The Skulls That Demolish Darwin

Introduction

According to Darwinists’ erroneous way of thinking, they supposed there is only one explanation for the emergence of living things in nature: All are descended from the very first living cell, which developed spontaneously as the result of blind coincidences.

Over the course of time—and again by chance—earlier species gradually transformed into other genetically different species. To put it another way, Darwinism feels that in order to account for the emergence of life, all that’s needed are coincidences, natural events and long periods of time. According to Darwinists, life emerged through a combination of these accidents, for which reason there can be no question of such concepts as reason, intelligence or even consciousness (Allah is beyond this) playing any part in the process.

From their assertion, it follows that the fossil record—and specifically, fossil skulls—should contain clear evidence of this imaginary unconscious process that took place over millions of years. If species really are descended from earlier life forms, then intermediate signs of the process should be visible throughout the fossil record. If life forms reach their most advanced forms at the end of a number of previous stages, then the number of fossilized life forms in the process of changing—from fish to reptiles, from reptiles to mammals, and from mammals to intermediate life forms that supposedly took to flying in the air, should be much greater than the number of fossils that had completed the imaginary evolutionary process.

There should be billions of such fossils, and the fictitious process of evolution should be crystal clear from them. The fossil record, therefore, should constitute one of the most important proofs of the theory of evolution.

And in fact, Charles Darwin himself was well aware of this:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all the species of the same group together, must assuredly have existed. . . . Consequently, evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains. 1

. . . the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. 2

But the truth revealed by the fossil record is very different!

DARWIN’S IRRATIONAL ANDUNSCIENTIFIC FORMULA

According to Darwinist logic, tigers, hares, cats, butterflies, and brightly colored flowers—as well as thinking, reasoning, feeling human beings capable of taking precautions and signing their names to scientific advances—have all emerged by chance, spontaneously, ever since when natural elements and phenomena such as mud, rain, lightning, thunder and wind combined over long periods of time to create life. However, this myth is so ridiculous that not even a primary school student could possibly believe it.

Millions of fossils belonging to tens of thousands of different species have been discovered. All of these represent fully formed and complete life forms, each with a perfect appearance and complexity. There is no trace of the intermediate species expected by Darwin and so longed for by all Darwinists since.

Not a single intermediate form has been found anywhere in the world. Life forms tens of millions of years old have exactly the same appearance as their living counterparts today. Ants, flies, fish, bears, spiders, tigers and lions alive today are exactly the same as their counterparts that lived millions of years in the past. All have exactly the same levels of complexity as their ancient counterparts. They have never changed—in other words, they never evolved.

The photo below shows a fossil researcher determining the borders between one rock layer and the other strata. This process involves the identification of all the strata present, the formation process involved and the movement of the Earth that is still going on. Thus the age of fossils as well as their location can both be determine.

This applies to all the other living things on Earth, plants and animals alike. Fish have never changed, and neither have birds. Reptiles have survived unchanged, and so have crustaceans. There are countless fossil specimens that show that living things have never changed. This is the truth placed on display throughout the volumes that comprise the Atlas of Creation series. These books consider only a very small part of all the fossils that demonstrate how living things have always remained exactly the same. Without exception, all the millions of fossils obtained to date, constitute evidence that evolution never happened.

A 125-million-year-old spider fossil and a specimen living today

No trace of any life form that could possibly be proposed as the supposed ancestor of the starfish has ever been found. Neither have starfish been observed to develop into any other life form. They have been in existence for hundreds of millions of years, and if Darwinist claims were true, they should long ago have turned into other forms of marine life, or even have become terrestrial creatures. Yet no such transition has ever taken place. This 430-million-year-old starfish fossil completely refutes all claims that evolution represents the origin of new species.

The fossils presented in this book totally demolish one of Darwinists’ major claims: their scenario of mammalian evolution. These fossil skulls, millions of years old, show that these mammals lived in exactly the same forms as those alive today—which fact deals a serious blow to Darwinism. The realization that so many birds, reptiles, fish and finally mammals never underwent evolution strongly suggests that the idea of human evolution is utter nonsense, too. The idea of human evolution, for which Darwinists have been unable to provide any shred of evidence, has been totally discredited by the millions of “living fossils” representing species that are still alive today.

One substance in which the very best-preserved fossils appear is amber. Fossils within amber resulted when the clear sap or resin secreted by trees solidifies around living things and preserved them as they were at the very moment of death. These 25-million-year-old flying ants are specimens that invalidate the theory of evolution.

The fossils depicted in this book represent just a very few of the mammal skulls discovered to date. Anyone with common sense who examines these will agree that each fossil shows that the given species of mammal has remained unchanged in the form in which it was originally created. That, in turn, will lead to a better understanding of the deceptive nature of Darwinism, which maintains that human beings are only another species of animal descended from apes. In the same way that evolution never happened over the course of natural history, so there is no equivalent “turning point” in human history. All the hoaxes perpetrated to keep this deception alive have been proven vain. The sublime and flawless Creation of our Lord Allah, the Creator and sole Lord of all entities, is plain for everyone to grasp. The artistry of our Lord, Who creates from nothing, is  displayed all over the world.

