Darwinism, in other words the theory of evolution, was put forward with the
aim of denying the fact of Creation, but is in truth nothing but failed,
unscientific nonsense. This theory, which claims that life emerged by chance from inanimate
matter, was invalidated by the scientific evidence of miraculous order in the
universe and in living things, as well as by the discovery of more than 300
million fossils revealing that evolution never happened. In this way, science
confirmed the fact that Allah created the universe and the living things in it. The propaganda carried out today in order
to keep the theory of evolution alive is based solely on the distortion of the
scientific facts, biased interpretation, and lies and falsehoods disguised as
science.
Yet this
propaganda cannot conceal the truth. The fact that the theory of evolution is the
greatest deception in the history of science has been expressed more and more in the
scientific world over the last 20-30 years. Research carried out after the
1980s in particular has revealed that the claims of Darwinism are totally
unfounded, something that has been stated by a large number of scientists. In
the United States in particular, many scientists from such different fields as
biology, biochemistry and paleontology recognize the invalidity of Darwinism
and employ the fact of Creation to account for the origin of life.
We have examined the collapse of the theory of evolution
and the proofs of Creation in great scientific detail in many of our works, and
are still continuing to do so. Given the enormous importance of this subject,
it will be of great benefit to summarize it here.
The Scientific Collapse of Darwinism
As a pagan
doctrine going back as far as ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was
advanced extensively in the nineteenth century. The most important development
that made it the top topic of the world of science was Charles Darwin’s The
Origin of Species, published in 1859. In this book, he opposed, in his own eyes,
the fact that Allah created different living species on Earth separately, for
he erroneously claimed that all living beings had a common ancestor and had
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 failed in the face of many critical
questions.
Darwin invested
all of his hopes in new scientific discoveries, which he expected to solve
these difficulties. However, contrary to his expectations, scientific findings
expanded the dimensions of these difficulties. The defeat of Darwinism in the face of
science can be reviewed under three basic topics:
1)
The theory cannot explain how life originated on Earth.
2)
No scientific finding shows that the “evolutionary mechanisms” proposed by the
theory have any evolutionary power at all.
3)
The fossil record proves the exact opposite of what the theory suggests.
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 on Earth 3.8 billion years ago, supposed to have happened as a result
of coincidences. 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 of the questions that the theory cannot
answer. However, first and foremost, we need to ask: How did this “first cell”
originate?
Since the theory of evolution
ignorantly denies Creation, it maintains that the “first cell” originated as a
product of blind coincidences within the laws of nature, without any plan or
arrangement. According to
the theory, inanimate matter must have produced a living cell as a result of
coincidences. Such a claim, however, is inconsistent with the most unassailable
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 medieval times, spontaneous generation, which asserts
that non-living materials came together to form living organisms, had been
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 piece of cloth, and it was
believed that mice would originate from it after a while.
Similarly,
maggots developing in rotting meat was assumed to be evidence of spontaneous
generation. However, it was later understood that
worms did not appear on meat spontaneously, but were carried there by flies in
the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye.
Even 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.
However, five years after the publication of Darwin’s book, Louis
Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, that
disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin’s theory. In his
triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said: “Never will the
doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this
simple experiment.”1
For a long time,
advocates of the theory of evolution resisted these findings. 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 of the Twentieth Century
The first
evolutionist who took up the subject of the origin of life in the twentieth
century was the renowned Russian biologist Alexander Oparin. With various
theses he advanced in the 1930s, he tried to prove that a living cell could
originate by coincidence. These studies, however, were doomed to failure, and
Oparin had to make the following confession:
Unfortunately,
however, the problem of the origin of the cell is perhaps the most obscure
point in the whole study of the evolution of organisms.2
Evolutionist
followers of Oparin tried to carry out experiments to solve this problem. The
best known experiment was carried out by the American chemist Stanley Miller in
1953. Combining the gases he alleged to have existed in the primordial Earth’s
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.
