THE LATEST VERSION OF BASELESS EVOLUTIONIST SCENARIOS IN SCIENTI

THE LATEST VERSION OF BASELESS EVOLUTIONIST SCENARIOS IN SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: NUTRITION

In the December 2002 edition of Scientific American magazine, an article under the headline "Food for Thought," by William R. Leonard, appeared which spoke of man's being a so-called evolved species of animal and attempted to form a link between his nutritional needs and traditions, on the one hand, and evolution, on the other. By means of this article, which was based solely on the speculation of evolutionist scientists and offered no scientific evidence whatsoever, it was suggested that man is a species of animal that has come about by chance.

This article in Scientific American contains deceptions ill-befitting a serious scientific journal. When we look at the kind of exposition prevailing in the article and the pictures offered alongside the text, the fantastical style employed is striking. In one of the pictures, an ape-man and his family are depicted moving through an area covered in trees. Despite their hairy bodies, the figures are portrayed as having a human posture and appearance, although this is nothing more than a work of imagination. Scientific American is employing a familiar tactic of evolutionist propaganda: filling the gaps left by lack of evidence with pictures.

The article claims that by studying the methods employed by living things to find and use energy we can understand how the evolutionary changes of natural selection came about. It then moves on to such elements of the imaginary evolutionist scenario as the transition to bipedalism, the increasing growth in the size of the brain, and Homo erectus' departure from Africa once he had completed his evolution.

What people need to be aware of is that, contrary to what is maintained in this article, natural selection has no evolutionary effect. This matter has already been explained in detail in the works of Harun Yahya, so we shall not repeat ourselves here. (See Harun Yahya, The Evolution Deceit, Darwinism Refuted, The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution in 20 Questions, at www.harunyahya.com)

The Claim That Nutrition Played an Evolutionary Role is Fictitious

The claim is put forward in the Scientific American article that "our ancestors'" progress in increasing the energy obtained from food and raising its nutritional quality was one of the main features in mankind's evolution and splitting away from the other primates. Yet from the scientific point of view, this claim is totally without foundation. Better-nourished living things may have stronger bodies, and may be healthier and live longer. However, improved nutrition cannot cause them to turn into another species.

That is because there is no connection between nutrition and man's genetic make-up. In order for a "speciation event" to happen, the genetic structure needs to change to a considerable extent and to be redesigned. Such a thing has never, ever been observed in nature, and nutrition cannot affect genetic structure.

We can see this for ourselves: A cheetah community living in an area where prey is plentiful, and which therefore has no need to compete with other predators, may grow stronger because it consumes more meat. Yet it is impossible for these cheetahs to evolve into lions. That is because cheetah DNA and lion DNA are different, and there is no relation between food intake and DNA structure. DNA base pairs are set out in strings in a particular sequence in all living species. That specific sequence gives rise to the living thing's genetic code, which is handed down unchanged from generation to generation. It is therefore impossible for nutrition to have played any role in mankind's so-called evolution. Claiming that nutrition can influence genetics and bring about "evolution" is no less of a superstition than Lamarck's thesis of "the inheritance of acquired traits."

The Transition to Bipedalism is an Imaginary Scenario

The article describes how apes' quadrupedal locomotion supposedly gradually changed into bipedal locomotion, and then considers the conditions that might have caused this so-called change. The best-known of the Australopithecus fossils that were put forward as the first species capable of upright walking were found in 1974 in a 40%-complete skeleton. This was the famous Australopithecus afarensis fossil, known as "Lucy." By looking at some of these bones, evolutionists claim that this species walked on two legs, for which reason it must have been the ancestor of man. The fact is, however, that much research into Australopithecus has revealed that it was a species of ape which did not walk in the same way as man at all:

Lucy, from Ethiopia, is the most complete skeleton of Australopithecus discovered so far. By looking at some of these bones unearthed, evolutionists claimed that Australopithecus walked on two legs, for which reason it must have been the ancestor of man. Based on this claim, they produced many drawings falsely presenting Australopithecus as an intermediate species between ape and man. The fact is, however, that much research into Australopithecus has revealed that it was a species of ape which did not walk in the same way as man at all.

1. Despite being a supporter of the theory of evolution, Lord Zuckerman arrived at the conclusion that Australopithecus was an ordinary species of ape, one that very definitely did not walk erect.1

2. Another evolutionist anatomist, Charles E. Oxnard, well-known for his studies in this area, arrived at the conclusion that the Australopithecus skeleton resembles those of present-day orangutans.2

3. In 1994, Fred Spoor of Liverpool University and his team carried out a wide-ranging study to arrive at a definitive conclusion regarding the Australopithecus skeleton. The study was based upon an organ known as the "cochlea," which determines the position of the skeleton relative to the ground. Spoor's conclusion was that Australopithecus' mode of walking did not resemble that of man.3

4. In 2000, a study by the scientists B.G. Richmond and D.S. Strait published in the journal Nature, looked at Australopithecus' forearms. Comparative anatomical analyses showed that the species had just the same forearm anatomy as modern apes that walk on all four legs.4

These researches reveal that Australopithecus, which evolutionists put forward as an intermediate species, is actually an extinct species of ape.

Chimpanzees Which Walk on Two Legs Invalidate the Evolutionists' Claims

As well as this research into Australopithecus, there is another discovery which has overturned the claim that walking on two legs was an evolutionary phase. Certain apes in our own time are capable of walking upright. According to a study by Dr. Robin Crompton of Liverpool University, published in The Scotsman under the title "Chimps on two legs run through Darwin's theory," chimpanzees living in the Bwindi region of Uganda also possess the ability to stand on two legs. The article states that this opposes the evolutionists' assumptions:

This means that the accepted idea of apes on the ground gradually evolving to an upright stance from a crouched position is wrong.5

Bipedalism and Other Humanoid Characteristics: A Morass of Prejudice and Speculation

Scientific American contains considerable speculation regarding the advantages that an adaptation such as walking on two legs might have brought with it. Yet, for some reason, this claim consists of speculation rather than hard evidence. The paleontologist Pat Shipman has this to say on the matter in a paper published in the journal American Scientist:

There is no shortage of ideas about the essential nature of the human species and the basic adaptations of our kind. Some say hominids are fundamentally thinkers; others favor tool-makers or talkers; still others argue that hunting, scavenging or bipedal walking made hominids special. Knowing what the First Hominid looked like would add some meat to a soup flavored with speculation and prejudice.6

A Deceptive Illustration

In one of the photographs published by Scientific American, skulls belonging to Homo erectus and the species Australopithecus boisei are compared. The anatomical differences between the two are then put down to nutritional habits.

The Australopithecus boisei skull shown on the left of the picture can clearly be seen to bear a close similarity to present-day chimpanzee skulls. The sagittal crest, which holds the former's powerful chewing muscles, and is alleged to have evolved from eating tough, fibrous plants, is also found in modern apes. The fossil shown as Homo erectus is actually human, and it is therefore natural that it should not possess a sagittal crest and a powerful jaw structure. What has been done here is to put two skulls, one ape and one human, side by side and then engage in pro-evolutionist speculation on the basis of the differences between them. Those who lack sufficient information in this area may well be taken in by these claims made by evolutionists on the basis of no other authority than their academic positions and careers.

The fossil order and the scenarios regarding the transition to bipedalism that appeared in Scientific American are totally fictitious. Modern scientific discoveries are piling blow on blow on Darwinism. That is why scenarios regarding the evolution of man are no longer tenable. This article in Scientific American is nothing more than a new version, decorated with new illustrations, of the outdated claims designed to keep the theory of evolution on its feet.

1 - Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, New York: Toplinger Publications, 1970, p. 75-94
2- Charles E. Oxnard, "The Place of Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt," Nature, vol. 258, p. 389
3- Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood, Frans Zonneveld, "Implication of Early Hominid Labryntine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion," Nature, vol. 369, June 23, 1994, pp. 645-648..
4- Richmond, B.G. and Strait, D.S., "Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor," Nature 404(6776): 382, 2000
5- Richard Sadler, "Chimps on Two Legs Run Through Darwin's Theory," The Scotsman, September 13, 2002
6- "Hunting the First Hominid," Pat Shipman, American Scientist, January-February 2002, p. 25

NEW FOSSIL FISH DISCOVERIES POSE A NEW DILEMMA FOR THE THEORY OF

NEW FOSSIL FISH DISCOVERIES POSE A NEW DILEMMA FOR THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

The February 21, 2003, edition of the journal Science carried an article called "Separate evolutionary origins of teeth from evidence in fossil jawed vertebrates." Based on studies of a number of fish fossils from the Devonian Period, it was suggested in the article that teeth may have evolved at least twice. The aim of this paper is to set out the inconsistent aspects of this claim.

Written by craniofacial development researcher Moya Meredith Smith and paleontologist Zerina Johanson, the article begins by considering the origin of the fish known as placoderms according to the theory of evolution. Placodermi is the name of a class of jawed fish that disappeared during the Devonian Period (between 408 and 360 million years ago). This class is regarded in the imaginary evolutionary family tree as the ancestor of all jawed vertebrates. In the current evolutionist literature, it is considered that these fish had no teeth, and that teeth only evolved after the jaw, and thus in the vertebrates which came after the placoderms. However, in the Science article Smith and Johanson state that they have encountered a situation, which changes this. The researchers go on to say that they have encountered real teeth containing dentine in certain fossils belonging to some groups of the arthrodira family of the order placodermi (Eastmanosteus, Gogopiscis gracilis, Compagopiscis croucheri). This represents a new dilemma for the theory of evolution, because it appears that an organ as complex as the tooth emerged in a period far older than evolutionists had hitherto believed. This, in turn, leaves evolutionists a far narrower period of time in which to engage in speculation regarding the so-called evolution of teeth, and thus represents an enormous quandary for the theory itself.

Everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him. Everything is obedient to Him. (Qur'an, 2:116)

Another problem this new finding represents for the theory of evolution is that evolutionists are now obliged to maintain that teeth evolved not once, but two separate times. In their Science article, Smith and Johanson claim that teeth might have originated three or more times among jawed vertebrates. This reveals that evolutionists, who in any case support a totally indefensible scenario (namely,the illogical claim that a complex design such as that in teeth could be the work of chance mutations), are now obliged to propose that this scenario actually took place many times.

Let us also recall here that evolutionists already face an insuperable dilemma when it comes to the origin of fish: It has been calculated that the fossil fish Haikouichthys ercaicunensis and Myllokunmingia fengjiaoa found in China in 1999 are some 530 million years old. That figure takes us back to the exact middle of the Cambrian Period, when just about all the known animal phyla emerged. The fact that the origins of fish stretch this far back-this discovery pushes their origins back by some 50 million years-demonstrates that fish emerged at the same time as the invertebrate sea creatures that are supposed to have been their ancestors, which in turn deals a lethal blow to the evolutionary "family tree."

In short, the fossil research on the origin of fish represents an insuperable problem for the theory of evolution. The evidence continues to clearly show that the origin of fish and all other living things is not evolution, but creation.

THE EVOLUTIONISTS ARE STILL STRUGGLING WITH THE SAME DILEMMA: TH

THE EVOLUTIONISTS ARE STILL STRUGGLING WITH THE SAME DILEMMA: THE ORIGIN OF FLIGHT

The dino-bird myth once again entered the agenda in an article titled "Wing Assisted Incline Running and the Origin of Flight" in the January 17, 2003, edition of the journal Science. A biologist by the name of Kenneth P. Dial, from the University of Montana, offered a new interpretation of the theory that dinosaurs evolved into birds. His claim was widely reported in the world press, although he offered not one concrete, scientific piece of evidence to support the thesis that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Dial's claim came nowhere near accounting for the complex design in birds, and did not go beyond providing a new story for the dino-bird myth.

This article will reveal the scientific deceptions in Kenneth Dial's evolutionist claims by describing the fossil discoveries and the complex design upon which flight is based.

