Every detail in this universe points to a superior creation. On the other hand, materialism, which seeks to deny the fact of creation in the universe, is nothing but an unscientific fallacy.
Materialism invalidated, all other theories based on this philosophy are rendered baseless. Foremost of them is Darwinism, that is, the theory of evolution. This theory, which argues that life originated from inanimate matter through coincidences, has been demolished with the recognition that the universe is created by Allah. American astrophysicist Hugh Ross explains as follows:
Atheism, Darwinism, and virtually all the "isms" emanating from the eighteenth to the twentieth century philosophies are built upon the assumption, the incorrect assumption, that the universe is infinite. The singularity has brought us face to face with the cause - or causer - beyond/behind/before the universe and all that it contains, including life itself. (1)
It is Allah Who created the universe and who designs it down to its smallest detail. Therefore, it is impossible for the theory of evolution, which holds that living beings are not created by Allah, but are products of coincidences, to be true.
Unsurprisingly, when we look at the theory of evolution, we see that this theory is denounced by scientific findings. The design in life is extremely complex and striking. In the inanimate world, for instance, we can explore how sensitive balances atoms rest upon, and further, in the animate world, we can observe in how complex designs these atoms were brought together, and how extraordinary mechanisms are structures such as proteins, enzymes, and cells, which are manufactured with them.
This extraordinary design in life invalidated Darwinism at the end of the 20th century.
We dealt with this subject in great detail in some of our other studies, and we still do. However, we think that, due to its importance, it will be helpful to make a short summary here as well.
The Scientific Collapse of Darwinism
Although a doctrine going back as far as ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was advanced extensively in the 19th century. The most important development that made the theory the top topic of the world of science was the book of Charles Darwin titled "The Origin of Species" published in 1859. In this book, Darwin refused that different living species on the earth were created separately by Allah. According to Darwin, all living beings had a common ancestor and they diversified over time through small changes.
Darwin"s theory was not based on any concrete scientific finding; as he also accepted, it was just an "assumption." Moreover, as Darwin confessed in the long chapter of his book titled "Difficulties on Theory," the theory was failing against many critical questions.
Darwin invested all his hopes in new scientific discoveries, which he expected to solve the "Difficulties of the Theory." However, contrary to his expectations, scientific findings expanded the dimensions of these difficulties.
The defeat of Darwinism against science can be reviewed under three basic topics:
1)The theory can by no means explain how life originated on the Earth.
2) There is no scientific finding showing that the "evolutionary mechanisms" proposed by the theory have any power to evolve at all.
3) The fossil record proves completely the contrary of the suggestions of the theory of evolution.
In this section, we will examine these three basic points in general outlines:The First Insurmountable Step: The Origin of Life
The theory of evolution posits that all living species evolved from a single living cell that emerged in the primitive earth 3.8 billion years ago. How a single cell could generate millions of complex living species and if such an evolution really occurred, why traces of it cannot be observed in the fossil record are some questions the theory cannot answer. However, foremost, the first step of the alleged evolutionary process has to be inquired. How did this "first cell" originate?
Since the theory of evolution denies creation and does not accept any kind of supernatural intervention, it maintains that the "first cell" originated coincidentally within laws of nature, without any design, plan, and arrangement. According to the theory, inanimate matter must have produced a living cell as a result of coincidences. This, however, is a claim inconsistent with even the most recognized rules of biology.
"Life Comes from Life"
In his book, Darwin never referred to the origin of life. The primitive understanding of science in his time rested on the assumption that living beings had a very simple structure. Since the medieval times, spontaneous generation, the theory asserting that non-living materials came together to form living organisms was widely accepted. It was commonly believed that insects came into being from food leftovers, and mice from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty peace of cloth, and it was believed that mice would originate out of it after a while.
Similarly, worming of meat was assumed to be an evidence for spontaneous generation. However, only some time later was it understood that worms did not appear on meat spontaneously but were carried by flies in the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye.
Even in the period when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from non-living matter was widely accepted in the world of science.
Louis Pasteur invalidated the claim that "inanimate matter can create life", which constituted the groundwork of the theory of evolution, with the experiments he carried out.
