For any observed phenomenon, there can be many possible explanations. A chance-based mechanism could be one explanation. We usually associate chance as being indifferent to purpose, and intelligent design as being with a purpose. When a mechanism appears to be unconcerned with or incognizant of any possible outcome, we term it a chance-based, or random mechanism. In other words, chance is invoked when there appears to be no preference for one particular outcome over another.

While a chance-based mechanism can be one of the possible explanations for a phenomenon, we only consider it seriously when the probability of the proposed mechanism is significant. When the probability is insignificant, we must eliminate this possibility and consider other options. Otherwise, we may fall into what the mathema-tician/philosopher Dembski calls the ‘chance-of-the-gaps’ fallacy:

‘Statistical reasoning must be capable of eliminating chance when the probability of events gets too small. If not, chance can be invoked to explain anything. Scientists rightly resist invoking the supernatural in scientific explanations for fear of committing a god-of-the-gaps fallacy (the fallacy of using God as a stop-gap for ignorance). Yet, without some restriction on the use of chance, scientists are in danger of committing a logically equivalent fallacy’one we may call the ‘chance-of-the-gaps fallacy’. Chance, like God, can become a stop-gap for ignorance.’ [Demski, 98]

To illustrate this principle let us consider three examples. The first is from a movie, related by the same author. The event related concerns the supposed spontaneous combustion of a person.

‘In the movie ‘This is Spinal Tap’, the lead singer remarks that a former drummer in the band died by spontaneously combusting. Any one of us could this instant spontaneously combust if all the most rapidly moving air molecules in our vicinity suddenly converged on us. Such an event, however, is highly improbable, and we don’t give it a second thought.’ [Dembski, 98]

Let us consider two other examples: footprints in the desert and a novel placed next to a typewriter.

Footprints in the Desert

When a bedouin sees camel footprints in the desert, he does not attribute these to chance. He does not think that the wind, by chance, formed those patterns on the sand. Instead, he interprets them as signs that a camel has recently walked along this way. The probability of the chance-based scenario is simply too small. Having seen the patterns characteristic of the wind, the bedouin can be almost sure that the camel explanation is the correct one, even if he has not seen the camel itself.

Novel Placed Next to a Typewriter

Imagine you find a novel left next to a typewriter, next to which sits a monkey. One explanation for who might have written the novel could be that the monkey typed the novel, making words and sentences that make sense, solely by chance. We can view this as a chance-based explanation; up to now we have not witnessed any monkey that can appreciate human literature. To make this explanation more plausible, let us assume that when the monkey completes a page, a human checks the page and if it does not make any sense the page is thrown away. If there were an unlimited supply of paper and ink, and if the monkey were replaced by another monkey when it died, you might expect to see a few lines of meaningful literary work after thousands of generations. In the process you would expect to see mountains of thrown-out pages, containing meaningless sequences of letters. If you knew that the monkey could not live long enough to produce a novel, if you knew that it did not have access to enough paper, or if you could not find any thrown-out pages, you would simply have to eliminate the monkey hypothesis. You would consider other explanations, such as that there was a person who was capable of producing literary work, and this person typed the novel and left it next to the typewriter. The idea that a monkey could produce a novel by typing randomly, without regard to content (i.e. by chance) is simply too small a probability. It is not worthy of serious consideration.

These examples illustrate a general principle; highly improbable and ‘preferred’ (independently specified) patterns cannot be generated by chance-based mechanisms. The footprints in the first example illustrate highly improbable events, and shows us how one arrives at a conclusion by preference or purpose. Since Darwinian evolution relies on chance, there is only one way it can produce the diversity of life found on earth. This can be done by exhausting a significant proportion of the possibilities, producing useless organisms in the process, leaving the remains of the unsuccessful organisms on the way and by eventually producing a useful organism after using up a considerable amount of time, matter and space.

Blind or Not Blind?

Some evolutionists argue that evolutionary algorithms are not the same as a blind search, because they include a fitness function which favors certain outcomes over others. In a way, this imagined ‘fitness function’ evaluates which organisms are the most promising in each generation. To understand the concept of a fitness function, consider the selective breeding of animals. The breeders select the members that have the most desirable properties and continue to breed them. They might breed from only the most fertile chickens or the woolliest sheep and succeed in altering the characteristics of these animals. So, the selection criteria of the breeders can be regarded as a fitness function. However, in the case of selective breeding, the human breeder is the one who defines and applies this function. In the case of Darwinian evolution, there is no room for an intelligent being. So, the imagined fitness function must be a result of the physical laws of the universe. It must be a result of the conditions on earth

What the evolutionary algorithms do is to exploit the information already encoded in the fitness function. So, evolutionary algorithms simply ‘shift’ the problem into a different space. If we assume that this fitness function is a result of the conditions on earth, we have to remember that the conditions on earth are highly improbable and specified. So, if this fitness function is assumed to be capable of design, one must explain how it came to be in the first place. Secondly, this function is ill-defined. Even evolu- tionists themselves have difficulty defining what this function is or how it operates. Various attempts to define this function by evolutionists amount to a tautology in order to justify it. ‘In this formulation, the theory predicts that the fittest organisms will produce the most offspring, and it defines the fittest organisms as the ones which produce the most offspring.’ [Johnson, 91]. Noting this trend, the famous philosopher of science Karl Popper once wrote, ‘some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring.’ Since the fitness function is not well defined, it is also not possible to demonstrate how this function is capable of producing this diversity of life, neither scientifically nor mathematically. In experiments where evolutionary mechanisms were tested, they tend to favor simplicity, whereas in life we see increasing complexity. Limits of the Universe The famous physicist Carl Sagan once said, in reference to evolutionary processes, given enough time, chance will work miracles. While this statement can be true theoretically, one should also consider that chance, given enough time, will produce a disproportionately high ratio of useless outcomes before coming up with a miracle. Furthermore, the universe, as we have observed, has a limited age and a limited amount of matter. So the amount of time that we can assume chance has is limited. The amount of material to be used by the chance-based pro- cesses is also limited. So the next question is, given the age of the universe, the amount of matter in the universe and all the possible sequences of changes that can take place, what is the likelihood of chance producing a single living cell? The answer to this question is important because it will determine whether the chance hypothesis is worthy of our attention. Dembski explains that within the observed universe any probability below a universal probability bound remains improbable, even if it is assumed that all the resources available were exhausted in order to try out all the possibilities. He calculates this number as 10-150, that is 1 over 10 to the 150th power. The details of this calculation and what it means are explained by him as follows:

“It would take at least 1067 times the current lifetime of the universe for the universe to manage to make all possible proteins of length 200 at least once.”

In the observable universe, probabilistic resources come in very limited supplies. Within the known physical universe there are estimated to be around 1080 elementary particles. Moreover, the properties of matter are such that transitions from one physical state to another cannot occur at a rate faster than 1045 times per second. This frequency corresponds to Planck time, which constitutes the smallest physically meaningful unit of time. Finally, the universe itself is about a billion times younger than 1025 seconds (assuming the universe is between ten and twenty billion years old). If we now assume that any specification of an event within the known physical universe requires at least one elementary particle to specify it and cannot be generated any faster than the Planck time, then these cosmological constraints imply that the total number of specified events throughout cosmic history cannot exceed 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150. It follows that any specified event of probability less than 1 in 10150 will remain improbable even after all conceivable probabilistic resources from the observable universe have been factored in. A probability of 1 in 10150 is therefore a universal probability bound. Implicit in a universal probability bound such as 10-150 is that the universe is too small a place to generate specified complexity by sheer exhaustion of possibilities. Stuart Kauffman develops this theme at length in his book Investigations. In one of his examples (and there are many like it throughout the book), he considers the number of possible proteins of length 200 (i.e., 20200 or approximately 10260) and the maximum number of pairwise collisions of particles throughout the history of the universe (he estimates 10193 total collisions supposing the reaction rate for collisions can be measured in femto seconds). Kauffman concludes: The known universe has not had time since the big bang to create all possible proteins of length 200 [even] once. To emphasize this point, he notes: It would take at least 1067 times the current lifetime of the universe for the universe to manage to make all possible proteins of length 200 at least once. [Dembski, 98] It should be noted that the precise value of this universal probability bound is not critical. Even an approximate value is enough to judge a proposed chance-based explanation for an observed phenomenon. Carl Sagan himself estimated the probability of humans evolving from a single living cell as one chance in 102,000,000,000, [Sagan]. Combining this estimate with the universal probability bound discussed above and using common sense, one can easily dismiss the chance hypothesis for the origin of life or for the diversity of life on earth. The Fossil Record Problem Associated with the chance hypothesis, there is also the problem of fossil record which we have not discussed in detail yet in this article. If the chance hypothesis is correct, the failed attempts of the blind processes should vastly outnumber those that are successful. This would imply that in the fossil record we should have found vast numbers of fossils of dysfunctional species compared with a tiny minority of successful species. Just as failed attempts would vastly outnumber successful ones, the fossils of such attempts should reflect the same ratio. While there are signs of extinct species in the fossil record, we do not find a huge record of the fossils of the kind of wild variation we would expect from blind mutations. While the reasons for the extinction of species like dinosaurs are debated, there is agreement that they were successful living organisms during their lifetimes. Conclusion To summarize, when a mathematician calculates the probability of chance producing life on earth, he or she can easily dismiss this explanation because of the aforementioned problems. Life is too complex and intricate. The lifetime of the universe and the amount of matter in it are insufficient to blindly exhaust all possibilities and arrive at the diverse life forms we see on earth. The fossil record does not reflect the ratio of unsuccessful attempts to successful ones we would expect from chance hypothesis. When presented with the chance-based theory of evolution, an objective mathematician would thus feel obliged to say, Either you have to shut off my intellect or I cannot accept this hypothesis. Life must be the product of an intelligent Designer who is All-Wise, Omniscient, Omnipotent and cognizant of what He is doing. The mathematician would thus come to the same conclusion as an unlettered bedouin, who is nevertheless a careful observer and a solid thinker: Camel droppings point to the existence of a camel. Footprints on the sand tell of a traveler. The heaven with its stars, the earth with its mountains and valleys, and the sea with its waves – do they not all point to the Maker, All-Powerful, Knowing, Wise and Caring?

References

• [Darwin, 93] Charles Darwin, The Correspondence of Charles Darwin 8, 1860 Cambridge University Press, 1993.
• [Dembski, 98] William A. Dembski, The Design Inference, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1998.
• [Dembski, 99] William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design, InterVarsity, Downers Grove, Ill., 1999.
• [Johnson, 91] Philip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, Regnery Gateway, Washington DC, 1991.
• [Khan] Khan, M., trans. Sahih Al-Bukhari: The Translation of the Meanings. Darussalam Publishers: 1997.
• [Sagan] Carl Sagan, F. H. C. Crick, L. M. Muchin in Carl Sagan, ed., Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 45-46.
• [Siddiqui] Siddiqi, A. H., trans. Sahih Muslim. Kitab Bhavan: 2000.
• [Harf] Harf Information Technology. Hadith Encyclopedia. Egypt: 1996. [Words] Nursi, S. The Words. The Light, Inc.: 1997.

It is hard to find another theory that has been so discredited by scientists, and yet is still believed in by so many people, as Darwinism.

The collapse of communism shows that “East” and “West” was a geographical-not a cultural-divide, and no more than a variation within Western culture. The Western attitude to religion, derived from Rousseau (d. 1778) and Renan (d. 1892), considers religion a socially necessary myth, a delusion providing some cultural and social cohesion to collective life, and as unreal as a dream. The Eastern (communist) attitude, an explicit rejection of religion in favor of materialism, gave Darwinism a more deliberate, institutional support.

In broad terms, however, modern Western culture is predicated upon Darwinism. Promoters of Western culture continue to represent Darwinism as established scientific truth and, by implication, religion as unscientific and false. Inevitably, some young people are influenced. Many begin to believe (though far fewer continue to believe) that religion is opposed to reason, and that Darwin’s theory is the best that reason can do.

Within the scope of this brief session, I will touch upon several major points.

Unresolved Issues

According to Darwin, life originated from simple single-celled organisms that gave rise to multicellular organisms through a process of gradual change, along with random mutations, over millions of years. According to more developed forms of evolutionary theory, all living things came from amino acids within water, and later became single-celled organisms. By interacting with each other and the immediate environment for billions of years, either gradually or suddenly they evolved into complex multicellular animals. Invertebrates gave rise to aquatic vertebrates, which evolved into amphibians, which became reptiles. Later on, some reptiles evolved into birds, while others evolved into mammals and culminated, eventually, in humanity.

The evidence usually consists of several incomplete pieces of fossils. But even the actual fossil record does not support this view. To our knowledge, no other scientific hypothesis is sustained on the basis of so many-and so important-missing links. Consider the following: Despite many varieties, bacteria have not evolved into anything different and higher, though they adapt very quickly. Cockroaches and insects remain unchanged after almost 350 million years. Fruit flies, arthropoda, sponges, sea crabs, snakes, lizards, mice, and many other species did not evolve over hundreds of millions of years. Scientists have found bees and honey from millions of years ago. Those bees produced honey and built honeycombs just as they do today, and use the same geometrical measures. So, for that whole expanse of time neither the bee’s brain and physiological structure nor the way it produces honey have changed. Human beings are exactly the same as they have been since their creation.