Barely a few
years had passed before it was revealed that this
experiment, which was then presented as an important step in the name of
evolution, was invalid, for the atmosphere used in the experiment was very
different from the real Earth conditions.3
After
a long silence, Miller confessed that
the atmosphere medium he used was unrealistic.4
All the evolutionists’ efforts throughout the twentieth century to explain
the origin of life ended in failure. The geochemist Jeffrey Bada, from the 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?5
The Complex Structure of Life
The primary
reason why evolutionists ended up in such a great impasse regarding the origin
of life is that even those living organisms Darwinists deemed to be the
simplest have outstandingly complex features. The cell of a living thing is
more complex than all of our man-made technological products. Today, even in the most
developed laboratories of the world, no single protein of the cell, let alone a
living cell itself, can be produced by bringing organic chemicals together.
The conditions
required for the formation of a cell are too great in quantity to be explained
away by coincidences. However, there is
no need to explain the situation with these details. Evolutionists are at a
dead-end even before reaching the stage of the cell. That is because the
probability of just a single protein, an essential building block of the cell,
coming into being by chance is mathematically “0.”
The main reason for
this is the need for other proteins to be present if one protein is to form,
and this completely eradicates the possibility of chance formation. This fact
by itself is sufficient to eliminate the evolutionist claim of chance right
from the outset. To summarize,
Protein cannot be
synthesized without enzymes, and enzymes are all proteins.
Around 100 proteins
need to be present in order for a single protein to be synthesized. There
therefore need to be proteins for proteins to exist.
DNA manufactures
the protein-synthesizing enzymes. Protein cannot be synthesized without DNA.
DNA is therefore also needed in order for proteins to form.
All the organelles
in the cell have important tasks in protein synthesis. In other words, in order
for proteins to form a perfect and fully functioning cell needs to exist
together with all its organelles.
The DNA
molecule, which is located in the nucleus of a cell and which stores genetic
information, is a magnificent databank. If the information coded in DNA were
written down, it would make a giant library consisting of an estimated 900
volumes of encyclopedias consisting of 500 pages each.
A very
interesting dilemma emerges at this point: DNA can replicate itself only with
the help of some specialized proteins (enzymes). However, the synthesis of these enzymes can be realized only 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. Prof. Leslie Orgel, an evolutionist of repute from the
University of San Diego, California, confesses this fact in the September 1994
issue of the 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.6
No doubt, if it
is impossible for life to have originated spontaneously as a result of blind
coincidences, then it has to be accepted that life was created. This
fact explicitly invalidates the theory of evolution, whose main purpose is to
deny Creation.
Imaginary Mechanism 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, in reality,
no evolutionary power.
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 attack by 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 themselves 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:
Natural selection
can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur.7
Lamarck’s Impact
So, how could
these “favorable variations” occur? Darwin tried to answer this question from
the standpoint of the primitive understanding of science at that time.
According to the French biologist Chevalier de Lamarck (1744-1829), who lived
before Darwin, living creatures passed on the traits they acquired during their
lifetime to the next generation. He asserted that these traits, which
accumulated from one generation to another, caused new species to be formed.
For instance, he claimed that 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. In his book The Origin of Species, for instance, he
said that some bears going into water to find food transformed themselves into
whales over time.8
However, the
laws of inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel (1822-84) and verified by the
science of genetics, which flourished in the twentieth century, utterly
demolished the legend that acquired traits were passed on to subsequent
generations. Thus, natural selection fell out of favor as an evolutionary
mechanism.
Neo-Darwinism and Mutations
In order to find
a solution, Darwinists advanced the “Modern Synthetic Theory,” or as it is more
commonly known, Neo-Darwinism, at the end of the 1930s. Neo-Darwinism added
mutations, which are distortions formed in the genes of living beings due to
such external factors as radiation or replication errors, as the “cause of
favorable variations” in addition to natural mutation.
Today, the model
that Darwinists espouse, despite their own awareness of its scientific
invalidity, is neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living
beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these
organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent “mutations,” that is,
genetic disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally
undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the
contrary, they are always harmful.
The reason for
this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only harm it. The American geneticist B. G. Ranganathan explains
this as follows:
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.
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 harms living
things, and leaves them disabled. (The most common effect of mutation on human
beings is cancer.) Of course, 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, no such imaginary process called “evolution”
could 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
unscientific supposition of this theory, every living species has sprung from a
predecessor. A previously existing species turned into something else over time
and all species have come into being in this way. In other words, this
transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.
Had this been
the case, 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, defective, crippled living beings.
Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have
lived in the past, as “transitional forms.”