Excavations carried out over the last 150 years have always produced evidence that totally discredits evolution. One such is this 50-million-year-old crab fossil unearthed at Monte Baldo in Italy, which demonstrates that crabs have always existed as crabs.

You can see this for yourself merely from glancing at a rose in the garden, at a bird’s wing, at all the countless living species in all their variety, or at the magnified image of just one single cell. The fossil record has provided plentiful evidence that makes it impossible to deny this immaculate Creation. No objections can any longer be raised to this conclusive evidence.

Darwinists are struggling in vain because willingly or not, they have finally come to admit the death of the theory of evolution. All their efforts aimed at keeping Darwinism alive are helpless and despairing. Nobody any longer attach any credence to Darwinism. No doubt, the most rational course of action is to see the truth and shun one’s past errors, abandon any false dream, and to cease wasting one’s time in this world—which was created as a place of testing—on such a hollow goal.

At an era when evolutionists maintain that a primitive environment prevailed, already there were complex life forms with exactly the same appearance and physical structures that they display today. Even tens of millions of years ago, the Earth was filled with highly sophisticated and well-formed species with all the characteristics they possess today. This life form, which lived 57 million years ago, is identical to its counterparts living today. Like hundreds of thousands of other species today, this fossilized one has never undergone any changes in the intervening time.

FOOTNOTES

1. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1 b., s.179

2. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter X, s. 234

http://www.harunyahya.com/en/Books/8126/The-Skulls-That-Demolish-Darwin

The Origin Of Birds And Flight

Foreword

The ability to fly has been mankind’s dream for thousands of years, a goal toward which thousands of scientists and researchers have expended labor, time and money. Apart from a few very primitive experiments, it became possible to make self-propelled flying vehicles only in the 20th century. This feat, which mankind managed to achieve with the accumulated technology of centuries, is something that birds—known to have existed on Earth for the last 150 million years—have always performed to perfection. Even a new-born chick will soon acquire this special ability in a matter of weeks, which humans can manage only through advanced technology. How, then, did these astonishing creatures come into being?

Everyone who examines birds realizes that like other living things, they possess perfect anatomical systems. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that they are the products of flawless creation.

No rational, logical person can believe that an airplane assembled itself of its own accord. These components did not combine by chance to produce a vehicle capable of flight. On the contrary, the design of a plane reveals very detailed calculations at every stage of its manufacture. Many scientists and engineers have used their knowledge and experience and expended a great deal of time and effort. Birds, however, have been equipped with far superior aerodynamic characteristics. To examine birds, created with the ability to fly, and then claim that they came into being by chance, defies all reason and logic. The position of those who make such claims is revealed in the verse:

“And they repudiated them wrongly and haughtily, in spite of their own certainty about them...” (Surat al-Naml, 14).

Yet proponents of the theory of evolution are reluctant to admit this.

According to Darwin’s theory of evolution, every living species evolved from a single common ancestor. This scenario means that the 100 million 1 or so known species must all be descended from earlier versions of one another. To account for the origin and astounding variety of plants and animals, evolutionists propose two mechanisms: natural selection and mutations. (For detailed information, see Harun Yahya, The Evolution Deceit, United Kingdom: Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd. and Darwinism Refuted, New Delhi: Goodword Books Pvt. Ltd. November 2002.)

Yet neither mechanism has the ability to give rise to any new living thing. Mutations are random, typically harmful effects caused by anomalies in the DNA and are directed towards no particular purpose. Naturally, aimless and randomly occurring coincidences cannot give rise to living things that possess planned, orderly structures designed for specific objectives. Blind chance cannot endow living things with complex organs and systems.

The more those with common sense examine life forms, the more they will realize the nonsensical nature of the theory of evolution, which bases the origins of life on chance. Perceiving design but calling it purposeless, seeing order but calling it accidental, is nothing more than a deliberate denial of the facts. At the root of this denial lie evolutionists' devotion to materialist philosophy and their bigoted reactions against the fact of creation. Rather than admit their Creator’s existence, evolutionists prefer to believe that blind chance is a mighty creative force and that this concept—an expression of purposeless, unconscious happenstance—can perform miracles.

But the distorted nature of this belief is easy to see: If you strew the components of an airplane on the ground, random forces such as wind, lightning, rain and earthquakes can never make them combine into a complete, functional aircraft. In addition, all the components in this example have already been created to be mutually compatible. Nonetheless, no matter how long one waits it is impossible for the parts to assemble themselves into a complete model. This finished product can come into being only if a conscious entity assembles all the components. Yet according to evolutionists, chance is able to produce systems incomparably more perfect than this example, as well as the most delicate balances. The logical contradiction here is obvious for anyone to see.

Every living thing is a unique marvel of creation. The proposed evolutionary mechanisms, on the other hand, lend no support to evolutionist claims. The first of these mechanisms—natural selection—assumes that those living things will survive that are best adapted to the challenges of the environment in which they live; while those unable to adapt will die out and disappear. According to evolutionists, this unconscious, automatic mode of elimination endows surviving individuals with ever-more complex organs and systems, but this claim has no valid proof or scientific basis. Observation has shown that natural selection serves only to weed out unfit individuals, but that there is no question of it endowing survivors with new organs and systems.