Scientists have found no transitional organisms, such as an animal that has evolved its front legs partly into wings for the transition to flight. There is not even a theoretical explanation, given that such transitions are supposed to take thousands of generations, of how such transitional animals-lacking four good legs, and still not equipped with two good legs and a pair of wings-could survive.

The “evolution” of a small five-toed dog-like mammal into the modern horse with one toe (hoof) is often mentioned. But where is the evidence? No such fossil series has ever been found. In the absence of any concrete connection between the two, how can we consider it the horse’s ancestor? This is the very opposite of reliable scientific argument and procedure. We say that God created such an animal and that it later became extinct. Why do we need to connect these two species? Even today horses of different sizes and species coexist.

What about humanity’s evolution? The evidence consists of some discovered bones or teeth, from which scientists —reconstruct— what the person looked like. During 1910-12, a neo-Darwinist claimed to have found the missing link.1 His claim stood until 1953-54, when scientists finally denounced it for the fraud that it was and saved their community’s dignity. Evolutionists used to mention the coelacanth, a fish abundant 400 million years ago, as a link between fish and land animals because of its limb-like fins. They theorized that this fish lurched onto land in search of food, staying there longer and longer until—about 70 million years ago—it disappeared from the fossil record. But in 1938, local fishermen caught several dozen coelacanths off Madagascar. As they showed no signs of evolution, they were quietly dropped by many textbooks from the list of evidences of evolution.

Evolutionists also claim that organisms evolve through random mutations. Mutations occur if the genetic code, normally identical in all of the organism’s cells, is copied differently or mistakenly while new cells are being formed. Such changes, which —bear evolutionary fruit— gradually over a long period, may be caused by such external agents as geography and climate, changes in the sun’s or Earth’s rotation, or by radiation and chemical pollution. The argument is that non-lethal mutations that successfully adapt to changes in their immediate environments function like sudden evolutionary —jumps— and engender species variation. But recent work in genetics and biochemistry prove that mutations are predominantly harmful, even lethal, and the cause of many physiological disorders. In any case, they cannot account for the appearance of new species, for the universe has not existed long enough to allow such randomness to evolve and then establish a new species. Scientists have studied pigeons, dogs, and flies for years. Although some physiological changes occur within the same species, such adaptive evolution within species does not prove the evolution of species. Hybrids are obtained by artificially crossing two species, such as a horse and a donkey, but the resultant hybrid (a mule) is typically sterile. After long research, scientists have concluded that certain barriers between the species cannot be overcome. This conforms to ordinary sense, known facts, and scientific reasoning. How could a human being, possessed of an extraordinarily sophisticated brain, the ability for linguistic and cultural expression as well as of religious belief and aspiration, have evolved from an ape? Belief in such a notion is amazing.

What Darwinism Implies

As Marx and Engels asserted, accepting evolution is a major pillar of materialism—and of historical materialism in particular. Materialists cling to it as other people cling to blind faith, prejudice, or superstition. Insisting that material causes can explain everything, they deny any supra-natural, metaphysical agency that intervenes in the world to make it so wonderfully abundant, prolific, diverse and, within stable forms, so marvellously adaptive and versatile in response to local environmental possibilities. The alternative to evolution is design. This necessarily leads to the concept of a transcendent and unitary power, the Designer-Creator: God. The reason for Darwinism’s continuing tyranny is the fear that acknowledging the Creator will collapse the edifice of autonomous science and autonomous human reason. Scientists might believe, but science must be atheistic. Ironically, Darwinists (and materialists generally) defy or ignore facts, and deny or belittle logic and reason to preserve the illusion of independent human reason. It is to the credit of the scientific community that, in ever greater numbers, individual scientists question and challenge Darwinism.

That said, some young people believe in Darwinism because it is official dogma and in all textbooks. How true and apt is the Turkish proverb—a half-wit can easily throw a pearl into a well, and 40 wise men vainly struggle to retrieve it. Nonetheless, no lie can survive forever. The origin of the species and their major divisions is not yet understood. Is it too humiliating for us to admit that we do not know everything? How can we not marvel at the origin of intelligent speech, ideation, abstraction, symbolization, culture, love of beauty and variety, consciousness, altruism, morality, religion, and spiritual aspiration? Darwin was a great and gifted scientist who must be credited for his work in ordering and classifying the species and on adaptation. However, he specialized in observing and understanding what was there in nature. Whatever his own intentions, his work, like every reliable scientific advance, confirms the Divine Architect, the All-Mighty Power, Sustainer, Administrator, Who willed the marvellous organization, reliable, systematic, subtly integrated harmony of nature’s operations, and combined that order with beauty. Although Darwin’s work increases our faith in God, it led him into error. How great and sublime is the Creator. Order, understanding, and wisdom are by His gift. Likewise, guidance is absolutely in His grasp.

Footnote

1 The author is referring to Piltdown Man, which was —discovered— in 1910-12 and exposed as a fraud in 1953-54. The perpetrator had joined together a 600-year-old human cranium, an orang utang’s jaw and teeth, and possibly a chimpanzee’s tooth, and then aged this fabrication by physical and chemical means. (Ed.)

A: Atheism means denying God’s existence, rejecting His commandments, avoiding religious reflection and seriousness, and considering oneself independent of Him. As such beliefs negate the concept of sin, people imagine that they can live as they please and thus begin to corrupt their hearts and minds. Atheism spreads because education is misused, young people are neglected, and schools defend and foster it.

Ignorance about the essentials of faith and religion is the primary cause of atheism. People whose minds, hearts, and souls are not directed toward the truth become vulnerable. Only God’s help and grace can save them. If a community does not counter this trend, its members’ hearts and minds open to deviation.

Atheism first manifests itself as a lack of interest in the principles of faith. Such people say this is a positive attitude, for it represents a desire for the mind’s independence and freedom of thought. As the demands of faith are strenuous, indifference turns toward what is easier. Seeking to avoid honest and serious reflection, it easily falls into neglect and then heedlessness, atheism, and even contempt for religion. Given this, atheism is not the result of sound reasoning, intuition or experience, or scientific truth, but of a lazy yet sometimes active and militant mood of not caring and of rebellion.

God’s countless manifestations testify that there is only One Creator and Governor who administers, directs, and sustains this universe. We may think of each manifestation as a letter or book from God to us, reflecting His Divine Attributes in a comprehensible way. These Attributes are seen everywhere in creation. However, some who do not understand these things correctly present nature, as well as it principles and relationships, in ways designed to make many people (especially the young) abandon true faith.

Does Science Support Atheism?

Much has been said and written about the natural world’s delicate balance and innumerable subtle harmonies. Such an order can be attributed only to the All-Mighty. Planets and stars move within an interrelated complexity of drifts and orbits that are infinitely more precise than anything we can design or make. If what we make is accepted as evidence of intelligent design, why is the far more vast and complicated universe considered an exception?

Nature resembles a huge factory of enormous generative power. Its working principles are astonishingly subtle and supple, yet firmly established in reassuring patterns and rhythms. From where does nature get these operating rules? Claims that nature is self-created are not convincing. Of course one of the operating rules is a measure of self-organizing power. But what is the origin of this rule?

Principles are non-essential attributes of a thing or being and, as such, are secondary and dependent on substance and essence. Attributes cannot exist before or independently of the compound or organism of which they are attributes. Thus if a plant demonstrates some self-organizing power by seeking light, moisture, and nutrients for its growth, it means that a limited self-organizing power has been embedded in its seed. Similarly, the principle of attraction in physics operates in and through existent masses, distances, and forces. To claim that such principles are the origin or source of existent things or beings is untenable. Just as untenable is the confidence with which such claims are asserted. To claim that this extraordinarily subtle and ordered universe is the outcome of haphazard coincidences is absurd, contradictory, and quite unscientific, for no evidence supports this claim.

As the result of long experiments and reflection, Muller declared that reason could not explain the origin of life.1 He established, on behalf of science and scientists, the absurdity of coincidence as a possible explanation. Similarly, after a 22-year series of studies, the Soviet Institute of Chemistry, under the chairmanship of Aleksandr Oparin, proved that the laws of chemistry and chemical reactions shed no light on the origin of life, and that science still has no answer to this question.(2)

When these scientists acknowledged the limitations to human inquiry, they did so on behalf of all science and scientists. Yet such work has not undone the damage done by earlier, less careful scientists, who offered guesses as reliable scientific theory. Unfortunately, general attitudes and values continue to be shaped by such guesses instead of the realities established by better scientists.

For example, many textbooks and encyclopedias continue to present Darwin’s theory of evolution as fact instead of theory. Meanwhile, a growing number of scientists, particularly evolutionists, argue that Darwin’s theoryis not a truly scientific theory. Many critics admit that we still have no idea how this evolution took place. While scientists and other experts have produced various ideas about probable causes and the actual process, the general public and less-informed scientists continue to believe in this theory.

Research projects and published studies cast doubt on evolution and seek to give a truer picture of nature as creation and our place in it. Works like Why Do We Believe in God? help those who considered non-believers in evolution as rather odd people reconsider their opinion and reflect more wisely on the matter.

Given the fact that a sound, reliable understanding of the natural world leads to belief in a single, universal Creator, atheism has more to do with obstinacy, prejudice, and a refusal to give up illusions than with the mind’s independence or freedom of thought. Young people remain vulnerable, for they do not fully understand their behavior’s nature and consequences, their spiritual being and their resulting deep-seated spiritual needs, and the balance between material and non-material values that characterizes a total human existence. Thus they are easily deceived by outdated concepts presented as scientific truths, although scientists know (and have said) that they are no more than theories. This is why teaching and learning about the truth are more important today than other duties and obligations.

If this vital task is not taken up, we may be unable to rectify the situation later on. Some of those evil consequences are with us already. We, this unlucky generation, are deprived of good teachers teachers possessing inner unity and harmony of mind and heart, self-knowledge in their deepest thoughts and feelings, a desire to teach others, and a willingness to suffer to promote others’ happiness and welfare. We hope such noble-minded teachers will arise to rescue people from their current moral and spiritual suffering.

If this can be done, present and future generations will acquire the necessary stability in their thinking and reasoning about life’s great questions. They will be able to resist the lure of false beliefs and illusions, and thereby be saved from the anxiety of constantly doubting the nature and purpose of their lives. They will be immunized, at least partially, against atheism and its attendant self-centered and neurotic behaviors. Atheism is caused by a lack of knowledge and learning, an inability to synthesize one’s inner and outer life, and is the result of an undernourished heart and soul. People cling to what they know, and resist what they do not knowor at least try to remain uninterested and unconcerned.

External Influences

The mass media continually presents ideas, lifestyles, and character types that encourage self-indulgence and self-abandonment. Such messages encourage young people to become punks or whatever the latest craze is; to seek immediate gratification and pleasure; and to prefer triviality and banality, loudness and vulgarity to cultivating their minds. People quickly adopt ways considered exciting and attractive. What they do not know becomes even more strange and alien, and eventually a matter of total indifference. Thus we have to find effective ways of introducing young people to the deeper ways of religious life, ways that lead toward tranquillity and light, and away from anxiety and darkness. Young people are excitable and susceptible. They crave limitless freedom and have countless unsatisfied appetites and desires. Their overly generous hearts and minds cause imbalance and disharmony, which can lead them toward atheism. They prefer immediate pleasure, however slight or brief, to the misery and distress that come in the wake of indulgence. They jump at the pleasures and enjoyments that Satan displays to them, and so prepare their own calamity. They fly to the fire of atheism just as moths are drawn to light. While ignorance and unfed hearts and souls increase, materialism and carnality gradually subvert the desire for truth and annul any nobility of purpose. This is what happened with Faust.3

This man, who desired extraordinary powers to do whatever he wished for a limited period, sold his soul cheaply to Mephistopheles, Satan’s agent. He then wasted these powers by pursuing trivial pleasures instead of serving humanity. When the soul is dead, the heart dies, compassion disappears, and the mind and reason become so confused that people become helpless victims of their own whims or current fads. Those who indulge in carnal and sensual passions will suffer crises and change direction continually, applaud every new fashion in thought as if it were the truth, and swing from one ideology to another from confusion to doubt and back again. Faith, a steady sense of duty, or a patient and enduring heart will not attract them. Nor will they find any merit in moral education, self-discipline, contemplation, the soul’s improvement, or strengthening their morals and manners. Wholly addicted to triviality and self-indulgence, they will deny our ancestors’ achievement and remain willfully ignorant of what real culture and civilization can make possible: a balance between spirituality and sanity, between virtue and happiness.

As not everyone can be saved, we should focus on educating those young people who have not yet been overtaken by the worst habits. We must teach them the fundamental principles of the system upon which we depend and to which our existence belongs. We must lead them to a systematic, straight, and honest way of thinking. If we cannot, we will see our community or nation continue to sink into moral and spiritual corruption. An additional cause of atheism is the deliberate rejection of all constraints and prohibitions. This tendency entered Muslim societies from western Europe via a degenerate form of existentialism (mainly French) that replaced traditional values and formal religious education with absolute individual freedom. The theory was that the individual would (and could) mature and develop into a noble, moral being through personal experience. This theory has never produced sane, caring, and compassionate people. All it has done is intensify misery and selfishness by isolating individuals from their families, traditions, and their selves. Its adherents cultivate no morals or tastes and do not try to find the truth, for all they are interested in is their own shallow private life.