However, five years after Darwin"s book was published, the discovery of Louis Pasteur disproved this belief, which constituted the groundwork of evolution. Pasteur summarized the conclusion he reached after time-consuming studies and experiments: "The claim that inanimate matter can originate life is buried in history for good." (2)
Advocates of the theory of evolution resisted to the findings of Pasteur for a long time. However, as the development of science unraveled the complex structure of the cell of a living being, the idea that life could come into being coincidentally faced an even greater impasse.
Inconclusive Efforts in the 20th Century
The first evolutionist who took up the subject of the origin of life in the 20th century was the renowned Russian biologist Alexander Oparin. With various theses he advanced in 1930"s, he tried to prove that the cell of a living being could originate by coincidence. These studies, however, were doomed to failure, and Oparin had to make the following confession: "Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question which is actually the darkest point of the complete evolution theory." (3)
Evolutionist followers of Oparin tried to make experiments to solve the subject of the origin of life. The most well known of these experiments was carried out by American chemist Stanley Miller in 1953. Combining the gasses he alleged to have existed in the primordial earth atmosphere in an experiment set-up, and adding energy to the mixture, Miller synthesized several organic molecules (amino acids) present in the structure of proteins.
It only took some years before it was revealed that this experiment, which was then presented as an important step in the name of evolution, was invalid, and that the atmosphere used in the experiment was very different from real earth conditions. (4)
After a long silence, Miller confessed that the atmosphere medium he used was unrealistic. (5)
All the evolutionist efforts put forth throughout the 20th century to explain the origin of life ended with failure. The geochemist Jeffrey Bada from San Diego Scripps Institute accepts this fact in an article published in Earth Magazine in 1998:
Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth? (6)
The Complex Structure of Life
The primary reason why the theory of evolution ended up in such a big impasse about the origin of life is that even the living organisms deemed simplest have incredibly complex structures. The cell of a living being is more complex than all of the technological products produced by man. Today, even in the most developed laboratories of the world, a living cell cannot be produced by bringing inorganic materials together.
The conditions required for the formation of a cell are too great in quantity to be explained away by coincidences. The probability of proteins, the building blocks of cell, being synthesized coincidentally, is 1 in 10950 for an average protein made up of 500 amino acids. In mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 over 1050 is practically considered to be impossible.
The DNA molecule, which is located in the nucleus of the cell and which stores genetic information, is an incredible databank. It is calculated that if the information coded in DNA were written down, this would make a giant library consisting 900 volumes of encyclopedias of 500 pages each.
A very interesting dilemma emerges at this point: the DNA can only replicate with the help of some specialized proteins (enzymes). However, the synthesis of these enzymes can only be realized by the information coded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, they have to exist at the same time for replication. This brings the scenario that life originated by itself to a deadlock. Reputable evolutionist Prof. Leslie Orgel from the University of San Diego California, confesses this fact in September 1994 issue of Scientific American magazine:
It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means. (7)
No doubt, if it is impossible for life to have originated by natural causes, then it has to be accepted that life is "created" in a supernatural way. This fact explicitly invalidates the theory of evolution, whose main purpose is to deny creation.
Imaginary Mechanisms of Evolution
The second important point that negates Darwin"s theory is that both concepts put forward by the theory as "evolutionary mechanisms" were understood to have no evolutionary power in real.
Darwin based his evolution allegation entirely on the mechanism of "natural selection". The importance he placed on this mechanism was evident in the name of his book: The Origin of Species, By Means Of Natural Selection…
Natural selection holds that those living things that are stronger and more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will survive in the struggle for life. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of wild animals, those that can run faster will survive. Therefore, the deer herd will be comprised of faster and stronger individuals. However, unquestionably, this mechanism will not cause deer to evolve and transform them into another living species, for instance, horses.
Therefore, the mechanism of natural selection has no evolutionary power. Darwin was also aware of this fact and had to state this in his book "The Origin of Species" by saying: "Natural selection can do nothing until favorable variations chance to occur"(8).