Dial's Research

The evolutionists claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs has no scientific basis to it. Evolutionists ignore this fact, however, and try to keep their claims alive by means of speculative reports.

Dial's claim rests on certain observations of the Alectoris chukar species of partridge. One feature of these birds is that they prefer to run up a steep incline or tree trunk rather than fly. As they run, they also flap their wings to gain speed. This short-distance running was given the name Wing-Assisted Incline Running (WAIR).

During WAIR, as the partridges run up the slope, they both use their feet and flap their wings, thus reducing the effect of gravity. Their feet are designed in such a way as to cling to the ground, and their wings function like the ailerons on a racing car. As a result of Dial's research, he observed that chicks possessed almost the same WAIR ability as adult birds. He described how within four days of hatching birds were able to climb up 45 degree inclines in this manner, and that their still-growing wings had an aerodynamic effect during this sprint.

A number of experiments were conducted on these developing wings, and Dial saw that the aerodynamic effect on wings with shortened feathers decreased. Birds with trimmed feathers were unable to climb as well as birds whose feathers had not been trimmed.

Dial, an evolutionist, maintains that the origin of birds goes back to dinosaurs of the theropod subgroup. He favors the idea that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds and tries to place his observations of the partridge uphill sprint somewhere into the illusory dino-bird evolution. According to the scenario he came up with, dinosaurs trying to escape from predators flapped their forearms when running on inclines in order to gain speed, and these forearms thus gradually turned into wings. This scenario is totally devoid of any scientific foundation, although he sought to use it as evidence for the imaginary transition from dinosaur to bird.

It is clear that Dial's claim rests on nothing more than imagination. Showing that he was able to reduce the aerodynamic properties of birds' feathers by shortening them brings with it absolutely no scientific explanation of the way that dinosaurs allegedly came to be able to fly. This is nothing but trickery of the kind put forward by many other evolutionists seeking to instill the imaginary dino-bird model in people's minds.

The fact that such a claim was made by a scientist and published in a scientific journal might deceive some people into thinking that such stories possess some kind of scientific basis. The fact is, however, that scientific research actually disproves the dino-bird theory, for which no evidence has ever been forthcoming. Scientific findings in the fields of paleontology, developmental biology, physiology, and anatomy in particular clearly reveal that Dial's claim is nothing more than a fantasy. In addition, a number of advances in the technological arena show that flight and flying creatures have been specially designed. This fact eliminates the evolutionists' groundless and invalid claims that living things evolved as the result of a series of coincidences.

Paleontology

Darwinists hold that some small dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors or Dromaeosaurs, evolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archaeopteryx is assumed to be a transitional form that branched off from its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for the first time. However, the latest studies of Archaeopteryx fossils indicate that it is absolutely not a transitional form, but an extinct species of bird, having some insignificant differences from modern birds.

The defenders of the dino-bird theory regard the theropods, a small, carnivorous species of dinosaur, as the ancestor of the birds. Evolutionists particularly stress a certain fossil species of this type found in the Liaoning region of China in this connection. However, they ignore one important truth: At a time when there were still no theropod dinosaurs, which they suggest were the ancestors of birds, birds capable of normal flight were already in existence on the earth. Archaeopteryx, an ancient species of bird that lived 150 million years ago, is millions of years older than the theropod species of dinosaurs. Despite being an evolutionist, the well-known ornithologist Dr. Alan Feduccia is known for his recognition of the scientific dilemma facing the dino-bird theory. Feduccia has stated that Archaeopteryx represents an "insurmountable problem" from the point of view of evolution:

There are insurmountable problems with that theory… Beyond what we have just reported, there is the time problem in that superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old.1

The fact that a creature should have emerged 25 million years before its ancestor is an inexplicable situation from the Darwinists' point of view. The existence of the Archaeopteryx fossil alone is sufficient to invalidate the dino-bird theory. Discoveries in the field of developmental biology, which studies the development of living things, also point to the invalidity of the dino-bird theory.

Despite being an evolutionist himself, Alan Feduccia opposes the thesis that birds evolved from dinosaurs. By studying the development of the pentadactyl forelimbs of ostrich embryos in the egg he once again revealed the impossibility of the evolutionists' claims.

Developmental Biology

The latest research by Dr. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill studied the development of ostrich eggs. Feduccia compared the hand digits in ostrich embryos with those of dinosaurs of the theropod species, and revealed that birds and theropods had a different thumb order. The following discussion of this research appeared on the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS):

"Whatever the ancestor of birds was, it must have had five fingers, not the three-fingered hand of theropod dinosaurs," Feduccia said. Scientists agree that dinosaurs developed 'hands' with digits one, two and three… "Our studies of ostrich embryos, however, showed conclusively that in birds, only digits two, three and four, which correspond to the human index, middle and ring fingers, develop, and we have pictures to prove it," said Feduccia, professor and former chair of biology at UNC. "This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible." …2

Another well-known bird expert who opposes the dino-bird theory is Larry Martin of Kansas University, who states that the theory has no consistent, defensible element at all:

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.3

Physiology

BREATHING Up to a fifth of a bird's body volume is taken up by air sacs which are connected to the lungs. The air sacs even extend into the wing bones. Thanks to special air sacs all along the passages betwen them, air always flows in one direction through the avian lung. In this way, birds are able to take in air nonstop. This satisfies their high energy requirements. The avian respiratory system is a marvel of design, specially created to meet the bird's need for high levels of oxygen during flight.

Dinosaurs are members of the reptile family. When birds and reptiles are examined it can be seen that their physiologies are very different. First and foremost, birds are warm-blooded and reptiles cold-blooded. The cold-blooded reptile metabolism works slowly. Birds, on the other hand, consume a great deal of energy in a tiring activity such as flying. Their metabolisms are much faster than those of reptiles. Birds have to carry oxygen to their cells very quickly, which is why they are equipped with a special respiratory system. Air travels in only one direction in their lungs, thus not delaying the organism's supply of oxygen. In reptiles, on the other hand, the air taken into the body leaves it by the same channels. Unidirectional flow is found only in the bird lung, and is a unique design. It is impossible for such a complex structure to have come about in stages. That is because this unidirectional flow system and the lung itself need to exist in perfect form at all times in order for the creature to survive. Michael Denton, a biologist known for his criticisms of Darwinism, has this to say on the subject:

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.4

Anatomy

When bird feathers are studied closely, a very delicate design emerges. To claim that the complex design in feathers could have come about by the evolution of reptile scales is quite simply a dogmatic belief with no scientific foundation.

Birds possess a special anatomy that allows them to fly. The bones play an important role from the point of view of flight. They need to be both strong and light. Bird bones are hollow, but strong enough to hold the skeleton together. Yet, in reptiles the bones are heavy, and not hollow.

Dr. Feduccia has said the following about the anatomical differences between birds and dinosaurs:

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.5

As well as their bones, birds' wings also possess a special design not found in any other living thing. As well as their light bones, their feathers also play an important role in the aerodynamic properties of the wing. Dr. Andy McIntosh, a professor in Combustion Theory at Leeds University, UK and an aerodynamicist, described the superior design in feathers during an interview:

Bird flight in particular is remarkable; consider feathers. If you look at a feather under a microscope, you see the main stem, with barbs coming out to the left and right, and from these you have left-and right-handed barbules. Now the interesting bit is that the left-handed ones have hooks, and the right-handed ones have ridges... The feather is made such that if you bend it, everything bends with it, and yet it's a very light structure. So the hooks catch the ridges and they slide over the ridges-it's a mechanical engineer's dream to have such useful, lightweight engineering. But if you have a sliding joint, you need lubrication. To do this the bird twists its neck around 180o and dips its beak into a tiny oil gland right down at the back of its spine. It then preens itself, wiping this oil all over its feathers, so that they join together nicely, and these sliding joints are oiled. That's a marvellous bit of engineering.6

Dr. McIntosh finds the idea unscientific that feathers with such a superior design have evolved and not been created by an intelligent design:

I have seen a photo in a book, of an aircraft landing at Hong Kong and underneath it is a falcon landing at the same time. Now as you look at birds and planes together, are you going to say that one is designed and the other isn't? I would find that scientifically preposterous.7

The Irreducible Complexity in Birds' Wings Refutes Gradual Evolution

All these scientific facts invalidate the dino-bird evolution scenario. When the complex design in the bird wing is considered, it once again emerges that it is impossible to account for flight in terms of random evolution. The most important fact demonstrating this is the irreducible complexity in this perfect design. Accepting the hypothesis of the evolution of flight means accepting that wings were inadequate at certain stages. Yet an inadequate "wing" is inadequate for flight at all. In order for flight to take place, the creature's wings need to be flawless and fully formed. TheTurkish evolutionist biologist Engin Korur makes the following admission on this point:

The common feature of eyes and wings is that they can only perform their functions if they are developed as an entire entity. To put it another way, a creature cannot see with a deficient eye, nor fly with half a wing. How these organs came about remains a still unexplained secret.8

NON-STOP FLIGHT The swift's long, curved wings enable it to fly continuously at an average speed of about 40 kph (25 mph) SWIFT FLIGHT The swift alternates fast wingbeats with short glides. SPEED IN BURSTS The kingfisher's fast but short flight is achieved on stubby triangular wings. This wing shape helps the bird to take off from the water after a dive. KINGFISHER FLIGHT Whirring wingbeats carry the kingfisher between perches. It can brake in mid-air to dive for fish. PEREGRINE FLIGHT The peregrine falcon divers with its wings partially folded. This method of catching prey is known as "stooping". SPEED RECORD HOLDER The peregrine falcon is the world's fastest bird. Although its speed is often exaggerated, it can probably dive at a breath-taking 280 kph (175 mph) in pursuit of other birds. As it dives, it slashes its victim with its talons, knocking it to the ground with the force of the impact.

Kenneth Dial's thesis that WAIR accounts for the evolution of the wing is invalid in the face of these facts. According to his imaginary scenario, dinosaurs' arms would prove inadequate in several stages of this so-called evolution, and flight could not happen. To believe that a bird developed in stages means accepting that all the complex structures and systems described above-the design of the unidirectional flow of air in the lungs, hollow bones, the hooks and barbs on the feathers, the light but flexible structure, the bird's warm-blooded metabolism, and many other details indicative of a perfect design-also came about in stages. It is of course impossible for any creature in which these organs and systems were in any way lacking to have survived at all.

The Perfect Flight Systems and Technology in Living Things

SPECIALIZED BONE STRUCTURE OF THE BIRDS Unlike dinosaur and reptile bones, bird bones are hollow. This gives the body stability and lightness.

UNIQUE FLYING TECHNIQUES OF THE BIRDS The size and shape of each bird are created in a way to enable them to hunt and fly in the easiest way possible. Unique wing shapes of birds are perfect examples of God's immaculate creation.

It is impossible to account for the design in birds and the flight motion dependent on that design in terms of evolution. Flight possesses the most complex aerodynamic properties, both in birds and in insects. The control of flight in birds and insects requires a nervous system capable of flawlessly controlling the creature's muscles. In this system, known as neuromuscular control, the nerve cells are in constant communication with the muscle cells. After contracting with the instructions received from the nerve cells, the muscles send back a signal reporting their contracted state. When a bird rises, glides, or descends, this system is ready to provide the necessary aerodynamics.

The perfect flight systems in birds and insects is a source of inspiration for engineers, who try to create the most productive designs with the best materials for the lowest cost, and who have begun to imitate this superior design in nature. For instance:

Like bird bones, the interiors of airplane wings are hollow. There are long, thin supports between the internal faces of the bone in order to maintain resistance. In flight engineering, similar struts inside the wing serve the purpose of a skeleton in the face of sudden and severe air currents. Known as the "Warren's truss," it has been copied from birds.9

The flaps on the plane wing used to control the plane's attitude have been set out to imitate the movement of the bird's wings as it comes in to land.