The mechanism of natural selection does not support the theory of evolution, because it can never enrich a species’ genetic information. “Survival of the fittest” can never transform one species into another, because natural selection is an unconscious process. Therefore, natural selection is not a mechanism that can be used to account for the lavish diversity of living things, with their complex systems and perfected structures.

The well-known biologist D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson summarizes this point:

. . . We see in natural selection is not to create but to destroy—to weed, to prune, to cut down and to cast into the fire.2

In short, natural selection has nothing to do with the emergence of any new species. Moreover, the natural selection process, being unconscious, is unable to contribute new genetic information to living things. In other words, even if natural selection does cause change in a living thing, that change cannot transmit itself on to subsequent generations. The only mechanism that can have impacts on genes is mutation—random damage to a living thing's genetic structure, which has never been observed to add beneficial trait of any kind.3

Claims that evolution occurs by means of natural selection are invalid, because:

1) Natural selection cannot plan or envisage an organism’s future needs, and

2) Mutations can never endow a beneficial gain that leads to progress.

Professor John W. Oller of the University of New Mexico refers to the illogical nature of this claim of development through mutation:

Accidental design adjustments, as necessary for general evolution, are logical disasters. Random mutations from radiation, replication errors, or other proposed sources, rarely result in viable design adjustments, never in perfect more advanced designs. 4

The results of mutation are typically handicaps, sickness, and death. Mutations provide no support for the theory of evolution, because:

- Mutations are always harmful
- Mutations add no new information to the DNA database.
- In order for any mutation to be passed along to subsequent generations, it must occur in the germ cells—an organism’s egg or sperm cells.

The net effect of mutations is harmful, as in the case of the turtle in the picture .

Suppose you have determined that your life would be much more efficient if you had heat receptors in your body, or have felt the need for some other organ or ability that you think will confer an important advantage. Can you bring this about in your own body, by yourself? Could you bring into being a new organ or system that functions in a coordinated manner with immaculate timing, with all the other organs in your body, never making an error, that protects you by taking all the precautions you need and constantly strives to be beneficial to you? Could you then encode the proper genetic codes in your DNA so as to transmit this change to later generations?

That would be quite impossible, no matter how much you desired it or how much effort you expended. How, therefore, could unconscious molecules manage something that a rational and conscious entity like yourself cannot? There is thus no scientific basis to support the claim that unconscious molecules assembled the cell and then, by chance, carried out flawless adjustments in its genetic structure.

As a result, it is impossible for one living species to develop into a bird, with its own unique features including that of flight, by any so-called evolutionary mechanism, or for birds to evolve into still other living species. The infinite variety among living things is just one indication of the infinite knowledge and creative artistry of Allah. In order to deny this, evolutionists hide behind unrealistic explanations.

Over the last 20 years, when the complexity of life has become ever more clearly understood, an increasing number of scientists have reacted against the “chance dogma” supported by the theory of evolution. When asked about the dilemmas facing the theory of evolution, for example, Michael Denton, a molecular biologist at the University of Otago in New Zealand, criticizes the claims made for random mutations:

All features of animals are so so finely calculated that even before they are hatched, they are provided with special organs for their individual species’ needs. Living things cannot have come into being by chance, in complete harmony with an environment which they have never seen. It is our Almighty Lord, Allah, Who creates living things together with their perfect systems.

The most serious objection I have is with the nature of mutation. Darwinism is based on the idea that all the mutations which have been selected during the course of evolution were, when they initially occurred, entirely random. Mutations are random. . . . This is the essential bedrock of Darwinism. The mutational input into living things is, as it were, at random.

Darwinism is claiming that all the adaptive structures in nature, all the organisms which have existed throughout history, were generated by the accumulation of entirely undirected mutations. That is an entirely unsubstantiated belief for which there is not the slightest evidence whatsoever.

second problem is that there are a vast number of complex systems in nature, and no matter how unglamorous this problem is, no matter how people try to look the other way, the fact is that a huge number of highly complex systems in nature cannot be plausibly accounted for in terms of a gradual build-up of small random mutations.

Indeed, in many cases, there does not exist in the biological literature even an attempt to explain how these things have come about. A classic example would be the lung of the bird, and I could mention some other ones, but everybody knows the lung of the bird is unique in being a circulatory lung rather than a bellows lung. I think it doesn't require a great deal of profound knowledge of biology to see that an organ, which is so central to the physiology of any higher organism, its drastic modification in that way by a series of small events is almost inconceivable. This is something we can’t throw under the carpet again because, basically, as Darwin said, if any organ can be shown to be incapable of being achieved gradually in little steps, his theory would be totally overthrown.

The fact is that, in common-sense terms. . . …here are a vast number of such cases in nature. 5

That is Allah, your Lord. There is no god but Him, the Greator of everything. So worship Him. He is responsible for everything. (Surat al-An'am, 102)

http://www.harunyahya.com/en/Books/12807/The-Origin-Of-Birds-And-Flight

The Miracle Of Protein

Introduction:

The True Origin of Life

Back in the 19th century, the cell, could be examined only under a microscope, and so scientists saw the fundamental unit of life as nothing more than a circular blot. Some imagined that the interior of the cell was filled with only a plasma-like fluid; others that it contained a jelly-like substance. Based on the images seen under the light microscope—widely used at the time, but now regarded as a rather primitive compared with present-day instruments—19th-century scientists imagined the cell to be a very simple structure, and proposed a theory that the cell had developed spontaneously and by chance.

Charles Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species. He claimed that under the conditions on the so-called primordial Earth, blind coincidence combined unconscious and inanimate atoms, giving rise to a cell possessed of a flawless creation and all the features necessary for continued life. These same blind coincidences then somehow caused that first cell to allegedly evolve. According to his claim, primitive life forms developed from single cells—again by evolving spontaneously and by chance, eventually giving rise to humans, some of whom became computer engineers, professors, artists and geniuses.

Most scientists were unaware of what a complex, detailed and superior creation the cell is and what substances it contains. And so, a majority of them blindly believed in the theory of evolution, with all its illogical and ignorant claims. One reason for their support was that the theory provided important support for materialist philosophies which were growing stronger in the 19th century, denying the existence of a Creator and advancing a theory of "chance."

Subsequently, however, in the second half of the 20th century, science and technology made especially rapid strides, bringing with them a realization that Darwin's theory of evolution was totally at variance with the newly discovered facts. Indeed, it was devoid of any validity or scientific evidence. It had survived through a deception consisting of an imaginary scenario, reminiscent of primitive mythologies. But some—including scientists unable to break away from this materialist theory and those who denied the existence of a Creator—continued, with great conservatism, to devotedly defend the theory of evolution and to indoctrinate young people that it was the only scientific explanation able to account for the origin of life.

Evolutionists took advantage of the fact that the great majority of people possess little detailed knowledge of scientific matters. In the course of their busy lives, they have no opportunity to think very much about such things, and succumb to a kind of mass hypnosis. Proponents of evolution employed irrational claims, most unbelievable theories, fraudulent proofs, and "very scientific" papers and books—widely adorned with Latin terminology, but actually hollow—to make the public believe that evolution was an established fact.

Today, as a result, most people imagine that evolution theory is indeed scientifically proven. They remain unaware of just how illogical and irrational the theory of evolution actually is. Yet for anyone who learns the complex and exquisite biochemical making of not just a single cell, let alone of any one of the protein molecules that comprise it, the theory of evolution is nothing more than imaginary nonsense. It is even more ridiculous when one thinks of the hundreds of concurrent conditions and the coexistence of hundreds of molecules and enzymes that require for a single protein to come about. As will be emphasized in this book, there is a detailed and finely calculated planning in even a single cell. Hundreds of preconditions must be met at once and the same time, and that hundreds of molecules and enzymes must all be present together, for life to maintain itself.

Moreover, it is mathematically impossible for even a single protein molecule to come into existence by chance. Every protein molecule possesses a flawless structure that could be built only by a power possessing intelligent consciousness, information and will.

How is it, you may justifiably wonder, that scientists—who know far more about proteins than most of us—still support the theory of evolution? As already indicated, Darwinists defend the theory of evolution not because it is scientific, but because it denies the existence of a Creator and offers support for materialistic philosophies. What's more, Darwinists themselves often admit as much! For example, Dr. Michael Walker of the University of Sydney, says:

One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator...1

Fred Hoyle, another world-famous evolutionist, admits the impossibility of life having begun by chance:

Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd... 2

As these prominent Darwinist scientists admitted, it's illogical to maintain that life began spontaneously and by chance. These scientists persist in their claims solely in order to deny the existence of a Creator.

The information you are about to read represents only a very small sampling of the data concerning proteins, the building blocks of life. However, any one piece of this information is enough to show just how truly illogical and unbelievable is the evolution deceit that has persisted for the last 160 years.

Every protein molecule is impeccably created. Each one's structure is exceedingly complex. An extraordinarily organized and perfect method is used in the manufacture of protein. The distribution of functions among the proteins and the flawless harmony among those different functions allshow evidence of such a superior creation that not even their smallest components could have come into being by chance. Everything in the entire universe—from the particles making up the simplest atoms to the largest galaxies—is the product of a superior creation and infinite intellect and power. The Lord of all these works is our Almighty Lord Who created us all from nothing.

The way that some people, even though they are intelligent and educated,  deny this and ignore such an evident truth is a miracle all by itself. Allah addresses such people  in the Qur'an as follows:

How can you reject Allah, when you were dead and then He gave you life, then He will make you die and then give you life again, then you will be returned to Him? It is He Who created everything on the Earth for you and then directed His attention up to heaven and arranged it into seven regular heavens. He has knowledge of all things. (Surat al-Baqara: 28-29)

http://www.harunyahya.com/en/books/21017/The-Miracle-Of-Protein/chapter/5445/Introduction-The-true-origin-of-life

Confessions Of The Evolutionists

Introduction

Various circles regard the theory of evolution as ideologically indispensable. From the day it was first proposed right up to the present, they have defended it by means of intense propaganda. Certain scientific publications, schools and a number of media organs portray it as a proven fact in terms of the origin of life. Since some scientists espouse the theory of evolution with the greatest devotion, most people imagine that the theory is scientifically valid.

In fact, however, over the last 150 years the theory of evolution has been totally discredited by such branches of science as paleontology, genetics, microbiology, biochemistry and biophysics. Countless findings revealed by these different branches make it obvious that evolution never happened. 

Anyone reading this book may well naturally conclude that the adherents of the theory of evolution are scientists. Yet since those who find evidence that the theory of evolution is invalid are also scientists, therefore scientists must be divided into two groups: those who support evolution, and others who present evidence disproving it.

Yet this does not fully represent the true picture-because while scientists advocating the theory of evolution are in search for a single evidence about the validity of the evolution, they eventually try to adopt the current evidence proving the fact of Creation to their theory, so in fact they discover evidence that discredits the theory of evolution with their own hands. 

For instance, every new discovery about the complex structure of the protein puts forth the fact that this structure can not be formed through coincidences again and again. However, even though Darwinists are very well aware of the fact that a single protein cannot be formed by coincidences and that the new found information confirm this truth, they still are advocating this theory persistently.

No doubt, it is a most contradictory and dishonest situation. It is extremely meaningless for these people to attempt to defend this theory persistently while they find evidence that totally demolishes it. Yet that is exactly their current position.

Indeed, ever since the theory of evolution was first put forward, no scientist espoused it because of the scientific evidence. It is impossible for them to defend the theory with this reason, because there is not even a single piece of evidence that would support evolution. What, then, is evolutionists' aim? And what can explain their inconsistent mindset?

The British zoologist D. M. S. Watson, himself an evolutionist, supplies the answer to those questions:

The theory of evolution (is) a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation is clearly incredible.1

This idea of Watson's is shared by scientists who espouse the theory of evolution. These others are well aware that no evidence proves the theory, but if they abandoned the theory of evolution, they would have to admit the existence of a Creator. Such a thing is unacceptable for proponents of materialist ideology, which we will be examining in due course.

However, the great majority of people, being unaware of this, imagine that all the scientists who support evolution have worked along exceedingly scientific lines, with methods based solely on experiment and observation. Therefore, they believe every word those scientists say, feeling no need to investigate any further.

And by doing so, they commit a serious error. As their own admissions show, evolutionists espouse their theory in violation of science. They present evolution as the scientific foundation of the ideology they insist on, which is materialism.

Fred Alan Wolf, a particle physicist at the University of California, describes, as a scientist himself, what the scientific approach should be:

My major concern, coming out of the ranks of science, has been my own arrogance. How arrogant I was, to put down other people’s ideas that didn’t agree with my scientific view. When I went around the world and spent time with indigenous peoples and tribes, I realized that my arrogance just didn’t fit in. Like the man in the story by H. G. Wells, I thought that in the country of scientifically blind, the one-eyed man would be king. In fact, I was the one who was blind. I was intellectually incapacitated. As long as I held on to my scientific view, I couldn’t see. I thought I saw everything; I didn’t see anything. So I had to give up much of what I previously held as real, in order to see what these people saw. And when I was finally able to attain this new vision, it totally changed my view of science. And I began seeing science as a tool—not the be–all and end-all of the universe, but a tool to help us begin to dig deeper into the nature of what it means to be a human being. I don’t think we’ve arrived at that point yet. I don’t think we’re quite awake yet. I think we are all still asleep—dreaming, hoping, wishing—mechanically relying on our intellect to lead us out of the morass in which we constantly find ourselves. When we can use our heart and our spirit as well as our brain, that’s when science will begin to adapt to a new world order.2

Materialist philosophy regards matter as absolute. According to that definition, matter has existed forever, and everything that exists consists of matter alone. As that logic requires, materialism has opposed belief in Allah (God) and the true religions ever since the most ancient times.

Yet when examined, materialism emerges as a philosophy devoid of any scientific evidence, and one incompatible with the truth.

The way to test the truth of any philosophy is through investigating that philosophy's claims regarding science. Using scientific methodology, we can investigate the claim of materialism. We can investigate whether or not matter has always existed, whether atoms and molecules can organize themselves in the absence of a super-material Creator, and whether or not they can give rise to life. When we do so, we see that materialism has effectively collapsed.

The idea that matter has existed for all time was demolished by the Big Bang theory, which indicated that the universe came into being from nothing. The claim that matter can organize itself-was rendered invalid with  crystal clarity by  scientific discoveries during the 20th century.

Yet contemporary materialists do not follow such a rational and scientific course. They have conditioned themselves never to abandon their materialist beliefs, no matter what the cost. These people are "materialists first, scientists second". They refuse to abandon their belief in evolution, even though they clearly see that even their own experiments and research refute it. Instead, they try to keep materialism alive by supporting evolution in any way necessary.

Richard Lewontin, a well-known geneticist and evolutionist from Harvard University, confesses that he is a materialist first, and a scientist second:

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]…3

The philosophical term "a priori" that Lewontin uses here is highly significant. Latin for "from the beginning," it refers to any root assumption accepted as a given. If you believe in the truth of an idea without question and assume it to be accurate, then that idea is a priori. This is how evolutionists seek to adapt science to their own preconceptions. Since materialists absolutely reject the existence of a Creator, their only alternative is to cling tightly to the theory of evolution.

The materialist dogma underlying the evolutionist propaganda in prominent Western media organs and well-known scientific journals is the result of this kind of ideological and philosophical requirements. Since ideology makes abandoning of the theory of evolution impossible, questioning Darwinism has been declared taboo by those materialists who determine scientific standards.

This book is confessions about the theory of evolution made by scientists who espouse the theory for the sake of their materialist ideologies. As we made clear at the start of this chapter, the very scientists who support the theory of evolution also discover the evidence that demolishes it. And generally, these scientists confess that as a result of research in their own specialized fields:

• * No such process as evolution could ever have taken place,
• * The theory of evolution has not been proven,
• * The theory is espoused essentially for ideological reasons, and that
• * The entire universe must be the work of an Omniscient Creator.

You can come across similar confessions in practically every book, academic study or lecture concerning evolution-for two reasons: First, when people do all they can to conceal an obvious fact, even resorting to lies and fraud in order to do so, still they will leave obvious clues behind them. Whenever they speak, they will unwittingly make open or implied confessions indicating the dilemma in which they find themselves. Indeed, all evolutionists-beginning with Charles Darwin, who first proposed the theory-make such confessions abundantly in all their books and lectures.

The facts of creation and the existence of a sublime Creator are perfectly obvious. No matter how unwilling people may be to accept the fact, if they possess even a small amount of rational thought, they will see around them, in all places and at all times, evidence of the existence of Allah, the Creator of all things. Yet these scientists have perhaps the very closest familiarity with the evidence of Allah's creation in the world. None who study the complex structure of the cell and find themselves  astounded by the flawless characteristics, extraordinary planning, and amazing intelligence inside, can avoid expressing their feelings in the face of the miracles of Allah's creation. Albeit for a brief moment, they will act according to the voices of their conscience and common sense.

One example of this is Francis Crick, a non-resident fellow of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies before he died on 28 July 2004, who discovered DNA. In the face of the DNA's extraordinary complexity, Crick was forced to admit that the origin of life cannot be explained in terms of chance. Despite being a convinced evolutionist, Crick had to admit what was apparent after he witnessed the miraculous structure of DNA:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.4

The one-time atheist philosopher Anthony Flew admitted that the atheism he had espoused for sixty six years was a collapsed philosophy and announced that he now believed in Allah. A passage from Flew written during his atheist period and admitting that the Big Bang theory is one of the proofs of Creation acknowledges:

Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus [the Big Bang model]. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof of what St. Thomas contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning.5

Having read these confessions, you might well imagine that these people had admitted the scientific facts with all sincerity and finally come to believe in the existence of Allah, as good conscience and reason demand.

However, no matter how much some scientists have seen the truth, the stirrings of their consciences have been very short-lived for many of them. They have never countenanced abandoning their ideology, but have continued in their denial despite the voice of their consciences.

Not only has our century witnessed people who, despite seeing the truth, refuse to abandon superstitious beliefs because of their devotion to materialist dogma. People with such mindsets have existed at all times. The dialogues between materialists and Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) in the Qur'an inform us of this. The materialists in his time worshipped idols that they had made with their own hands, adopting them as their deities. They claimed that certain effigies they themselves had created, which actually have no power to do anything, were in fact the creators, regulators, and lords of the entire universe.

You might imagine that such paganism is a feature of only ancient times, yet the logic of the Darwinists of the 21st century is exactly the same. They too maintain that unconscious atoms and random events, with no ability to do anything, actually created the flawlessly ordered universe and the life within it. Absolutely nothing has changed in the mindset of denial.

In his time, too, the Prophet Abraham (pbuh) employed various means to show people how irrational and illogical their beliefs were. And they then saw how corrupt their earlier beliefs had been and admitted they had been despotic.

They said, "Did you do this to our deities, Abraham?" He said, "No, this one, the biggest of them, did it. Ask them if they are able to speak!" They consulted among themselves and said, "It is you yourselves who are wrongdoers."  (Surat al-Anbiya', 62-64)

However, these stirrings of their consciences were only short-lived, and they soon returned to their corrupt ways:

But then they relapsed back into their disbelief: "You know full well these idols cannot talk." He said, "Do you then worship, instead of Allah, what cannot help or harm you in any way? Shame on you and what you worship besides Allah! Will you not use your intellect?" (Surat al-Anbiya', 65-67)

The evaluation of evolutionists' own confessions is exceedingly useful to better understand this mindset described in the Qur'an 1,400 years ago. Any rational person of good conscience reading these confessions will inevitably wonder since they admit the theory is wrong, why do they still support it?