If such animals ever 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.10
However, Darwin was well aware that
no fossils of these intermediate forms had yet been found. He regarded this as a major difficulty
for his theory. In one chapter of his book titled “Difficulties on Theory,” he
wrote:
Why, if species have descended from other species by
insensibly 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?… Why then is not every
geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? 11
Darwin’s Hopes Shattered
However,
although evolutionists have been making strenuous efforts to find fossils since
the middle of the nineteenth century all over the world, no transitional forms have
yet been uncovered. All of the fossils, contrary to the
evolutionists’ expectations, show that life appeared on Earth all of a
sudden and fully-formed.
One 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, this is very
strong evidence that all living things are
created. The only
explanation of a living species emerging suddenly and complete in every detail
without any evolutionary ancestor is that it 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 fully developed and in a perfect state on the Earth. That means that “the origin of species,” contrary
to Darwin’s supposition, is not evolution, but Creation.
The Tale of Human Evolution
The subject most
often brought up by advocates of the theory of evolution is the subject of the
origin of man. The Darwinist claim holds that man evolved from so-called
ape-like creatures. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed
to have started 4-5 million years ago, some “transitional forms” between man
and his imaginary ancestors are supposed to have existed. According to this
completely imaginary scenario, four basic “categories” are listed:
1.
Australopithecus
2. Homo
habilis
3. Homo
erectus
4. Homo
sapiens
Evolutionists
call man’s so-called first ape-like ancestors 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 famous anatomists from England and the
USA, namely, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, shows that these
apes 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 their claim, the living beings in the Homo series are more developed than
Australopithecus. Evolutionists devise a fanciful evolution scheme by arranging
different fossils of these creatures in a particular 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 twentieth century’s most
important evolutionists, contends in his book One Long Argument that
“particularly historical [puzzles] such as the origin of life or of Homo
sapiens, are extremely difficult and may even resist a final, satisfying
explanation.”15
By outlining the
link chain as Australopithecus > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo
sapiens, evolutionists imply that each of these species is 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 (man) co-existed in
the same region.17
This situation
apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that they are ancestors of one
another. The late Stephen Jay Gould explained this deadlock of the theory of
evolution although he was himself one of the leading advocates of evolution in
the twentieth century:
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 “upheld” with the help of various
drawings of some “half ape, half human” creatures appearing in the media and
course books, that is, frankly, by means of propaganda, is nothing but a tale with no scientific
foundation.
Lord Solly
Zuckerman, one of the most famous and respected scientists in the U.K., who
carried out research on this subject for years and studied Australopithecus
fossils for 15 years, finally concluded, despite being an evolutionist himself,
that there
is, in fact, no such family tree branching out from ape-like creatures to man.
Zuckerman also
made an interesting “spectrum of science” 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 boils down to nothing but the prejudiced interpretations of some fossils
unearthed by certain people, who blindly adhere to their theory.
Darwinian Formula!
Besides all the
technical evidence we have dealt with so far, let us now for once, examine what
kind of a superstition the evolutionists have with an example so simple as to
be understood even by children:
The theory of
evolution asserts that life is formed by chance. According to this irrational
claim, lifeless and unconscious atoms came together to form the cell and then
they somehow formed other living things, including man. Let us think about
that. When we bring together the elements that are the building-blocks of life
such as carbon, phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium, only a heap is formed. No
matter what treatments it undergoes, this atomic heap cannot form even a single
living being. If you like, let us formulate an “experiment” on this subject and
let us examine on the behalf of evolutionists what they really claim without
pronouncing loudly under the name “Darwinian formula”:
Let
evolutionists put plenty of materials present in the composition of living
things such as phosphorus, nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, iron, and magnesium into
big barrels. Moreover, let them add in these barrels any material that does not
exist under normal conditions, but they think as necessary. Let them add in
this mixture as many amino acids and as
many proteins as they like. Let them expose these mixtures to as much heat and
moisture as they like. Let them stir these with whatever technologically
developed device they like. Let them put the foremost scientists beside these
barrels. Let these experts wait in turn beside these barrels for billions, and
even trillions of years. Let them be free to use all kinds of conditions they
believe to be necessary for a human’s formation. No matter what they do, they cannot
produce from these barrels a human, say a professor that examines his cell
structure under the electron microscope. They cannot produce giraffes, lions, bees,
canaries, horses, dolphins, roses, orchids, lilies, carnations, bananas,
oranges, apples, dates, tomatoes, melons, watermelons, figs, olives, grapes,
peaches, peafowls, pheasants, multicoloured butterflies, or millions of other
living beings such as these. Indeed, they could not obtain even a single cell
of any one of them.
