CHAPTER 26. CONFESSIONS THAT THE UNIVERSE DID HAVE A BEGINNING
CHAPTER
26.
CONFESSIONS
THAT THE UNIVERSE
DID
HAVE A BEGINNING
Up to the beginning of the 20th century, the prevailing view was that the universe was of infinite dimensions, and that it had existed and would continue to exist for ever. According to this view, known as the Static Universe Model, there was no question of the universe having any beginning or an end.
This perspective, which represents the basis of materialist philosophy, regarded the universe as being a stable, fixed and unchanging accumulation of matter, while denying the existence of any Creator.
In these days, the threshold of the 21st century, modern physics has proven, with many experiments, observations and calculations, that the universe had a beginning and was created in a single moment with an explosion known as the Big Bang.
In addition, it has been established that contrary to materialist claims, the universe is not fixed and stable, but is rather in a constant state of flux and change, and is also expanding. These facts are today accepted by the scientific world.
Hoimar Von Ditfurth is a German Professor of Neurology and a well-known evolutionist science writer:
To put it another way, scientists encountered phenomena suggesting that the universe had a beginning.
This idea seemed so revolutionary, or unscientific to put it in other terms, or odd, a word beloved of many scientists, that a number of concepts and opinions were put forward in order to avoid the striking conclusion that would be reminiscent of those in ancient myths and religions. We are not going to discuss these often complex concepts and universal models here. Because as stated at the beginning, we consider that the American Penzias and Wilson’s discoveries represent a final answer to this question. The universe did indeed have a beginning. 389
Anthony Flew is a British philosopher known for several decades as an atheist but who later expressed his views in favor of theism:
Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof, that the universe had a beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of as being not only without end but also without beginning, it remains easy to urge that its brute existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates. Although I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither easy nor comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the Big Bang story. 390
Dennis Sciama is a scientist who, together with Fred Hoyle, spent many years defending the fixed universe theory. In Stephen Hawking’s words:
Defending the steady-state theory alongside Fred Hoyle for years, Dennis Sciama described the final position they had reached after all the evidence for the Big Bang theory was revealed. Sciama stated that he had taken part in the heated debate between the defenders of the steady-state theory and those who tested that theory with the hope of refuting it. He added that he had defended the steady-state theory, not because he deemed it valid, but because he wished that it were valid.
Fred Hoyle stood out against all objections as evidence against this theory began to unfold. Sciama goes on to say that he had first taken a stand along with Hoyle but, as evidence began to pile up, he had to admit that the game was over and that the steady-state theory had to be dismissed. 391
Stephen W. Hawking is a British theoretical physicist and Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge:
Why should the Universe be in a state of high order at one end of time, the end that we call the past? Why is it not in a state of complete disorder at all times? After all, this might seem more probable. And why is the direction of time in which disorder increases the same as that in which the Universe expands? One possible view is that God simply chose that the Universe should be in a smooth and ordered state at the beginning of the expansion phase. We should not try to understand why, or question His reasons because the beginning of the Universe was the work of God. But the whole history of the Universe could be said to be the work of God. 392
Don N. Page is Professor of Physics at the University of Alberta:
There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state. 393
Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy is a biologist at Hacettepe University and specializes in zoogeography:
Today, however, we know that infinite time and infinite space belong to God, that the universe is finite…394
Hoimar Von Ditfurth:
 Dennis Sciama |
We cannot know what there was before this point and at its beginning. That is a sphere closed to science. Even the question of why there was a beginning is unanswerable. In addition, the questions of the origins of the first structure of the initial matter, hydrogen, its characteristics, and what gave rise to that hydrogen, are all parts of this mystery. 395
Leonard Huxley is a biographer and writer, and Elder Professor of Physics in the University of Adelaide:
. . . “creation” in the ordinary sense of the world, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being. 396
Prof. Fred Hoyle is a British astronomer and a mathematician at Cambridge University:
The Big Bang theory holds that the universe began with a single explosion. Yet as can be seen below, an explosion merely throws matter apart, while the Big Bang has mysteriously produced the opposite effect—with matter clumping together in the form of galaxies. 397
CHAPTER
27.
CONFESSIONS THAT THE ORDER IN THE UNIVERSE
CANNOT HAVE COME ABOUT BY CHANCE
Paul Davies is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist at Arizona State University:
Everywhere we look in the Universe, from the far flung galaxies to the deepest recesses of the atom, we encounter order. . . Central to the idea of a very special, orderly Universe is the concept of information. A highly structured system, displaying a great deal of organized activity, needs a lot of information to describe it. Alternatively, we may say that it contains much information.
We are therefore presented with a curious question. If information and order always has a natural tendency to disappear, where did all the information that makes the world such a special place come from originally? The Universe is like a clock slowly running down. How did it get wound up in the first place? 398
Careful measurements put the rate of expansion very close to a critical value at which the universe will just escape its own gravity and expand forever. A little slower and the cosmos would collapse, a little faster and the cosmic material would have long ago completely dispersed. It is interesting to ask precisely how delicately the rate of expansion has been “fine tuned” to fall on this narrow dividing line between twocatastrophes.
If at time I S (by which the time pattern of expansion was already firmly established) the expansion rate had differed from its actual value by more than 10-18, it would have been sufficient to throw the delicate balance out. The explosive vigour of the universe is thus matched with almost unbelievable accuracy to its gravitating power. The Big Bang was not evidently any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude. 399
The laws [of physics] . . . seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design. . . . The universe must have a purpose. 400
It is hard to resist that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out. . . . The seemingly miraculous concurrence of numerical values that nature has assigned to her fundamental constants must remain the most compelling evidence for an element of cosmic design. 401
Had nature opted for a slightly different set of numbers, the world would be a very different place. Probably we would not be here to see it . . . Recent discoveries about the primeval cosmos oblige us to accept that the expanding universe has been set up in its motion with a cooperation of astonishing precision. 402
If the world’s finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance?403
If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two basic levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just about where these levels are actually found to be. . . . A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics . . . and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. 404
I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars. 405
Hoimar Von Ditfurth is a German Professor of Neurology and Psychiatry and a well-known evolutionist science writer:
If dozens of mutual relationships and just about countless natural phenomena, of which we have only become aware as the result of centuries of experiments and a great deal of hard work by scientists, are not sources of amazement and astonishment, genuine awe, then what will be? There is an endless list of astonishing natural phenomena that we have only learned as the result of scientific research, from the dimensions of the universe and the laws governing the rate of expansion of stars to the secret-filled relationship between matter and energy, and from the events taking place in the cell nucleus, in which is stored the blueprint for a living organism to the discovery of the electrical currents in our brains. . . . Indeed, looking at the unique properties inherent in the formation of a single protein molecule performing biological functions, it appears impossible to account for the atoms needing to combine at the right moment, in the correct sequence, and with the correct electrical and mechanical properties, to do so by chance. 406
In addition, scientific findings reveal that all the physical balances in the Universe have been very finely arranged in order to support human life. |
W. Press, an astrophysicist, writing in an article in Nature magazine:
There is a grand design in the Universe that favours the development of intelligent life. 407
CHAPTER 28.