As has already been made clear, they believe in the theory not because there is scientific evidence that supports this theory, but because that is what their ideology demands. Otherwise they know they would need to admit the existence of Allah. Nor is this particular to our century alone. In the Qur'an we are told that although their hearts realized the truth, some ignored the true facts because of their feelings of pride and arrogance, and still denied the existence of Allah:

And they repudiated them wrongly and haughtily, in spite of their own certainty about them. See the final fate of the corrupters. (Surat an-Naml, 14)

http://www.harunyahya.com/en/Books/8063/Confessions-Of-The-Evolutionists

The Design In Nature

Introduction

Let us for a moment think of an aspirin; you will immediately recall the mark in the middle. This mark is designed to help those who take a half dose. Every product that we see around us, even if not as simple as the aspirin, is of a certain design, from the vehicles we use to go to work, to TV remote controls.

Design, in brief, means a harmonious assembling of various parts in an orderly form designed for a common goal. Going by this definition, one has no difficulty in guessing that a car is a design. This is because there is a certain goal, which is to transport people and cargo. In realisation of this goal, various parts such as the engine, tires and body are planned and assembled in a factory.

However, what about living creatures? Can a bird and the mechanics of its flight be a design as well? Before giving an answer, let us repeat the evaluation we did in the example of the car. The goal, in this case, is to fly. For this purpose, hollow, light-weight bones and the strong breast muscles that move these bones are utilised together with feathers capable of suspension in the air. Wings are formed aerodynamically, and the metabolism is in tune with the bird's need for high levels of energy. It is obvious that the bird is a product of a certain design.

If we leave aside the bird and examine other forms of life, we encounter the same truth. In every creature, there are examples of extremely well-conceived design. If we continue further on this quest, we discover that we ourselves are also a part of this design. Your hands that hold these pages are functional as no robot hands could ever be. Your eyes that read these lines are making vision possible with such focus that the best camera on earth simply cannot achieve.

Hence one arrives at this important conclusion; all creatures in nature, including us, are of a design. This, in turn, shows the existence of a Creator, Who designs all creatures at will, sustains the entire creation and holds absolute power and wisdom.

However, this truth is rejected by the theory of evolution that was formed in the middle of the 19th century. The theory set forth in Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species asserts that all creatures evolved by chains of coincidences and mutated from one another.

According to the fundamental premise of this theory, all life forms go through minute random changes. If these random changes improve a life form, then it gains an advantage over the others, which in turn is carried onto following generations.

This scenario has been passed around for 140 years as if it is very scientific and convincing. When scrutinised under a larger microscope and when compared against the examples of the design in creatures, Darwin's theory paints a very different picture, i.e. Darwinism's explanation of life is nothing more than a self-contradictory vicious circle.

Let us first focus on the random changes. Darwin could not provide a comprehensive definition of this concept due to lack of knowledge of genetics in his time. The evolutionists who followed him suggested the concept of "mutation". Mutation is arbitrary disconnections, dislocations or shifts of genes in living things. Most importantly, there is not one single mutation in history that has been shown to improve the condition of a creature's genetic information. Nearly all the known cases of mutations disable or harm these creatures and the rest are neutral in effect. Therefore, to think that a creature can improve through mutation is the same as shooting at a crowd of people hoping that the injuries will result in healthier improved individuals. This is clearly nonsense.

As importantly, and contrary to all the scientific data, even if one assumes that a certain mutation could actually improve a being's condition, Darwinism still cannot be delivered from inevitable collapse. The reason for this is a concept called "irreducible complexity." The implication of this concept is that the majority of systems and organs in living things function as a result of various independent parts working together, the elimination or disabling of even one of which would be enough to disable the entire system or organ.

For example, an ear perceives sounds only through a sequence of smaller organs. Take out or deform one of these, e.g. one of the bones of the middle ear, and there would be no hearing whatsoever. In order for an ear to perceive, a variety of components – such as external auditory canal, tympanic membrane, bones in the middle ear, that is, the hammer, anvil and stirrup, fluid-filled cochlea, hearing receptors or hair cells, the cilia which help these cells to sense the vibrations, the net of nerves that connect to the brain and hearing centre in the brain – have to work together without exception. The system could not have developed in segments because none of the segments could possibly function alone.

Hence, the concept of irreducible complexity demolishes the theory of evolution at its foundations. Interestingly, Darwin also worried about these very prospects. He wrote in On The Origin of Species:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.1

Darwin could not, or might not have wanted to, find such an organ at the premature levels of 19th century science. However the science of the 20th century did study nature in minute details and proved that the majority of living structures embody irreducible complexity. Therefore, Darwin's theory has "absolutely" collapsed just as he feared.

In this book, we are going to explore various examples of systems in living beings that demolish Darwin's theory. These mechanisms will be found anywhere from in the wings of a bird to inside a bat's skull. As we examine these examples we will not only see the immense error Darwinism makes but also witness the greatness of the wisdom with which these systems were created.

Hence, we will see the indisputable evidence of Allah's flawless creation. Likewise, the power and artistry of Allah to create flawlessly is expressed in a surah of the Qur'an as follows:

He is Allah - the Creator, the Maker, the Giver of Form. To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names. Everything in the heavens and earth glorifies Him. He is the Almighty, the All-Wise. (Surat al-Hashr: 24)

An Example of Irreducible Complexity: The Eye of the Lobster

There are many different types of eye in the living world. We are accustomed to the camera-type eye found in vertebrates. This structure works on the principle of the refraction of light, which falls onto the lens and is focused on a point behind the lens inside the interior of the eye.

