Once materialism is invalidated, all other theories based on this philosophy become baseless. Foremost among them is Darwinism, that is, the theory of evolution. This theory, which argues that life originated from inanimate matter through coincidences, has been demolished by the recognition that the universe was created by Allah. American astrophysicist Hugh Ross explains:
Atheism, Darwinism, and virtually all the "isms" emanating from the eighteenth to the twentieth century philosophies are built upon the assumption, the incorrect assumption, that the universe is infinite. The [big bang] singularity has brought us face to face with the cause - or causer - beyond/behind/before the universe and all that it contains, including life itself. 127
Because it is Allah who created the universe and designed it down to its smallest detail, it is impossible for the theory of evolution, which holds that living beings are not created but are products of coincidences, to be true.
Unsurprisingly, when we look at the theory of evolution, we see that this theory is refuted by scientific findings. The design of life is extremely complex and striking. In the inanimate world we can determine the precision of balances which control atoms, and in the animate world we can further observe the complex forms in which these atoms were brought together and how extraordinary are the mechanisms and structures of proteins, enzymes and cells which are manufactured with them. The discovery of this extraordinary design in life was instrumental in invalidating Darwinism at the end of the 20th century. This subject has been dealt with in great detail in our previous works, but considering its importance, it will be helpful to present a short summary here as well.
The Scientific Collapse of Darwinism
Although this doctrine goes back as far as ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was advanced extensively in the 19th century. The most important development that made it the leading topic in the world of science was a book by Charles Darwin, entitled The Origin of Species published in 1859. In this book Darwin denied that the different living species on earth were created separately by Allah. According to Darwin, all living beings had a common ancestor and they diversified over time through minute changes.Darwin's theory was not based on any concrete findings; as he admitted, it was just an "assumption." Moreover, as Darwin confessed in a long chapter of his book, "Difficulties on Theory," the theory was weak in the face of many crucial questions.
Darwin invested all his hopes in new scientific discoveries, which he expected to solve the "difficulties of the theory." However, contrary to his expectations, scientific findings only expanded the dimensions of these difficulties.
The defeat of Darwinism can be summarized in three basic statements:
1) The theory can by no means explain how life originated on earth.
2) There is no scientific finding showing that the "evolutionary mechanisms" proposed by the theory have any power to evolve at all.
3) The fossil record proves completely contrary to the suggestions of the theory of evolution.
The First Insurmountable Obstacle: The Origin of Life
The theory of evolution posits that all living species evolved from a single living cell that emerged on the primitive earth 3.8 billion years ago. How a single cell could generate millions of complex living species, and if such an evolution really occurred, why traces of it cannot be observed in the fossil record are among the questions the theory cannot answer. First and foremost, concerning the initial stage of the alleged evolutionary process, it has to be inquired: How did this "first cell" originate?Since the theory of evolution denies creation and does not accept any kind of supernatural intervention, it maintains that the "first cell" originated by coincidence within the laws of nature, without there having been any design, plan or arrangement. According to the theory, inanimate matter must have produced a living cell as a result of certain coincidences. This, however, is a claim 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, the theory asserting 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, worms developing in meat was assumed to be evidence of spontaneous generation. Only some time later was it 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 during the period when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species the belief that bacteria could come into existence from non-living matter was widely accepted in the world of science. However, five years after the publication of Darwin's book, Louis Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, which 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. 128
Advocates of the theory of evolution resisted the findings of Pasteur for a long time. However, as the development of science unraveled the complex structure of the cell of a living being, the idea that life could come into being coincidentally faced an even greater impasse.
Inconclusive Efforts in the 20th Century
The first evolutionist who took up the subject of the origin of life in the 20th century was the renowned Russian biologist Alexander Oparin. With various theses he advanced in the 1930s, he tried to prove that the cell of a living being could originate by coincidence. These studies, however, were doomed to failure, and Oparin had to make the following confession:Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question which is actually the darkest point of the entire evolution theory. 129
Oparin's evolutionist successors tried to carry out experiments to solve the problem of the origin of life. The best known of these experiments was done by American chemist Stanley Miller in 1953. Combining the gases he alleged existed in the primordial earth's atmosphere in an experiment setup, and adding energy to the mixture, Miller synthesized organic molecules (amino acids) present in the structure of proteins.