CONFESSIONS REGARDING DARWINISM’S
NEGATIVE EFFECT ON MORAL VALUES
In the 19th century, the theory of evolution began to exert an influence over a wide sphere, beyond such branches of science as biology and paleontology, extending from human relations to the analysis of history, from politics to society. Efforts were made to adapt Darwin’s idea of the struggle for survival in nature—as a result of which the fittest would survive while the weak were eliminated—to human thought and behavior. Applying Darwin’s claim that nature was a battleground to human societies served as a justification of class conflicts, a social order in which the strong oppressed the weak, racism, colonialism, exploitation, repression and other forms of inhumanity.
Reading between the lines, even evolutionists admit the inhumanity that Darwinist ideas continue to inflict on societies:
Theodosius Dobzhansky is a geneticist and evolutionary biologist at Columbia University:
Natural selection can favor egoism, hedoism, cowardice instead of bravery, cheating and exploitation, while group ethics in virtually all societies tend to counteract or forbid such “natural” behavior, and to glorify their opposites: kindness, generosity and even self-sacrifice for the good of others of one’s tribe or nation and finally mankind. 408
P. J. Darlington is of Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge:
The first point is that selfishness and violent are inherent in us, inherited from our remotest animal ancestors. . . . Violence is, then, natural to man, a product of evolution. 409
Robert Wright, author of the book, The Moral Animal:
Evolutionary theory, after all, has a long and largely sordid history of application to human affairs. After being mingled with political philosophy around the turn of the century to form the vague ideology known as “social Darwinism,” it played into the hands of racists, fascists, and the most heartless sort of capitalists. 410
We were victims of a cruel social ideology that assumes that competition among individuals, classes, nations or races is the natural condition of life, and that it is also natural for the superior to dispossess the inferior . . . . The law of natural selection is not, I will maintain, science. It is an ideology, and a wicked one. . . . 411
389 Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorların Sessiz Gecesi 1 (The Silent Night of the Dinosaurs), p. 56.
390 Henry Margenau, Roy Abraham Vargesse, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, La Salle II: Open Court Publishing, 1992, p. 241.
391 Stephen Hawking, Evreni Kucaklayan Karinca, Alkim Kitapcilik ve Yayincilik, 1993, pp. 62-63.
392 Stephen W. Hawking, “The Direction of Time,” New Scientist, Vol. 115, 9 July 1987, p. 47.
393 Don N. Page, “Inflation Does Not Explain Time Asymmetry,” Nature, Vol. 304, July 7, 1983, p. 40.
394 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalıtım ve Evrim [“Heredity and Evolution”], p. 21.
395 Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorların Sessiz Gecesi 3 [“The Silent Night of the Dinosaurs 3”], p. 7.
396 Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, MacMillan, 1938, Vol.1. p. 241.
397 Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, London, 1984, pp. 184-185.
398 Paul Davies, The Accidental Universe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982, Preface.
399 Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984, p. 184.
400 Ibid., p. 243.
401 Paul Davies. God and the New Physics. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983, p. 189.
402 Paul Davies. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982, Foreword.
403 Paul Davies, Superforce, pp. 235-236.
404 Paul Davies. The Accidental Universe, p. 118.
405 Fred Hoyle, Religion and the Scientists, London: SCM, 1959; M. A. Corey, The Natural History of Creation, Maryland: University Press of America, 1995, p. 341.
406 Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorların Sessiz Gecesi 1,[“The Silent Night of the Dinosaurs 1”], p. 123.
407 W. Press, “A Place for Teleology?,” Nature, Vol. 320, 1986, p. 315.
408 Theodosius Dobzhansky, “Ethics and Values in Biogical and Cultural Evolution” Zygon, the Journal of Religion and Science, as reported in Los Angeles Times, Part IV (June 16, 1974), p. 6.
409 P.J. Darlington, Evolution for Naturalists, 1980, pp. 243-244.
410 Robert Wright, The Moral Animal, New York:Vintage Books, 1994, p. 7.
411 Earthwatch, March 1989, p. 17; cited in Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God, Baker Book House, 1989, p. 57.
CHAPTER 25. CONFESSIONS THAT LIFE CAN ONLY HAVE BEEN CREATED
CHAPTER 25.
CONFESSIONS THAT LIFE CAN
ONLY HAVE BEEN CREATED
Every living thing in the world has been equipped with flawless systems and immaculate harmony. The impeccable biological characteristics and systems that living things possess to protect themselves, reproduce, feed or hunt, and their compatibility with their environmental surroundings, is definitive evidence of the existence of a single Creator.
The planned activity that even a tiny caterpillar demonstrates in order to protect and camouflage itself, the combs that honeybees construct using a sophisticated mathematical calculations, and the muscles possessed by the mosquito, accurate down to millimetrical levels, thanks to which it is able to beat its wings 1,000 times a second, all introduce us to the artistry of our Omniscient Lord.
No evolutionist can explain how these characteristics came into existence, because mechanisms such as random mutations and natural selection cannot give rise to these perfections. That is why evolutionists express their despair in the face of all the miraculous attributes they observe in all living things. They have generally had to admit that such perfection exists, for which reason a conscious Intelligence must have been involved.