So, how could these "favorable variations" occur? Darwin tried to answer this question from the standpoint of the primitive understanding of science in his age. According to the French biologist Lamarck, who lived before Darwin, living creatures passed the traits they acquired during their lifetime to the next generation and these traits, accumulating from one generation to another, caused new species to be formed. For instance, according to Lamarck, giraffes evolved from antelopes; as they struggled to eat the leaves of high trees, their necks were extended from generation to generation.
Darwin also gave similar examples, and in his book The Origin of Species, for instance, said that some bears going in water to find food transformed into whales over time. (9)
However, the laws of inheritance discovered by Mendel and verified by the science of genetics that flourished in the 20th century, utterly demolished the legend that acquired traits were passed on to subsequent generations. Thus, natural selection remained "all alone" and therefore, as a totally ineffectual mechanism.
Neo-Darwinism and Mutations
In order to find a solution, Darwinists advanced the "Modern Synthetic Theory", or as more commonly known, Neo-Darwinism, at the end of the 1930"s. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, which are distortions formed in the genes of living beings because of external factors such as radiation or replication errors, as the "cause of favorable variations" in addition to natural mutation.
Today, the model that stands for evolution in the world is Neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living beings present on the earth formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms such as the ears, eyes, lungs, and wings, underwent "mutations," that is, genetic disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that leaves the theory in the lurch: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop, but on the contrary, they always give harm to them.
The reason of this is very simple: the DNA has a very complex structure and random effects can only cause harm to this structure. American geneticist B.G. Ranganathan explains this as follows:
Mutations are small, random, and harmful. They rarely occur and the best possibility is that they will be ineffectual. These four characteristics of mutations imply that mutations cannot lead to an evolutionary development. A random change in a highly specialised organism is either ineffectual or harmful. A random change in a watch cannot improve the watch. It will most probably harm it or at best be ineffectual. An earthquake does not improve the city, it brings destruction. (10)
Not surprisingly, no mutation example, which is useful, that is, which is observed to develop the genetic code, has been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be harmful. It was understood that mutation, which is presented as an "evolutionary mechanism," is actually a genetic occurrence that gives harm to living beings, and leave them disabled. (The most common effect of mutation on human beings is cancer). No doubt, a destructive mechanism cannot be an "evolutionary mechanism." Natural selection, on the other hand, "can do nothing by itself" as Darwin also accepted. This fact shows us that there is no "evolutionary mechanism" in nature. Since no evolutionary mechanism exists, nor could any imaginary process called evolution have taken place.
The Fossil Record: No Sign of Intermediate Forms
The clearest evidence that the scenario suggested by the theory of evolution did not take place is the fossil record.
According to the theory of evolution, every living species has sprung from a predecessor. A previously existing species turned into something else in time and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.
Had this been the case, then numerous intermediary species should have existed and lived within this long transformation period.
For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles should have lived in the past which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile-birds, which acquired some bird traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already had. Since these would be in a transitional phase, they should be disabled, defected, crippled living beings. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms."
If such animals had really existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. In The Origin of Species, Darwin explained:
If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains. (11)
Darwin"s Hopes Shattered
However, although evolutionists have been vehemently searching for fossils since the middle of the 19th century all over the world, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations showed that contrary to the expectations 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. (12)
This means that in the fossil record, all living species suddenly emerge as fully formed without any intermediate forms in between. This is just the opposite of Darwin"s assumptions. Also, it is very strong evidence that living beings are created. The only explanation of a living species emerging suddenly and intact without any evolutionary ancestor can be that this species was created. This fact is admitted also by the widely known evolutionist biologist Douglas Futuyma:
Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence. (13)
Fossils show that living beings emerged completely and perfectly on the earth. That means that "the origin of species" is, contrary to Darwin"s supposition, not evolution but creation.