Birds' skeletal structure is employed in designing airplanes, bridges and modern structures.

The shape of the nose in birds and planes is such as to reduce air resistance.

The ability of modern-day planes to make sudden maneuvers in the air is much less than that of birds. The understanding of the aerodynamic systems of birds in flight is of the first importance in the production of more maneuverable planes. That is in fact the reason for the funding received for Kenneth Dial's study described above. William Zamer of the American National Science Committee, which funded the research, says, "The results may also one day help humans design better vehicles for both land and air travel."10 This reveals just how superior the aerodynamic control ability in partridges is.

The flight system of the dragonfly, which is a wonder of design, inspired many scientists to make use of its workings in aeronautics.

Despite being much smaller than birds, insects have also fascinated those engineers who have studied the way they fly. For example, a fly can flap its wings an average of 500 times a second, and can instantaneously change direction. The superior design in the dragonfly, which can remain suspended in the air or suddenly change direction at high speed, was imitated in the design of the American Sikorsky helicopter.

Engineers trying to imitate insect flight encounter a major difficulty here. Fly wings rotate in the air in a figure-eight pattern. The surface of the wing points upwards in the first half of the rotation and down in the second half. In order to imitate this, jointed rotating wings would need to be mounted on a plane. Even harder than that is the computer system to allow such wings to move rapidly and in a controlled manner. The construction of such a system is beyond our wildest dreams with the current level of our technology. The greatest dream of engineers imitating insect flight is to be able to create robot insects whose flight can be controlled in narrow corridors and rooms. Experts working in high technology institutes in America state that in terms of imitating insect flight they regard themselves as being at the level of the Wright brothers in 1903.11

Conclusion: Flight is a Complex Motion God has Created

The fact that scientific discoveries have invalidated the evolutionist scenarios of flight, the existence of irreducibly complex systems in flying organisms, and finally the fact that the design in these creatures is in many ways far above the level of technology reached by man, all unquestionably prove that flight came about not by chance but by conscious creation. The fact that evolutionary scenarios are still stubbornly kept on the agenda is nothing else than a despairing effort by those who refuse to accept the truth of creation and who are blindly devoted to Darwinism.

Not one evolutionary scenario put forward by Darwinists has any scientific foundation or constitutes a true scientific explanation, and in fact scientific findings place evolution in an impasse. All scientific discoveries clearly show that flight was specially created. This superior creation is the work of God. The fact that the flight of a fly cannot be copied technologically is in one of His verses:

Mankind! An example has been made, so listen to it carefully. Those whom you call upon besides God are not even able to create a single fly, even if they were to join together to do it. And if a fly steals something from them, they cannot get it back. How feeble are both the seeker and the sought! (Qur'an, 22: 73)

1 - David Williamson, "Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird 'Hands' Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs," EurekAlert, 14-Aug-2002, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-08/uonc-sso081402.php
2- David Williamson, "Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird 'Hands' Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs," EurekAlert, 14-Aug-2002, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-08/uonc-sso081402.php
3- Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist, February 1, 1997, p. 28.
4- Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny, Free Press, New York, 1998, p. 361.
5- Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Dinosaurs?," New Scientist, February 1, 1997, p. 28
6- "Flying High," An interview with Dr. Andy McIntosh, http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v20n2_mcintosh.asp
7- Ibid.
8- Engin Korur, "The Secret of Eyes and Wings," Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), October 1984, No: 203, p. 25.
9- "Flying High," An interview with Dr. Andy McIntosh, http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v20n2_mcintosh.asp
10 - "Study: Frantic Flapping May Have Led to Flight," ABCNews, January 16, 2003, http://abcnews.go.com/wire/SciTech/reuters20030116_443.html
11- "Robotic Insect Takes to the Air," Dr.Chris Riley, BBCNews, April 11, 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1270306.stm

EVOLUTIONIST DECEPTIONS CONTINUE WITH THE ARTHROPODS IN THE SHAP

EVOLUTIONIST DECEPTIONS CONTINUE WITH THE ARTHROPODS IN THE SHAPE OF LIFE DOCUMENTARY

The "Conquerors" episode of the documentary The Shape of Life dealt with the arthropods, suggesting that these creatures made the transition from sea to land, and afterwards formed a separate taxonomic category by developing wings and beginning to fly. Evolutionist scenarios that have been disproved countless times by scientific research and discoveries were repeated to the accompaniment of new images, with no evidence put forward to back them up. This article reveals the evolutionist propaganda that took place in this documentary, and briefly sets out the dilemma that the arthropods represent for evolution.

The Evolutionists' Cambrian Difficulties

The beginning of the film deals with living things which lived around 500 million years ago. This period, known as the Cambrian Age, was when organisms possessed of complex physical structures suddenly emerged. These are the "phyla," the most fundamental category of living creatures. In a most interesting way, nearly all the phyla that have existed on the earth emerged during the Cambrian period. Only a few phyla have been identified from before this period, whereas it has been estimated from the fossil record that the number of phyla appearing in the Cambrian was close to 100. The enormous jump in the variety of life at this time was so great that it is known in the scientific literature as the "Cambrian Explosion."

Richard Monastersky, a staff writer at Science News magazine , a popular evolutionist publication, provides the following information on the Cambrian Explosion:

A half-billion years ago, . . . the remarkably complex forms of animals that we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of the Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures.1

The same article also quotes Jan Bergström, a paleontologist who studies the early Cambrian deposits in Chengjiang, China, as saying, "The Chengyiang fauna demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today.2

No organism has ever been found that the evolutionists might possibly put forward as an "ancestor" of the living things that emerged in the Cambrian Explosion. The creatures of the Cambrian period emerged suddenly, and with flawless structures. This naturally demonstrates that creation was at the root of the Cambrian Explosion. The British zoologist Richard Dawkins, one of the most prominent defenders of Darwinism in the world, makes the following admission regarding the living things of the Cambrian:

For example the Cambrian strata of rocks . . . 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.3

Another aspect of the Cambrian period that totally undermines evolution is the fact that the number of phyla existing today is far fewer than the number that emerged during the "explosion." According to the theory of evolution, there should have been an increase over time in the number of categories of living things. Yet from the fossil record the situation is the exact opposite.

One of the world's most prominent critics of Darwinism is University of California Berkeley professor Phillip E. Johnson, who openly states the contradiction with Darwinism revealed by this situation in the following words:

Darwinian theory predicts a "cone of increasing diversity," as the first living organism, or first animal species, gradually and continually diversified to create the higher levels of taxonomic order. The animal fossil record more resembles such a cone turned upside down, with the phyla present at the start and thereafter decreasing.4

Not one word about this is mentioned in the documentary. There can be only one reason why a film that deals with how living things emerged on earth and then spread should ignore this huge explosion in the number of phyla and variety of living things. This explosion in the Cambrian Period definitively reveals that life came about not by chance but all of a sudden and in perfect form-in other words that it was created. The makers of the documentary deliberately avoided touching on the subject.

The Evolutionists' Major Deception Regarding Antennae and the Eye

Trilobites were among the first known animals with efficient eyes. These had many crystal lenses fixed at different angles to register movement and light from different directions. This 530-million-year-old compound eye structure is an "optical marvel" which worked with a double lens system. This fact totally invalidates Darwinism's assumption that complex eyes evolved from "primitive" eyes.

Each and every one of the dead-ends facing the theory of evolution is ignored in the documentary. When the film, which looks at natural history from an evolutionist perspective, speaks of the arthropods, it resorts to totally fictitious Darwinist scenarios to account for the perfectly designed organs in these animals' bodies.

One of these organs is the arthropod antennae, which work together with a complex nervous system. For instance, the 15-30-cm-long antennae of lobsters are organs that can perform special scanning motions in the water and are equipped with sensitive tiny hairs capable of trapping chemicals. The claim put forward to account for the origin of such a complex organ is very far from explaining this multi-faceted design: "To help guide them through their world, arthropods developed a package of on-board sensors; appendages like antennas."

It is true that the arthropods' antennae make their lives easier. It is also true that there is a purpose behind their design. Yet, it is impossible for an arthropod, lacking all powers of reason, to have adopted an aim for itself and to have designed and developed a pair of antennae in the light of that aim. In the same way that we human beings do not "develop" eyes for ourselves but find them ready when we are born, so the arthropods did not develop their antennae but found them ready at their birth. That is because both eyes and antennae, and all other organs, were created. The PBS makes no mention of this fact, preferring instead the nonsensical claim that the animals developed their organs for themselves.

Another organ based on evolution according to the documentary, although no consistent evidence is given for its origin, is the eye. The eye contains light-sensitive cells that are found in no other organ of the body. The job of these cells is to transform light into electrical energy and to forward this to the brain. The eye also contains a lens system for focusing light.

The trilobite, an arthropod from the Cambrian Period, has an eye whose design gives Darwinism a particularly serious blow. The compound eye design in these creatures is some 530 million years old, and just as perfect as visual systems from our own time. Some modern insects, such as bees and dragonflies, possess a very similar system.5 The fact that a system which functions flawlessly in our own time also existed in a nearly identical form 530 million years ago totally undermines the Darwinist hypothesis of evolution from the simple to the complex.

Among His signs is the creation of the heavens and earth and all the creatures He has spread about in them. And He has the power to gather them together whenever He wills. (Qur'an, 42:29)

Moreover, the complex design in the eye also includes the feature of irreducibility. In order for the lens and the light-sensitive cells, as well as great many other organs, to do their jobs successfully, they need to exist in that precise form at the very same moment. According to evolution's own logic the eye will not work if just one of these elements is missing, and will thus atrophy and disappear. In short, the claims of Darwinism are in contradiction with each other.

Yet, it is an evident truth that the design in the eye was intelligently created. The program attempts to cover up the fact that the origin of the eye is one of the greatest dilemmas facing Darwinism, and basically glosses over the matter by saying that the arthropods developed eyes with precise and complex structures to enable them to perceive images.

If somebody one day told you "Computers made fast CPUs for themselves in order to function better," you would think that claim was a very odd and nonsensical one. Computers cannot develop their own systems; only computer engineers can do that. The same thing applies to living things. Living things cannot provide themselves with brand new features. That is only possible by intelligent design. The only reason why this intelligent design is being ignored is the Darwinist theory and materialist philosophy to which those who ignore the concept of intelligent design are so blindly devoted (as well as the atheism that underpins both).

The method employed to cover up such matters with regard to the eye and antennae emerges when it comes to extensions such as pincers, with their own particular design. The documentary proposes that with a small evolutionary leap, legs can turn into pincers capable of gripping. This is a truly ridiculous claim. The designs in the leg and pincer are encoded in the creature's DNA. Different DNA sequences are needed for the leg and pincer. Furthermore, both sequences are based on information. It is impossible for this alleged change to have come about by mutations, which evolutionists try to portray as the basis of evolution. Mutations cause damaging effects in an organism, or at best have no effect at all. It is not possible for a random mutation to add to DNA the necessary information for a leg and so regulate the system. Indeed, such a change has never been observed.

In fact, the documentary is filled with such evolutionist fairy tales from beginning to end. This statement is particularly striking from the point of view of revealing the deceptive style that dominates the film: "The basic arthropod body plan, with segments and legs, packs an incredible potential to adapt and evolve."

This, as we have made clear above, is the equivalent of saying that computers possess an unbelievable evolutionary ability. The only fact underlying this nonsense is the prejudice of the filmmakers in the face of that truth that all living things were created.

The Evolutionists' Spider Web Deception

Three-dimensional webs have a much more complicated structure than two-dimensional ones. A miraculous structure can be observed in every feature of the web. They, like all other creatures, behave only in accordance with the inspiration God has given to them from birth. This is the only cause of their architectural wonders.

Another important deception in the documentary concerns the spider web. It is alleged that the web emerged later in evolution, together with baseless claims that spiders' desires to catch flying creatures may have been influential in the web's origin.