Charles Darwin:
I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man . . . . I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws. . . . All these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think, the more bewildered I become. 365
I am conscious that I am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of design. 366
I could give many most striking and curious illustrations in all [biological] classes; so many that I think it cannot be chance. 367
You have most cleverly hit on one point, which has greatly troubled me; if, as I must think, external conditions produce little direct effect, what the devil determines each particular variation? 368
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 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. 369
Roger Lewin is a well-known evolutionist science writer and former editor of New Scientist magazine:
Much of evolution looks as if it had been planned to result in man, and in other animals and plants to make the world a suitable place for him to dwell in. Like Wallace, Broom also saw a spiritual guiding hand behind the whole process. 370
Prof. Fred Hoyle is a British astronomer and a mathematician at Cambridge University:
Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate. 371
Rather than accept that fantastically small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act. By “better.” I mean less likely to be wrong. 372
Prof. Cemal Yıldırım Yıldırım is a Turkish evolutionist, and Professor of Philosophy at Middle East Technical University:
According to some critics, equating evolution with natural selection alone is like expecting a cat or a pigeon sat at a typewriter keyboard to be able to write Shakespeare’s Hamlet or Goethe’s Faust by tapping the keys for a million years. When we examine even the simplest life form, however, we cannot ignore the fact that a sublime intelligence has played an active role in it. 373
It is far from being convincing to attribute this order in living things, which seems tohave a particular purpose, to chance or coincidence. 374
Niles Eldredge is an evolutionist paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History :
Indeed, the only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation. 375
Hoimar Von Ditfurth is a German Professor of Neurology and Psychiatry and a well-known evolutionist science writer:
These two polymers [egg white and nucleic acids] have been constructed in such a complex manner and, as if that were not enough, their structures exhibit such a high level of individuality that to imagine these came to that level by acquiring wealth solely as the result of chance goes far beyond being even an astronomically and inconceivably small possibility. 376
The statistical impossibility of the living structures in question emerging as the result of chance alone is a rather current example of the present-day level of development of science. Indeed, looking at those extraordinary individual features in the formations of a single protein carrying out biological functions, it appears impossible to explain a large number of atoms combining together, all in the correct and requisite sequence, at the right time and moment and with the right electrical and mechanical features, all in terms of chance. 377
No matter how large the universe may be, chance giving rise to the birth of protein and nucleic acid is [an] impossibility that. . . .378
It is of course possible to account for the story of the birth of the world in all its details, and the emergence of the complex structure of the building blocks of living organisms in particular, with the possibility of a planned course being followed and the direct intervention of a supernatural power. In fact, we can ascribe the conditions on Earth, and ask why subsequent developments occurred in such an astonishing way as to meet the requirements of life, as if this had been foreseen beforehand, only to the intention to create life from one end of the world to the other of a Creator existing beyond nature, omnipotent. 379
The question posed in a mocking tone of voice by one ever-present celebrity during a debate on the origin of life constitutes a well-known example on this subject: “How long would a human being’s 1,000 trillion atoms have to be mixed up for a Volkswagen to merge by chance?” Another variation of the same question is “How long would 100 monkeys have to sit randomly tapping the keys of a typewriter until they produced a single one of Shakespeare’s sonnets?” Such objections are really astonishing. 380
The life span of the Earth would be insufficient for cytochrome-C (or any other enzyme currently in existence) to be manufactured once again in exactly that form out of coincidences. 381
It is more reasonable seeming to think that the development of animate and inanimate nature is the work of a single moment, a flash of creation. 382
Attempting to produce a conclusion on the basis that life is the work of a miracle may more reasonable in the current state of affairs. 383
Pierre-Paul Grassé is a French biologist and former President of the French Academy of Sciences:
The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur. . . . There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it. 384
Chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped. 385
Prof. Ali Demirsoy is a biologist at Hacettepe University and specializes in zoogeography:
In essence, 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 must have acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate for the scientific cause. We thus have to look into the first hypothesis. 386
Douglas Futuyma is Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the State University of New York:
Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing 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. 387
What really astounds me is the architecture of life. . . . The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed. . . . There’s a huge intelligence there. 388
365 Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 105.
366 Ibid., p. 146.
367 Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I, p. 455.
368 Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 28.
369 Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, p. 101.
370 Lewin, R., In the Age of Mankind: A Smithsonian Book of Human Evolution, Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Books:, 1988, p. 26.
371 Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, p. 141.
372 Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” in Engineering and Science, November 1981, pp. 8, 12.
373 Cemal Yıldırım, Evrim Kuramı ve Bağnazlık [“Evolution Theory and Bigotry”], p. 62.
374 Ibid., p.108.
375 Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985, p. 29.
376 Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorların Sessiz Gecesi 1, [“The Silent Night of the Dinosaurs 1”], p. 122.
377 Ibid., p. 123.
378 Ibid., p. 126.
379 Ibid., pp. 126-127.
380 Ibid., p. 260.
381 Ibid., p. 265.
382 Ibid. p. 27.
383 Ibid., p. 91.
384 Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, p. 103.
385 Ibid., p. 107.
386 Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim [“Inheritance and Evolution”], p. 61.
387 Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, New York: Pantheon Books, 1983. p. 197.
388 San Francisco Chronicle, 19 February, 2001.
CHAPTER 24 CONFESSIONS REGARDING THE INVALIDITY OF RECAPITULATIO
CHAPTER 24
CONFESSIONS REGARDING THE
INVALIDITY OF RECAPITULATION
The Theory of Recapitulation, first proposed by Ernst Haeckel towards the end of the 19th century, claimed that during their embryological development, living things repeated the evolutionary process experienced by their forerunners.
He suggested, for example, that during its development in its mother’s womb, the human embryo exhibited first fish-like and then reptilian features, before finally becoming human. Subsequently, however, it emerged that this theory was totally a figment of the imagination. In fact, Haeckel himself confessed to the frauds he had perpetrated in the illustrations he produced to support this imaginary scenario. The fact that some evolutionists still put credence to Haeckel’s imaginary scenario, and the illustrations that he admitted were fraudulent, shows how far they have lagged behind the scientific literature.
Ernst Haeckel:
After this compromising confession of “forgery,” I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner’s dock hundreds of fellow-culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of “forgery,” for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed. 360
George Gaylord Simpson Professor of Zoology at Columbia University:
Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny. 361
Haeckel’s theory of recapitulation maintained that during the developmental process, living embryos repeated the evolutionary process undergone by their ancestors. He suggested, for example, that in its mother’s womb, a human embryo first exhibited fish-like gills, followed by reptilian characteristics, before finally turning into a human being. Later years, however, showed that this scenario was utterly imaginary. The supposed gills that appear during the earliest stages of development actually turned out to be the middle ear canal and the beginnings of the parathyroid and thymus glands. Another part of the embryo, equated with a fish’s yolk sac was revealed to be a sac that produces blood for the baby. That part described as the tail by Haeckel and his followers is in fact the human backbone and resembles a tail only because it develops before the legs. Evolutionists now describe this hoax committed by Haeckel as one of the worst frauds in biology. |
From an article in American Scientist:
Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry it was extinct in the twenties . . . .362
From an article in Science magazine:
The impression [Haeckel's drawings] give, that the embryos are exactly alike, is wrong, says Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George's Hospital Medical School in London. . . . So he and his colleagues did their own comparative study, reexamining and photographing embryos roughly matched by species and age with those Haeckel drew. Lo and behold, the embryos “often looked surprisingly different.”
Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway. “It [Haeckel’s series of drawings] looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology,’ Richardson concludes.363
From an article in New Scientist:
[Haeckel] called this the biogenetic law, and the idea became popularly known as recapitulation. In fact, Haeckel’s strict law was soon shown to be incorrect. For instance, the early human embryo never has functioning gills like a fish, and never passes through stages that look like an adult reptile or monkey. 364
360 Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, New York: Ticknor and Fields , 1982, p. 204.
361 G. G. Simpson, W. Beck, An Introduction to Biology, New York: Harcourt Brace and World, , 1965, p. 241.
362 Keith S. Thomson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated,” American Scientist, Vol. 76, May/June 1988, p. 273.
363 Elizabeth Pennisi, “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” Science, 5 September, 1997.
364 Ken McNamara, "Embryos and Evolution," New Scientist, vol. 12416, 16 October 1999.
CHAPTER 23. CONFESSIONS THAT THE THEORY VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW
CHAPTER 23.
CONFESSIONS THAT THE THEORY
VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, one of the fundamentals of physics, states that left to themselves and natural conditions, all systems in the universe will gradually move towards disorder, fragmentation and corruption, in direct relation to the passage of time.
All things—living and inanimate—eventually erode, decay, fragment and fall apart. This is the eventual and inescapable end of all entities, and according to the Second Law, no way back from the process is possible.
This fact is something you can observe in your daily life. For instance, if you leave a car in the desert and then return a few months later, it is in, it will not be in any better condition. You will see that the tires have burst, the windows are cracked, the body has rusted and the battery no longer works.
The same inevitable process takes place, but even faster, in living things. This natural process of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is an expression of physical equations and calculations.
However, the theory of evolution is completely at odds with this law, because evolution maintains that all kinds of systems—and life in particular—came into being spontaneously, with no conscious intervention involved. However, it is a scientifically proven that, left to natural conditions, all things made of matter will head towards disorder and chaos. Despite the reality described above, the presence in the universe of order and perfection is one of the proofs that a Sublime Creator—in other words, Allah— is responsible for it.
In fact, evolutionists are well aware that the Second Law of Thermodynamics places their theory in an untenable position:
J. H. Rush works at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado:
In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order. 354
Roger Lewin is a well-known evolutionist science writer and former editor of New Scientist magazine:
One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more, order. 355
George P. Stavropoulos, in the magazine American Scientist:
Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can ever form spontaneously, but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with the Second Law. Indeed, the more complex it is, the more unstable it will be, and the more assured, sooner or later, its disintegration. Photosynthesis and all life processes, and even life itself, cannot yet be understood in terms of thermodynamics or any other exact science, despite the use of confused or deliberately confusing language. 356
Jeremy Rifkin is an American economist, writer, and public speaker:
The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall available energy for life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the exact opposite. We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on Earth. 357
Prof. Ilya Prigogine, known for his research into thermodynamics at the Université Libre de Belgique:
There is another question, which has plagued us for more than a century: What significance does the evolution of a living being have in the world described by thermodynamics, a world of ever-increasing disorder? 358
The problem of biological order involves the transition from the molecular activity to the supermolecular order of the cell. This problem is far from being solved. 359
354 J. H. Rush, The Dawn of Life, New York: Signet, 1962, p. 35.
355 Roger Lewin, “A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity,” Science, Vol. 217, 24 September, 1982, p. 1239.
356 George P. Stravropoulos, “The Frontiers and Limits of Science,” American Scientist, Vol. 65, November-December 1977, p. 674.
357 Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, p. 55.
358 Ilya Prigogine, Isabelle Stengers, Order Out of Chaos, New York, Bantam Books, 1984, p. 129.
359 Ibid., p. 175.
CHAPTER 22 CONFESSIONS REGARDING THE INVALIDITY OF HOMOLOGY
CHAPTER 22
CONFESSIONS REGARDING THE
INVALIDITY OF HOMOLOGY
Efforts to provide proof of the theory of evolution have included the interpretation of similarities among living things as evidence of some common ancestor. With that aim in mind, every similarity between living things is portrayed as evidence of yet another evolutionary relationship.
However, scientific discoveries made over the last 20 to 30 years show that resemblances between life forms constitute no evidence for the theory of evolution:
1- There are homologous (similar-looking) organs even between classes between which evolutionists cannot trace any familial relationship,
2- The genetic information in bodies of different life forms with similar organs is based on very different genetic codes, and
3- These organs are very different from one another during the course of embryological development, This shows that homology provides no basis for evolution.
These similar structures in very different life forms, among which no evolutionary links can be established, represent a serious problem for evolutionists. Indeed, they frequently refer to the discomfort this causes them:
Frank Salisbury is Professor and Head of the Department of Plant Science at Utah State University:
Even something as complex as the eye has appeared several times; for example, in the squid, the vertebrates, and the arthropods. It’s bad enough accounting for the origin of such things once, but the thought of producing them several times according to the modern synthetic theory makes my head swim.351
William Fix, an evolutionist biologist:
The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the “pentadactyl” [five-fingered] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale, and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now, if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down. 352
Dr. Christian Schwabe Schwabe is Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the Medical University of South Carolina:
Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist, I should be elated. Instead, it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies: so many in fact that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message. 353
351 Frank Salisbury, “Doubts About the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 338.
352 William Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution, New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984, p. 189.
353 Christian Schwabe, “On the Validity of Molecular Evolution,” Trends in Biochemical Sciences, Vol. 11, July 1986, p. 280.
CHAPTER 21 CONFESSIONS THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A VESTIGIA
CHAPTER 21
CONFESSIONS THAT THERE IS
NO SUCH THING AS A VESTIGIAL ORGAN
The idea of vestigial organs is not a scientific one. According to that claim, the bodies of living things contain organs inherited from their forebears, but that have gradually lost their functions through lack of use.
This is very definitely no scientific claim, because it was based on ignorance. Functionless organs are ones whose function has not yet been identified. The best indication of this has been the continued shrinkage of the list of vestigial organs proposed by evolutionists. It has now been established that those organs originally described as vestigial actually possess wide-ranging functions.
Charles Darwin:
There remains, however, this difficulty. After an organ has ceased being used, and has become in consequence much reduced, how can it be still further reduced in size until the merest vestige is left; and how can it be finally quite obliterated? It is scarcely possible that disuse can go on producing any further effect after the organ has once been rendered functionless. Some additional explanation is here requisite which I cannot give. 349
S. R. Scadding is an evolutionist zoologist at the University of Guelph, Ontario:
Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that “vestigial organs” provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution. 350
349 Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, http://www.zoo.uib.no/classics/darwin/origin.chap14.html
350 S. R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?,” Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173.