The Tale of Human Evolution
The subject most often brought up by the advocates of the theory of evolution is the subject of the origin of man. The Darwinist claim holds that modern men of today evolved from some kind of ape-like creatures. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started 4-5 million years ago, it is claimed that there existed some "transitional forms" between modern man and his ancestors. According to this completely imaginary scenario, four basic "categories" are listed:
2. Homo habilis
3. Homo erectus
4. Homo sapiens
Evolutionists call the so-called first ape-like ancestors of men "Australopithecus" which means "South African ape." These living beings are actually nothing but an old ape species that has become extinct. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world-renown anatomists from England and the USA, namely, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, has shown that these belonged to an ordinary ape species that became extinct and bore no resemblance to humans. (14)
Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as "homo," that is "man." According to the evolutionist claim, the living beings in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus. Evolutionists make a fanciful evolution scheme by arranging different fossils of these creatures in an order. This scheme is imaginary because it has never been proved that there is an evolutionary relation between these different classes. Ernst Mayr, one of the foremost defenders of the theory of evolution in the 20th century, admits this fact by saying that "the chain reaching as far as Homo sapiens is actually lost." (15)
By outlining the link chain as "Australopithecus > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens," evolutionists imply that each of these species are one another"s ancestor. However, recent findings of paleoanthropologists have revealed that Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus lived at different parts of the world at the same time. (16)
Moreover, a certain segment of humans classified as Homo erectus have lived up until very modern times. Homo sapiens neandarthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) co-existed in the same region. (17)
This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that they are ancestors of one another. A paleontologist from Harvard University, Stephen Jay Gould explains this deadlock of the theory of evolution although he is an evolutionist himself:
What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth. (18)
Put briefly, the scenario of human evolution, which is sought to be upheld with the help of various drawings of some "half ape, half human" creatures appearing in the media and course books, that is, barely by means of propaganda, is nothing but a tale with no scientific ground.
Lord Solly Zuckerman, one of the most famous and respected scientists in the U.K., who made research on this subject for years, and particularly studied Australopithecus fossils for 15 years, finally concluded, despite he is an evolutionist himself, that there is no such family tree reaching out from ape-like creatures to man in truth.
Zuckerman also made an interesting "spectrum of science." He formed a spectrum of sciences ranging from those he considered scientific to those he considered unscientific. According to Zuckerman"s spectrum, the most "scientific"-that is, depending on concrete data-fields of science are chemistry and physics. After them come the biological sciences and then the social sciences. At the far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to be most "unscientific," are "extra-sensory perception"-concepts such as telepathy and sixth sense-and finally "human evolution." Zuckerman explains his reasoning:
We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man"s fossil history, where to the faithful (evolutionist) anything is possible - and where the ardent believer (in evolution) is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time. (19)
The tale of human evolution comes up to nothing but the prejudiced interpretations of some fossils unearthed by some people, who are blindly adhered to their theory.
A Materialist Faith
The information we have presented so far shows us that the theory of evolution is a claim evidently at variance with scientific findings. The theory"s claim on the origin of life is inconsistent with science, the evolutionary mechanisms it proposes have no evolutionary power, and fossils demonstrate that the intermediate forms required by the theory never existed. So, it certainly follows that the theory of evolution should be pushed aside as an unscientific idea. This is how many ideas such as the earth-centered universe model have been taken out of the agenda of science throughout history.
However, the theory of evolution is pressingly kept on the agenda of science. Some people even try to present criticisms directed towards the theory as an "attack on science." Why?
The reason is that the theory of evolution is an indispensable dogmatic belief for some circles. These circles are blindly devoted to materialist philosophy and adopt Darwinism because it is the only materialist explanation that can be put forward for nature.
Interestingly enough, they also confess this fact from time to time. A well known geneticist and an outspoken evolutionist, Richard C. Lewontin from Harvard University, confesses that he is "foremost a materialist and then a scientist" with these words:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. (20)
These are explicit statements that Darwinism is a dogma kept alive just for the sake of adherence to the materialist philosophy. This dogma maintains that there is no being save matter. Therefore, it argues that inanimate, unconscious matter created life. It admits that millions of different living species; for instance, birds, fish, giraffes, tigers, insects, trees, flowers, whales and human beings originated as a result of the interactions between matter such as the pouring rain, the lightening flash, etc., out of inanimate matter. This is a precept contrary both to reason and science. Yet Darwinists continue to defend this precept just "not to allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Everyone who does not look at the origin of living beings with a materialist prejudice will see this evident truth: All living beings are works of a Creator, Who is All-Powerful, All-Wise and All-Knowing. This Creator is Allah Who created the whole universe from non-existence, designed it in the most perfect form, and fashioned all living beings.