It must first of all be made clear that, as has been explained above, living things' "desires" cannot possibly cause them to acquire new organs or physical attributes. No matter how much you and your descendants "wish" to fly, no matter how much you make that desire a part of your inner being, you will still never grow wings. Living things' physical features are encoded in their genes, and no "desire" can affect those genes. The style adopted by the documentary as it ignores this fundamental truth is an odd, unscientific, and fantastical one.

Moreover, someone who closely examines the spider's web can clearly see that it is the work of design, not of "evolution by chance." The spider's web is a substance that material scientists take as a model. Weight for weight, it is five times more resistant than steel. The production of steel bulletproof vests has been made possible by imitating the spider's web. Furthermore, the spider's web exists as a liquid inside the animal's body, undergoing a reaction as soon as it meets the air and becoming stiff. The spider is thus capable of consuming its web whenever it wishes and storing it for subsequent use.

The way spiders spin their webs also rests on the most intelligent techniques. They use trees or plants as props and build their webs around them. Spinning concentric links that move in towards the center, they build an invisible snare and also a secure nest for themselves.

The fact that the web possesses all these features and that the spider possesses the ideal characteristics to make use of the web, is a miracle-one which Darwinism can never account for. It once again shows us that the origin of life is creation.

Like all other evolutionist accounts about transition from water to land, the claim about scorpion's transition from water to land also has no basis. When we examine the huge anatomical and physiological differences between water- and land-dwelling creatures, we can see that these differences could not have disappeared in an evolutionary process with gradual changes based on chance.

The Scenario of the Scorpion Moving from Water to Land

One of the utterly baseless evolutionist claims made in the documentary "The Conquerors" concerns the transition from water to land. The film does not put forward any substantial evidence for this transition but covers up this subject with common tactics used by evolutionists. The only example given in this area concerns an organ that the scorpion's imaginary ancestors are assumed to have possessed called the "wing," which allowed them to breathe under water. It is suggested that over time this organ became buried inside the body and gained the ability to take in oxygen from the air. However, not one fossil was shown to back up this claim, and the account was stranded on the level of fantasy.

Conclusion

The Cambrian Explosion shows that no such process as evolution ever occurred in natural history. It can be seen that such complex structures as the eye and antennae possess an astonishing design that can never be accounted for by random mutations. The spider's web indicates that even tiny animals possess a superior design that engineers seek to emulate, and demonstrates that the design in nature is so superior that it could never have come about by chance.

In short, Darwinist propaganda does not reflect the scientific facts. The scientific truth is that the arthropods and all the millions of other living species are the product of an intelligent design.

1 - Richard Monastersky, "Mysteries of the Orient," Discover, April 1993, p. 40
2- Richard Monastersky, "Mysteries of the Orient," Discover, April 1993, p. 40
3- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, London: W.W. Norton, 1986, p. 229.
4- Phillip E. Johnson, "Darwin's Rules of Reasoning," Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? by Buell Hearn, Foundation For Thought and Ethics, 1994, p. 12.
5- R.L. Gregory, Eye and Brain: The Physiology of Seeing, Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 31

THE EVOLUTIONIST DECEPTIONS IN THE DOCUMENTARY THE SHAPE OF LIFE

THE EVOLUTIONIST DECEPTIONS IN THE DOCUMENTARY THE SHAPE OF LIFE

The first in the series of documentaries called The Shape of Life, jointly produced by the PBS and the National Geographic Society, was about the origin of animals (metazoans). The scientific deceptions contained in that documentary, which attempted to describe how the first multicellular organisms came into being, are set out below.

The Organization Within the Sponge Cannot be Explained by Evolution

At the beginning of the documentary there is an account of how one day, in some way, sponge cells living independently of one another took a decision among themselves to live together. In fact, in line with the familiar evolutionist scenario, the program even said that " Somehow, cells developed a language that allowed them to work together." Yet, the fact is that this imaginary account-the product of the evolutionists' own fantasy world-is a complete violation of the facts.

The origin of the organization in living things is one of the fundamental questions for which the theory of evolution can never offer a logical explanation. There is absolutely no reason for cells that can function independently of one another to begin to act together. Yet, the different cells in all multicellular organisms do work together towards a common purpose in an extremely organized manner. The sponge is one example of this flawless organization among cells.

Despite its very simple appearance, the sponge, an animal from the phylum Porifera, actually consists of exceedingly complex cells. These cells, organized in two layers, set up a continuous flow of water inside the sponge. On the one hand, the plankton in the water are filtered and digested; on the other, waste material is deposited into the flow and carried away. In this way, the sponge functions like a funnel in a specially established current.

Sponges, which are regarded as having the simplest animal organization, are actually very complex. They attract scientists' attention because of their unusual cellular organization (the cells do not form tissues such as those found in other animals), their ability to regenerate lost parts, and their biochemical features (they have many compounds not known in other animals). This intricate design and perfect organization in such a simple-seeming organism as the sponge is evidence for God's incomparable creation.

The cells cannot have adopted the principle of working together by themselves. That is because they come into being already in possession of the special connecting nodules that bind them together. When sponge cells approach one another, these connecting nodules grip one another and an organized, multicellular appearance emerges. In short, sponge cells were designed to work together. When they are all together, they immediately acquire a nature of their own and assume the duties regarding the particular layer they are in. With the enzymes they produce and their chemical digestion methods, sponge cells are actually very complex.

This organization does not come about with their knowledge. Cells have no brain, nervous system, or consciousness. That is why there can be no question of "cells' inventing a language of communication amongst themselves." The statement in the film that "the cells somehow invented a language by which they could work together" is as nonsensical and unrealistic as saying, "the paints somehow found a language between themselves and produced the Mona Lisa." Like all other paintings in the world, the Mona Lisa was created by a conscious artist. Life was created in the same conscious manner.

The sponge cells take their shape, characteristics, and function from the design described in the DNA sequence placed within them. It is impossible for them to invent anything new or to write any information in that DNA to allow them to acquire a new function. Thus, not even the existence of the sponge, described as "the simplest animal organization" by evolutionists, can be accounted for by a process of evolution. Like all living things, sponges are evidence of the fact of creation.

The Contradictions in DNA Comparisons Refute the Theory of Evolution

In the final part of the documentary, it is claimed that the sponge is the ancestor of all animals. This claim rests on a comparison of certain fundamental areas in the DNA sequences in living species with the same areas in the sponge DNA chain. In this way, the finding of similar DNA sequences is regarded as evidence of ancestral relationship by evolutionists.

The fact is, however, that this logic is invalid. DNA is a common language by which life is described. If we think of DNA as sentences which describe how a cell works, DNA consists of different sentences in which different words are used. The fact that the same words are encountered is the inevitable result of the fact that this coded language employs only four letters. To put it another way, the finding of similarities in DNA does not in any way show that living things had a common ancestor. This similarity is proof not of a "common ancestor," but of "common design." Every similarity we encounter proves the common aspect of the design in living things.

On the other hand, just the length of the DNA in the sponge is sufficient to invalidate the evolutionists' expectations. The DNA of the sponge, put forward as the "primal animal ancestor," consists of 1.8 billion base pairs (1.80pg.) According to the evolutionary family tree, the DNA of the tench (species Tinca tinca) should be a great deal longer than this, whereas in fact it is only half the length of sponge DNA, consisting of a mere 810 million base pairs (0.81pg.) The chicken, described as a much more advanced species than the sponge in the evolutionary family tree, also has DNA that is shorter, at 1.25 billion base pairs (1.25pg.)

As we have seen, the genetic facts are at total variance with the assumptions of the theory of evolution. As the scientific findings have shown, living species did not evolve from one another, but were created separately. (For further details regarding genetic comparisons and the theory of evolution, see http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted10.php.)

Conclusion

The flawless design in living species invalidates the idea of the evolutionary process. Evolutionists are unable to account for even the emergence of a single cell by means of evolution, so it is meaningless for them to try to use evolution to explain the organization between those cells. Chance and unconscious atoms cannot produce superior design.

The DNA in cells is a description written in the same language in all the millions of different living species. The fact that the information is written in the same language does not support the claim that these species came about by chance and evolved from one another. On the contrary, it shows that they were created according to a common design. This is a scientific expression of the fact that God created all living things.

BBC'S EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BRAIN ERROR

BBC'S EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BRAIN ERROR

This part of the documentary, The Human Body, prepared by BBC dealt with the human brain. In this episode, the information provided about the brain was supplemented with the usual evolutionist propaganda clichés, and the complexity in the human brain was described as a "miracle of evolution."

Saying that Chance Created Millions of Miracles is Absurd in the Highest Degree

A great deal of information has so far been provided about birth and the human body in the BBC documentary, The Human Body. One of the most frequently repeated phrases in the program is "this is a miracle of evolution." BBC speaks of evolution as something conscious, which knows what it is doing, makes plans, and flawlessly organizes inanimate objects and atoms, and the channel is perhaps not aware of the real significance underlying this logic.

"The miracle of evolution" means "the miracle of chance," since according to the theory of evolution inanimate substances organized themselves as the result of coincidences to produce all living things. According to this claim, atoms such as carbon, phosphate, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen gave rise to proteins, cells, bacteria, fish, birds, starfish, dolphins, leopards, elephants, bees, ants, eagles, lions, roses, oranges,the human brain, the human heart, the human hand (which still cannot be replicated with all our present-day technology), the eyes, and man himself, who thinks, takes decisions, reads, understands what he reads, and feels joy, sorrow, and excitement-and all this by chance. Every one of these complex and flawless structures and features is a miracle, and there are an infinite number of miracles in the universe. There is no doubt that to claim that all these came about by chance is "absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin, the architect of the theory of evolution, realized this and made the following confession about the eye, just one of these countless complex structures:

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.1

When you press a button with your finger a series of processes occurs in your brain. Firstly, thousands of receivers in your fingertip go into action. 1) The first receivers affected are the nerve endings in the fingertip. Pressure changes their shape and there is an electrical discharge. 2) This electrical current passes to the nerve fibres known as the axon. 3) It moves through the spinal cord at 133 metres per second. 4) After the signal enters the spinal column 5) it moves in the opposite direction to the medulla oblongata in the brain. 6) From here it moves to the thalamus and reaches the sensory cortex, its final destination. All these processes happen in less time than it takes you to blink your eye.

The human brain possesses features which are far superior to computers equipped with even the most advanced technology. Evolutionists, however, who accept that a computer could never come about by the random coming together of substances such as silicon, wire and glass, nevertheless claim that the human brain, so far superior to any computer, could form by the chance coming together of carbon and nitrogen atoms etc. This is very definitely a major contradiction.

In order to better understand how stupid it is to maintain that all living things and all the structures and organs in them came about by chance, it will be sufficient to recall just a few of the features of the brain, the subject of the BBC documentary.

An adult's brain contains some 10 billion neurons (nerve cells). Neurons have projections called "axons" and "dendrites," and by means of these, the neurons are interconnected. Thanks to these connections, known as synapses, one neuron is able to send messages to another. In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, the famous biochemist Michael Denton states that the number of connections between neurons is in the region of 1 quadrillion (10¹⁵ or 1,000,000,000,000,000). He then goes on to say:

It is hard to imagine the multitude that 10¹⁵ represents. Take half of the United States, which is 1 million square miles, and imagine it being covered by forest, with 10,000 trees per square mile. On each of the 10,000 trees, which are on each of the one million square miles, there are 100,000 leaves. That's how many connections are crammed inside your brain.2

Cars, for instance, which emerge as the product of a conscious design and the collaboration of engineers, are exceedingly functional. If the evolutionist claim is to be accepted, however, then it needs to be accepted that a perfect car could emerge by chance, on its own, with all its technical accessories. That is a most illogical claim. That being the case, it must be understood that it is far more irrational still to maintain that living things, which possess a far more complex and flawless design than that in the car, could be the product of chance.