In short, they simply survive from moment to moment in the illusory hope of one day finding happiness. These few reflections do not cover the whole subject. Yet I hope that future guides, teachers, and leaders with discernment and foresight will consider them when trying to stop the spread of deviation and atheism. I have presented a brief insight, with the prayer that some people may be alerted to the truth, conquer the self, and regain the means to do what is good.

Footnotes

1. Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin (d. 1980): Russian biochemist noted for his studies on the origin of life from chemical matter. By drawing on the insights of chemistry, he extended the Darwinian theory of evolution backward in time to explain how simple organic and inorganic materials might have combined into complex organic compounds and how the latter might have formed the primordial organism. (www.britannica.com)
2. Hermann Joseph Muller (d. 1967): American geneticist best remembered for his demonstration that mutations and hereditary changes can be caused by X rays striking the genes and chromosomes of living cells. His discovery of artificially induced mutations in genes had far-reaching consequences, and he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1946. (www.britannica.com)
3. Written by Goethe (d. 1832), this classic work is the story of a person’s spiritual journey and self-discovery.

One of the greatest plagues of history has been our propensity to deny the reality of human unity by constructing artificial hierarchies of human value. With the triumph of science in Europe and the application of Darwin’s theory of evolution to human societies, the determining criteria became skin color and physical characteristics. Individual achievement and ability, non-European beliefs and cultures, were either ignored or explained away. In short, genetics became the new truth. But the theory of evolution is just that: a theory. The absence of any fossil record of transitional species or the ever-elusive ‘missing link’ has caused many scientists to discard it. However, it remains embedded in popular culture as a way to differentiate ourselves from others.

This desire to differentiate has resulted in different perceptions of reality. For many, reality is limited to the world we inhabit. Others proclaim the existence of non-material and invisible worlds: heaven, hell, purgatory, or realms for the spiritually evolved and those waiting to be reborn. And then there are the dualistic perceptions of reality, such as us vs. them, black vs. white, good guy vs. bad guy. How we perceive reality determines our relationship with our surroundings and other people. If we consider ourselves self-originated, we feel alienated and empty because there is nothing to connect us with existence. But if we consider ourselves part of a Divine comprehensive unity, we are related to everything through a common meeting point: God. Such connectedness enables us to feel at home in this world and in the universe.

Virtual reality, once the stuff of science fiction, continues to progress. By stimulating certain areas of the brain, scientists can ‘create’ someone’s reality. If they can do this, certainly God can create a cosmic ‘virtual’ reality that is intimately connected with our eternal, and therefore real, life in the spiritual realm. Religions and spiritual philosophies have been saying this for millennia. And so now it is science that poses the classic Taoist paradox: ‘Though Zhuangzi dreamed of being a butterfly, couldn’t a butterfly dream of being Zhuangzi’ and how would either know which was real?’ Several of our articles address this issue.

Our book review of Lords of the Horizons recounts the Ottoman Empire’s 600-year existence as a multiethnic and multireligious empire consciously based upon the concept of diversity within unity and minority self-rule. One wonders what the modern world would look like if it had decided to follow the Ottoman model instead of nationalism and the desire for difference.

In addition to our new look, we have added a new feature’Global Developments. If you come across similar items that would interest our readers, please pass them on! We encourage our readers to attend the conferences listed, to read and review the books cited, and make the Fountain’s voice heard.

We hope that you enjoy this issue and, as always, look forward to your comments.

In the context of biology, evolution claims that life developed by chance out of inorganic material, and then acquired more and more complexity and sufficient variety to fill the Earth with the different existing species today. In this context, evolution has some subdivisions. First, according to where it takes place, it is divided into microevolution or “variations” (both within a species), and macroevolution (between species). Second, scientific progress has caused evolution itself to evolve into such different versions as classical Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, and punctuated equilibrium. As our space is limited, we will concentrate on the very basics of evolution, and leave some of the alternatives aside. Also, we will not cover many of the oppositions and objections in minor evolutionary issues or detail.

Slick writes: “The driving forces behind evolution are considered to be random genetic transformations (mutations) and natural selection. Mutations provide genetic variation and natural selection (predation, environmental conditions, etc.)” (Slick 1998). Thus, beneficial genetic combinations are sorted from non-beneficial ones and carried from generation to generation. In other words, the organism that survives natural selection [process] passes the new (improved) genetic information to future generations, who continue to pass them down with every new generation.2 At first, all of this might seem self-consistent and even logical. But an inquisitive mind should not accept anything on the basis of apparent “logic” without exploring, because observation without extensive searching can be quite misleading. (See the example of a recent discovery about dinosaurs.)

In his The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin described the basics of his theory and sought to substantiate it by fossil findings. More specifically, he based his theory on intermediate links between species (ancestors to descendants). Even though this is his strongest evidence (!), in the same book he asks: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record”3 (Darwin, 1859, chapter 9). He himself agrees that the strongest evidence of evolution assuredly does not exist, and foresaw that the fossil record will be a thread against evolution in future.

The above argument might raise the question:

“Well, in the 1850s geology was not that developed, so now we might have some geological evidence about intermediate links.” Yes, geology has developed a lot since then, but it has provided no strong evidence for such a link. For example, we are all familiar with the term “missing link,” because after 250 years of exploration such “links” are still “missing.” Not only is humanity’s ancestral line formed of missing links, but so are the ancestral lines of such other living things as animals, birds, fish, and plants.4

As Jepsen L.Glenn states: “Links are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many ‘links will continue to be missing”5 (Jepsen, 1963, p.114). And he was right because they are still missing. “The missing links between man and the apes…is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated… Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school…”6 (Newsweek, Nov. 3, 1980, p. 95).

Due to such difficulties, which have been around since Darwin’s time, evolutionists have transformed the theory into Neo-Darwinism and other versions (see above). This means that the quest for truth in this matter has not been settled. On the other hand, due to insufficiency of historical data, sources, and methods to reproduce the beginning of life, some scientists classify the origin of life as either unknowable or unanswerable7 and hence as best left to belief or logic. Even though the process of life and its adventure is not reproducible, science is increasing the hfstorical data about the origin of life and the history of living things. But surprisingly, the new data do not support evolution.

As for observation (together with historical findings), we still have to search beyond our eyes and imagination. For instance, museums, textbooks, scientific magazines, and movies traditionally portray dinosaurs as standing up 12 meters high or more, because dinosaur fossils had very long necks. This was enough for scientists to deduce that they were tall, ate tree leaves, and fought with other creatures standing upright. But a recent study at Northern Illinois University, showed that the joint structure in their necks allowed them to lift their head at most 2 to 3 meters.8 Therefore, seeing is not enough for sound deduction, and drawing pictures, assembling bones, and one’s imagination does not necessarily produce sound logic.

Alterations to the theory of evolution over the last 250 years imply that as science progresses, it does not support the theory but rather changes or at least modifies it. As mentioned earlier, due to the lack of evolutionary links between species, the theory adopted “punctuated equilibrium.” which states that “evolution took huge sudden jumps … in 100,000- or 300,000-year increments or so, during different periods of earth history.”9 Thus there can be no gradual improvement. This is not a mere modification of the theory, but a total digression from Darwin’s original version. When scientists discovered huge gaps between species, they were so predisposed to evolution that they changed its basic theoretical premises and still called it “evolution.” Unfortunately, the public is usually unaware of such advances or modifications, and continues to believe that the theory of evolution is “scientific.”

As regards supposed “missing links,” we give the most argumentative evolutionary record, the alleged evolutionary record of man, as an example:

1. -Ramapithecus – 10 to 14 million years ago.

2. -Australopithecus-1 to 4 million years ago.

A. -Afarensis – 3 to 3.6 million years ago.

B. -Africanus-2.5 to 3 million years ago.

C. -Robustus-3 to 1.8 million years ago

D. -Boisei-1.8 million years ago.

3. -Zinjanthropus (also known as East Africa Man) -1.5 to 2 million years ago.

4. -Homo Habilis-2 million years ago.

5. -Pithecanthropus-500.000 years ago.

A. -Nebraska Man (also known as Hesperopithecus haroldcookii).

B. -Piltdown Man (also known as Eanthropus dawsoni, or Dawn Man).

6. -Homo Erectus-300,000 years ago (also known as Java Man and as Peking Man or Sinjanthropus pekinensis)

7. -Sapiens

A. -Neanderthal-30,000 to 75,000 years ago.

B. -Cromagnon-10,000 to 50,000 years ago.

C. -Modern-10,000 years ago.

D. -Homo Sapiens-present.

These dates were taken from the November 1985 issue of The Notional Geographic magazine.10 Now, let’s see what really constitutes these links one by one:

Ramapithecus: Ramapithecus, which consists of a handful of teeth and jaw fragments, is considered to be a hominid (human evolutionary ancestor) solely on the basis of its dental record.11 David Pilbeam, one of the first to state that Ramapethicus was a hominid, says that he now is not so sure that it is a human ancestor, and that he has found new fossils of the species that invalidate earlier conclusions.12

Australopithecus: Found by Dart in 1924, Australopithecus Africanus, consists of a skull, a jaw, some teeth, and pelvis, limb, and footfragments. This creature is divided into two main species: Australopithecus Africanus and Australopithecus Robustus. Australopithecus is not considered a human ancestor.13

Zinjanthropus: In 1950, Louis and Mary Leakey found 400 pieces of a skull in the Olduvai Gorge in Africa. They claimed that this hominid ancestor was 1,750,000 years old. This age was determined on their dating of the rocks in which the bones were located by the potassium argon method. In 1960, they found a child’s skull of a more advanced type 12 inches deeper in the rock. This led Leakey to say that Zinjanthropus was not hominid, but rather entirely ape. Carbon 14 dating of mammal bones in the same stratum suggests an age of only 10,000 years or 3,100 years.

Nebraska Man: In 1922, a geologist named Cook found a tooth in Nebraska’s Snake Creek bed. Professor Osborn (The New York Museum) and Sir Smith C. Aubrey of London said it belonged to an ape man. It was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.14

Piltdown Man: In 1912, Charles Dawson and others found a skullcap, jawbone, and teeth in a gravel pit in Sussex, England. From these, they constructed an ape man, named him Piltdown (or Dawn) Man, and dated him at 500,000 years BC. In 1953, British scientists discovered that the jawbone belonged to a monkey that had been stained to indicate age, that the teeth had been filed to make them look human, and that the skullcap was really an elephant’s kneecap. The hoax fooled experts for many years.15

Java Man: In 1892 in Java (now part of Indonesia), Dubois found a skullcap, teeth, and femur bone about 60 feet from each other. He said these belonged to the same hominid ancestor, and that it was about 500,000 years old. He failed to mention that he had found two human skulls nearby in virtually the same level of burial. In 1908, the German Selenka expedition found that lava flows in Java made an age of more than 500 years impossible. In 1936, Dubois admitted that Java Man was an ape.16

Peking Man: Between 1922 and 1939, the bones of 38 individuals were discovered at Choukoutien, southwest of Peking. Experts in several countries said these belonged to ape men. Mr. O’Connell, a missionary in China, claimed this was a lime pit and that local men and women killed monkeys and then ate their brains. When the hill collapsed, people were buried and fossilized. The mixture of bones was used to create an ape man. The original specimens were lost in WWII. O’Connell says Peking man is altogether human.

Neanderthal Man: The first bones of Neanderthal Man, found in Dusseldorf, Germany, in 1856, indicated a stooped posture. He was said to be one step above apes, and was dated at 200,000 years. Later, he was found to have arthritis. Since then, skeletons in an upright position have been found in caves in Palestine. Their brain size is larger than that of modern man.

Cromagnon: Cromagnon bones of have been found in caves in France. Although they are dated at 50,000 years,their brain size is larger than that of modern man.17,18

As seen above, these so-called human ancestors are either apes or based solely on teeth, or they are just human beings with larger brains and bigger bodies, which might mean more complexity. So what makes the above table of links scientific? I think only the make-up is scientific: fancy Latin names, estimated millions of years by some questionable method, and publication in a scientific journal. It is this presentation that makes people view this as not make-believe but rather a sophisticated track record of human ancestors. If the Carbon 14 method is reliable (it is questionable), we should accept that man’s real ancestors are Neanderthals and Cromagnons, who were still men and appeared around 30,000 to 75,000 years ago with no hominid (human ancestor) predecessors. Thus they emerged immediately, and hence were created in this excellent form. As for other species: “Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species.”19 (New Scientist, No. 1295, p. 581).

Let’s return to the basics of evolution-did life appear on Earth out of inorganic material spontaneously and by chance? Scientific evidence suggests the formation was spontaneous, but not by chance. The formation of life out of inorganic material by chance would require an enormous amount of time and combinations of molecules. Even if we assume that all these combinations existed on Earth, is it possible that life can emerge by chance? Is it mathematically probable?