Briefly, unconscious atoms cannot
form the cell by coming
together. They cannot take a new decision and divide this cell into two, then
take other decisions and create the professors who first invent the electron
microscope and then examine their own cell structure under that microscope. Matter is an unconscious,
lifeless heap, and it comes to life with Allah’s superior creation.
The theory of
evolution, which claims the opposite, is a total fallacy completely contrary to
reason. Thinking even a little bit on the claims of evolutionists discloses
this reality, just as in the above example.
Technology in the Eye and the Ear
Another subject
that remains unanswered by evolutionary theory is the excellent quality of
perception in the eye and the ear.
Before passing
on to the subject of the eye, let us briefly answer the question of how we see.
Light rays coming from an object fall oppositely on the eye’s retina. Here,
these light rays are transmitted into electric signals by cells and reach a
tiny spot at the back of the brain, the “center of vision.” These electric
signals are perceived in this center as an image after a series of processes.
With this technical background, let us do some thinking.
The brain is insulated from light. That means that its inside is completely dark,
and that no light reaches the place where it is located. Thus, the “center of
vision” is never touched by light and may even be the darkest place you have
ever known. However, you observe a luminous, bright world in this pitch
darkness.
The image formed in the eye is so
sharp and distinct that even the technology of the twentieth century has not
been able to attain it. For
instance, look at the book you are reading, your hands with which you are
holding it, and then lift your head and look around you. Have you ever seen
such a sharp and distinct image as this one at any other place? Even the most
developed television screen produced by the greatest television producer in the
world cannot provide such a sharp image for you. This is a three-dimensional,
colored, and extremely sharp image. For more than 100 years, thousands of
engineers have been trying to achieve this sharpness. Factories, huge premises
were established, much research has been done, plans and designs have been made
for this purpose. Again, look at a TV screen and the book you hold in your
hands. You will see that there is a big difference in sharpness and
distinction. Moreover, the TV screen shows you a two-dimensional image, whereas
with your eyes, you watch a three-dimensional perspective with depth.
For many years,
tens of thousands of engineers have tried to make a three-dimensional TV and
achieve the vision quality of the eye. Yes, they have made a three-dimensional
television system, but it is not possible to watch it without putting on
special 3-D glasses; moreover, it is only an artificial three-dimension. The
background is more blurred, the foreground appears like a paper setting. Never
has it been possible to produce a sharp and distinct vision like that of the
eye. In both the camera and the television, there is a loss of image quality.
Evolutionists
claim that the mechanism producing this sharp and distinct image has been
formed by chance. Now, if somebody told you that the television in your room
was formed as a result of chance, that all of its atoms just happened to come
together and make up this device that produces an image, what would you think?
How can atoms do what thousands of people cannot?
If a device
producing a more primitive image than the eye could not have been formed by chance, then it is very evident that the eye and
the image seen by the eye could not have been formed by chance. The same
situation applies to the ear. The outer ear picks up the available sounds by
the auricle and directs them to the middle ear, the middle ear transmits the
sound vibrations by intensifying them, and the inner ear sends these vibrations
to the brain by translating them into electric signals. Just as with the eye,
the act of hearing finalizes in the center of hearing in the brain.
The situation in
the eye is also true for the ear. That is, the brain is insulated from sound just as it is from light. It does not let any
sound in. Therefore, no matter how noisy is the outside, the inside of the
brain is completely silent. Nevertheless, the sharpest sounds are perceived in
the brain. In your completely silent brain, you listen to symphonies, and hear all of the
noises in a crowded place. However, were the sound level in your brain measured by a precise device
at that moment, complete silence would be found to be prevailing there.
As is the case
with imagery, decades of effort have been spent in trying to generate and
reproduce sound that is faithful to the original. The results of these efforts
are sound recorders, high-fidelity systems, and systems for sensing sound.