However, the eyes possessed by other creatures work by different methods. One example is the lobster. A lobster's eye works on a principle of reflection rather than that of refraction.

The most outstanding characteristic of the lobster eye is its surface, which is composed of numerous squares. These squares are positioned most precisely.

The eye of a lobster shows a remarkable geometry not found elsewhere in nature - it has tiny facets that are perfectly square, so it "looks like perfect graph paper."2

These well-arranged squares are in fact the ends of tiny square tubes forming a structure resembling a honeycomb. At first glance, the honeycomb appears to be made up of hexagons, although these are actually the front faces of hexagonal prisms. In the lobster's eye, there are the squares in place of hexagons.

Even more intriguing is that the sides of each one of these square tubes are like mirrors that reflect the incoming light. This reflected light is focused onto the retina flawlessly. The sides of the tubes inside the eye are lodged at such perfect angles that they all focus onto a single point.3

The extraordinary nature of the design of this system is quite indisputable. All of these perfect square tubes have a layer that works just like a mirror. Furthermore, each one of these cells is sited by means of precise geometrical alignments so that they all focus the light at a single point.

It is obvious that the design in the lobster eye presents a great difficulty for the theory of evolution. Most importantly, it exemplifies the concept of "irreducible complexity." If even one of its features – such as the facets of the eye, which are perfect squares, the mirrored sides of each unit, or the retina layer at the back – were eliminated, the eye could never function. Therefore, it is impossible to maintain that the eye evolved step-by-step. It is scientifically unjustifiable to argue that such a perfect design as this could have come about haphazardly. It is quite clear that the lobster eye was created as a miraculous system.

One can find further traits in the lobster's eye that nullify the assertions of evolutionists. An interesting fact emerges when one looks at creatures with similar eye structures. The reflecting eye, of which the lobster's eye was one example, is found in only one group of crustaceans, the so-called long-bodied decapods. This family includes the lobsters, the prawns and the shrimp.

The other members of the crustacea class display the "refracting type eye structure", which works on completely different principles from those of the reflecting type. Here, the eye is made up of hundreds of cells like a honeycomb. Unlike the square cells in a lobster eye, these cells are either hexagonal or round. Furthermore, instead of reflecting light, small lenses in the cells refract the light onto the focus on the retina.

The lobster eye is composed of numerous squares. These well-arranged squares are in fact the ends of tiny square tubes. The sides of each one of these square tubes are like mirrors that reflect the incoming light. This reflected light is focused onto the retina flawlessly. The sides of the tubes inside the eye are lodged at such perfect angles that they all focus onto a single point.

The majority of crustaceans have the refracting eye structure. On the contrary, only one group of the crustaceans, namely the long-bodied decapods, have reflecting eyes. According to evolutionist assumptions, all the creatures within the class Crustacea should have evolved from the same ancestor. Therefore, evolutionists claim that reflecting eye must have evolved from a refracting eye, which is far more common among the crustacea and of a fundamentally simpler design.

However, such a transition is impossible, because both eye structures function perfectly within their own systems and have no room for any "transitional" phase. A crustacean would be left sightless and would be eliminated by natural selection if the refracting lens in its eye were to diminish and be replaced by reflecting mirrored surfaces.

It is, therefore, certain that both of these eye structures were designed and created separately. There is such superb geometric precision in these eyes that entertaining the possibility of "coincidence" is simply ludicrous. Just like the rest of the miracles of creation, the lobster's eye structure is an open testimony to the Creator's boundless power to create flawlessly. This is nothing but a manifestation of Allah's endless knowledge, wisdom and might. We can encounter such miracles as these regardless of what we examine in the world of creation.

Intelligent Design, in other words Creation

In order to create, Allah has no need to design

It's important that the word "design" be properly understood. That Allah has created a flawless design does not mean that He first made a plan and then followed it. Allah, the Lord of the Earth and the heavens, needs no "designs" in order to create. Allah is exalted above all such deficiencies. His planning and creation take place at the same instant.

Whenever Allah wills a thing to come about, it is enough for Him just to say, "Be!"

As we are told in verses of the Qur'an:

His command when He desires a thing is just to say to it, "Be!" and it is.  (Surah Ya Sin: 82)

[Allah is] the Originator of the heavens and Earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, "Be!" and it is.  (Surat al-Baqara: 117)

Footnotes

1. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th Edition, New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927, P. 179

2. J.R.P. Angel, "Lobster Eyes as X-Ray Telescopes", Astrophysical Journal, 1979, 233:364-373, Cited in Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny, The Free Press, 1998, P. 354

3. Michael F. Land, "Superposition Images are Formed By Reflection in The Eyes of Some Oceanic Decapod Crustacea", Nature, 28 October 1976, Volume 263, Pages 764-765.

http://www.harunyahya.com/en/Books/970/The-Design-In-Nature