Let’s give some probabilistic results in exponential notation for the sake of simplicity. For those who are not familiar with such notation, here is a brief description. 42 is 4×4, or 16 where 2 is the exponent and 4 is the base. Likewise 53 equals to 5x5x5 or 125. When the exponent is negative, like 3-3 it means 1 divided by 3x3x3 or 1/27th. Now for a quick illustration of why we use exponents: consider that we take 250 pieces of paper each 1/10 mm thick and put them in stack. How high will the stack be? The answer is 250 x 1/10 mm, which seems quite perceivable and not so large (due to the simplicity of the notation). However, the result is approximately 1.1258×1014 mm or 112,589,990.7km, which is 17,652.87 equatorial radii of the Earth. Of course, the first notation’s simplicity is due to the exponential 250, which is in fact 1,124,899,906,842,624. As another example, consider the estimated approximate number of the atoms in the universe, which is 1079 atoms. This is a one with 79 zeroes after it. Now the exponents in quotes and example below will be more familiar.

“To get a cell by chance would require at least one hundred functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place. That is one hundred simultaneous events each of an independent probability which could hardly be more than 10-20 giving a maximum combined probability of 10-2000 ” 20 (Denten, 1985).

“The probability of life having originated through random choice at any one of the 1046 occasions is then about 10-255. The smallness of this number means that it is virtually impossible that life has originated by a random association of molecules. The proposition that a living structure could have arisen in a single event through random association of molecules must be rejected” 21 (Quastler, 1964, p. 7).

“The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer”22 (Dawkins, p. 130).

There are hundreds of such quotes from well-known scientists and experts on this subject.

Thus, the probability of life coming from inorganic material by chance is virtually zero. Hence evolutionists had to devise another idea from probability theory. The principle follows as: “Given an infinite amount of time, the probability of something happening, no matter how remote the probability is 1.” 23

But does this idea save evolution? Before putting this idea on test, let’s present the estimates of Earth’s24 and the universe’s25 age.

Note that the highest age estimate for the Earth is 4.6 billion, and that the highest estimate for the universe’s age is 18 billion years. Thus, as the universe existed for a limited amount of time, the basic premise of the evolutionists using probability theory is refuted. What is the probability of a 100-part organism (no living cell has this few) forming if for 30 billion years, a generous estimate of the universe’s age, there were 1 billion billion billion billion combinations of its parts every second (1036 combinations per second). In other words, is that enough time? Here we take an artificial cell of 100 parts (since any living cell has more than 100 parts, this is a very low estimate),overestimate of the universe’s age (to silence opponents), and overestimate the number of events per second beyond what really is possible.

Living cells are composed of DNA. The simplest life forms on Earth are viruses, which consist of thousands of parts. Let our artificial organism be a 100-part virus. If we suppose that these parts can only lie on a straight line, the total number of all possible orderings is 100! (100! means 100 factorial, or 100x99x98x ……x4x3x2xl). This straight line assumption favors evolution, since there may be many other ways on which DNA-parts may lie. To illustrate further: if we have two sticks, how many ways can we arrange them? 2! = 2×1 or 2 different ways; if we have 3 sticks? 3! = 3x2x1, or 6 different ways, Had we 5 sticks?, 5!=120 different waysand so on. Note that as the number of sticks increases, the number of possible arrangements increases dramatically. As the virus can have DNA-parts in many forms other than a straight line, the total number of possible arrangements of DNA-parts is more than 100!. But for the sake of simplicity, let’s assume that it is 100!. Then 100 parts can combine in 100!=9.32258232×10157 different possible ways. Hence the probability of our virus to form in its particular order is approximately one in 10157.

The next question addressed is: Is 30 billion (3×1010) years enough for this very simple virus to form? The possible number of combinations per second is 1036 , and 30 billion years is equal to 3×1036 (years)x365(days)x24(hours)x60(minutes)x60(seconds), or 9.4608×1037 seconds. Now to find the total number of combinations for all life in the universe, we multiply 1036 combinations per second with 9.4608×1037 seconds, for a result of 9.4608×1073 combinations. Hence only a tiny fraction of all possible formations could have occurred, and the probability of our virus to form from the beginning of the universe till now is 9.4608×1073 over 9.32258232×10157, which is approximately one in 1083 combinations (virtually zero). (This example is a slight modification of the one given by Matthew J. Slick of CARM.26)

Some evolutionists claim that since life exists on Earth, this minute probability actually occurred. But here they are completely losing track of objectivity, a necessity in science. When they presume that evolution is a fact, they do not allow contrary evidence to influence them. Their obstinacy prevents them from seeing that this case is not like a lottery, in which all the possible number of combinations are sold, so that a winner will be for sure (here winner is analogous to our virus). Keep in mind that only 0.000….% (there are 81 zeroes after the decimal) of all combinations could be covered until now. Therefore, the probability of living cells forming by chance is very close to zero, and the universe’s presumed age is not sufficient for even the formation of a 100-part virus. If we look at cells with hundreds of parts, which would be more realistic, the odds against their forming are multiplied exponentially. Yet evolutionists maintain that the spontaneous formation of life on the Earth is a fact. Hence it is created spontaneously by a Supreme Being.

The third basis of evolution is the continued formation of genetic material, which is credited to mutations and the selection of favorable genetic formation by nature (natural selection). But the primary problem with mutation is that it is almost always destructive (one should draw a clear line between genetic engineering and arbitrary alteration of the genetic code, the latter is called mutation). Since a favorable genetic code is needed for natural selection, mutations should occur a priori. In other words, mutations should be responsible for genetic variety, not natural selection, which operates only on existing genes (it cannot create new genes). Mutations occur randomly and should transform the existing gene into a new gene possesing an advantage. But many evolutionists continue to assert that natural selection drives the genetic transition. This implies that genes should perform their newly evolved functions before they evolve into new genes. This is like claimimg that birds can fly when they are still in their eggs. Therefore, random chance and not natural selection is responsible for evolution of new genes. Hence, until a new gene offers a competitive advantage, natural selection cannot occur.27

Now a careful reader might recall that the probability of a 100-part virus (a virus whose genetic code consists of 100 DNA-units) was I in 10157, and given l036 possible combinations per second the probability of this virus to form since the beginning of the universe (assumed to be approximately 9.4608×1037 seconds) was 1 in 1083 combinations. Here there is no need to find the probability of a 100-part virus evolving into a 1,000-part bacterium (the simplest bacterium consists of millions of DNA-parts), since the probability of a virus forming from inorganic material was virtually zero. But for curious readers, here is a very simplistic approach: There are two extremes in this problem: 1) an additional 900 parts form and combine with the previous 100 parts, and 2) every part of the 100 existing parts evolves into 10 new parts. Every other possibility of 100 existing parts evolving into 1,000 new parts falls somewhere between these two cases.

Case l: 900 parts can combine in 900!=6.75×102270 different possible ways. For the sake of simplicity, we assume that these 900 parts will just join the previous 100 parts at one edge of the existing DNA. Hence the odds of combining 900 parts with the previous 100 parts to form a specific 1000-part straight-line formation is 1 in 6.75×102270 combinations. With 1036 possible combinations per second and 9.4608×1037 seconds as the universe’s age, even if a 100-part virus existed at the beginning of the universe, the probability of the forming a 1,000-part bacteria from that virus is 9.4608×1053 /900!=l.4×10-2216.

Case 2: The probability of 10 parts evolving from each one of 100-existing parts. The likelihood of forming a new one part from an existing part is (either it forms or not). Hence the probability of 10 new parts evolving from one old part is (1/2)=10 = 2-10 =1/1024. There are 100 such events; hence, the probability is (2-10)100 =9.33×10-302. Given 1036 events per second and 9.4608×1037 seconds as the universe’s age, the probability of forming a 1,000- part virus out of a 100-part virus is (9.4068×1053) /(21000 )=8.83×10-248.

Now keep in mind that a virus has thousands of parts, and that a bacteria has millions of parts. Also, consider the evolution of multicelled organisms from unicellular organisms, plants from multicelled organisms, animals from plants, and men from animals. There are quadrillions of parts to be evolved at each step, and the above probability should be multiplied exponentially in the denominator. In sum, there is no way evolution can happen by chance.

As seen above, whatever is claimed to support evolution turns out to not support it. Now recall that for natural selection to occur, favorably evolved genes should exist and each gene’s evolutions should be cumulative. As we have proven that the large-scale change of genetic material is impossible, can natural selection drive cumulative small-scale changes in genes? The study shows that by preserving the functionality of existing genes, natural selection fights evolution, for existing genes are not free to evolve into new genes. The genes are locked by natural selection, that is, if a gene evolves into a new gene the original gene is lost. Now, if the original gene benefits the organism, its loss will be a competitive disadvantage to the organism (hence the organism will be eliminated or disfavored by natural selection). If the gene is non-beneficial, it would be eliminated by natural selection. Therefore natural selection locks existing genes into their place. Theoretically, genes might transform at the expense of losing their previous functionality, but this transformation is not cumulative. The only opposition might arise in the case of the new gene being more beneficiary than the previous one. This is slightly misleading, for if the new gene offers more benefit on the same characteristic, then no variation is possible even within a species (which is not the case on Earth). If the new gene offers a beneficial new characteristic, the original characteristic is lost and hence a disadvantage occurs. This is not much of a benefit.

This discrepancy in evolution was first observed by a scientist named Ohno (1978), who says: “Yet, being an effective policeman, natural selection is extremely conservative by nature, from a bacterium only numerous forms of bacteria would have emerged. The creation of metazoans, vertebrates, and finally mammals from unicellular organisms would have been quite impossible, for such big leaps in evolution required the creation of new gene loci with previously non-existent functions. Only the cistron (a segment of DNA that is equivalent to a gene and that specifies a single functional unit as a protein or enzyme) which became redundant was able to escape from the relentless pressure of natural selection, and by escaping, it accumulated formerly forbidden mutations to emerge as a new gene locus.”

As Ohno said, even if a virus or a bacteria existed in the beginning, only these and their variations would be alive today. Also, those redundant gene loci are the only genes that can escape from natural selection, and all mutations must occur on them. However, only a new trait can result from this mutation. Then this locus is again under the lock of natural selection, since it gained a new functionality. Furthermore, it does not allow the creation of new genes to acquire the complexity of metazoans, vertebrates, and finally mammals. Hence “as long as a particular function of an organism is under the control of a single gene locus, natural selection does not permit perpetuation of mutations which result in affecting the functionally critical site of a peptide chain specified by that locus. Hence, allelic mutations are incapable of changing the assigned function of genes”28 (Ohno,1978). This observation is quite important, because evolution needs numerous, successive small changes of existing genes-the above observation proves that changes at a gene locus are not cumulative.29

Why then is Darwinism so prevalent in the scientific world? Why is it still taught in schools and shown in documentary films as a fact? Are the evolutionists unable to see the discrepancies and improbability of evolution? The answer to these questions lie mostly in the fact that the primary motivation for advancing Darwinism was philosophical, not scientific.30 The underlying philosophy behind Darwinism is naturalism, whose roots are in classical Greek philosophy. Darwin knew little about genetics, but the spread of Darwinism was the result of combination of Darwinism with genetics in 1930s and 1940s. This combination is a result of the prevalence of naturalism among philosophers and scientists in recent centuries. Therefore, there is a close relationship between Darwinism and naturalism-indeed, Darwinism became the branch of naturalism in biology. Therefore, in a future article we will examine the source(naturalism) that Darwinism nourishes and elaborate on the aspects of Darwinism that we did not cover or about which we just gave tangent remarks.