Barely a few years passed before it was revealed that this experiment, which was then presented as an important step in the name of evolution, was invalid - the atmosphere used in the experiment having been very different from actual earth conditions.130 After a long silence Miller confessed that the atmosphere medium he used was unrealistic. 131
All the evolutionist efforts put forth throughout the 20th century to explain the origin of life ended with failure. The geochemist Jeffrey Bada from San Diego Scripps Institute accepts this fact in an article published in the Scientific American 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? 132
The Complex Structure of Life
The primary reason why the theory of evolution ended up in such a big impasse about the origin of life is that even those living organisms deemed to be the simplest have incredibly complex structures. The cell of a living being is more complex than all of the technological products produced by man. Today, even in the most developed laboratories of the world, a living cell cannot be produced by bringing inanimate materials together.The conditions required for the formation of a cell are too great in quantity to be explained away by coincidences. The probability of proteins, the building blocks of a cell, being synthesized coincidentally, is 1 in 10950 for an average protein made up of 500 amino acids. In mathematics a probability smaller than 1 over 1050 is for all practical purposes considered impossible.
The DNA molecule, which is located in the nucleus of a cell and which stores genetic information, is an incredible data-bank. It is calculated that if the information coded in DNA were written down, it would make a giant library consisting of 900 volumes of encyclopedias of 500 pages each.
A very interesting dilemma emerges at this point: the DNA can only replicate with the help of some specialized proteins (enzymes). However, the synthesis of these enzymes can only be realized by the information coded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, they have to exist at the same time for replication. This brings the scenario that life originated by itself to a deadlock. Professor Leslie Orgel, an evolutionist of repute from the University of San Diego, California, confesses this fact in the October, 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. 133
No doubt, if it is impossible for life to have originated from "natural" causes, then it has to be accepted that life was "created" in a supernatural way. This fact explicitly invalidates the theory of evolution, whose purpose is to deny creation.
Imaginary Mechanisms of Evolution
The second important point that negates Darwin's theory is that both concepts put forward by the theory as "evolutionary mechanisms" were not understood to have, in reality, any 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 title 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. Unquestionably, however, this mechanism will not cause deer to evolve and transform themselves into another living species, for instance, horses.
Therefore, the mechanism of natural selection obviously has no evolutionary power. Darwin himself was aware of this fact and had to state it in The Origin of Species:
Natural selection can do nothing until favorable variations chance to occur. 134
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 in his age. According to the French biologist Lamarck, who lived before Darwin, living creatures passed on the traits they acquired during their lifetime to the next generation, and these traits, accumulating from one generation to another, caused new species to be formed. For instance, according to Lamarck, giraffes evolved from antelopes; as they struggled to eat the leaves of tall trees, their necks lengthened from generation to generation.Darwin also gave similar examples, and in his book The Origin of Species said, for example, that some bears going into the water to find food over time transformed themselves into whales. 135 However, the laws of inheritance discovered by Mendel and verified by the science of genetics that flourished in the 20th century utterly demolished the legend that acquired traits could be passed on to subsequent generations. Thus, natural selection fell out of favor as an evolutionary mechanism.
Neo-Darwinism and Mutations
Looking for 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 external factors such as radiation or replication errors, as a cause of "favorable variations" in addition to natural mutation.Today, the model that stands for evolution in the world is Neo-Darwinism. It maintains that millions of living beings present on the earth formed as a result of a process whereby the numerous complex organs in certain creatures such as 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 always cause them harm.
The reason for this is very simple - DNA has a very precise and complex structure, and random effects can only cause defects in it. American geneticist B.G. Ranganathan explains this:
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. 136
Not surprisingly, no mutation example which is beneficial, that is, which is observed to develop the genetic code, has been observed so far. Rather, all mutations have proved to be harmful. It is now understood that mutation, which was presented as an "evolutionary mechanism," is actually a genetic occurrence that harms living beings and leaves them disabled. (The most common effect of mutation on human beings is cancer.) Undoubtedly, 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 that there is no evolutionary mechanism in nature. And since no evolutionary mechanism exists, no 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 theory of evolution, every living species sprung from a predecessor. A previously existing species developed into something else with time, and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.Had it been the case, then numerous intermediary species should have existed and lived within this long transformation period. For instance, some half-fish, half-reptiles should have lived in the past which 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. Having been in a transitional phase, they should have appeared to be disabled, defective and crippled living beings. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures which they believe to have lived in the past as "transitional forms."