Despite all of this technology and the thousands of engineers and experts who
have been working on this endeavor, no sound has yet been obtained that has the
same sharpness and clarity as the sound perceived by the ear. Think of the
highest-quality hi-fi systems produced by the largest company in the music
industry. Even in these devices, when sound is recorded some of it is lost; or
when you turn on a hi-fi you always hear a hissing sound before the music
starts. However, the sounds that are the products of the human body’s
technology are extremely sharp and clear. A human ear never perceives a sound
accompanied by a hissing sound or with atmospherics as does a hi-fi; rather, it
perceives sound exactly as it is, sharp and clear. This is the way it has been
since the
creation of man.
So far, no
man-made visual or recording apparatus has been as sensitive and successful in
perceiving sensory data as are the eye and the ear. However, as far as seeing
and hearing are concerned, a far greater truth lies beyond all this.
To Whom Does the Consciousness that Sees and
Hears within the Brain Belong?
Who watches an
alluring world in the brain, listens to symphonies and the twittering of birds,
and smells the rose?
The stimulations
coming from a person’s eyes, ears, and nose travel to the brain as
electro-chemical nerve impulses. In biology, physiology, and biochemistry
books, you can find many details about how this image forms in the brain.
However, you will never come across the most important fact: Who perceives
these electro-chemical nerve impulses as images, sounds, odors, and sensory
events in the brain? There is a consciousness in the brain that perceives all this without feeling
any need for an eye, an ear, and a nose. To whom does this consciousness belong? Of course
it does not belong to the nerves, the fat layer, and neurons comprising the
brain. This is why Darwinist-materialists, who believe that everything is comprised of matter, cannot answer these
questions.
For this consciousness is the
spirit created by Allah,
which needs neither the eye to watch the images nor the ear to hear the sounds.
Furthermore, it does not need the brain to think.
Everyone who
reads this explicit and scientific fact should ponder on Almighty Allah, and
fear and seek refuge in Him, for He squeezes the entire universe in a
pitch-dark place of a few cubic centimeters in a three-dimensional, colored,
shadowy, and luminous form.
A Materialist Faith
The information
we have presented so far shows us that the theory of evolution is
incompatible with scientific findings. The theory’s claim regarding the origin of life
is inconsistent with science, the evolutionary mechanisms it proposes have no
evolutionary power, and fossils demonstrate that the required intermediate forms have
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 kept on the agenda of science. Some people even try to
represent criticisms directed against it as an “attack on science.” Why?
The reason is
that this theory 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 to explain the workings of 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 “first and foremost a materialist and then a scientist”:
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
[intervention]...20
These are
explicit statements that Darwinism is a dogma kept alive just for the sake of adherence to materialism. This dogma
maintains that there is no being save matter. Therefore, it argues that
inanimate, unconscious matter brought life into being. It insists that millions
of different living species (e.g., birds, fish, giraffes, tigers, insects,
trees, flowers, whales, and human beings) originated as a result of the
interactions between matter such as pouring rain, lightning flashes, and so on,
out of inanimate matter. This is a precept contrary both to reason and science.
Yet Darwinists continue to ignorantly defend it just so as not to acknowledge,
in their own eyes, the evident existence of Allah.
Anyone who does
not look at the origin of living beings with a materialist prejudice sees 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, in the most perfect form, and fashioned all living beings.
The Theory of Evolution: The Most Potent Spell in the
World
Anyone free of
prejudice and the influence of any particular ideology, who uses only his or
her reason and logic, will clearly understand that belief in the theory of
evolution, which brings to mind the superstitions of societies with no
knowledge of science or civilization, is quite impossible.
As explained
above, those who believe in the theory of evolution think that a few atoms and
molecules thrown into a huge vat could produce thinking, reasoning professors
and university students; such scientists as Einstein and Galileo; such artists
as Humphrey Bogart, Frank Sinatra and Luciano Pavarotti; as well as antelopes,
lemon trees, and carnations. Moreover, as the scientists and professors who
believe in this nonsense are educated people, it is quite justifiable to speak
of this theory as “the most potent spell in history.” Never before has any
other belief or idea so taken away peoples’ powers of reason, refused to allow
them to think intelligently and logically, and hidden the truth from them as if
they had been blindfolded. This is an even worse and unbelievable blindness
than the totem worship in some parts of Africa, the people of Saba worshipping the Sun, the tribe of the Prophet Abraham (as)
worshipping idols they had made with their own hands, or some among the people
of the Prophet Moses (as) worshipping the Golden Calf.