FOOTNOTES

1. Merriam-Webster, Inc, ‘WWebster Dictionary (1999) at http://www.m-w.com.
2. Matthew J. Slick, CARM (1998) at http://www.carm.org/evfactor.htm.
3. http://hjein.get2net.dk/Paleontology, online books, Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter 11: “On the imperfection of the geologic record” (1859).
4. Slick, CARM (1998) at http://www.carm.org/evfactor.htm.
5. L. Glenn Jepsen, Ernst Mayr, and George Gaylord Simpson, Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution (New York: Athenaeum, 1963), 114.
6. “Is Man a Subtle Accident?” Newsweek [Nov. 3, 1980), 95.
7. Selim Uzunoglu, Upon the Unknown and the Unknowable (1998).
8. Zaman / America, International Newspaper (May 3, 1999).
9. Slick (1998) at http://www.cann.org/evfactor.htm.
10. The National Geographic, vol. 168, no. 5 (Nov. 1985), 568-73.
11. E. L. Simons, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 167 (1969), 319; E. L. Simons, ScientificAmerican, vol. 211 (1964), 50; D. R. Pilbeam, Nature, vol. 219 (1968), 1335; E. L. Simons and D. R. Pilbeam, Science, vol. 173 (1971), 23.
12. New York Times (February 18, 1979), 41.
13. C. Oxnard, University of Chicago Magazine (Winter 1974), 11-22 A. Montagu, Man: His First Million Years (Yonkers, NY: World Publishers, 1957), 51-52.
14. S. K. Gregory, Science, vol. 66, p. 579 (1927) as cited in Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No (San Diego, CA: Creation Life Publishers, 1981), 130.
15. 5. Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger, 1970), 75-94 as cited in Gish, Evolution, 132.
16. W. Howell, Mankind in the Making (Garden City, NJ: Doubleday and Co., 1967), 155-56 as cited in Gish, Evolution, 125.
17. For further information on evolution, consult Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (Santee, CA: Master Book Publishers, Santee, CA 1984); Gish, Evolution; Marshall Hall and Sandra Hall, The Truth: God or Evolution?: The Craig Press, 1974); and A. E. Wilder-Smith, Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1975), 55438.
18. The reference numbers 10-17 can be tracked at http://www.carm.org/evfactor.htm.
19. Tom Kemp, “The Reptiles That Became Mammals,” New Scientist, vol. 93, no. 1295, (March 4, 1982), 581.
20. Michael Denten, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Warwickshire, UK, Burnett Books Limited, 1985).
21. Henry Quastler, The Emergence of Biological Organization (New Haven, CT, and London, UK: Yale University Press, 1964), 7.
22. Richard Dawkins, “The Necessiiv of Dazwinism,” New Scientist, vol.94 (April 15, 1982), 130.
23. http://www.gogoscience.com/forums/messages/6267.shtml.
24. http://www.ozemail.com.au/~sjdando/mutation.htm.
25. http://ast.leeds.ac.uk/research/age.html (Optical astronomy group at Leeds, UK).
26. Slick (1998) at http://www.carm.org/evfactor.htm
27. Stu Pullen (1998) at http://www.darwinsmistake.com/BOOK/.
28. Ohno, Susumu Evolution by Gene Duplication (New York: Springer Verlag, 1978). HYPERLINK
29. Stu Pullen (1998) at http://www.daiwinsmistake.com/BOOK/.
30. William A. Dembski et al., Mere Creation, Science, Faith and Intelligent Design (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998).),p.74

Before discussing this further, it will be useful to define our terms. By ‘creation theory’ is meant something like this: the Creator, by an act of will which occurred outside of the cosmos, directly willed into being the first plant and animal species, separately and independently of each other. Any subsequent changes or mutations were accomplished only within the species boundaries. No essential modifications or evolution (such as of more complicated species from simpler ones) occurred after that. In the past the earth was at least once flooded extensively. Geological investigations show clearly that this extensive flooding led to the destruction and extinction of a large number of living creatures.

According to the modern ‘evolution theory’, all life evolved from one simple primitive cell, which came out of dead, lifeless matter by chance, then hit upon a method of replication and adaptation which (again by random trial and error over vast periods of time) led to the many varieties of living species each fitted for competitive survival in its particular niche in the environment. The whole process of evolution took several hundred million years. Large geological events are explained as natural phenomena occurring in specific periods of time and without a world-wide destruction of the earth by flood.

The first creation of man was not observed by man; it is an unrepeatable historical event, unsuited to ‘testing by experiment’, the standard procedure in modern science. Further, creation cannot be disproved: it is impossible to devise or conduct an experiment that could falsify the claim put forward by the creation theory. It is for that reason unacceptable as a scientific theory. That does not mean it is false; nor does it mean it is true. However, it is clear that the creation theory shows good correlations with the results of fossil investigation. To some extent, it can be tested in the same way as other historical claims are matched and tested with appropriately corroborative historical documents.

Evolution theory likewise does not fulfil all the criteria which would justify calling it a scientific theory. The great modifications of evolution were never observed; the claims of the theory fall outside of experimental and scientific methods. Nobody has ever observed or could ever observe how a fish became a frog or a monkey became a human; no human witnessed or could ever witness the origin of the cosmos or of life.

A well-known bit of evidence often used to argue for evolution theory is the case of the moth Biston betularia. The moths of this species found in England before the industrial revolution were predominantly white. The effects of industrial pollution blackened rocks and tree-bark. The number of white moths in the population, now fatally exposed to their predators, fell drastically, while the number of black moths rose. Today in the industrialized regions of England, 95% of the moths are black: they had better camouflage and therefore a higher survival rate, eventually dominating the population. Thus, the environment ‘selected’ or favoured the black over the white variety.

While this case clearly illustrates adaptive evolution within a species or, more precisely, the adaptation capacity to certain conditions with which all living beings are endowed by creation, it equally clearly does not illustrate evolution from one species to another. The latter kind of change or ‘macro-evolution’ is never observable. As a famous supporter of evolution, Dobzhansky, put it-evolution can never be repeated or reversed (no life-form ever evolves back to what it allegedly had once been); the time periods reckoned for major changes to occur exceed by far the life-span of mankind as a whole; it is impossible to test the theory scientifically and therefore it cannot be presented to anti-evolutionists in a way that would force them to change their position.

Some evolutionist scientists are objective and honest enough to accept that evolution theory is no more scientific than the creation theory. For example, providing a short list of the theory’s weaknesses, Harris pointed out that creationists demand from the evolutionists an explanation of (a) how random mutations led to adaptations, (b) why natural selection acts only for the benefit of some species, (c) why natural selection allowed the survival of organs which are obviously not used. We now understand, Harris maintains, that neither theory is rational, that both depend on axioms.

In the Preface of the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species, Mathews, pointing out that the evolution of the animals has never been demonstrated, asks: Is biology now a science or a belief system?

It does not follow from the fact that neither theory is ‘scientific’ according to the strict criteria, that either is necessarily wrong. However, since evolution theory claims that evolution occurred according to natural laws, these laws must be valid at the present time (as in the past), and the theory may not contradict those laws. But the evolutionists insist that the non-demonstrability of evolution, its central weakness as a scientific theory, must be accepted as a consequence of the enormous slowness of evolutionary processes. They further insist that creation theory should be removed from scientific textbooks, it should not be investigated scientifically, and certainly not presented as an alternative to evolution. But their argument that creation theory cannot be scientifically tested applies equally to evolution theory. Similarly, their objection that creation theory promotes religion and belief in supernatural agency, applies equally to evolution theory which promotes atheism as a belief system and accords to random ‘natural’ processes the role of supernatural agency. If it is wrong or improper to teach the former, it must be wrong or improper to teach the latter also.

In practice, evolution theory has become an unofficial state-supported religion sponsored directly by its exclusive place on all curricula; a dogma that binds students of biology to the closed horizons of evolution theory in schools, colleges and universities. However, more and more scientists are finding the courage to assert that grave inconsistencies between evolutionary theory and scientific laws or experimental results exist. Also, many scientists are arguing that the creation model is free from such inconsistencies and offers a better explanation of the established facts about the origin of living organisms. Even some followers of evolutionary theory are admitting to being dissatisfied with it and to seeking a ‘better’ theory that fits and explains the known facts in a properly scientific way.

The essential claim of modern evolutionary theory is that the processes of evolution resulted from natural selection of the coincidental mutational modifications in the genetic code. This selection was realized in relation to modifications of the environment. Natural selection is an agent, acting through coincidences and working in mutated genes. But that does not explain (as it was once thought and hoped it would) very much at all. There is a fatal circularity, a fatal self-validation, in the theory of selection. Which living creatures survived? Answer: those that adapted to the changes in their environment. Which living creatures adapted? Answer: those that survived. There is no explanatory effectiveness in this kind of reasoning.

It is impossible to explain, why some species only live until they produce the next generation. We only know that because they were created in that way. Scientists who support the creation model believe that natural selection leads to species extending modifications towards ever-increasing complexity. Natural selection has the merely negative function of eventually removing from the environment species that have failed to realize their potential to adapt.

According to modern evolutionary theory, all processes of change are initiated by mutations. Mutations are random, heritable modifications in the chromosomes or genes, which are complete functioning elements. Whatever happens randomly can nevertheless be calculated according to known and established mathematical principles. Therefore, it should be possible to calculate and predict the numbers of mutations necessary to effect a change in the organism. In short, if we really believe that evolution resulted through coincidence, then the time period needed for the transformation of a protozoon to a human can be worked out. One group of mathematicians who support the evolution theory did compute the time needed. The results of their calculations were that it would take one billion times longer than the five billion of years that the world has existed. In sum, it is impossible for evolution to have happened by chance. Why then do we allow that impossibility to be taught in schools presented in textbooks as if it were truth? It is impossible to justify.

Darwin himself agreed on better adaptation, and increasing complexification, but wholly rejected the idea that the evolutionary progress of organisms had any kind of moral implication. He understood the ‘improvement’ implied in ‘progress through evolution’ in a functional rather than an ethical, moral, or social sense.

Darwinism – Spencerism

By some analogy to its biological counterpart, Social Darwinism argues that the struggle for existence among humans may be expected to yield social progress, just as struggle among human communities does produce evolutionary adaptive results. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), English sociologist and philosopher, was the pioneer of this approach, so much so that Social Darwinism might, in many respects, be better called ‘Social Spencerism’. Spencer was raised in the competitive atmosphere of the Industrial Revolution and remained one of the great champions of laissez-faire economics. It was he who coined the term ‘survival of the fittest’ to describe natural selection, although he was never a convinced Darwinist. He had already accepted a progressive view of human society, and the idea of biological evolution, during the 1850s, before Darwin’s theory became public. For Spencer, Malthus’s ‘law’ of demographic change was the dynamic agent of social development, constantly forcing societies to progress economically in order to escape the pressure of limited resources. At the same time, he was convinced by Lamarck’s arguments for evolution and began to see the possibility of constructing a synthesis that would unite all aspects of natural and human evolution under the same laws.

Social Darwinism and the American Way

Social Darwinism received some of its widest support in the U.S where the laissez-faire economics developed in England and France in the late 18th century was vigorously espoused, and where, after the successful War of Independence, rights of the individual (especially in the form of freedom from government interference) were enthusiastically promoted. The leading Social Darwinist in American academic circles was William Graham Sumner (1840-1910), Professor of political economy and social science at Yale which, under his influence, became a kind of pulpit for Social Darwinism. His ideas were derived chiefly from Spencer. He viewed the capitalist system with great favour because it allowed the free play of the ‘competition of life’. Unlike Spencer, he was very pessimistic and didn’t look forward to a future state of equilibrium. The well-known industrialist and philanthropist, Andrew Carnegie (1 835-191 4), held the view that individualism, private property, the law of accumulation of wealth and the law of competition promoted the highest and best in human achievements. Other businessman liked to see (and present) themselves as successful survivors in the struggle for existence. For example Rockefeller said: ‘The growth of a large business is merely survival of the fittest…’. Interestingly, many rich American industrialists and businessmen found no difficulty in accommodating Christianity to the Darwinian idea of a competitive struggle which ‘necessarily’ eliminated the weaker parties in the struggle.

War of nations and races

It is not surprising that Social Darwinist arguments were readily extended to the conclusion that evolutionary progress of mankind is furthered by inter-racial or inter-national struggles. The theory of evolution could be and was used in justifications of wars for national or racial supremacy. The best known writer in this vein was the German historian Heinrich von Treitschke (1834-1896). In his ‘Politics’, he argued that the weak must perish, and that they perish ‘justly’: ‘The grandeur of history lies in the perpetual conflict of nations, and it is simply foolish to desire the suppression of their rivalry.’

Though Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) never stated explicitly that he was drawing on Darwin’s theory of evolution, we can easily see the Hitlerian doctrine of racial superiority a kind of Darwinism carried to logical extreme of madness. (Darwin himself might have had some racist tendencies. For example, he wrote: ‘The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.’)

Influence on political ideology

Spencerian Social Darwinism reached its peak of influence in 1882, when Spencer visited U.S. for an extensive lecture tour. But that tour also coincided with the beginning of questioning and reaction. Leading the reaction was Lester Frank Ward (1841-1913), a geologist and a professor of sociology. Ward took his stand on the side of nurture in the growing controversy of nature vs. nurture. His thoughts can be described as reformed or liberal Social Darwinism, repudiating the struggle doctrines of the laissez-faire school in favour of emphasis on social improvement through attention to the conditions of the social environment.

Australia, in the period from 1860 to 1885, saw the most frequent advocacy of Spencerian evolutionary ideas. Many Spencerian, Darwinian and Malthusian ideas and slogans were repeated by politicians, businessmen, academics, and journalists, just as in the U.S. But the succeeding period of economic depression dampened the enthusiasm, again as in the U.S., and criticisms began to develop and made themselves felt in the 1880s.

Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, various political and intellectual ideologies were clearly inspired to some degree by Social Darwinism-militarism, colonialism, racism, Nazism. Even socialism and anarchism were influenced by this doctrine. Marx and Engels were much interested in Darwin’s work, and used his theory to underpin their notion of the historical evolution of class struggle.

Essentialism and relativism

The influence of Darwinism on philosophical ideas was considerable and many-sided, but the precise way this influence worked is by no means easy to state in simple terms. Generally, Darwinian theory promoted or assisted the decline of Essentialism and the concomitant rise of relativism in many branches of philosophy. The doctrine of essences, all allegedly ‘ultimate explanations’, was driven out of philosophy. The American school of philosophy called ‘Pragmatism’, developed in the 1870s, was self-consciously influenced by Darwinism, some of its proponents being firm believers. Notably, Chauncy Wright (1830-1875), who, to Darwin’s considerable pleasure, defended the Darwinian theory against the perceptive attacks of some Catholic scholars. Charles Pierce (1839-1914), after his careful study of Darwin’s work, envisaged a kind natural selection process acting on ideas.

