (saas), and hope for the mercy, compassion and Paradise of our Lord.

And (as for) the believing men and the believing women, they are guardians of each other.They command what is right and forbid what is wrong... (Qur'an, 9:71)

There were people with varying characters and ideas that surrounded the Prophet (saas). Throughout his life, however, he showed an interest in each and every one, warned them about their mistakes and failings, and tried to educate them in all matters, from cleanliness to matters of faith. That compassionate, tolerant, understanding and patient attitude of his was the means by which many peoples' hearts warmed to Islam and developed a genuine love for the Prophet (saas). Allah describes this pleasing attitude adopted by the Prophet (saas) towards those around him in the Qur'an:

It is a mercy from Allah that you were gentle with them. If you had been rough or hard of heart, they would have scattered from around you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them… (Surah Al 'Imran: 159)

In another verse, Allah told the Prophet (saas) how he should behave towards those around him:

We know best what they say. You are not a dictator over them. So remind, with the Qur'an, whoever fears My Threat. (Surah Qaf: 45)

The Prophet (saas) never pressured those around him to accept the religion, nor imposed conditions on them. Instead he always used the pleasantest ways to tell them about it.

He always supported the community of the faithful with his strong conscience, and was a benefactor to them at all times. On account of these traits, the Prophet (saas) is described in many verses as "your companion." (Surah Saba': 46: Surat an-Najm: 2, Surat at-Takwir: 22).

Those believers who were able to comprehend the conscientiousness of the Prophet (saas) regarded him as closer to them than all others, and humbled themselves towards him. In one verse, Allah states:

The Prophet has closer ties to the believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers… (Surat al-Ahzab: 6)

Imam Ghazali, the great Islamic scholar, summed up the Prophet (saas)'s treatment of those around him in light of the information found in the hadiths:

"... Everyone thought that the Prophet honoured him more. Whoever came to him could see his face.

... He used to call his companions by their surnames with honour and he used to give one surname who had no surname.

... He was very affectionate and kind in dealing with the people.

... Nobody could speak loudly in his assembly."

The Prophet (saas)'s human love, kind thought and compassion, which turned those around him to true religion and warmed their hearts to faith, is that superior morality which all Muslims should seek to reproduce.

HE WHO OBEYS THE PROPHET (SAAS) ALSO OBEYS ALLAH

HE WHO OBEYS THE PROPHET (SAAS) ALSO OBEYS ALLAH

A Messenger has come to you from among yourselves. Your suffering is distressing to him; he is deeply concerned for you; he is gentle and merciful to the believers. (Qur'an, 9:128)

Allah charges everyone with obeying the prophets He has sent. These messengers were blessed men who abided by Allah's commands, communicated His revelations, represented the human model most pleasing to Allah by means of their words and actions, in short by their whole manner of living. Allah reveals in the Qur'an that those who abide by His messengers will be saved. For that reason, obedience to the Prophet (saas) is an obligation of the very greatest importance. Allah reveals the importance of obedience in the Qur'an:

We sent no messenger except to be obeyed by Allah's permission. If only when they wronged themselves they had come to you and asked Allah's forgiveness and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them they would have found Allah Ever-Returning, Most Merciful. (Surat an-Nisa': 64)

Whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger will be with those whom Allah has blessed: the prophets and steadfast affirmers of truth, the martyrs and righteous. What excellent company such people are! (Surat an-Nisa': 69)

In several verses of the Qur'an, Allah states that those who obey His messengers are in truth obeying Allah. Those who rebel against these messengers, on the other hand, rebel against Allah. Some of these verses are:

Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah. If anyone turns away, we did not send you to them as their keeper. (Surat an-Nisa': 80)

Those who pledge you their allegiance pledge allegiance to Allah. Allah's hand is over their hands. He who breaks his pledge only breaks it against himself. But as for him who fulfils the contract he has made with Allah, We will pay him an immense reward. (Surat al-Fath: 10)

The Prophet (saas) has also stressed the importance of obedience in the hadiths:

"Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me." (Sahih Bukhari)

In the Qur'an, Allah describes the Prophet (saas) as a protector and guide for the faithful. Muslims, therefore, referred to him in all matters, and sought his permission and opinion before engaging in anything. On subjects they were unable to agree upon among themselves, though even on matters they were able to solve by themselves, or when they received news concerning the security, health or economy of the community of the faithful, they immediately took them to the Prophet (saas) and abided by the sure and trustworthy advice or solution he recommended.

This is a most important aspect of morality that Allah commanded in the Qur'an. In one verse, for instance, He orders all news to be forwarded to the Prophet (saas) or those representing him. The verse reads:

Say: "I have only been ordered to worship Allah and not to associate anything with Him. I summon to Him and to Him I will return." (Qur'an, 13:36)

When news of any matter reaches them they spread it about, whether it is of a reassuring or disquieting nature. If they had only referred it to the Messenger and those in command among them, those among them able to discern the truth about it would have had proper knowledge of it. If it were not for Allah's favor to you and His mercy, all but a very few of you would have followed Satan. (Surat an-Nisa': 83)

That, of course, is a most beneficial and wise command. For one thing, Allah had guaranteed each order and rule of the Prophet (saas). Furthermore, the Prophet (saas) was the wisest and cleverest member of the community of the faithful. Usually, most look to consult the most intelligent person and the one who best obeys his conscience, that is, the person they trust the most in any matter, in order to establish a decision.

As well as all these characteristics of the Prophet (saas), another wisdom in all news being gathered together in one person is that this will provide the best and most intelligent response because all the aspects of the event will be known by one person. In another verse, Allah commands the faithful to make the Prophet (saas) their judge in any disagreements between them. It is a command from Allah that all such disagreements should be taken to the Prophet (saas) at once, and that is therefore the most fitting course of action in terms of reason, morality and conscience. It is also most important to obey the rules set out by the Prophet (saas), with all one's heart and with no reservations. Even if his decision conflicts with the interests of an individual, true believers will feel no doubts at all, and will immediately obey the command of the Prophet (saas).

Some hypocritical people, or people whose faith is weak, have failed to realize that Allah assured the decisions of the Prophet (saas) and opposed informing him of every situation, thus causing dissension. Allah describes the condition of such people in the Qur'an:

Among them are some who insult the Prophet, saying he is only an ear [only a hearer]. Say, "An ear of good for you, believing in Allah and believing in the believers, and a mercy for those among you who believe." As for those who insult the Messenger of Allah, they will have a painful punishment. (Surat at-Tawba: 61)

Since these people failed to grasp the essence of faith, and were unable to appreciate the merit of the Prophet (saas), they adopted the wrong approach with regards to informing him about every matter. The ignorant are unable to use what they know for beneficial ends, for the good and security of mankind. They use it for gossip and to try to spread dissension, to turn people against one another and to plot against them. The Prophet (saas), however, used all the information that was brought to him for the peace, security and health of Muslims and other groups under his protection, to avoid possible dangers and to thwart plots against believers. Identifying those whose faith was weak, he took measures to strengthen that faith, and prevented anything that might have weakened the faithful or damaged their morale. He brought in measures that would bring them good and lead to desirable outcomes. That is why Allah refers to him as "an ear of good" in one verse. All of the Prophet (saas)'s words, decisions and measures have led to good and positive results for believers as well as mankind.

THE TRUE WISDOM THAT COMES FROM FAITH

THE TRUE WISDOM THAT COMES FROM FAITH

... A Light has come to you from God and a Clear Book. By it, God guides those who follow what pleases Him to the ways of Peace. He will bring them from the darkness to the light by His permission, and guide them to a straight path. (Qur'an, 5:15-16)

...But only people of intelligence pay heed. (Qur'an 3: 7)

The important difference between a wise person and an intelligent person is often missed. This is a critical error. The word "intelligence" is generally used in our society to refer to the quality of mere mental acuity, and is very different from wisdom.

Wisdom is the quality of a believer who has the ability to recognise the subtle signs of God in everything that He has created, allowing him to understand the world around him. But, any attempt to consider these things, that relies only on the brain's ability to calculate cause and effect, is bound to end in a mechanistic and narrow perception of reality. Intelligence is a quality of a believer who has a firm faith in God, and who lives his life in accordance with the teaching found in the verses of the Qu'ran. Intelligence is a physical characteristic possessed by all individuals in varying degrees, but wisdom is a quality that belongs only to believers. Those who do not have faith also are not possessed of the "virtue" of wisdom.

Wisdom allows a believer to properly employ his mental abilities, judgement, and logic, thus making the best use of his virtues. An individual without wisdom, no matter how intelligent he may be, is bound at some point to veer into faulty thinking or into bad judgement. If we examine unbelieving philosophers throughout the course of history, we will recognise that they have put forward different and sometimes even diametrically opposed views on the very same subject. Despite the fact that they were people of high intelligence, they had no faith; and because they had no faith, they also were not sufficiently wise and were therefore incapable of arriving at the truth. Some of them, indeed, drew humanity into numberless errors. We can find several such examples in recent history: Many philosophers, ideologues, and statesmen, such as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, despite the fact that they were very intelligent, caused disaster to fall upon millions of people, because they were unable to use their minds effectively. Wisdom, however, assures peace, well-being, and happiness, and shows the way to attain them.

You who believe! If you have fear of Allah, He will give you discrimination and erase your bad actions from you and forgive you. Allah's favour is indeed immense. (Qur'an, 8:29)

Intelligence makes it possible for us, among other things, to think, form perceptions, focus our attention, and engage in practical activities. But, in addition to all these, a wise person also possesses a deep understanding unattainable by mere intelligence, and by means of which he is able to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Therefore, a wise person possesses insight far superior to that of an intelligent person.

The source of wisdom, as we said before, is a deep-seated faith and fear of God. Those who fear God, heed His commandments and proscriptions, become naturally possessed of this superior insight as a blessing from God. But, though this virtue is easily acquired, very few are endowed of wisdom. This condition, that God makes known in the Qu'ran, saying, "Most of them do not use their reason." (Qur'an, 5:103), arises from the fact that most people do not have the proper faith, having left no room for the Qu'ran in their lives.

The wisdom that God has granted to those who fear Him, and who live their lives in conformity with the Qu'ran, renders the devout believer superior to the unbeliever in many ways. The basic components of this wisdom are the believer's knowledge that God controls all things all the time, his consciousness of the fact that everything in its every detail comes into being according to the fate which God has predetermined, and his awareness that he is with God at every moment. In addition, wisdom makes it possible for the believer to adapt himself easily to changing conditions and situations.

A Messenger has come to you from among yourselves. Your suffering is distressing to him; he is deeply concerned for you; he is gentle and merciful to the believers. (Qur'an, 9:128)

The keenness of the believers' insight and understanding, their attentiveness and awareness, their superior analytical ability, good morals, strong character, and their wisdom in word and action, are all natural products of their wisdom.

Consider if the extraordinary characteristics belonging to an individual were to belong to society as a whole. Think of the benefits incurring to a society formed of individuals who use their minds in every thing they say, in every action they take, in every decision they make, and in every problem they undertake to solve; think of the kind of environment that would exist in a society formed of wise individuals... Indeed, we all need people of wisdom around to ensure our comfort, health, security, and peace of mind. Furthermore, the existence of wise individuals is indispensable in order to prevent chaos, confusion and anarchy, and to discover solutions to the problems from which these things arise. Taking these matters into consideration, it is clear that the key to every problem is the recognition of a need tempered with wisdom.

Undoubtedly, wisdom is the most important quality a person can have. With it, he brings benefit to others more than anyone else, because, by the morality that faith instils, there is no greater aim for him than to gain the approval of God. Throughout his life, such a person displays the qualities of the true believer as described in the Qu'ran: he protects the oppressed, he cares for the homeless, the lonely, and the needy, he feels responsibility for the fair application of justice and will not tolerate anyone going hungry. His wisdom allows him to apply what he has learned from the Qu'ran in his own life, and to develop a conscientious sense of social responsibility. We all seek such people, who use their minds to find solutions to problems, to apply the appropriate measures, in giving advice and recommendations, and who show wisdom in what they say and in what they write. Therefore, there is much benefit to be gained from the words and actions of such a person.

Once we recognise the importance of wisdom, it is not difficult to realise the seriousness of the danger posed by its opposite. This danger is a threat to both individuals and to society in general.