If such animals had really existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. In The Origin of Species? Darwin explained:
If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently, evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains. 137
Darwin's Hopes Shattered
Although evolutionists have been making strenuous efforts to find fossils since the middle of the 19th century all over the world, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations showed that, contrary to the expectations of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully formed.A famous British paleontologist, Derek A. 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. 138
This means that in the fossil record, all living species suddenly emerged as fully formed without any intermediate forms in between, which is the opposite of Darwin's assumptions. Also, it is very strong evidence that living beings are created. The only explanation of a living species emerging suddenly and complete in every detail without any evolutionary ancestor can be that this species was created. This fact is admitted 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. 139
Fossils show that living beings emerged fully developed and in a perfect state on the earth. That means that "the origin of species" is, contrary to Darwin's supposition, not evolution but creation.
The Tale of Human Evolution
The subject most often brought up by the advocates of the theory of evolution is the subject of the origin of man. The Darwinist claim holds that modern men of today evolved from some kind of ape-like creatures. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started 4-5 million years ago, it is claimed that there existed some "transitional forms" between modern man and his ancestors. According to this imaginary scenario, four basic "categories" are listed:1) Australopithecus
2) Homo habilis
3) Homo erectus
4) Homo sapiens
Evolutionists call the so-called first ape-like ancestors of men "Australopithecus?" which means "south African ape." These creatures 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 Professor Charles Oxnard, has shown that these belonged to an ordinary ape species that became extinct and bore no resemblance to humans. 140
Evolutionists classify the next stages 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 relationship between these different classes. Ernst Mayr, one of the most important proponents of the theory of evolution in the 20th century, 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." 141
By outlining the chain links as Australopithecus > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens,? evolutionists imply that each of these species is another's ancestor. However, recent findings of paleoanthropologists have actually revealed that Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus lived in different parts of the world at the same time. 142
Moreover, a certain segment of humans classified as Homo erectus have lived up until very modern times. Homo sapiens neandarthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) coexisted in the same region. 143 This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that they are ancestors of one another. A paleontologist from Harvard University, Stephen Jay Gould, explains this deadlock in the theory of evolution although he is an evolutionist himself:
What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis) none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth. 144
Put briefly, the scenario of human evolution, which is sought to be upheld with the help of various drawings of some "half ape, half human" creatures appearing in the media and course books which are frankly a means of propaganda, is nothing but a legend with no scientific ground.
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 particularly studied Australopithecus fossils for fifteen years, finally concluded (despite being an evolutionist himself) that there is, in fact, no family tree branching from ape-like creatures to man.
Zuckerman also made an interesting "spectrum of science." He formed a spectrum of the sciences, ranging from those he considered scientific to those he considered unscientific. According to Zuckerman's spectrum, the most "scientific" - that is, depending on concrete data fields of science - are chemistry and physics. After them come the biological sciences and then the social sciences. At the far end of the spectrum, which is considered to be the most "unscientific," are "extrasensory 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. 145
The tale of human evolution boils down to nothing but prejudiced interpretations of a few fossils by certain people who blindly adhere to their own theory.
Technology in the Eye and Ear
Another mystery that remains unanswered by the evolutionary theory is the excellent quality of perception in the eye and the ear.Before passing on to the subject of the eye, a brief explanation of how we see is necessary. Light rays coming from an object fall directly on the retina of the eye. Here the light rays are transmitted into electric signals by cells, and they reach a tiny spot at the back of the brain called the center of vision. These electric signals are perceived in the center of the brain as an image after a series of processes. With this technical background, one must do some thinking.
The brain is insulated from light. The inside of the brain is pitch dark, and light does not reach its location. The place called the center of vision is a completely dark place where no light ever reaches; it may well be the darkest place we have ever known. However, we observe a luminous, bright world in this pitch darkness.
The image formed in the eye is so sharp and distinct that the technology of the 20th century has not been able to attain it. For instance, look at the book you read, your hands with which you hold it, 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 an image for you. It 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 with huge premises were established, much research has been carried out, and 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 see a three-dimensional perspective having depth.