Ethics

Darwin himself was one of the first to consider the relationship between ethical theory and evolutionary doctrines, as when he argued that altruism might have had an evolutionary origin. He tried to show how ethical behaviour would have survival value, and thus might become established in human societies. But Darwin didn’t take the further step and say that one might distinguish between right and wrong by considering what had happened during the course of evolution, or where it was going in future. Evolution in itself did not provide an ethical code. Herbert Spencer, however, went beyond Darwin and hinted that this would be a possibility, as he wrote, ‘The conduct to which we apply the name good, is the relatively more evolved conduct, and … bad is the name we apply to conduct which is relatively less evolved.’

Such opinions were countered by T. H. Huxley in his 1893 essay, ‘Evolution and ethics’, saying that one cannot possibly draw any moral or ethical conclusions from a consideration of the course of evolution, evolution and ethics are quite distinct. Although his arguments were quite persuasive, others went on attempting to derive ethical norms from the evolutionary process.

Exclusion of the supernatural

Darwinian theory was purely naturalistic; it made no appeal to entities such as God, divine spirits, hypothetical intellects, final causes, souls or Platonic ideas. By providing an alternative naturalistic explanation of design, Darwin made it seem less necessary to construct a view of the world that invoked some kind of supernatural being. Darwin’s theories therefore gave considerable support to materialist interpretations of the world. The old mind/body dualism of Descartes and his followers would be replaced by a monistic materialism. This attitude proved particularly attractive in Germany, in the writings of the members of so-called ‘Monist League’, the work of the philosopher/biologist, Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) being particularly prominent. Haeckel, once regarded as a progressive liberal opposed to the excesses of arbitrary state power, has (in the light of more recent studies) come to be considered as one of formative influences on German Nazism. The three main strands in his thought were German Romantic Idealism, scientific positivism and materialism, and Darwinism. But Haeckel’s materialism was interestingly different; for him, atoms were endowed with souls.

Also drawing on biological evolution, although less directly, was the philologist and nihilist professor, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), particularly in his poetic-philosophic discourse work Thus Spoke Zarathustra. He believed that by a proper exercise of will, certain men might evolve into a world-elite of ‘Ubermenschen’ or Supermen. Superman would be his own master and might succeed to the rank and authority traditionally associated with God.

Metaphysics

Henri Bergson, a French philosopher, (1859-1941), accorded primacy to spirit and intuition, rather than matter and analysis. Metaphysics was concerned with spirit and intuition, and he sided with the metaphysicians. Bergson’s evolutionism, though all-pervasive in his system, was very different from Darwin’s naturalistic, mechanistic or materialistic doctrine of evolution by natural selection. It is clear that Bergson far transcended the hard ground of Darwinian science and moved on to the lusher fields of speculative metaphysics. In its time, his work Creative Evolution aroused considerable excitement and enthusiasm.

On the subject of metaphysics Darwin himself was somewhat sceptical: ‘To study metaphysics as it has always been studied appears to me to be like puzzling at astronomy without mechanics.’ He felt that one who had explained the (biological) origin of man, who knew what a baboon was, had done more to explain man than Locke.

Religion

Darwinism’s impact on religion can be summarized by saying that it undermined religious beliefs, and was one of the major influences in encouraging agnosticism. Its naturalistic structure opposed the teleological basis of Christianity and other religions. Between 1830 and 1875, we observe an evolution in British society and particularly British scientific society. In 1830s, science as a profession was just beginning, and because of the peculiarities of British higher education there were strong links between science and organized religion. The next forty to fifty years saw those links weaken and break; and evolutionism, particularly Darwinian evolutionism gained the opportunity to be used. Darwin succeeded where Chambers (who proposed a designed evolution) failed, because Darwin had earned respect as a scientist. So for this change in Victorian Britain, the Darwinian Revolution was part cause and part effect.

Conclusion

Evolution, one of the fundamental discoveries and concepts in modern thought, is central to modem biology and to the use of biology in modern society. Without it, genetics, physiology, ecology, and every other aspect of biology would lack coherence. Evolution has also added new perspectives to the discussions on scientific methodology. More dramatic (and famous) has been the theory’s extra-scientific impacts. Evolution has been and probably will remain a doctrine that has consequences for our understanding of the nature of man, and the purpose (or lack of purpose) in his existence. Also, because of its social implications, as in human genetics, evolution is a subject highly charged with emotion, and much of the literature on it suffers from unspoken and often untested assumptions. It is very difficult to discuss the theory with objectivity. Discussion of it tends to spill over to virtually every area of discourse in the humanities and social sciences: Sociology, Economics, Politics, Theology, Philosophy, Psychology, Anthropology, Literature, and Music.

In the West, the theory of evolution continues to be promoted as if it were a proven fact or a secure, testable and tested law-something that no-one in their right minds questions any more. This presentation implies that there is no room, let alone any need, for discussion. The most common media cliché is that the evolutionary chain has been confirmed yet again by yet another discovery of the missing link proving human ancestry from apes. Faced with this kind of promotion and presentation, and the sheer pervasiveness of it, it is no surprise if non-specialists come to accept that the theory must be true, and that it must be accepted by all the specialists, the whole scientific community, with no serious doubters. However, that perception is far from the reality. In the first place, the theory lacks completeness on two major counts and there is no likelihood of these deficiencies ever being made up. In the second, there are major voices of dissent from within the scientific community, alongside alternative theoretical explanations which demonstrate a far superior conformity with observed or experimentally obtained data.

The origin of life

To have any enduring claim to viability the theory of evolution must explain the origin of life in its own terms. It must be able to answer the question, ‘How did life evolve from non-living forms?’ It needs also to explain how the notion of ‘selection for survival’ operates before life exists, to explain how ‘life’ is the best way for non-living forms to exist longer. Just as the theory tells us that, because rhinoceroses with the thickest skin did best in battles with other rhinoceroses, over aeons of time rhinoceroses evolved skins as thick as skins can possibly get while still functioning as skins-so too, it needs to tell us how life is an adaptation. If it is, what is it an adaptation to? Moreover, if life is an adaptation, why is it the same across the whole range of living forms (animal or plant or in-between)? We have innumerable varieties of living forms (adapted, we are told, to different conditions of climate and competition for food resources) but we do not have different varieties of being alive. Is that what we should expect? Should we not expect that the creatures who lived longest (and had offspring the least often) would have out-survived all competition, until eventually they lived so long it was for ever? Or, vice-versa that those who lived the shortest lives (and therefore had more offspring more often) eventually fell back, after aeons of trial and proof, into hardly being alive at all individually, but merely replicating themselves? In fact, of course, the same climate and conditions of competition for food resources support both relatively long- and relatively short-lived forms at every level of complexity and thoroughly intermingled within even the same individual life-form.

Life rests upon an infinitely precarious equilibrium among the proteins, the building blocks of life, found in the simplest to the most complex of living forms. Denying the existence of a conscious Creator, the theory of evolution cannot explain how this equilibrium was established and protected. The theory proposes chance and coincidence as the only scientific way to think about the question. But a scientific way of looking at a problem must have at least some likelihood of being true, if we are to expend energy fruitfully on verifying or falsifying it. In other words, a hypothesis must be reasonable to start with so that we can test and judge it. It must not be irrational: the appeal to chance and random coincidences is nothing if not an abandonment of reason. A protein is made up of the combination of on average 1000-1500 aminoacids in 20 different types in a certain sequence. Even a single error in that sequence renders the protein useless. There is zero probability of this happening by chance, not even if the universe is billions of light-years wide and long. One of the foremost advocates of evolution, the Russian scientist A.I. Oparin confesses this impossibility in his book The Origin of Life (pp.132-133). Even the simplest of these materials (proteins), consisting of thousands of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen atoms, each with a unique design presents highly sophisticated structure. For those who study the structure of the proteins, it is as hopeless for these proteins to have formed by chance as for the Aeneid (the long Latin epic by Virgil) to have been composed by random association of the letters of the Latin alphabet.

Another evolutionist scientist has offered a different analogy with the same conclusion. The probability of a chance formation of only one of the proteins required for life (Cytochrome-C) may be likened to the probability of a monkey writing out the history of humanity by randomly pushing the keys of a typewriter.

What evolution theory defends is exactly this nonsensical assertion. Yet, the examples above are only the probability calculations for the chance formation of a single protein. However, millions of similar impossible coincidences should have been realized consecutively in order for the evolution of life to be effected.

The probability of chance formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is a low as zero. If life requires that certain sequence, it is likely to be realized only once in the whole life-time and space of the universe. Now it could be proposed that some metaphysical power(s) beyond our definition consciously enabled its formation. But to entertain such a proposition is, apparently, not appropriate for the modern enterprise of science. Therefore we have to fall back on the first hypothesis as the best we have at present.

If, as it appears, the theory of evolution is not justified by the information we have, how does it survive? Has questioning it become, among the specialists, a taboo which they violate at the risk of their reputation and their careers? If so, why? We will return to this question.

The problem of transitional forms

Another of many difficulties with the theory of evolution is that the theory requires there to exist or have existed in the past transitional forms. For example, if the theory claims, as it does, that life originated in the sea and then sea creatures were driven (by some force, let us say, a climatic change like a fall in sea-level) to move on to dry land, the theory must produce evidence (or at least convincing argument) of the transitional forms between the sea-creatures and the land-creatures they evolved into. Our present experience of, for example, fish, is that if they come out of the water, they very quickly die. We have no reason to believe that fish were so radically different aeons ago from what they are now. If anything, the evidence is all the other way: that fish as fish were the same then as now. So how could enough of them have lived long enough in shallow-water or no-water to establish in their gene pool the skill to evolve gills into lungs? Nobody can say that maybe some of these fish happened to acquire a lung at the end of the four-millionth year while they were in the throes of death. It is entirely nonsensical. But this nonsense is exactly what the evolutionists assert. The same problem arises when we look for transitional forms between land-bound reptiles and flying birds.

Some allegedly extinct intermediate transitional forms have turned out to exemplify only the temptations of forgery and distortion in the service of falsehood into which some scientists have allowed themselves to fall. For instance, the fish Coelacanth (Rhipitistian Crossopterigian) presented by evolutionists as a transitional form between marine and land creatures, and supposedly extinct about 70 million years ago, was found alive and well in 1939 near Madagascar, and has been caught about 50 times since in the open seas. Furthermore, the organs that prompted the evolutionists to present the coelacanth as the transitional intermediate form (inner ear alcoves, head typed backbone and swimming bag), do not have these properties at all. The same is true for other fossils presented as transitional intermediate forms. The well-known nature scientist A.H. Clark acknowledges that, since we have no single evidence indicating a transition between fossils and living groups, we must accept that such transitional forms never existed.

A well-known genetic and evolutionist, Richard B. Goldschimdt admits that there is no such a thing as the transitional intermediate form. He explains the differences in species by sudden leaps. Now to say that a species originated all of a sudden is tantamount to saying that it was consciously originated or ‘created’. Although the evolutionists are embarrassed on scientific platforms, they do not have a hard time deceiving the ordinary person in the street, because the theory is so well-packaged. You draw an imaginary schema representing transition from water from land, you invent Latin words for the animal in water, and for its descendant on land, and you draw sketches of both (both wholly imaginary constructs), and the package is completed or, as we should rather say, fabricated. ‘Eusthenopteron transformed into first Rhipitistian Crossoptergian, then lchthyostega in a long evolution process.’ If you put these words in the mouth of a scientist with thick glasses and a white apron, you are half way to convincing most people. For the great many people who see reality through the media packaging of it, this kind of presentation is good enough to be truth: it is easy to believe, it makes no demand on consciousness, or reason, or conscience: we are all here by chance, we are not here by the will of a Creator to Whom we are answerable.

The most common package is, inevitably, the one that relates to

human beings. A central feature is the string of related sketches (all imaginary constructions) of an all-ape, three-quarters-ape, half-ape/half-man figure, gradually ending in a drawing that looks more or less like a European male of average build and features. This is offered as our story, our beginning long ago, our present being now. This string of sketches will be found on virtually every classroom wall, from primary schools to secondary schools and in every popular textbook or encyclopaedia which touches upon the subject, and in the form of stuffed exhibits in every science museum in the West.

In these drawings, half-ape half-human creatures are seen as a family. Having a hairy body, a slightly bent walking posture, and a face in between a man and an ape, these creatures are supposedly drawn from the fossils found by the evolutionist scientists. But the fossils found give information only about the bone structure and skeleton, and examination of the teeth will reveal information about the probable range of diet.

The fossils tell us nothing at all about how hairy the body was that hung upon those bones, nor what kind of nose, ears, lips or hair would once have rested upon the particular skull. But the evolutionists’ sketches picture do, almost always, show the organs like nose, lips and ears, and these are drawn (to fit the theory) and do indeed show something half-man, half-ape. This is not science, it is fiction or, more precisely, it is myth. Another support for this fiction, and another proof that it is fiction, is that the same bundle of bones can give be made to give rise to quite different re-constructions, depending upon the particular theorist’s preference: for example, the three totally unlike re-constructions of the fossil called Australoplthecus Robustus (Zinjanthropus). There is certainly a power behind these presentations of the theory, but it is not the power of reason disciplined by facts and evidence, but the power of myth-making imagination inspired by a particular ideology.

The ideological background to the theory

In order to understand why the evolution theory is promoted and defended so insistently, we need to look to the historical background behind it. Until the modern period, the intellectual life of Europe was basically subject to the authority of the Church. Starting from the 16th century, the order justified and underpinned by the authority of religious beliefs and principles started to conflict with the interests of certain social groups. Acquiring great wealth through commerce but having no political power, these groups began a long struggle to limit the authority of the Church. They did so not only on the political and social fronts but also on the philosophical front: religious beliefs and the authority of religion had to be weakened before the social-political system underpinned by religion could be radically reformed. Almost all the 18th century ‘enlightenment’ intellectuals and 19th century positivists came from these secularising groups and were funded and supported by them. (The French Revolution was the biggest single social transformation realized by their machinations.)

The space opened by the weakening or elimination of religious beliefs was filled by new ideologies generated by the same social groups. The first ideology was liberalism, followed by socialism which developed as a reaction to it. Later came fascism meddled with racism. Despite containing some opposing ideas, these ideologies were all by-products of the new secular system and stood on the same anti-religionist ground. None of them spoke of the man’s responsibility before his Creator or the obligation to organize personal and collective life according to His guidance. Conversely, the principles that necessitated belief in religion were harmful to the new ideologies. One of the most important of these principles is that man was created, as the Church had always held (following the same belief in Judaism), by God in His own image, for the purpose of doing His will and worshipping Him.

It was very noteworthy that communism, the most radical and outspokenly anti-religious of the modern ideologies, showed a particular zeal for the theory of evolution. Karl Marx wrote of Darwin’s Origin of Species in a letter to his comrade Friedrich Engels (dated December 18, 1860) that this book presented the natural-historical basis for their critique of capitalism (Marx and Engels’ Letters, vol.2, p.426).

Darwinism laid the basis for fascism which is one of the by-products of the new secular order. Holding some human races superior to the others, this notion proposed that some races were in advance of others in the evolutionary process. This trend called Social Darwinism inspired many racists from Arthur de Gobineau to Adolf Hitler. Darwin himself prepared the ground for racism by proposing that the white man was more advanced in evolutionary terms.

Besides communism and fascism, the capitalist ideology dominant in the Western world and now in nearly the whole world, needs people to believe in evolution. To undermine people’s commitment to religion and moral principles, to reduce their aspirations and relationships to merely economic ones, it was necessary to convince them that man was not created by God as a morally responsible being. It is very noteworthy that major capitalist dynasties like Rockefeller and Carnegie come first among those who have granted funds and other support to the flourishing of Darwinism in the U.S.A. Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, in their book The Hidden History of the Human Race, explain how the Carnegie Institution was virtually aiming for the victory of the scientific cosmological vision over the old religious cosmologies. The Rockefeller Foundation supports the same materialist cosmology and serves the mission of ‘modern civilization’, aiming to confine the concepts of God and spirit to the mythology museum. The evolution propaganda promoted in the distinguished media organs of the West, and reputable science journals is a consequence of this ideological requirement.

Conclusion

No ideological program, whatever the illusions of its supporters, and whatever their means of promoting and packaging their untruths, can survive for ever. Precisely because man is God’s creature, made for nobility of being and action, he must and will seek truth, albeit temporarily deviated.

All the information revealed by modern biology shows that the origin of life, especially the molecular structure of living creatures, cannot be explained by coincidence in any way. The transcendent consciousness ruling over the whole universe is the ultimate evidence of God’s existence. As a matter of fact, some eminent names in microbiology have come to the point where they cannot defend evolution any longer. Instead, another theory has begun to get a long overdue hearing among these scientists: the theory of conscious design. The scientists defending it remark that it is very evident that life has been created by a conscious designer.

Denton, an Australian doctor and scientist, distinguishes a special (or micro) theory of evolution from the general theory. The former would claim only that closely related species can (and did in the past) evolve from others. But the general theory (the one that is widely accepted) claims to explain the origin and current diversity of all species as purely random mutations accompanied by natural selection over a very long period of time. While Denton accepts the special (micro) theory, he demonstrates so many flaws in the general theory that it must be rejected outright: its claims cannot be softened or modified in any way that could rescue the theory.

Chapter I traces the dramatic transformation of Darwin’s stance from a ‘fundamentalist’ acceptance of the Bible’s account of creation to outright rejection. Known facts about the geological age of the earth (the Bible implies 6000 years), fossil evidence of extinct species (Genesis states that all species were rescued from the flood), might justify a rejection of a literal reading of the Bible. But they do not justify a rejection of the concept of conscious design in the creation (implying a Creator). Yet, as Chapter 2 shows, this is just the position Darwin (and his followers) take: it is of the essential core of Darwin’s theory that natural selection is a blind process: ‘Darwin himself clearly stated that the mechanism responsible for … genetic variations [must] be entirely blind to the adaptive needs and requirements of the organism. Evolution by natural selection is therefore, in essence, strictly analogous to problem solving by trial and error, and it leads to the immense claim that all the design in the biosphere is ultimately the fortuitous outcome of entirely blind random processes – a giant lottery.’ This idea is frequently reflected in populist remarks like Carl Sagan’s: ‘given enough time, chance will work miracles’. But as anyone familiar with the relevant mathematics knows, ‘time in itself tells us nothing of the probability of achieving any sort of goal unless the complexity of the search can be qualified’. (Denton shows some of this complexity in Chapter 13, ‘Beyond the reach of chance’.) The universe simply isn’t old enough for even life, let alone life in all its diversity, to have arisen by chance.

Chapter 3 describes how Darwin’s theory turned into a general dogma largely because of the unacceptability as scientific theory of the alternative (conscious design implying a Creator). Yet, if stripped of the philosophical and metaphysical pretensions it so quickly assumed, the theory of evolution could be respectable as a ‘partial truth’. Denton explains in Chapter 4 that there is strong evidence (supporting the restricted claims of the special theory) for closely related animals or plants evolving from each other and forming distinct ‘species’, the term ‘species’ being understood as ‘a reproductively isolated population of organisms’.

According to Denton: ‘There are only two sorts of evidence for evolution which do not depend on actual observation of the process: finding a sequence of inter-grading forms leading unambiguously from one to another; or reconstructing them hypothetically by providing an entirely plausible genealogy including all the intermediate forms and thoroughly convincing explanation of how each stage of transformation came about.’ Example cases for the first sort of evidence are: the peppered moth, two species of European gull, and the droshopila species of Hawaii. Examples for the second sort of evidence include Mengels work on wood warblers of North America on Hawaiian honey-creepers by Amadon, and on small lizards of the Caribbean islands by Gorman and Atkins. How-ever, as Denton emphasizes, such evidence for special (micro) evolution in no way justifies the general theory. ‘However attractive the extrapolation, it does not necessarily follow that, because a certain degree of evolution has been shown to occur, therefore any degree is possible. There is obviously an enormous difference between the evolution of a colour change in a moth’s wing and the evolution of an organ like the human brain, and the differences among the fruit flies of Hawaii, for example, are utterly trivial compared with the differences between a mouse and an elephant, or an octopus and a bee.’

Denton gives good analogies and illustrative examples to argue the general principle that: ‘while sentences, machines and other sorts of complex systems can undergo a certain degree of gradual functional change, there is invariably a limit beyond which the system cannot undergo further gradual change. To cross as it were from one ‘type’ of system to another necessitates a relatively massive reorganization involving the redesign or respecification of all or almost all of the interacting component subsystems. Systems can undergo gradual micro-evolution through a succession of minor changes in their component structures but macro-evolution invariably involves a sudden ‘saltational’ change [i.e. non-gradual change by ‘leaps’]. Clearly, in all such cases, the extrapolation from micro- to macro-evolutionary change does not hold.’ Gradual random processes are incapable of producing ‘simultaneous highly specific correlated changes throughout [an] entire system’ which is precisely what they must be capable of if macro evolution is to work. (This argument is further elaborated in Chapter 13.)

Chapters 5 and 6 describe the ‘typological perception of nature which sees (and classifies) organisms as distinct groups separated by non-trivial, large gaps. There is abundant evidence for this approach and historically classification schemes were based on it. However, following widespread acceptance of the general theory of evolution, some felt the need to construct literally tree-like diagrams – many branches from a single trunk and root. Inevitably, such diagrams had many blanks, many wholly conjectural ‘branches’ needed to link known species through unknown transitionary species to alleged ancestors.

Chapter 7 discusses homology which, once thought to provide supportive evidence for evolution, turns out to be evidence destructive of the theory. 1-lomologous organs cannot be traced back to embryological development and there exist homologous limbs which, according to the theory, must have evolved from very different parts of the embryo. In short, homology does not imply common ancestry.

The subject of Chapter 8 is the key issue of fossil evidence. Darwin was expecting paleontological explorations to uncover the crucial missing ‘links’ predicted (and required) by his theory. However, as the evidence from fossil records has grown, so too has the untenability of Darwin’s theory.

To begin with, we need to know that fossils are a record only of skeletal remains: 99% of any organ ism is soft tissue which is not preserved in fossils. The coelacanth (a favourite with evolutionists) had been presented as a ‘link’ between fish and amphibians. Yet, its skeleton is identical to that preserved in aneien fossils which are as far from having been amphibians as are any other fish, The lesson is that conclusions based on skeleton forms alone do not count for much. Insects preserved in amber from hundreds of millions years ago, identical to modern insects, provide further examples of ‘living fossils’ which somehow evaded evolution.

Mother fossil record favourite with evolutionists is the horse series. Denton writes: ‘The difference between Fohippus and the modem horse is relatively trivial, yet the two forms are separated by sixty million years and at least ten genera and a great number of species. The horse series therefore tends to emphasize just how vast must have been the number of genera and species if all the diverse forms of life on earth had really evolved in the gradual way that Darwinian evolution implies. If the horse series is anything to go by, their numbers must have been indeed the infinitude’ that Darwin imagined. If ten genera separate Bohippus from the modern horse then think of the uncountable myriads there must have been linking such diverse forms as land mammals and whales or molluscs and arthropods. Yet all these myriads of life forms have vanished mysteriously, without leaving so much as a trace of their existence in the fossil record.’

The appeal by evolutionists to the incompleteness of the fossil record as an excuse for clinging to their theory might he worth attending to if the gaps, the incompleteness, were unsystematic or random. But the facts are otherwise: ‘The fundamental problem in explaining the gaps in … is their systematic character – the fact that there are fewer transitional species between the major divisions than between the minor. Between Eohippus and the modern horse(a minor division) we have dozens of transitional species, while between a primitive land mammal and a whale (a major division) we have none. And this rule applies universally throughout the living kingdom to all types of organisms, both those that are poor candidates for fossilization such as insects and those which are ideal, like molluscs. If the gaps really were lhe result of an insufficient search, or the result of the imperfection of the record, then we should expect to find more transitional forms between mouse and whale than between dog and cat.’

The hard evidence should make any objective inquirer ask, not whether we may one day fill the gaps in our record, hut whether gradual evolution ever occurred at all: ‘If the gaps cannot he adequately explained by appealing either to an insufficient search or the imperfection of the record, then this leaves a more or less saltational model of evolution as the only explanation of the gaps.’

In Chapter 9, Denton begins to draw the argument towards the conclusion that: Ultimately there is… absolutely no reason why functional organic systems should form the continuum that evolution by natural selection demands. In the world of physics and chemistry many phenomena are discontinuous. One cannot gradually convert one molecular species into another, neither can one convert gradually one type of atom into another. Between such entities there are jumps. Might not functional organic systems be similarly separated by discontinuities?’ He goes on: ‘It is possible to allude to a number of species and groups such as Archaeopteryx, or the rhipidistian fish, which appear to be to some extent intermediate. But even if such were intermediate to some degree, there is no evidence that they are any more intermediate than groups such as the living lung-fish or monotremes which… are not only tremendously isolated from their nearest cousins, hut which have individual organ systems that are not strictly transitional at all.’

The frustration at the failure to find intermediate forms and the difficulty of conceiving of gradual functional transitions led some scientists to an alternative to gradualism, namely ‘the concept of evolution by saltation, the idea that new organs and types emerge suddenly following some sort of massive macro-mutation.’ Advocates of the idea include the popular contemporary writer Stephen Jay Gould and his predecessor Goldschmidt who introduced the notion of the ‘hopethl monster’ in his the Material Basis of Evolution (1940) as a ‘means of getting from one type to another suddenly in one jump’.

The possibility of such a ‘hopeful monster’ had been likened to a ‘miracle’ by Darwin. The great majority of biologists have followed him in that judgement ever since. So-called freaks of nature do, of course, occur but they have little chance of reproductive survival given that they are horn into an environment where the non-freaks (the normal) survive to reproduce. Denton sums up by saying that: While it might he theoretically possible to avoid the impasse of gradualism by opting for saltation it seems unlikely that purely random processes would ever throw together suddenly adaptations like a feather or the avian lung or the amniotic egg.’

In Chapter 10, the process of DNA replication and protein synthesis is explained for readers unfamiliar with the subject. Equivalents of concepts like ‘universal Turing machine’ and ‘fault tolerant computing’ can be observed in perfectly economical design in the world of molecular genetics.

‘The Enigma of Life’s Origin’, the title of Chapter Il indicates the enormous conceptual and empirical difficulties evolution theory has faced in yet another once-promising area. It was hoped that as the nature of living organisms was more fully understood, the gap between them and inanimate forms would he narrowed. Exactly the opposite happened. The gap that separates the simplest living systems from inanimate systems seems unbridgeable: there is not a hint in inanimate systems of the DNA, messenger RNA, and the protein synthesis mechanism (implying self-replication), found in living forms.

Attempts to explain the origin of life through evolutionary means come up against two other major hurdles. The first is the so-called ‘oxygen-ultraviolet conundrum’. One has to assume that there was no oxygen in the early atmosphere because otherwise any organic compounds would rapidly oxidize. However, this assumption implies that there was no ozone to shield these compounds from deadly doses of solar radiation. In other words, this is a ‘catch 22: If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, hut if we don’t have oxygen we have none either.’ The second hurdle is the shortage of time for the first life forms to evolve: ‘An Australian group reported the remains of a simple type of algae in rocks at least 3.5 billion years old… So life had to form between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago. Just a few hundred million years from nothing to organic compounds to the whole DNA, M-RNA, protein system.’

These and other apparently insoluble difficulties led the Nobel-prize winning scientist Crick to comment:

‘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 he almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.’ The problem of the origin of life is an example of what Denton calls ‘the universal principle that complex systems cannot be approached gradually through functional intermediates because of the necessity of perfect co-adaptation of their components as pre-condition of function.’ Crick is also famous for running away from the problem by suggesting that life must have originated somewhere outside the galaxies known to us and been cast down amid cosmic dust as a ‘seed’ – his so-called panspermia’ theory.

The subject of Chapter 12 is the modern molecular biological techniques which have provided biologists with an entirely new way of comparing organisms at a biochemical level (as opposed to the classical anatomical comparisons). Again, the comparisons established that: ‘the pattern of diversity at a molecular level conforms to a highly ordered hierarchic system. Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology.’

The gaps in the ‘chain of being’ are seen at both empirical and theoretical level: wherever we find significant empirical discontinuities in nature we invariably face great, if not insurmountable, conceptual problems in envisaging how the gaps could have been bridged in terms of gradual random processes. We saw this in the fossil record, we saw it in the ease of the feather, in the case of the avian lung, and in the case of the wing of the hat. We saw it again in the ease of the origin of life and we see it here in this new area of comparative biochemistry.’

In Chapter 13 (‘Beyond the Reach of Chance’) Denton illustrates the impossibility of reaching functional complex systems via blind random processes.

In Chapter 14, we imagine ourselves in a cell magnified a thousand million times and try to grasp the wonderful reality of life. What we see is a system much more complex and perfect than any human artefact built so far. The elaborate Soviet lunar exploratory machine, the Lunakod, which moved on articulated legs, highlights by comparison the sheer ease of solutions provided in nature for such problems as self-location, stability and locomotion. The amazing storage capacity and efficiency (size and energy economy) of biological information storage and retrieval is another striking example of the ease of nature and the hardship’ humans face to match it even crudely by artifice.

Denton comments: ‘According to Paley, we would never infer in the case of a machine, such as a watch, that its design was due to natural processes such as the wind and rain; rather, we would be obliged to postulate a watch-maker. Living things are similar to machines, exhibiting the same sort of adaptive complexity and we must, therefore, infer by analogy that their adaptive complexity is also the result of intelligent activity.’ And he adds: ‘The conclusion may have religious implication but it does not depend on religious presuppositions.’

Chapter 15 (‘Priority of Paradigm’) gives Denton’s explanation of why the theory of evolution has been so pervasive in our age despite overwhelming contrary evidence.

It is a modern example of a scientific community defending a theory just as tong as ii holds sufficient intrinsic appeal.’ He likens it to the defence by medieval astronomers of the Ptolemaic theory of the heavens, and by the eighteenth-century chemists of the phlogiston theory of combustion.

There is not space here to argue at sufficient length against the widely held stance of modern scientists that the concept of a Creator-God is of no relevance to a properly scientific understanding of how the natural world is or how it operates, that, in brief, it cannot he a part of any scientific explanation or theory. We must insist, however, that scientific knowledge cannot exist (any more than its dominant theories can com -about) in some sort of vacuum, isolated from the complex of human knowledge, attitudes and relationships. The social implications of the ‘central claim of Darwinian theory that humanity was not born by the intentions of a Deity hut by a completely mindless trial and error selection of random molecular patterns…’ have been, in general, very had. A theory so certainly false should never have imprisoned scientific imagination for as tong as it has. Ii could not have done so if the aspiration to scientific knowledge had been tutored in the humility that comes with a serious, religious consideration of our status as creatures and servants of God. Only a religious perspective teaches that all human curiosity – its perceptive faculties, its intelligence and the instruments it devises to extend its powers – exists as the gift of the One All-Merciful God who created us and the intelligibility of the world so that we might draw nearer to Him. At least in the field of biology, the alternative to believing in a Creator did not, as is claimed, offer freedom from dogmatism: the lasting value of Denton’s hook is to have demonstrated that reality with clear argument and a large body of hard evidence.

By answering this argument we shall show that we do indeed accept the same biological facts, but do not agree about the ‘laws’ which try to explain them, nor about the limits and qualifications for the operation of those ‘laws’.

Unlike other Scriptures which claim Divine authority, there is no proposition in the Qur’an which can be contradicted by established scientific knowledge as untrue. The Qur’an does not underestimate the importance of reflection and argument, but it does indicate that our suppositions about the origin of creation cannot explain the reality of it: we simply were not present there.

I called them not to witness the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor their own creation: Nor is it for Me to take as helpers such as lead (men) astray (al-Kahf 18.51).

This verse should not be interpreted to mean ‘Do not ask questions or do not research’, for the Qur’an encourages scientific research explicitly. It is, rather, a warning about those who vainly claim to explain the phenomena which happen outside the normal course of events and cannot be described in terms of material causes and effects. Since the creation is the great, inclusive miracle, human beings can neither imitate it (that is, they cannot create out of nothing) nor explain it. To attribute the creation to God makes everything plausible and saves scientific inquiry from fruitless uncertainties and insecure speculations. To understand the basic principles of the reality of creation is most important. If they are properly understood, useful and worthwhile aspects of the theory of evolution can be sifted out from pretentious and false interpretations of it. For, in every idea, even if it is against common sense in general, there are some elements of truth. The biological facts, rightly so called, such as variation, adaptation, natural selection and mutation, in evolution theory, should be differentiated from the ideological and metaphysical baggage they have accumulated.

In our approach, evolution may be described as the changes and variations in the form of creatures, especially in living beings, and the genetic and environmental factors associated with those changes. We do not assert that living beings are fixed and unchangeable in their forms. To claim that would imply a limitation upon the knowledge and power of God which is contradictory to His Names, the All-Knowing and the All-Powerful. The creation reflects His Names through its novelty within renewal, its prolific variety amid abundance. Individual diversity is programmed into the genetic mechanisms which, as they unfold and evolve under the prompting of environmental factors, display (for our admiration and understanding) the action in the world of Divine grace and power. The many hundreds of apples on a single tree are not identical, nor are they identical over different seasons-they are only similar. Thus, the first emphasis in our definition of the concept of evolution is change which is vital for the maintenance of ecological diversity and balance.

To paraphrase the Qur’an: God imposes the law of change and evolution as a basic principle in the universe. In the enforcement of this law, He creates pairs and opposites which, interacting according to subtle purposes, are placed in the core of every being. Thus, the change-dependent evolution and the dynamic balance in the universe, have been realized through the intersection of the opposites continually since the outset of creation. There are many verses in the Qur’an (for example in Chapter 55, al-Rahman) which indicate change and balance.

The ideologues of evolution theory, however, ignore the Divine wisdom, measure and purpose in the universe, claiming that the change they observe is an effect of coincidences-random variations, aimless mutations.

In the light of recent findings, we know the apparent causes of change to be mutations, which are the hereditary alternations in the genetic information; the differentiation of an isolated population from its ancestor through multiplying inside the population; adaptation and so-called ‘natural selection’, that is the decrease or extinction of generations which are weak and unable to reproduce in their immediate environment.

Believers in the One God affirm that everything, from subatomic particles to galaxies, is created by Him, that He is Omniscient and Omnipotent, and everything acts under His will and command. Causes are created by God in the appropriate time and space and the appropriate order and combination as a sort of veil for His dignity and might. He only says ‘Be!’, and all the material causes, such as heat, moisture, air, chemical elements, radiation, etc., are. If such causes are seen in this way, if their being brought together into an order is understood to be a response to their need (their prayer) to participate in a collaborative universe-and if their being causes is confirmed by observations and experiments-then, we may regard causes as a useful way to explain biological phenomena.

We know that diversity in a species is realized through mutations in the genetic program, arranged by Divine wisdom, not by coincidence. The evolutionist idea that the mutations are arbitrary, that useful changes can occur by sheer chance and lead to the development of a living being, or that a lot of random mutations can accumulate to enable a sudden leap from one species to another, has not been confirmed by experiments and observations. To accept that the mutations are arbitrary interferences in the genetic order is like accepting that a rocket can be generated out of a sound aircraft by raking it randomly with machine-gun fire. Certainly, computer-aided probability calculations show that it is impossible for thousands of random mutations to accumulate on a living being and change it into another species. Any such change is manifestly against that organism’s survival and would have to overwhelm it suddenly, not gradually.

Some bacteria can be given the ability to synthesize insulin by means of genetic engineering. This is a kind of planned mutation. Such a transfer of ability is, though remarkable, a relatively small change: it is, in any case, only possible because of the relevant ability being present in the genetic material being transferred. It is sheer arrogance to claim that living beings having millions of such able genes have evolved from each other by arbitrary, random mutations.

Adaptation is a biological manifestation of the flexibility coded into the genetic programs of living organisms; it carries the potential, within the limits of the species, for the organism to survive in changing conditions and to sustain that survival through reproduction.

When environmental conditions change, responsive adaptations occur- e.g. change of colour or density of hair, size of ears-in proportion to the flexibility of the organism’s genetic potential. If the organism cannot adapt adequately, the species does not mutate into some new species, it goes extinct. That is what happened, we presume, to dinosaurs and dodos.

The diversity of various human races can also be explained by the flexibility of their genetic potentials in response to different geographical, climatic and environmental conditions, provided, as before, that the changes are contained within species boundaries. Intermarriages between the various races add to the diversity within the species boundaries, they do not yield another species. The working of genetic potential can also be seen in the way that insects adapt to pesticides, and certain bacteria acquire a nearly invincible resistance to particular antibiotics. Insects or bacteria become more resistant, but they do not become different species. Their potential for adaptation is understood, by believers, as a power to survive given to them by Divine Wisdom.

We do not wholly reject the concept of natural selection. However, it is necessary to criticize the extreme interpretation evolutionists make of it. First of all, there is not an absolute ‘cruel competition’ in nature which the strong dominate absolutely, nor a pitiless ‘selection’ process of exterminating rivals in the struggle for food (survival). Rather, there is a dynamic balance among the great variety of creatures which is characterized, overall, by mutual collaboration and solidarity. The killing of weak creatures by the stronger ones is not random, nor characterized by a drive to exterminate and monopolize resources for survival. On the contrary, it is, overall, purposive and beneficial. Predators prey, generally, on weak and sick animals, and this ‘selects’ the fit and healthy for survival and, quite probably, prevents epidemics within and between species. Also, it is manifestly obvious that the apparent ‘competition’ in nature is the outward face of a subtle and complex feeding chain which is vital for the overall balance of the ecosystem, providing niches for great numbers of species, not least those which feed on the left-overs of others thus cleansing and purifying the food-chain.

Another factor affecting natural selection is the difference in rates of breeding. One bacterium multiplies by millions in one day, a fly by thousands in two days. Vertebrates, except fish and amphibians on the other hand, breed far more slowly. From the base of the food pyramid to the top, the production of food increases in quality but decreases in mass, and consequently a lot of tiny living organisms are the food of larger ones. The difference in breeding rates among members of the same species causes rapid multiplying of a certain group, but not the change of its species. An organism with many young has more opportunity to survive in changing environmental conditions, because when the number of its young increases, so too do the combinations of genetic characters. Even after drastic environmental changes, a few may survive.

The concepts used by evolutionists used to explain biological realities have a merely nominal reality, they are far from being ultimate causes. Attributing reality or, worse, Divine power to concepts which can be useful only for building mental models, and ignoring the knowledge, might and eternal wisdom of the Creator, means binding our hearts and minds to nature, like nature-worshippers and polytheists generally.