CHAPTER 20. CONFESSIONS REGARDING VARIATION
CHAPTER 20.
CONFESSIONS REGARDING VARIATION
Variation is a term employed in genetics for a phenomenon that causes individuals or groups within a living species to display different characteristics from one another. For example, all humans on Earth possess essentially the same genetic information, but the potential for variation allowed by that information means that some of us have almond-shaped eyes, some have red hair, others have long noses and still others are short in stature.
 Variation is caused by different characteristics within the gene pool of a living species and occurs as these are manifested in life forms’ physical appearance. For example, all human beings on Earth possess essentially the same genetic data, but thanks to the diversity permitted by that information, some have oriental eyes, or red hair, and different skin colors. Variation constitutes no evidence for evolution, because variation consists of the emergence of existing genetic information and bestows no new characteristics upon the individual. Evolutionists today agree that variation is no proof of evolution. |
Evolutionists, however, see the diversity within species as evidence for their theory. Yet diversity constitutes no proof of evolution at all, because variation consists of different combinations of already existing genetic information, but can add no new characteristics to that information.
Charles Darwin:
With respect to my far-distant work on species, I must have expressed myself with singular inaccuracy, if I led you to suppose that I meant to say that my conclusions were inevitable. They have become so, after years of weighing puzzles, to myself alone; but in my wildest day-dream, I never expect more than to be able to show that there are two sides to the question of the immutability of species, i.e. whether species are directly created, or by intermediate laws, (as with the life & death of individuals). I did not approach the subject on the side of the difficulty. . . .340
You ask what effect studying species has had on my variation theories; I do not think much—I have felt some difficulties more. 341
Certainly I have felt it humiliating, discussing and doubting and examining over and over again, when in my own mind, the only doubt has been, whether the form varied today or yesterday. . . . After describing a set of forms, as distinct species, tearing up my M.S., and making them one species; tearing that up and making them separate, and then making them one again (which has happened to me) I have gnashed my teeth, cursed species, and asked what sin I had committed to be so punished. . . .342
Birds, which have struggled in their own homes, when settled in a body, nearly simultaneously in a new country, would not be subject to much modification, for their mutual relations would not be much disturbed. But I quite agree with you, that in the time they ought to undergo some. 343
When we descend to details … nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case, seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change. 344
Francis Darwin:
In the Autobiography, my father has stated what seemed to him the chief flaw of the 1844 Sketch; he had overlooked “one problem of great importance,” the problem of the divergence of character. This point is discussed in the Origin of Species, but, as it may not be familiar to all readers, I will give a short account of the difficulty and its solution. The author begins by stating that varieties differ from each other less than species, and then goes on: “Nevertheless, according to my view, varieties are species in process of formation . . . . How then does the lesser difference between varieties become augmented into the greater difference between species?”345
Luther Burbank, a geneticist and one of the world’s most eminent authorities on the subject of livestock breeding:
There are limits to the development possible, and these limits follow a law. 346
Norman Macbeth, an evolutionist known for his criticisms of Darwinism:
The heart of the problem is whether living things do indeed vary to an unlimited extent. . . . The species look stable. We have all heard of disappointed breeders who carried their work to a certain point, only to see the animals or plants revert to where they had started. 347
W. L. Johannsen, a Danish scientist:
The variations upon which Darwin and Wallace placed their emphasis cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of “indefinite departure.”348
340 Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I, p. 394.
341 Ibid., p. 397.
342 Ibid., p. 400.
343 Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 5.
344 Ibid., p. 210.
345 Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I, p. 376.
346Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Boston: Harvard Common Press, , 1971, p. 36.
347 Ibid., p. 33.
348 Loren Eiseley, The Immense Journey, Vintage Books, 1958, p. 227.
CHAPTER 19. CONFESSIONS THAT PLANTS CANNOT HAVE ARISEN BY WAY OF
CHAPTER 19.
CONFESSIONS THAT PLANTS CANNOT HAVE ARISEN
BY WAY OF EVOLUTION
 Richard B. Goldschmidt |
The theory of evolution is at another complete loss to explain the emergence of plants, just as it in with its claims regarding human and animal evolution. Not a single fossil indicates that one plant species was the forerunner of another or else constituted an intermediate form between two species. A great many plant fossils have been unearthed to date, and all share one particular feature: They all are flawless and bear an identical resemblance to their counterparts today.
For example, algae—which evolutionists describe as primitive cells and claim to be the ancestors of all “higher” plants—are known to be have been the same billions of years ago, just as they are today.
It is also impossible to account for the emergence of the photosynthesis produced by plants in terms of chance. Photosynthesis, which we are unable to duplicate even using modern technology, has been successfully achieved even by algae that evolutionists regard as the most “primitive” of plants, for billions of years. All these are signs that botany disproves evolution and corroborates creation.
As always, however, evolutionists cannot avoid from admitting this manifest reality:
Richard B. Goldschmidt is a German-born U.S. zoologist and geneticist:
The evolution of the animal and plant worlds is considered by all those entitled to judgment to be a fact for which no further proof is needed. But in spite of nearly a century of work and discussion there is still no unanimity in regard to the details of the means of evolution. 328
Chester Arthur Arnold is Professor Emeritus of Botany in The University of Michigan:
As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present. 329
It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existing groups have passed during the course of their development, but it must be freely admitted that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one hundred years. 330
 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy |
[W]e have not been able to track the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present. 331
Not only are plant evolutionists at a loss to explain the seemingly abrupt rise of the flowering plants to a place of dominance, but their origin is likewise a mystery. 332
Dr. Edred Corner is Professor of Botany at Cambridge University:
I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. 333
Edmund J. Ambrose, is Professor Emeritus at the University of London and head department of Cell Biology at the Chester Beatty Research Institute University of London:
At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately. . . .334
From Science News:
Both blue-green algae and bacteria fossils dating back 3.4 billion years have been found in rocks from South Africa. Even more intriguing, the pleurocapsalean algae turned out to be almost identical to modern pleurocapsalean algae at the family and possibly at the generic level. 335
Prof. Ali Demirsoy:
Photosynthesis is a rather complicated event, and it seems impossible for it to emergein an organelle inside a cell, because it is impossible for all the stages to have come about at once. And it is meaningless for them to have emerged separately. 336
1 This 180-million-year-old plant, dating back to the Jurassic Period, has a structure identical to that of similar plants existing today. 2 This 300-million-year-old Carboniferous Period horsetail is identical to similar specimens living today. 3 This 140-million-year-old fossil belonging to the species Archaefructus is the oldest known angiosperm (flowered plant). It is no different to similar plants living today and, its flowers and fruit possess a flawless structure. |
Hoimar Von Ditfurth:
No cell possesses the means of “learning” a biological process in the literal sense of the word. A cell is not in a position to perform a function such as respiration or photosynthesis during birth, and it is impossible for it to come by the ability to enable this process, to overcome this during the course of its later life. 337
Daniel Axelrod is Professor of Geology and Botany at the University of California:
The ancestral group that gave rise to angiosperms has not yet been identified in the fossil record, and no living angiosperm points to such an ancestral alliance. 338
N. F. Hughes is an author on Paleobiology and Paleobotany:
With few exceptions of detail, however, the failure to find a satisfactory explanationhas persisted, and many botanists have concluded that the problem is not capable of solution, by use of fossil evidence. 339
328 Richard Goldschmidt, “Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist, Vol. 409, January 1952, p. 84.
329 Chester A. Arnold, An Introduction to Paleobotany, New York: Mc Graw-Hill, 1947, p. 7.
330 Ibid.
331 Ibid., p. 334.
332 Ibid.
333 Dr. Eldred Corner, Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p. 97.
334 Edmund J. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164.
335 “Ancient Alga Fossil Most Complex Yet,” Science News, Vol. 108, September 20 1975, p. 181.
336 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim [“Inheritance and Evolution”], p. 8.
337 Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorların Sessiz Gecesi 2 [“The Silent Night of the Dinosaurs 2”], pp. 60-61.
338 Daniel Axelrod, “The Evolution of Flowering Plants,” in The Evolution Life, 1959, pp. 264-274.
339 N. F. Hughes, Paleology of Angiosperm Origins: Problems of Mesozoic Seed-Plant Evolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, , 1976, pp. 1-2.
CHAPTER 18. CONFESSIONS THAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION CANNOT EXPL
CHAPTER 18.
CONFESSIONS THAT THE THEORY OF
EVOLUTION CANNOT EXPLAIN ANIMAL INSTINCTS
Many characteristics observed in living things represent enormous quandaries for the theory of evolution. Bees and ants live together in enormous communities and exhibit the finest examples of excellent, disciplined social life. Bees build those architectural marvels called honeycombs. Spiders spin such high-quality webs that technology is barely able to begin replicating them. Even the fiercest animals show devotion to their own young and even to other species. Countless other actions involving reason, judgment and decision-taking—features supposedly unique to human beings—cannot be explained in terms of any of the mechanisms proposed by the theory of evolution.
 It is Allah Who inspires bees to build the same flawless hexagonal combs that they have been constructing for millions of years. |
Evolutionists say that these modes of living or behavior in living things emerged as the result of “impulses” from inside. However, they are unable to say what those impulses were.
Darwinists admit the fact that an enormous force affects the behavior of living things. They attribute the devotion, division of labor and perfect organization among life forms to direction by a force.
However, they then bring the issue to an end by simply referring to this force as instinct. To describe the origin of that force, they employ the clichéd term “Mother Nature.”
In fact, however, no evolutionist to date can say where instincts are located in living things’ bodies. In what part of the anatomy do these impulses, described as instincts, lie? In the brain, weighing just a few hundred grams? Or tucked away in some of the proteins and amino acids that make up the tissues?
It is Allah Who has inspired bees to make the same totally perfect hexagonal combs for millions of years.
When we open up the bodies of living things to examine them, we are still unable to establish the source of this information. Because; instinct is an impulse that expresses the spiritual and has no material counterpart. This shows the serious inconsistency among Darwinists and materialists, who reject the spiritual and maintain that all things are simply accumulations of matter.
In fact, evolutionists have been unable to shed any light on this question. If instinct is present in any living thing, that means that some force is inspiring it to so things. That power is obviously Allah, the sole lord and ruler of the Universe.
Given the obvious nature of these facts, evolutionists have been forced to make confessions regarding instinct too. And as in all areas, the clearest admissions come from those known for their outspokenness.
Charles Darwin:
; What shall we say to the instinct which leads the bee to make cells, and which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians? 312
 Francis Darwin |
Many instincts are so wonderful that their development will probably appear to the reader a difficulty sufficient to overthrow my whole theory. 313
But it would be a serious error to suppose that the greater number of instincts have been acquired by habit in one generation, and then transmitted by inheritance to succeeding generations. It can be clearly shown that the most wonderful instincts with which we are acquainted, namely, those of the hive-bee and of many ants, could not possibly have been acquired by habit. 314
If a working ant or other neuter insect had been an animal in the ordinary state, I should have unhesitatingly assumed that all its characters had been slowly acquired through natural selection; namely, by an individual having been born with some slight profitable modification of structure, this being inherited by its offspring, which again varied and were again selected, and so onwards.
But with the working ant we have an insect differing greatly from its parents, yet absolutely sterile; so that it could never have transmitted successively acquired modifications of structure or instinct to its progeny. It may well be asked, how is it possible to reconcile this case with the theory of natural selection? 315
I have not attempted to define intelligence; but have quoted your remarks on experience, and have shown how far they apply to worms. It seems to me that they must be said to work with some intelligence, anyhow they are not guided by a blind instinct. 316
Finally, it may not be a logical deduction, but to my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting its foster-brothers,— ants making slaves, —the larvae of ichneumonidae feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars,—-not as specially endowed or created instincts, but as small consequences of one general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die. 317
But the greater number of the more complex instincts appears to have been gained in a wholly different manner, through the natural selection of variations of simpler instinctive actions.
Such variations appear to arise from the same unknown causes acting on the cerebral organization, which induce slight variations or individual differences in other parts of the body; and these variations, owing to our ignorance, are often said to arise spontaneously. We can, I think, come to no other conclusion with respect to the origin of the more complex instincts, when we reflect on the marvelous instincts of sterile worker-ants and bees, which leave no offspring to inherit the effects of experience and of modified habits. 318
. . . it seems to me wholly to rest on the assumption that instincts cannot graduate as finely as structures. I have stated in my volume that it is hardly possible to know which, i.e.,whether instinct or structure, change first by insensible steps. 319
Francis Darwin, son of Charles Darwin:
Chapter III. of the Sketch, which concludes the first part, treats of the variations which occur in the instincts and habits of animals . . . It seems to have been placed thus early in the Essay to prevent the hasty rejection of the whole theory by a reader to whom the idea of natural selection acting on instincts might seem impossible. This is the more probable, as the Chapter on Instinct in the Origin is specially mentioned (Introduction, page 5) as one of the “most apparent and gravest difficulties on the theory.”320
Gordon Rattray Taylor is an evolutionist author and Chief Science Advisor at BBC:
When we ask ourselves how any instinctive pattern of behavior arose in the first place and became hereditarily fixed, we are given no answer . . . .321
Biologists assume freely that such inheritance of specific behaviour patterns is possible, and indeed that it regularly occurs. Thus Dobzhansky roundly asserts: “All bodily structures and functions, without exception, are products of heredity realized in some sequence of environments. So are all forms of behaviour, without exception.” This simply isn’t true and it is lamentable that a man of Dobzhansky's standing should dogmatically assert it.
If in fact behaviour is heritable, what are the units of behaviour which are passed on—for presumably there are units? No one has suggested an answer. 322
Evolutionists’ Admissions About the Altruism in Living Things
Contrary to what evolutionists maintain, nature is not a battleground. Quite the opposite: Nature is full of instances of acts of altruism and rational cooperation, even at the price of the death of the individuals concerned, or their coming to harm. These countless examples of altruism, self-sacrifice and solidarity disprove evolutionists’ claims that nature is simply a battleground, with the selfish, those putting their own interests first, surviving.
 Nature is not a battleground in which only the fittest survive, as evolutionists would have us believe. On the contrary, it is filled with countless examples of altruism and of rational co-operation. Many animals even risk death, and self-sacrifice for the sake of their young or herd—which represents no advantage to the individual concerned. |
John Maynard Smith, a famous evolutionist:
Here one of the key questions has to do with altruism: How is it that natural selection can favor patterns of behavior that apparently do not favor the survival of the individual? 323
Prof. Cemal Yıldırım, a Turkish evolutionist, is Professor of Philosophy at Middle East Technical University:
Scientists of the 19th century were easily misled into adopting the thesis that nature is a battlefield, because more often than not, they were imprisoned in their studies or laboratories and generally didn't bother to acquaint themselves with nature directly. Not even a respectable scientist like Huxley could exempt himself from this error. 324
Peter Kropotkin an evolutionist author:
. . . the numberless followers of Darwin reduced the notion of struggle for existence to its narrowest limits. They came to conceive the animal world as a world of perpetual struggle among half-starved individuals, thirsting for one another's blood. . . . In fact, if we take Huxley, who certainly is considered as one of the ablest exponents of the theory of evolution, were we not taught by him, in a paper on the “Struggle for Existence and its Bearing upon Man,” that, “from the point of view of the moralist, the animal world is on about the same level as a gladiators’ show”. . . it may be remarked at once that Huxley's view of nature had as little claim to be taken as a scientific deduction. 325
From Scientific American magazine:
In spite of male baboons’ lack of genetic relationship, they do display one type of cooperative behavior. When two baboons are in some kind of contest, one of them may enlist the aid of a third baboon. The soliciting baboon asks for help with an easily recognized signal, turning its head repeatedly back and forth between its opponent and its potential assistant. 326
From Bilim ve Teknik magazine:
The question is, Why do living beings help one another? According to Darwin’s theory, every animal is fighting for its own survival and the continuation of its species. Helping other creatures would decrease its own chances of surviving, and therefore, evolution should have eliminated this type of behavior, whereas we observe that animals can indeed behave selflessly.
One classic way of accounting for self-sacrifice is maintaining that this will work to the benefit of the group or species concerned, and that communities consisting of self-sacrificing individuals will be more successful in evolution than communities made up of selfish ones. The question now made clear here, however, is how can self-sacrificing communities preserve these characteristics? The appearance of just one selfish individual in such a society will be able to hand on a higher level of selfish attributes to later generations, because that individual will fail to sacrifice itself.
Another unclarified point is that if evolution takes place on the societal level, what the dimensions of that society will be. Family? Herd/Flock? Species? Order? What would happen if the results of the evolution taking place at more than one level if these were to be incompatible with one another? 327
312 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, VI. “Difficulties of the Theory of Descent with Modification.”
313 Ibid., Chapter VIII. “Instinct, Instincts Comparable with Habits, but Different in Their Origin,” p. 184.
314 Ibid., p. 185.
315 Ibid., p. 208.
316 Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 419.
317 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 208.
318 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Chapter III, “Comparison of the Mental Powers of Man and the Lower Animals.”
319 Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, pp. 111-112.
320 Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I, p. 374.
321 Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, p. 222.
322 Ibid., p. 221.
323 John Maynard Smith, “The Evolution of Behavior,” Scientific American, December, 1978, Vol. 239, No.3, p. 176.
324 Cemal Yildirim, Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik [“The Theory of Evolution and Bigotry”], p. 49.
325 Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, 1902, Chapter I, http://www.etext.org/Politics/ Spunk/library/writers/kropotki/sp001503/ index.html
326 John Maynard Smith, “The Evolution of Behavior,” Scientific American, September 1978, Vol. 239, No. 3, p. 184.
327 Bilim ve Teknik [“Science and Technology”] Turkish Scientific Journal, No.190, p. 4.
CHAPTER 17. CONFESSIONS THAT COMPLEX ORGANS CANNOT APPEAR BY WAY
CHAPTER 17.
CONFESSIONS THAT COMPLEX ORGANS
CANNOT APPEAR BY WAY OF EVOLUTION
How could highly complex organs such as the eye, lung and wings have emerged gradually during the evolutionary process? That is one of the greatest dilemmas facing evolutionists, who leave it unanswered. These interconnected structures, one of which serves no purpose in the absence of another, cannot emerge in stages, as evolutionists claim. Organs possessing such a characteristic, known as irreducible complexity in the scientific literature, will become functionless if any one of their components is missing.
 The eye is made up around 40 essential components in the absence of any one of which the eye will fail to see at all. In order, therefore, for an eye to be able to see, it needs to form simultaneously with all these 40 organelles that make vision possible. This can come about only through creation. |
The eye, for example, consists of some 40 different organelles and will be unable to see if any one of those 40—the retina, for instance—is absent. That being so, in order for an eye to function, all these 40 organelles must all come into being, together with the other systems that make sight possible—and that can only happen by way of creation.
Contrary to what evolutionists claim, it is impossible for the eye to have formed as the result of these organelles all emerging, one by one, over millions of years. Because in the absence of just one organelle, an eye that’s unable to see will, to use an evolutionist term, become vestigial and disappear before it even fully forms. This also applies to all other complex structures. Confronted by this scientific reality, evolutionists try to prevent the issue from being raised or else, as you shall see below, feel forced into making confessions on the subject.
Darwin himself was one of the first to realize this predicament, and admitted that even thinking about the eye and other complex organs gave him a “cold shudder”:
The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations, my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder. 293
I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small 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. 294
The recur to the eye. I really think it would have been dishonest, not to have faced the difficulty. 295
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. 296
Although we must be extremely cautious in concluding that any organ could not have been produced by successive, small, transitional gradations, yet undoubtedly serious cases of difficulty occur. One of the most serious is that of neuter insects, which are often differently constructed from either the males or fertile females; but this case will be treated of in the next chapter. The electric organs of fishes offer another case of special difficulty; for it is impossible to conceive by, what steps these wondrous organs have been produced. 297
Finally then, although in many cases it is most difficult even to conjecture by what transitions organs have arrived at their present state; yet, considering how small the proportion of living and known forms is to the extinct and unknown, I have been astonished how rarely an organ can be named, towards which no transitional grade is known to lead. It certainly is true, that new organs appearing as if created for some special purpose, rarely or never appear in any being;—as indeed is shown by that old,but somewhat exaggerated, canon in natural history of “Natura non facit saltum.” [Nature does not make leaps]. 298
How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated. 299
 It is Almighty Allah Who creates the plumage of the peacock that so perplexed Darwin. |
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. . . . Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility. 300
The common feature of eyes and wings is that they can perform their functions only when they are fully developed. To put it another way, sight is impossible with a deficient eye, and flight is impossible with half a wing. How these organs appeared is still one of those secrets of nature that have not yet been fully illuminated. 301
Hoimar Von Ditfurth is a German Professor of Neurology and a well-known evolutionist science writer:
The question of how the division of a fertilized egg leads to the birth of countless cells differentiated from each other in every possible respect heads the list of those that leave scientists scratching their heads. Although conceptual frameworks capable of giving a rough analysis of what is going on have been established, the phenomenon as a whole still represents a collection of unanswerable questions. 302
Richard Dawkins is a British zoologist and one of the leading contemporary evolutionists:
Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, always gradual. But it must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes. For if it is not gradual in these cases, it ceases to have any explanatory power at all. Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle, which is simply a synonym for the total absence of explanation. 303
Prof. Russell Doolittle is Professor of Biochemistry at the University of California at San Diego:
How in the world did this complex and delicately balanced process evolve? . . . The paradox was, if each protein depended on activation by another, how could the system ever have arisen? Of what use would any part of the scheme be without the whole ensemble? 304
From a letter that Sir Charles Lyell, a renowned geologist of the mid-nineteenth century, wrote to Darwin:
Pages would be required thus to state an objection and remove it. It would be better, as you wish to persuade, to say nothing. 305
A letter to Darwin from Asa Gray, American botanist of the 19th century, and one of his best friends:
Well, that seems to me the weakest point on the book is the attempt to account for the formation of organs, the making of eyes, &c., by natural selection. Some of this reads quite Lamarckian. 306
Hoimar Von Ditfurth:
When nature found an eye socket, it was confronted by the same dilemma. This eye, which emerged as a quite unexpected step with the successive accumulation of light- sensitive cells in the front part of the body due to very different causes, must have faced the threat of instant elimination because of the way it was a functionless mechanism. Because two totally opposing demands, illumination or clarity, could not have been met in its state at that time. We know that the eye overcame this dilemma by using a lens. Because no matter how large the aperture, no matter how much light enters the chamber, the lens still provides images with no lack of clarity by performing “net focusing.” But is the universe a physicist? Because only physicists know how the lens will overcome this difficulty, and we who read their words. 307
 Frank Salisbury |
Frank B. Salisbury is Professor and Head of the Department of Plant Science at Utah State University:
Even something as complex as the eye has appeared several times; for example, in the squid, the vertebrates, and the arthropods. It’s bad enough accounting for the origin of such things once, but the thought of producing them several times according to the modern synthetic theory makes my head swim. 308
Professor Ali Demirsoy is a biologist at Hacettepe University and specializes in zoogeography:
It is rather hard to reply to a third objection. How was it possible for a complicated organ to come about suddenly even though it brought benefits with it? For instance, how did the lens, retina, optic nerve, and all the other parts in vertebrates that play a role in seeing suddenly come about? Because natural selection cannot choose separately between the visual nerve and the retina. The emergence of the lens has no meaning in the absence of a retina. The simultaneous development of all the structures for sight is unavoidable. Since parts that develop separately cannot be used, they will all be meaningless, and also perhaps disappear with time. At the same time, their development all together requires the coming together of unimaginably small probabilities. 309
Prof. Cemal Yıldırım, a Turkish evolutionist, is Professor of Philosophy at Middle East Technical University:
In order to see, there is a need for a large number of mechanisms to cooperate: we may speak of links between the eye and its internal mechanisms and between the eye and the special center in the brain. How did this complex structure come about?
According to biologists, during the process of evolution the first step in the formation of the eye was taken with the formation of a small, light-sensitive region in the skins of certain primitive creatures. However, what evolutionary advantage could such a small occurrence bestow on an organism all by itself? Together with that region, a nerve network connecting it to a visual center in the brain would also need to be constructed.
Unless these rather complex mechanisms are linked together, we cannot expect the phenomenon we know as “sight” to emerge. Darwin believed that variations emerged at random. If that were so, would it not be a mysterious puzzle how the great number of variations necessary for sight all came together and cooperated at the same time in various different parts of the organism's body? . . . The fact is that a string of complementary changes—all of which must work together—are necessary for sight. . . . .
Some mollusks' eyes have retina, cornea, and a lens just like ours. How can we account for this construction in two species on such very different evolutionary levels solely in terms of natural selection? . . . It is a matter for debate whether Darwinists can supply a satisfactory answer to that question. . . .310
Ernst Mayr is one of the 20th century's leading evolutionary biologists:
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. 311
293 Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 67.
294 Ibid., p. 90.
295 Ibid., p. 84.
296 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter VI. “Difficulties of the Theory.”
297 Ibid.
298 Ibid.
299 Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, New York: New York University Press, p. 151.
300 Ibid., p. 198.
301 Engin Korur, “Gozlerin ve Kanatlarin Sirri” [“The Secret of Eyes and Wings”], Bilim ve Teknik, No. 203, October 1984, p. 25.
302 Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorların Sessiz Gecesi 2 [“The Silent Nights of the Dinosaurs 2”], p. 126.
303 Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, New York: Basic Books, 1995, p. 83.
304 Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, Free Press; 2nd Rev. Ed edition (March 7, 2006), p. 91.
305 Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 3.
306 Ibid., p. 66.
307 Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorların Sessiz Gecesi 3, [“The Silent Nights of the Dinosaurs 3”], p. 165.
308 Frank Salisbury, “Doubts About the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 338.
309 Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim [“Inheritance and Evolution”], p. 475.
310 Cemal Yildirim, Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik [“The Theory of Evolution and Bigotry”], pp. 58-59.
311 Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species, New York: Dove Press, 1964, p. 296.