Every one of these countless and interlinked connections in the brain, an organ so small it fits into the human skull, has been created in exactly the form required and for a specific purpose. Thanks to these connections, the result of the superior design in God's creation, we are able to perform various functions at the same time with no confusion arising. For example, you can listen to music at the same time as reading these words, while also sipping a cup of coffee. At the same time, moreover, your brain regulates you heartbeat, allows you to breathe by carefully keeping the oxygen levels in your blood at a fixed rate, regulates your body temperature, calculates which of your muscles in your hand need to contract, and by how much, in order for you to lift your cup to your lips without spilling it, and also performs detailed calculations necessary for your sense of balance to allow you to remain on your feet, and it does all this without your being aware of it. Hundreds of different functions like these are carried out by the brain in the most perfect manner throughout our lives. Yet, we are quite unaware of all these calculations going on in it.

An article called "Computing from the Brain," in New Scientist magazine, drew the following analogy regarding the brain's extraordinary performance capability:

In crude terms, the human brain is a natural computer composed of 10 to 100 billion neurons, each of which connects to about 10,000 others, and all of which function in parallel. …Neuronal systems take about 100 processing steps to perform a complex task of vision or speech which would take an electronic computer billions of processing steps.3

As we have seen, the human brain possesses far superior features to computers produced by the most highly advanced technology. Yet, for some reason evolutionists, who accept that computers could never come about by the chance combination of such substances as silicon, wire, and glass, refuse to accept that the human brain, so far superior to any computer, could not have come about by chance combinations of atoms such as nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen. Indeed, they harbor not the slightest doubts, or at least choose to give that impression. The fact is, however, that if designers, engineers, a technical team, materials in the right quantity and of the right quality, and expert knowledge are necessary for the construction of a computer, then the same thing applies to the brain. Yet, none of these things is to be found in nature. In order for the materials in nature to give rise to birds, fish, horses, flowers, and human beings of all races, it is clear that they need the existence of a superior Creator, possessed of infinite knowledge, wisdom, and power, as well as a flawless design capability. That creator is God, the Lord of all, Who created all the worlds from nothing.

There is no Mechanism in Nature Which Could Turn the Ape Brain into a Human One

A classical evolutionist claim was repeated on the BBC documentary, in which it was suggested that the brains of our ape-like ancestors turned into the human brain over a period of some 2.5 million years. An analogy was drawn: The brain capacity of our ape-like ancestors was compared to a small Fiat car engine, and that of modern man to a much more developed sports car engine.

In fact, this comparison undermines the evolutionists' own thesis. Everyone knows that no car engine could turn into another, more highly developed one as the result of chance. Not even in trillions of years, let alone 2.5 million. In fact, under the laws of physics, it will age and wear, rot, and eventually fall apart. In order for such an engine to emerge, a designer possessing the knowledge and ability to develop it is essential.

Furthermore, there is an important fact that even evolutionist scientists are forced to admit: The main difference between the ape and human brains is not just a question of capacity and size. Materialists attempt to reduce all human characteristics, and thus the functioning of the brain, to matter. Yet it is today agreed that the features of the human soul cannot be reduced to matter. Man's ability to speak, think, decide, plan, his desires and wishes, his artistic and aesthetic abilities, his ability to possess ideologies, to produce ideas and to dream, and the virtues of love, loyalty, and friendship are not the product of the functioning of the brain. The human soul is something beyond matter, and that on its own is a challenge to materialism.

In his book, The Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain, the evolutionist neurosurgeon Dr. Wilder Penfield is forced many times to admit that the human soul cannot be accounted for in terms of the functioning of the brain. Some of these confessions read:

After years of striving to explain the mind on the basis of brain-action alone, I have come to the conclusion that it is simpler (and far easier to be logical) if one adopts the hypothesis that our being does consist of two fundamental elements [brain and mind (or soul)]. 4

I conclude that there is no good evidence . . . that the brain alone can carry out the work that the mind does.5

Therefore, comparing the ape brain to that of man avails the evolutionists not at all, since it is clear that no mechanism in nature can give man the characteristics that make him human. It is God, the Lord of all the worlds, Who gives man his soul, creates him out of nothing, and makes him different from all other living things by breathing His spirit into him.

An Important But Ignored Subject:

IT IS NOT THE EYE WHICH SEES

As you drop off to sleep you might dream of yourself as listening to a concert with hundreds of other people. Yet as you listen to this music, you could actually be hearing it in a soundless garden. You can experience nothing beyond the perceptions reaching your brain. That applies when dreaming and in real life …

Although an important scientific truth is expressed in the BBC documentary, that truth is not emphasized in the way it should be. The documentary says: "Our eyes are only a window. It is our brain which sees around us. The eye merely forms the first stage."

This phrase, which one encounters in biology textbooks beginning in middle school, is actually very important, containing as it does a secret which can entirely alter a person's way of looking at the world.

People imagine they see the world with their eyes. The fact is, however, that the eyes and the cells which comprise them are merely responsible for turning the light reaching them from the outside, via chemical processes, into electrical signals. These electrical signals later arrive at the visual center at the back of the brain, which is where the image we see takes shape. For instance, someone reading these lines at this moment sees them in the visual center in the back of his brain. In other words, it is not actually the eyes that see. So, who is it that sees the image in the visual center and reads these words? Who is it that watches with excitement, joy, or sorrow the bright, colorful, three-dimensional image which forms within the darkness of the brain?

The same question also applies to the senses of hearing, taste, smell, and touch. Even as one listens to one's favorite song, it is not one's ears that are doing the hearing. Their task is merely to collect sound waves. The cells in the ears turn the sound waves reaching them into electrical signals, and forward them to the hearing center in the brain. That favorite song is then heard there. You hear the voice of your best friend in your brain. But who is it that hears these sounds within the dark confines of the brain, enjoying the melody and rhythm?

The answer to these questions shows that every thinking human being possesses a soul. Another important point revealed by this scientific fact is this: Everything we see, hear, and touch throughout our lives is perceived in our brains. In other words, we can never actually see or touch the originals of things. What we are always in contact with is perceptions in the brain, and it is impossible ever to have direct experience of these objects by means of these perceptions. For that reason, everyone, even in a crowded room, is actually watching the perceptions in his brain, and is essentially alone.

We may consider our dreams in order to arrive at a better understanding of this. Someone who dreams of attending a lecture in a packed hall is actually lying in bed alone. The image of the lecture forms within his brain. It is impossible for that person to realize he is dreaming until he wakes up, and he remains convinced that he is attending a real lecture.

A person can easily see how meaningless all his desires regarding this world are when he stops to think a little. Nobody can ever actually really possess the car or house or position he thus desires. These are nothing but images in our brains. That being the case, someone who is aware of this must immediately turn to Our Lord, Who created him, and not be swept away by worldly desires.

The German psychiatry professor Hoimar von Ditfurth explains how we can never see the outside world:

No matter how we put the argument, the result doesn't change. What stands before us in full shape and what our eyes view is not the "world." It is only its image, a resemblance, a projection whose association with the original is open to discussion.6

Someone who exercises his mind a little will grasp this concept, which reveals the true nature of the life of this world and helps one realize just how hollow and meaningless the passions and desires aimed at this world truly are. The money in someone's wallet, the yacht he buys for millions of dollars, his holding company, and his new model car are all images which form within his brain. That individual can never touch or see the originals of these. All he perceives is images forming at the back of his brain. This is a scientific fact. The responsibility of all people of reason and good conscience is to grasp this concept before "waking from sleep," in other words before dying, and not to be deceived by becoming caught up in the life of this world.

You can find the details and scientific accounts of this great truth, which entirely alters one's perspective on life, on the website www.secretbeyondmatter.com, which contains the works of Harun Yahya, which have had such an enormous impact all over the world.

Conclusion

Characteristics peculiar to human beings, such as thinking, taking pleasure, having ideas, and feeling love, compassion, nostalgia, affection, joy, sorrow, happiness, and excitement, cannot be accounted for from a materialist and Darwinist perspective. These ideologies hold that all living things emerged by chance from inanimate matter, and they are totally unable to explain how it is that inanimate objects should one day have begun to possess the capacity for thought, decision-making, having ideas, and artistic and aesthetic taste.

1 - Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 75.
2- Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, London: Burnett Books, 1985, p. 330
3- Michael Recce and Philip Treleavan, "Computing from the Brain," New Scientist, Vol. 118, No. 1614 (May 26, 1988), p. 61.
4- Wilder Penfield, The Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p.80
5- Wilder Penfield, The Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. xiii
6- Hoimar von Ditfurth, Der Geist Fiel Nicht Vom Himmel (The Spirit Did Not Fall From The Sky), p. 256

THE BBC'S FUNCTIONLESS TISSUE ERROR IN ITS DOCUMENTARY THE HUMAN

THE BBC'S FUNCTIONLESS TISSUE ERROR IN ITS DOCUMENTARY THE HUMAN BODY

Another outdated evolutionist claim appeared in the documentary The Human Body by the BBC which introduces the systems in the human body. As it described the changes brought about in young people by puberty and hormones, oil glands in the skin were described as the source of pimples. Yet, it was also suggested that oil glands are functionless pieces of tissue serving no purpose, and that they are a legacy from man's so-called ape-like ancestors. This claim, devoid of any scientific foundation, is dealt with below.

The Functionless Tissue Claim Is Not Scientific

This claim aired on BBC is nothing more than a new example of the idea of "vestigial organs" put forward by evolutionists a hundred years ago. According to this hoary old claim, there are various organs in the bodies of living things which are a legacy from their ancestors, but which have gradually grown redundant from lack of use. However, it eventually emerged that this claim was based on a lack of scientific knowledge, and that "vestigial organs" were actually "organs whose functions had not been identified yet." One of the best indications of this was the way the list of these "vestigial organs" increasingly shrank. The list of "vestigial human organs" drawn up by the German anatomist R. Wiedersheim in 1895 included some 100 organs, including the appendix and the coccyx. As science advanced, however, it was realized that all the organs on the list did actually serve important functions. (see http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted11.php)

He Who created the seven heavens in lavers. You will not find any flaw in the creation of the All-Merciful. Look again-do you see any gaps? Then look again and again. Your sight will return to you dazzled and exhausted! (Qur'an: 67:3-4)

In short, the scenario of redundant organs put forward by evolutionists was scientifically wrong. There is no organ in the bodies of human beings or other living things which is redundant or functionless, and a legacy from so-called ancestors.

The Essential Function of Oil Glands

Contrary to what evolutionists imagine, oil glands are not functionless and redundant; on the contrary, they are essential tissues for the body.

As we know, sweat glands are found together with oil glands in the skin. Sweat allows the skin to be moisturised. On its own, however, sweat immediately evaporates, leading to greater drying of the skin. In order to prevent this, another secretion is needed. That is because an oily environment allows water to be retained in the skin. In this way, the sweat and oil glands work together to moisturise the skin. That is why it is essential for both glands to be present at the same time in order for the skin to be soft and elastic. The function of the oil glands, which secrete wax and other lipids, is necessary for the health of our skin.

As we have seen, oil glands, like other tissues, serve a particular purpose: preventing our skin from drying out. The oil glands have been located where our sweat glands are for just this purpose. The fact that these glands are not harmful, and that on the contrary they serve an essential function, is proof of an intelligent design, in other words a superior creation. That creation is the art of God, Exalted in Power, the Lord of the heavens and the earth and all that lies between.

EVOLUTIONARY TALL TALES FROM THE BBC -III-

EVOLUTIONARY TALL TALES FROM THE BBC -III-

The blind evolutionist dogma also appears in the third episode of the documentary The Human Body, prepared by the BBC. This episode deals with the birth process, and, after describing the extraordinary events undergone by a baby in its mother's body before birth, suggests that there is "no design" in any of them. As will clearly be seen after an examination of the proper accounts set out below, this claim is even more nonsensical than suggesting that a 100-storey building equipped with the most advanced technology could have formed itself in the middle of a city, with no designer or conscious builders involved.