For many years tens of thousands of engineers have tried to make a three-dimensional TV and attain 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 glasses; moreover, it is an artificial third dimension. The background is blurred, and the foreground appears like a paper setting. Never has it been possible to produce 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 someone told you that the television in your room was formed as a result of chance, that all 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 available sounds by the auricle and directs them to the middle ear; the middle ear transmits the sound vibrations by intensifying them; 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 same holds true for the ear as for the eye, that is, the brain is insulated from sound just like it is from light. Therefore, no matter how noisy it is outside, the inside of the brain is completely silent. Nevertheless, the most subtle sounds are perceived in the brain. Within your brain, which is insulated from sound, you hear the symphonies of an orchestra and all the noises in a crowded place. However, if the sound level in your brain was measured by a precise device at that moment, it would be seen that complete silence is 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 recorders, high-fidelity systems, and systems for sensing sound. Despite all this technology and the thousands of engineers and experts who have been working on the 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 biggest company in the music industry. Even in such 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 technology of the human body are extremely sharp and clear. A human ear never perceives a sound accompanied by a hissing sound or with atmospherics as does hi-fi; it perceives sound exactly as it is - sharp and clear. That is the way it has been since the creation of man.
So far, no visual or recording apparatus produced by man has been as sensitive and successful in perceiving sensory data as the eye and the ear. However, as far as seeing and hearing are concerned, a far greater fact lies beyond all this.
To Whom Does the Consciousness That Sees and Hears Within the Brain Belong?
Who is it that watches an alluring world, listens to symphonies and the twittering of birds, and smells the rose inside his brain?The stimulations coming from the eyes, ears and nose of a human being travel to the brain as electrochemical nervous impulses. In biology, physiology and biochemistry books, many details about how an image forms in the brain can be found. However, one will never come across the most important fact about this subject: Who is it that perceives these electrochemical nervous 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 eye, ear and nose. To whom does this consciousness belong? There is no doubt that this consciousness 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 give any answer to these questions.
For this consciousness is the spirit or soul created by Allah. The soul does not depend upon the eye to see images or the ear to hear sounds. Furthermore, it does not even need the brain to think. Anyone who reads this explicit scientific fact should contemplate Almighty Allah, should fear Him and seek refuge in Him, for it is He who squeezes the entire universe into a pitch-dark place of a few cubic centimeters in a three-dimensional, colored, shadowy and luminous form.
A Materialist Faith
The information presented so far shows that the theory of evolution is a claim evidently at variance with scientific findings. The theory's claim about the origin of life is inconsistent with science, the evolutionary mechanisms it proposes have no evolutionary power, and fossils demonstrate that the intermediate forms required by the theory never existed. So, it certainly follows that the theory of evolution should be pushed aside as unscientific. That is how many theories, such as the earth-centered universe model, have been taken out of the agenda of science throughout history.But to the contrary, the theory of evolution is pressingly kept on the agenda of science. Some people even try to represent criticisms directed against the theory as an "attack on science." Why?
The reason is that the theory of evolution is an indispensable dogmatic belief for some circles. These circles are blindly devoted to the materialist philosophy and adopt Darwinism because it is the only materialist explanation that can be put forward for the workings of nature. Interestingly enough, they even admit this fact from time to time. A well-known geneticist and 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 to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
These are explicit statements that Darwinism is a dogma kept alive only for the sake of adherence to materialist philosophy. This dogma maintains that there is no true being save matter. Therefore, it argues that inanimate, unconscious matter created life. It insists that millions of different living species: birds, fish, giraffes, tigers, insects, trees, flowers, whales and human beings, originated from inanimate matter as a result of interactions between elements such as the pouring rain and lightening flashes. This is a precept contrary to both reason and science. Yet Darwinists continue to defend it just so as not to "allow a divine foot in the door." 146
Anyone who looks at the origin of living beings without a materialist prejudice will see this evident truth: all living beings are works of a Creator, who is all-Powerful, all-Wise and all-Knowing. This Creator is Allah, who created the whole universe from nothing, designed it in the most perfect form, and fashioned all living beings.
They said, 'Glory be to You! We have no knowledge except what You have taught us. You are the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.'(Surah Al-Baqarah 2: 32)
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder