into a corner, some people who support the theory of evolution
resort to the claim "Even if scientific discoveries do not
confirm the theory of evolution today, such developments will
take place in the future."
The basic starting point here is evolutionists'
admission of defeat in the scientific arena. Reading between
the lines, we can translate as follows: "Yes, we defenders
of the theory of evolution admit that the discoveries of modern
science do not support us. For that reason, we can see no
alternative but to refer the matter to the future."
Yet science does not function by such logic.
A scientist does not first of all blindly devote himself to
a theory, hoping that one day the evidence to prove that theory
will emerge. Science examines the available evidence and draws
conclusions from it. That is why scientists should accept
the "design," or the fact of creation in other words, which
scientific discoveries have proved.
Despite this, however, evolutionist incitement
and propaganda can still influence people, especially those
who are not fully conversant with the theory. For this reason,
it will be useful to set out the reply in full:
We can consider the validity of the theory of
evolution with three basic questions:
1. How did the first living cell emerge?
2. How can one living species turn into another?
3. Is there any evidence in the fossil record
that living things underwent such a process?
A great deal of serious research has been carried
out during the twentieth century into these three questions,
which the theory simply has to answer. What this research
has revealed, however, is that the theory of evolution cannot
account for life. This will become apparent when we consider
these questions one by one.
1. The question of the "first
cell" is the most deadly dilemma for the proponents of evolution.
Research on the subject has revealed that it is impossible
to explain the emergence of the first cell by means of the
concept of "chance." Fred Hoyle puts it this way:
The chance that higher life forms might
have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that
a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a
Boeing 747 from the materials therein.63
Let us use an example to see the contradiction
evolutionists are involved in. Remember the famous example
of William Paley and imagine someone who has never seen a
clock in his life, someone on a desert island for instance,
who one day comes across one. This person who sees a wall-clock
from 100 metres away will not be able to make out exactly
what it is, and may be unable to distinguish it from any natural
phenomenon thrown up by the wind, sand, and Earth. Yet as
that person draws closer, he will understand just by looking
at it that it is the product of design. From even closer up,
he will be left in absolutely no doubt. The next stage may
be to examine the features of this object, and the art apparent
in it. When he opens it up and has a detailed look, he will
see that there is a greater accumulation of knowledge inside
it than was apparent from the outside, and that is a product
of intelligence. Every subsequent examination will just make
that analysis even more certain.
There is no difference between the absurdity of claiming
that a jet could form by chance and that a living
cell could do so. The design in a living cell is many
times superior to that in a jet created by the best
engineers and most advanced robots, with the most
developed technology, in the most modern plants.
The truth about life that emerges as science
advances is in a similar situation. Scientific developments
have revealed the perfection in life on the system, organ,
tissue, cellular, and even molecular levels. Every new detail
we grasp enables us to see the wondrous dimension of this
design a little more clearly. Nineteenth-century evolutionists,
who took the view that the cell was a little lump of carbon,
were in the same situation as that person looking at the clock
from 100 metres away. Today, however, it is impossible to
find even one scientist who does not admit that each individual
part of the cell is a magnificent work of art and design on
its own. Even the membrane of a tiny cell, which has been
described as a "selective filter," contains enormous intelligence
and design. It recognizes the atoms, proteins, and molecules
around it as if it possessed a consciousness of its own, and
only allows into the cell those which are needed. (For further
details, see Harun Yahya's Consciousness in the Cell.) Unlike
the limited intelligent design in the clock, living organisms
are stunning artifacts of intelligence and design. Far from
proving evolution, the ever wider-ranging and detailed research
that is carried out into living structures, only some of whose
make-up and functions have been uncovered so far, allows us
to understand the truth of creation even better.
2. Evolutionists maintain that
one species can turn into another by means of mutation and
natural selection. All the research carried out on the matter
has shown that neither mechanism has any evolutionary effect
whatsoever. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at
the Natural History Museum in London, stresses the fact in
No one has ever produced a species
by the mechanisms of natural selection. No one
has ever got near it, and most of the current argument in
neo-Darwinism is about this question. 64
Research into mutation shows
that it has no evolutionary properties. The American geneticist
B. G. Ranganathan says:
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
As we have seen, the mechanisms that the theory
of evolution suggests for the formation of species are completely
ineffective, and actually harmful. It has been understood
that these mechanisms, which were proposed when science and
technology had not yet advanced to the level necessary to
show that the claim was nothing but the product of fantasy,
have no developmental or evolutionary effects.
3. Fossils also show that life
did not emerge as the result of any evolutionary process,
but that it came about suddenly, the product of perfect "design."
All the fossils that have ever been found confirm this. Niles
Eldredge, the well-known paleontologist from Harvard University
and curator of the American Museum of Natural History, explains
that there is no possibility that any fossils that might be
found in the future could change the situation:
The record jumps, and all the evidence
shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real
events in life's history-not the artifact of a poor fossil
Another American scholar, Robert
Wesson, states in his 1991 book Beyond Natural Selection,
that "the gaps in the fossil record are real and phenomenal."
He elaborates this claim in this way:
The gaps in the record are real, however.
The absence of a record of any important branching is quite
phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for
long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution
into new species or genera but replacement of one by another,
and change is more or less abrupt. 67
In conclusion, some 150 years have gone by since
the theory of evolution was first put forward, and all subsequent
scientific developments have worked against it. The more science
has examined the details of life, the more evidence for the
perfection of creation has been found, and the more it has
been understood that the emergence of life and its subsequent
variation by chance is quite impossible. Every piece of research
reveals new evidence of the design in living things, and makes
the fact of creation ever clearer. Every decade that has passed
since Darwin's time has just revealed the invalidity of the
theory of evolution even more.
In short, scientific advances do not favour the
theory of evolution. For that reason, further developments
in the future will not do so either, but will demonstrate
its invalidity even further.
It remains to say that the claims of evolution
are not something that science has not yet solved or explained,
but will be able to explain in the future. On the contrary,
modern science has disproved the theory of evolution in all
areas and demonstrated that it is impossible from all points
of view for such an imaginary process ever to have taken place.
To claim that such an untenable belief will be proven in the
future is nothing but the product of the imaginative and utopian
mindsets of those Marxist and materialist circles that see
evolution as underpinning their ideologies. They are merely
trying to console themselves in their terrible despair.
For this reason, the idea that "science will
prove evolution in the future" is no different from believing
that "science will one day show that the Earth rests on the
back of an elephant."
on Evolution," Nature, vol. 294, November 12, 1981,
64. Colin Patterson, "Cladistics," Interview
by Brian Leek, interviewer Peter Franz, March 4, 1982, BBC,
65. B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania:
The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988
66. N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall, The
Myths of Human Evolution, Columbia University Press,
1982, p. 59
67. R. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991, p. 45