The Design Denied by the BBC is an Obvious Fact

After a description of the events experienced by a baby growing in its mother's body and the way that all the conditions for birth are met with no intervention by the mother herself, the following words are spoken: "Our bodies did not emerge as the result of design. Our bodies assumed their present forms as the result of enormous transformations. Those features which keep our bodies from perfection are problems inherited from our ancestors. The real miracle lies in the finding of a solution to these problems."

These words are nothing more than totally baseless Darwinist propaganda. In saying that there is no design in the body, BBC is denying the truth of the existence of God and claiming that it was blind chance and unconscious atoms that gave rise to the human body. BBC, the producer of the documentary, accepts that there are certain difficulties during birth, but says that, although these problems are "miraculously" resolved, they are a legacy from man's ape ancestors, and that it is again blind chance and unconscious atoms which bring these solutions about. In order to see how unrealistic this claim by BBC is, we need look no further than a few of the examples concerning birth given in the documentary:

The eye sockets form first in the embryo's skull in the mother's womb. The eyes are later sited within these sockets. If we think along lines similar to BBC's claim and assume that there is "no design" here, then we should believe the following: The atoms and the cells composed of these atoms which make up the embryo are so intelligent, conscious, far-seeing, and capable of working as a team (!) that they are fully aware of what the eye is, how it works, and what seeing means. They are capable of working in such a planned manner as to prepare a home for the eyes before these are even formed. Alternatively, there has been such an unbelievable coincidence that first of all the two sockets in the embryo's skull happen to form by chance. Then, again by chance (!), these sockets are placed symmetrically and regularly in the human face, in the most aesthetically pleasing location.

The pelvis is the widest part of the human body. The width of the pelvic bone is ideal for man to be able to walk and stand on two legs and for the baby to squeeze its head through during birth. If we again think along similar lines to the NTV claim and assume for one moment there is "no design" here, we should have to believe this: The unconscious atoms which decided to construct the human body came together and decided on the ideal dimensions for man to be able to walk and stand on two legs and to give birth. They then built the human skeleton with these dimensions in mind. Alternatively, and again by chance, the cells came together in such dimensions and in such an organized manner that they happened to form the most ideal bone and skeletal structure for man to be able to walk and give birth (!).

There is no difference between believing that scenario and believing that idols made out of stone or wood possess a creative power. The one is as nonsensical as the other. The truth is that none of the events which go on in the mother's body during birth can be explained by chance. God's superior art of creation and infinite knowledge can be seen at every stage of the process. A few examples of what happens during birth will be provided below, although these are only some out of many thousands. As we shall see, saying that these are the result of chance is a violation of reason and logic:

The embryo needs to be situated in an appropriate place if the pregnancy is to continue in a healthy manner. The place selected must offer both protection and the capability for birth to take place nine months later. This place must also be near the blood vessels in the mother's body, which will allow nutrition to reach the baby. The ideal spot is of course the uterine lining.

When conception occurs in one of the Fallopian tubes, the zygote continues to move down the tube towards the womb, as though it were aware of its destination. Ordinarily, it does not stop or attach itself to any part of the Fallopian tube, in which it can remain for 3-4 days. It behaves as if it were aware that, by trying to attach itself anywhere before reaching the womb, it would forfeit its chances of survival. The zygote moves forward as far as the womb, finds an area on the womb lining rich in blood vessels, and attaches itself there. Like a seed thrown into the earth sprouting and putting down roots, the implanted embryo now continues to grow and also creates new channels of nutrition for itself by moving deeper into the tissue that will provide nutrition for it.

It will be useful to draw attention to one particular point here. The very fact of the zygote's being able to select the most suitable place for itself is a miracle. G. L. Flanagan, author of the book Beginning of Life, stresses the extraordinary nature of this:

How does the [cell] cluster make such an astonishingly "forward-looking" selection?1

There is no doubt that this far-sightedness belongs not to a collection of cells devoid of any capacity for thought, but to the Creator who brought it into being. BBC tries to ignore this fact, and is committing a grave error in doing so.

As birth approaches, the amniotic fluid embarks on those activities that will be necessary to facilitate that birth. It forms fluid sacs, which will enlarge the mouth of the womb, thus allowing the womb to assume the dimensions to allow the baby to pass. These sacs also prevent the fetus from being crushed in the womb during birth. Furthermore, when the sacs burst and release their fluid at the commencement of birth, the path to be taken by the fetus is both lubricated and sterilised. In this way, birth takes place more easily and in a manner naturally free of germs.2

This picture shows the emergence of a baby through the mother's pelvis. The harmony in this design clearly shows the infinite wisdom and might in the creation of man.

As well as all these preparations in the womb, a great many other conditions also need to be met at the same time in order for the baby to come into the world safely. For instance, the baby needs to assume the best position for entry into the world. It slowly begins to turn with a succession of foot movements and thus enters the neck of the womb. The baby's scope for movement is now restricted and it cannot move its head.3 But how does an as-yet-unborn baby decide which position is best? How does it know what the most suitable position is? Moreover, how does a baby in its mother's womb know when the time to be born has come? All these questions show that the beginning of human life comes about with a flawless design and not, as the BBC documentary would have it, through evolution based on chance.

Many more examples of this miraculous design can be seen as the baby comes into the world. For instance, the baby's skull needs to have a structure which will not damage the birth canal, if a healthy birth is to take place. When we look at the baby's skull, we see a group of five bones with a soft spot called the "fontanelle" between them. This soft structure gives the skull a flexibility that prevents damage to the baby's brain and skull from the pressure that occurs during birth..

Many volumes have been written about the events of birth, which clearly reveal that they are flawlessly planned. They show that chance plays no role whatsoever in the creation of a human being. Which of these events could be claimed, with scientific evidence, to have come about by chance? The miracles repeated throughout the length of the BBC documentary are miracles of God, not of unconscious atoms and blind chance.

In the Qur'an, God reveals this to those who deny Him despite the clear nature of His creation:

… Do you then disbelieve in Him Who created you from dust, then from a drop of sperm, and then formed you as a man? He is, however, God, my Lord, and I will not associate anyone with my Lord. (Qur'an, 18: 37-38)

Conclusion

It is utterly obvious that it is God Who created living things and the entire universe. It is also clear that living things possessed of such a flawless order and exceedingly complex structures cannot be the work of chance. Despite this, however, those who maintain that the universe and living things were created by chance are defending nonsensical claims that even children would find laughable. They fail to think honestly, and insist on denying the existence of God.

We do not believe that the BBC genuinely supports such irrational claims. This documentary provides striking images and effective information, and describes instances of God's creation in a beautiful way, we imagine that the meaningless, unproven, irrational, and illogical evolutionist claims scattered throughout it have escaped their notice. We hope that the BBC will rid itself of this evolutionist propaganda, which is meaningless and devoid of scientific evidence and credibility.

1 - Geraldine Lux Flanagan, Beginning of Life, Dorling Kindersley, London, 1996, p.33
2- Laurence Pernoud, J'attends un enfant, Pierre Horay, p.138
3- Geraldine Lux Flanagan, Beginning Life, p.103

EVOLUTIONARY TALL TALES FROM THE BBC -II-

EVOLUTIONARY TALL TALES FROM THE BBC -II-

The second installment of the documentary, The Human Body, again consisted of evolutionist propaganda devoid of any scientific credibility. The errors in the documentary prepared by BBC are scientifically explained below.

BBC's Tall Tale about "Fish Gills Becoming Human Ears"

The BBC documentary maintained that human beings and fish had a common ancestor, and that traces can still be found in the human body which prove this. According to BBC, the human ear is one example of such a trace, and its origin is to be found in the bones beside the gills in the fish, with which we share (!) a common ancestor.

This BBC claim rests on the theory of "recapitulation," which has long since been discredited in the scientific literature. Since this matter has already been dealt with in the article "Evolutionary Tall Tales from BBC - I," there is no need to repeat it here.

The subject to be considered here is that the human ear possesses such a complex structure that it could never have evolved from a fish bone.

The Human Ear Possesses Irreducible Complexity

The significance of the irreducible complexity possessed by the human ear is this: The human ear is made up of several separate parts all coming together, and we are able to hear as a result of all these parts' working in harmony together. If one of these components is deficient, then we either become deaf or else our sense of hearing suffers serious damage. It is impossible for an organ possessing irreducible complexity to develop by stages, by chance, in a process of evolution. A brief résumé of how hearing actually takes place will enable this fact to be more clearly understood.

As is commonly known, the hearing process begins with vibrations in the air. These vibrations are enhanced in the external ear by about 17 decibels.1

a) The three separate regions of the ear, the outer ear, middle ear and inner ear. b) In this picture, which shows the middle and inner ear under magnification, can be seen the eardrum, three ossicles and the oval window connecting them. Sound waves striking the eardrum cause these ossicles to vibrate, thus causing the fluid in the next structure along, the cochlea, to move. c) There are three areas in this cross section of the cochlea. In the middle are the organ of Corti and sound receptors. d) This magnified diagram shows the tiny hairs in the organ of Corti. It is thanks to these hairs that sound signals reach the brain.

Sound intensified in this way enters the external auditory canal. This is the passageway leading from the external ear to the eardrum. One interesting feature of the auditory canal, which is some three and a half centimeters long, is the wax it constantly secretes. This liquid contains an antiseptic property which keeps bacteria and insects out. Furthermore, the cells on the surface of the auditory canal are aligned in a spiral form directed towards the outside, so that the wax always flows towards the outside of the ear as it is secreted.

The vibrations from an external noise cause the liquid in the inner ear to vibrate. The movement of this liquid sets the tiny hairs on the inner walls of the cochlea, shown in this picture, in motion. The movements of these hairs allow the sound of a violin, a television newsreader's voice or the wailing of a cat in the street to reach the brain in the form of electrical signals. Thanks to these flawless structures we are able to distinguish between millions of different sounds. Science has still not unravelled all the technical details of this system, which has been functioning flawlessly ever since the first human being. Here, we need to see the immaculate art of God, our Creator, and give thanks for the blessings He has bestowed upon us.

Sound vibrations that pass down the auditory canal in this way reach the eardrum. This membrane is so sensitive that it can even perceive vibrations on the molecular level. Thanks to the exquisite sensitivity of the eardrum, you can easily hear somebody whispering from yards away. Another extraordinary feature of the eardrum is that after receiving a vibration it returns to its normal state. Calculations have revealed that, after perceiving the tiniest vibrations, the eardrum becomes motionless again within up to four thousandths of a second. If it did not become motionless again so quickly, every sound we hear would echo in our ears.

The eardrum amplifies the vibrations that come to it, and sends them on to the middle ear region. Here, there are three bones in an extremely sensitive equilibrium with each other. These three bones are known as the hammer, the anvil, and the stirrup; their function is to amplify the vibrations that reach them from the eardrum.

But the middle ear also possesses a kind of "buffer," to reduce exceedingly high levels of sound. This feature is provided by two of the body's smallest muscles, which control the hammer, anvil, and stirrup bones. These muscles enable exceptionally loud noises to be reduced before they reach the inner ear. Thanks to this mechanism, we hear sounds that are loud enough to shock the system at a reduced volume. These muscles are involuntary, and come into operation automatically.

The middle ear, which possesses such a flawless design, needs to maintain an important equilibrium. The air pressure inside the middle ear has to be the same as that beyond the eardrum-in other words, the same as the surrounding atmospheric air pressure. But this balance has been thought of, and a canal between the middle ear and the outside world allowing an exchange of air has been built in. This canal is the Eustachian tube, a hollow tube running from the inner ear to the oral cavity.

The process whereby these mechanical motions begin to be turned into sound begins in the area known as the inner ear. In the inner ear is the cochlea, a spiral-shaped organ filled with liquid. The cochlea is linked to the stirrup bone by a membrane. By this connection, the mechanical vibrations in the middle ear are sent on to the liquid in the cochlea.