In fact, Allah
has pointed to this lack of reason in the Qur’an. In many verses, He reveals
that some peoples’ minds will be closed and that they will be powerless to see
the truth. Some of these verses are as follows:
As for those
who do not believe, it makes no difference to them whether you warn them or do
not warn them, they will not believe. Allah has sealed up their hearts and
hearing and over their eyes is a blindfold. They will have a terrible
punishment. (Surat al-Baqara, 6-7)
… They have
hearts with which they do not understand. They have eyes with which they do not
see. They have ears with which they do not hear. Such people are like cattle.
No, they are even further astray! They are the unaware. (Surat al-A‘raf, 179)
Even if We
opened up to them a door into heaven, and they spent the day ascending through
it, they would only say: “Our eyesight is befuddled! Or rather we have been put
under a spell!” (Surat al-Hijr, 14-15)
Words cannot
express just how astonishing it is that this spell should hold such a wide
community in thrall, keep people from the truth, and not be broken for 150
years. It is understandable that one or a few people might believe in
impossible scenarios and claims full of stupidity and illogicality. However,
“magic” is the only possible explanation for people from all over the world
believing that unconscious and lifeless atoms suddenly decided to come together
and form a universe that functions with a flawless system of organization,
discipline, reason, and consciousness; a planet named Earth with all of its
features so perfectly suited to life; and living things full of countless
complex systems.
In fact, in the
Qur’an Allah relates the incident of the Prophet Moses (as) and Pharaoh to show
that some people who support atheistic philosophies actually influence others
by magic. When Pharaoh was told about the true religion, he told the Prophet
Moses (as) to meet with his own magicians. When the Prophet Moses (as) did so,
he told them to demonstrate their abilities first. The verses continue:
He said: “You throw.” And when they threw, they cast a spell on
the people’s eyes and caused them to feel great fear of them. They produced an
extremely powerful magic. (Surat
al-A‘raf, 116)
As we have seen,
Pharaoh’s magicians were able to deceive everyone, apart from the Prophet Moses
(as) and those who believed in him. However, his evidence broke the spell, or
“swallowed up what they had forged,” as revealed in the verse:
We revealed to
Moses: “Throw down your staff.” And it immediately swallowed up what they had
forged. So the Truth took place and what they did was shown to be false. (Surat al-A‘raf, 117-118)
As we can see,
when people realized that a spell had been cast upon them and that what they
saw was just an illusion, Pharaoh’s magicians lost all credibility. In the
present day too, unless those who, under the influence of a similar spell,
believe in these ridiculous claims under their scientific disguise and spend
their lives defending them, abandon their superstitious beliefs, they also will
be humiliated when the full truth emerges and the spell is broken. In fact,
world-renowned British writer and philosopher Malcolm Muggeridge, who was an
atheist defending evolution for some 60 years, but who subsequently
realized the truth, reveals the position in which the theory of evolution would
find itself in the near future in these terms:
I myself am
convinced that the theory of evolution,
especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great
jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and
dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it
has.21
That future is
not far off: On the contrary, people will soon see that “chance” is not a
deity, and will look back on the theory of evolution as the worst deceit and the most
terrible spell in the world. That
spell is already rapidly beginning to be lifted from the shoulders of people
all over the world. Many people who see its true face are wondering with
amazement how they could ever have been taken in by it.
Writer: HARUN YAHYA
(ADNAN OKTAR)
ABOUT
THE AUTHOR
Adnan Oktar, who writes under the penname Harun Yahya, was
born in Ankara in 1956. Since the
1980s, the author has published many books on faith-related, scientific and
political issues. He is wellknown as the author of important works disclosing
the imposture of evolutionists, their invalid claims, and the dark liaisons
between Darwinism and such bloody ideologies as fascism and communism.
All of the author’s works share one single goal: to convey
the Qur'an's message, encourage readers to consider basic faithrelated issues
such as Allah' s existence and unity and the Hereafter; and to expose
irreligious systems' feeble foundations and perverted ideologies. His more than
300 works, translated into 72 different languages, enjoy a wide readership
across the world.
By the will of Allah, the books of Harun Yahya will be a
means through which people in the twenty-first century will attain the peace,
justice, and happiness promised in the Qur'an.