The vibrations which reach the liquid in the cochlea set up wave effects in it. The inner walls of the cochlea are lined with small hair-like structures, called stereocilia, which are affected by this wave effect. These tiny hairs move strictly in accordance with the motion of the liquid. If a loud noise is emitted, then more hairs bend in a more powerful way. Every different frequency in the outside world sets up different effects in the hairs.

But what is the meaning of this movement of the hairs? What can the movement of the tiny hairs in the cochlea in the inner ear have to do with listening to a concert of classical music, recognizing a friend's voice, hearing the sound of a car, or distinguishing the millions of other kinds of sounds?

Not even sound systems with the very highest technology can offer us the sound quality we enjoy when listening to a piece of music. The flesh and blood audio system in our ears is flawless. Scientists have still not fully understood this extraordinary system. Believing that such perfection could have come about by chance takes one no further than believing in fairy stories.

The answer is most interesting, and once more reveals the complexity of the design in the ear. Each of the tiny hairs covering the inner walls of the cochlea is actually a mechanism which lies on top of 16,000 cells. When these hairs sense a vibration, they move and push each other, just like dominos. This motion opens channels in the membranes of the cells lying beneath the hairs. And this allows the inflow of ions into the cells. When the hairs move in the opposite direction, these channels close again. Thus, this constant motion of the hairs causes constant changes in the chemical balance within the underlying cells, which in turn enables them to produce electrical signals. These electrical signals are forwarded to the brain by nerves, and the brain then processes them, turning them into sound.

Science has not been able to explain all the technical details of this system. While producing these electrical signals, the cells in the inner ear also manage to transmit the frequencies, strengths, and rhythms coming from the outside. This is such a complicated process that science has so far been unable to determine whether the frequency-distinguishing system takes place in the inner ear or in the brain.

Everything we have examined so far has shown us that the ear possesses an extraordinary design. On closer examination, it becomes evident that this design is irreducibly complex, since, in order for hearing to happen, it is necessary for all the component parts of the auditory system to be present and in complete working order.

Take away any one of these parts-for instance, the hammer bone in the middle ear-or damage its structure, and you will no longer be able to hear anything. In order for you to hear, such different elements as the eardrum, the hammer, anvil, and stirrup bones, the inner ear membrane, the cochlea, the liquid inside the cochlea, the tiny hairs that transmit the vibrations from the liquid to the underlying sensory cells, the sensory cells themselves, the nerve network running from them to the brain, and the hearing center in the brain-all of these parts must exist in complete working order. The system cannot develop "by stages," because the intermediate stages would serve no purpose.

The claim that an organ as complex as the ear should have been constructed in stages by an unconscious process dependent solely on random chance, such as evolution, is both unscientific and irrational. BBC must be aware of this impossibility, since it frequently repeats that this is a miracle that is very difficult to believe, and says: "Evolution shapes our bodies. It is hard to believe that it could bring all this about."

BBC's Time Error

One of the claims frequently repeated on BBC's documentary is that minute changes combined over time to bring about major transformations, and that this is how evolution, which looks to be impossible at first sight, actually happens.

At the root of this argument, which is one of BBC's and other evolutionists' fundamental refuges, lies the assumption that time is a force that can do the impossible. According to this view, it is impossible for a chemical mixture to randomly produce amino acids, proteins, DNA, RNA, and other cell components, and thus a living cell-or, alternatively, for a reptile to turn into a bird-in a short space of time. As time goes on, however, for instance over millions of years, the impossible suddenly becomes possible.

Evolutionists describe this time factor as "the accumulation of advantageous coincidences." In other words, a structure will gain a positive feature by means of an advantageous coincidence, another such coincidence will be added to it a few thousand years later, yet another one will happen a few thousand years after that, and at the end, over the course of millions of years, these advantageous coincidences will combine to bring about a major and positive transformation.

Many people may accept this logic without examining it too closely. Yet, it contains a simple but fundamental error. This lies in the concept of "advantageous coincidences being added on to one another." The fact is that there is no mechanism in nature that might be expected to select advantageous coincidences and hold on to them in order to add them to one another.

We can clarify what this means with an example that evolutionists also resort to. Some scientists say that the possibility of a protein being synthesized by chance is "less than the probability of a monkey typing out the history of mankind without any mistakes."2

According to Ali Demirsoy, a Turkish biologist, the probability of a coincidental formation of cytochrome-C, an essential protein for life, is "as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes." There is no doubt that to accept such a possibility is actually to reject the basic principles of reason and common sense.

Yet evolutionists still hide behind the idea of time in the face of such inconsistencies. This is the kind of claim they make: "Every time the monkey touches the keyboard it has a one-in-26 chance of hitting the right key. Once it has pressed the right key, this is chosen as the right letter by natural selection. The errors it will commit over the next letter are again chosen by natural selection. In this way, over a period lasting millions of years, a monkey can indeed write a history of mankind."

This is the logic that underlies all the time-related claims made by evolutionists.

The fact is, however, that, as we have already stated, there is a simple error in this position: There is no mechanism in nature to identify and select which of the keys pressed by the monkey is the right one! There is no consciousness which can say, "OK. This letter is right, let's hold on to it and move on to the next stage."

Moreover, neither is there any monkey to touch the keys in nature. That requires consciousness. The evolutionists' argument must be that natural effects such as wind, rain, and earthquakes cause the typewriter keys to move.

When we examine the scenario that the cell and all living structures have come about by chance in this more realistic light, we see that we are actually dealing with nonsense. The idea that a single cell emerged by chance-that is, that the millions of tiny coincidences that form the building blocks of the cell occurred at random in an ordered sequence-can be compared to the claim that a giant city emerging solely by natural means, with no constructive force behind it. Rain, earth, and heat would have to combine by chance to form millions of bricks. Then these bricks would have to line up side by side and one on top of the other, under the effects of such things as wind, flood, and earthquake, to make houses, roads, and pavements, as a result of which a whole giant city would eventually emerge by chance.

If someone suggested such a thing to you, you would seriously doubt that person's sanity. Would anything change if that person then suggested that this happened not in a short space of time but over millions of years?

Of course not. Nonsense is nonsense, and the impossible is impossible, no matter how long a time it is allowed for it. That is why the BBC's invocation of "time" as a savior does not actually validate its claims.

Conclusion

There are unscientific claims and evolutionist propaganda in the BBC documentary. We hope that those who broadcast this documentary will have another look at its contents, will see that no scientific evidence for the evolutionary scenarios recounted in it like fairy tales has been put forward, and will cease showing it.

1 - Color Atlas of Human Anatomy, Harmony Books, New York, 1994, p. 70
2- Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara:Meteksan Publishing Co., 1984, p. 64

EVOLUTIONARY TALL TALES FROM THE BBC-1-

EVOLUTIONARY TALL TALES FROM THE BBC-1-

The documentary The Human Body, prepared by the BBC is full of intense propaganda intended to impose the theory of evolution on viewers. Yet this propaganda served no other purpose than to prove that the theory of evolution is nothing but an unscientific myth.

The documentary introduces the human body, and describes the so-called evolution of man in a fairy tale manner, offering the viewer no evidence whatsoever. Intended as thoroughgoing propaganda, the documentary actually demonstrates how devoid of scientific support the theory of evolution really is. What follows is a scientific reply to the errors in the documentary:

BBC's Bacteria Myth

In this picture, magnified 15,000 times, can be seen the DNA molecule of a bacterium which has been exposed to special intervention. There are 4 million base pairs in this bacterium's DNA, and if this DNA were stretched out flat it would be 1.5 mm long, or 1,000 times longer than the cell itself. Just the way in which such a complex structure is squeezed into such a restricted space shows the fine detail in God's art of creation.

BBC's evolutionary tall tales begin with the sentence that there were first of all bacteria in the primitive world, and plants and animals later evolved from these bacteria. The fact is, of course, that the expression "there were bacteria in the primitive world" is meaningless because the problem is how those bacteria came into being. Those who prepared this documentary on BBC might have thought they could gloss over this crucial question on the assumption that their viewers would adopt a superficial view of the matter such as "those bacteria must probably have come into being by themselves." (Even worse, they themselves might hold just such a view.) In truth, however, even the origin of the very simplest bacterium represents a major difficulty for the theory of evolution, one that cannot be glossed over with the words just mentioned.

The origin of bacteria is a problem for the theory of evolution because the theory maintains that life on the primitive earth came about from random chemical reactions. Yet even the simplest bacterium contains such a complex organization and information that these can never be accounted for by any chemical reaction.

Let us examine this information: A bacterium has around 2,000 genes, each gene consisting of up to 1,000 letters (codes). This means that the information in its DNA must be at least 2-million letters long. That, in turn, means that the information contained in the DNA of just one bacterium is equivalent to 20 novels of 100,000 words each.1 That being the case, it is quite impossible for a single bacterium to come about by chance or to evolve as the result of chance effects. Any chance intervention to a structure containing information on such a scale would damage the functioning of the bacterium's entire system. A deficiency in a bacterium's genetic code would mean damage to the working system, and therefore death.

Below can be seen a single-celled protist, and to the side are shown nerve cells with their complex structure. These cells are all marvels of design.

Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University, calculated the probability that all 2,000 of the different types of proteins that it takes to make up even a simple bacterium could have come into being completely by chance. According to Shapiro, the probability is one in 10^40,000.2 (That number is "1" followed by forty thousand zeros and it has no equivalent in the universe.)

Chandra Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics and astronomy at the University of Cardiff, commented on Shapiro's result:

… One to a number with 10^40,000 noughts after it…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.3

Sir Fred Hoyle, the British mathematician and astronomer, has this to say about these figures:

Indeed, such a theory [that life was assembled by an intelligence] is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.4

It is therefore impossible for even the simplest bacterium to have come about by chance, as evolutionists claim. In fact, the theory of evolution is even unable to account for the emergence of just one of the 2,000 kinds of protein that go to make up a simple bacterium. For that reason, saying "first there were bacteria, and plants and animals later developed from bacteria" is a huge deception, devoid of any scientific foundation. Those who prepared the BBC documentary must in any case be aware of this, since they avoided the subject of how the first bacterium came into being, simply beginning their tale with "bacteria that somehow came into being."

Furthermore, evolutionists have not one shred of evidence for their evolutionary fantasy; no intermediate form between bacteria and the first plants and animals exists, and they themselves admit the fact. One such evolutionist is Professor Ali Demirsoy, a prominent Turkish defender of evolution, who confesses:

One of the most difficult stages to be explained in evolution is to scientifically explain how organelles and complex cells developed from these primitive creatures. No transitional form has been found between these two forms. One- and multicelled creatures carry all this complicated structure, and no creature or group has yet been found with organelles of a simpler construction in any way, or which are more primitive. In other words, the organelles carried forward have developed just as they are. They have no simple and primitive forms.5

The Mistaken Idea that Bacteria Evolved as their Environment Changed

It was suggested in the BBC documentary in question that bacteria were gradually exposed to change, as a result of which more complex life forms emerged. This is nothing but a work of the imagination, without any scientific foundation. Bacteria have very short life spans, and a single scientist can therefore observe many generations of them. Evolutionists have thus subjected bacteria to countless mutations for many years, but no evolution has ever been observed in a single one. Pierre-Paul Grassé, one of France's best-known zoologists, the editor of the 35-volume Traité de Zoologie, and former president of the Académie des Sciences, writes the following about this bacterial immutability which invalidates evolution:

Bacteria... are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. [B]acteria... exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago! What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not [produce evolutionary] change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.6

In short, if mutations brought about evolution in bacteria, then examples of this should have been seen in the laboratory. Yet, in fact, quite the reverse is the case.

The Mistaken Idea that Small Changes Gradually Led to Evolution

In the documentary, space is devoted to evolutionists' traditional claims, and it is maintained that over billions of years small changes occurring in organisms combined and led to new species. There is no scientific foundation for such a claim.

The "one by one, small, imperceptible changes" in question are mutations, since mutations are the only mechanism of change the theory of evolution can offer.

Mutations are corruptions and changes in living things' genetic codes brought about by various external factors such as radiation and chemical effects. The genetic code of a healthy living thing possesses a flawless order and sequence. Ninety-nine percent of mutations damage DNA (the other 1 percent having no effect). Mutations tear apart, destroy, or confuse the DNA sequences in which a living thing's genetic code is recorded-that is, they eliminate existing information. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl are just a few contemporary examples of the damaging effect radiation has on genes. As a result of the genetic mutations caused by these tragedies, countless people and other living things lost their lives, many were crippled, and handicapped individuals were born in subsequent generations.

The American geneticist B.G. Ranganathan describes the damage mutations do to living organisms in these terms:

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.7

That is why there is no mechanism in nature that might bestow minute, imperceptible beneficial changes on living things. The reason why BBC glosses over this subject with superficial accounts and avoids going into any detail on it stems from the fact that it is only too well aware how that change actually came about.

The Mistaken Idea that Species Evolved from One Another

According to evolutionists, all living things developed from one another. A previously existing species turned into another one over time, and all the species eventually emerged in this manner. According to the theory, this transition occupied a period of hundreds of millions of years, and happened in stages.

Yet if these evolutionists' claims were true-if, in other words, fish had evolved into reptiles, reptiles into birds, etc., as BBC claims-then countless "intermediary species" should also have emerged and lived during this transformation period.

For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles should have lived in the past that had acquired reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile-birds with novel bird traits in addition to their pre-existing reptilian traits. If such creatures in a transitional process had existed, they would have been crippled, handicapped, and defective organisms.

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 have been millions and even billions of them. 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. This is a fact which Darwin also accepted.

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. But he hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his hopefulness, he realized that the biggest stumbling-block to 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.8

Despite evolutionists' best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All scientific findings have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. 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.9

Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record... This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants-instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fuelled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.10

So, since the fact is that no intermediary forms have ever been found, and that this represents a serious problem for the theory of evolution, how is it that BBC and other like-minded evolutionist media are able to continue propagating the myth that "fish became reptiles and reptiles became birds?" The answer to this question is given in an article in the journal Science:

A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and palaeontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.11

As revealed in Science, behind BBC's unscientific claim lie such factors as "not being unbiased and imagining." BBC presented evolutionary fantasies to the viewer like a fairy tale, talking about "bacteria turning into human beings," and "reptiles that were birds and fish that walked on land," as if it were talking about "the prince who turned into a frog."

Why Does BBC Still Portray Haeckel's Deceptions as if they were Science?

The invalidity of Haeckel's fictitious claims emerged with scientific evidence. The development of the human embryo inside the mother's womb is one of the greatest miracles in the world.

Human and fish embryos are compared in the BBC documentary The Human Body, and the theory of "recapitulation," which ceased to be part of scientific literature years ago, is still portrayed as a scientific fact. The term "recapitulation" is a condensation of the dictum "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," put forward by the evolutionary biologist Ernst Haeckel at the end of the nineteenth century.

This theory of Haeckel's postulates that living embryos re-experience the evolutionary process that their pseudo-ancestors underwent. He theorized that during its development in its mother's womb, the human embryo first displayed the characteristics of a fish, and then those of a reptile, and finally those of a human.

It has since been proven that this theory is completely bogus. It is now known that the "gills" that supposedly appear in the early stages of the human embryo are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus. That part of the embryo that was likened to the "egg yolk pouch" turns out to be a pouch that produces blood for the infant. The part that was identified as a "tail" by Haeckel and his followers is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do.

These are universally acknowledged facts in the scientific world, and are accepted even by evolutionists themselves. Two leading neo-Darwinists, George Gaylord Simpson and W. Beck, have admitted: "Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny."12 In an article published in American Scientist, we read:

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…13

The following was written in an article in New Scientist, dated October 16, 1999:

Haeckel himself was forced to admit that his drawings from the end of the 19th century were fraudulent.

[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.14

Another interesting aspect of "recapitulation" was Ernst Haeckel himself, a faker who falsified his drawings in order to support the theory he advanced. Haeckel's forgeries purported to show that fish and human embryos resembled one another. When he was caught out, the only defense he offered was that other evolutionists had committed similar offences:

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.15

In the September 5, 1997, edition of the well-known scientific journal Science, an article was published revealing that Haeckel's embryo drawings were the product of a deception. The article, called "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," had this to say:

The impression they [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," Richardson reports in the August issue of Anatomy and Embryology.

In short, despite its having emerged as early as 1901 that Haeckel's drawings were counterfeit, defenders of the theory of evolution such as BBC portray this theory as if it were scientific fact and attempt to keep the evolution deception alive.

Empty Words and Statements Intended to "Bewitch" the Viewer

It is He Who originated creation and regenerates it. That is very easy for Him. He is the most exalted designation in the heavens and the earth. He is the Almighty, the- All- Wise (Qur'an, 30:27)

"The miracle of evolution;" "evolution accomplished this extraordinary transformation;" "the human body shaped by evolution." Expressions such as these are frequently encountered in evolutionist sources. BBC often uses them, trying to inculcate the idea of "the miracle of evolution" alongside striking and colorful images. When these expressions of BBC's are examined closer, however, it can be seen that they are hollow, devoid of any scientific proof and actually state and explain nothing at all.

Using such expressions as these, BBC sets out a string of claims, although as one might expect, it fails to explain how any of these might have come about and which evolutionary mechanisms might have wrought such changes. These are some of the issues which BBC does not or cannot explain and which it glosses over with fancy words:

BBC says that "as the environment in which bacteria found themselves changed, more complex groups of cells began to emerge." Yet, it says not a word about one great enigma, the greatest stumbling block facing the theory of evolution: the question of how even a single cell could have come about by chance evolutionary mechanisms.

BBC says, "fish evolved into reptiles." Yet, it says not a word about how a creature which breathed in water by means of gills and had no lungs to allow it to breathe on land or feet to walk with, could have immediately adapted to life on land, nor about which organs evolved by means of which evolutionary mechanism. That is because this is a major dilemma for evolutionists, and one that cannot be accounted for by any so-called evolutionary mechanism.

BBC says, "reptiles became birds, and reptile scales turned into bird feathers." Once again, however, it fails to discuss how such an impossible evolution might have come about. That is because evolutionists are perfectly well aware that it is impossible for reptiles to have evolved into birds by means of chance mutations, that reptile scales and bird feathers have entirely different structures, and that it is impossible for one to turn into the other.

The ear is such a complex wonder of design that it alone nullifies the explanations of the theory of evolution based on "chance" occurrences. The hearing process in the ear is made possible by an irreducibly complex system.

BBC speaks of "an area shaped by evolution with unbelievable methods over thousands of years" when discussing the bones of the ear. Yet it never actually says what these methods were. That is because no such method is known to BBC or evolutionists.

BBC says, "The other parts of the ear, which provides balance and allows us to walk on two legs, as well as to hear, our hands, arms and our entire body took shape thanks to evolution." Yet it never says a word about how evolution shaped all these complex organs. That is because the theory of evolution cannot explain how organs possessed of irreducible complexity came about.

BBC says, "Decisions such as how we live, the shape of our bodies, were made billions of years before the appearance of the first human being." Yet it is unable to explain who decided what human beings' eyes, ears, hearts, and brains, which would emerge only billions of years later, would be like, nor who planned such conscious, intelligent, and organized systems in a world full of inanimate matter. Is BBC able to answer such questions? In other words, which unconscious, unaware, and unintelligent atoms in the primitive world could have planned the flawless design in the human body?

As we have seen, BBC's evolutionist propaganda is quite baseless. It puts before its viewers claims with no element of reason, logic, or science, under a scientific mask. BBC must be aware that the theory of evolution cannot actually support such claims, since before describing the myth of evolution it stresses that the story is "hard to believe," and continues: "The miracle that makes our bodies' daily lives possible also conceals another great secret from us. That secret, one which is harder to believe, is the story of how we assumed our present appearance."

The Mistaken Idea that Life Began by itself in an Environment of Volcanoes and Sulphurous Waters

In order to see how unreasonable and illogical the theory of evolution is, it will be sufficient to have a look at this claim made in the BBC documentary: The program shows an image of Yellowstone National Park in America, where thermal springs are found, and says, "If you had been here 3 billion years ago, you would have witnessed how the first living things came into being." If witnessing the emergence of living things is such an easy matter, as evolutionists claim, why is it that they do not carry out experiments to try and create the first living things in just such an environment?

Furthermore, evolutionists could impose whatever conditions they wished in these experiments, using whatever materials they wished. In fact, the uncontrolled, chance effects in the primitive earth could be done away with, and they could use consciously directed mutations instead of random ones. They could even be allowed to use ready-made amino acids and proteins, and all the different materials necessary for life, from phosphate to carbon. Then, in addition to all of this, if they said, "We need time," they could pass the area of the experiment on to one another as a legacy for millions of years. The world's most prominent evolutionary scientists could contribute to the experiment.

Evolutionists claim that amino acids came about by chance in what they call the "primeval soup" and that the first life emerged in this way. If it were really that easy to witness the emergence of living things, why do evolutionists not carry out an experiment by throwing such materials into a swimming pool? Moreover, they can establish such conditions as they wish by means of modern technology. Random effects could even be eliminated in the conditions of this primitive world; consciously directed mutations could be employed instead of random ones. They could even be permitted to use ready-made proteins and all the substances necessary for life, from nitrogen to carbon. In addition, if they say "We need time" they can pass the site of the experiment on to one another for billions of years as a legacy. Yet despite all these many facilities, evolutionists will never be able to form professors of biology who study the cells which comprise their own bodies, roses, tigers, tomatoes or brain surgeons in such a place. All that will emerge is a brown, muddy water.

Yet, despite all this flexibility given to them, evolutionists would still never be able to bring about roses, leopards, eagles, pigeons, butterflies, budgerigars, cats, fig trees, mulberry trees, orange trees, tomato plants, lemon trees, melons, violets, sunflowers, film producers, writers, nuclear engineers, brain surgeons, university students, professors of biology who study the cells which make up their own bodies, university rectors, heads of state, artists, and architects. They would not even be able to produce a single cell.

Despite being an evolutionist, Professor Hoyle admitted this fact:

If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You will find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals. How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon . . . In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth.16

Conclusion

With the documentary The Human Body, the BBC has entered upon a programme of evolutionary propaganda from which it can never obtain any results. Telling viewers things like "first there were bacteria, which later evolved and eventually became human beings, and this is a great miracle of evolution," without offering any scientific evidence, as if they were reading a bedtime story, is a fruitless attempt to get people to believe in evolution. Today, not even middle school children take evolution seriously; indeed, they find it rather comic. Our hope is that the BBC will realize that this documentary, which it perhaps decided to air solely because of its striking images, actually contains an account which is far removed from true science, and revise it accordingly.

1 - Mahlon B. Hoagland, The Roots of Life, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978, p.18
2- Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, New York, Summit Books, 1986. p.127
3- Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1984, p. 148
4- Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, p. 130.
5- Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara, Meteksan Yayinlari, p.79
6- Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 87
7- B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988
8- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 172, 280
9- Derek A. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record," Proceedings of the British Geological Association, Vol. 87, 1976, p. 133
10 - Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade," MacLean's, 19 January 1981, p. 56
11 - Science, July 17, 1981, p. 289
12 - G. G. Simpson, W. Beck, An Introduction to Biology, New York, Harcourt Brace and World, 1965, p. 241
13 - Keith S. Thompson, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated," American Scientist, volume 76, May / June 1988, p. 273
14 - Ken McNamara, "Embryos and Evolution," New Scientist, 16 October 1999
15 - Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, New York: Ticknor and Fields 1982, p. 204
16 - Sir Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1983, pp. 20-21