Original Article: Lieberman, D.E. et al., Nature 463, 531 (2010).

The modern running shoe was not invented until the 1970s. However, the presumption that running barefoot is dangerous and causes pain could be wrong. To explain this phenomenon, scientists studied three groups of people in the United States and Kenya: those who had always run barefoot, those who had always worn shoes, and those who had converted to barefoot running from shod running. They found a striking pattern: the three groups positioned their feet differently; while most shod runner people made initial contact with the ground heel-first (rear-foot striking), barefoot runners used their flat feet (mid-foot striking) or the lateral ball of the feet (fore-foot striking) first. Kinematic and kinetic analyses showed that barefoot runners who used the fore-foot or mid-foot strike generated smaller collision forces than the rear-foot strikers with shoes. This means that it is possible to run barefoot on the world’s hardest surfaces without experiencing the slightest discomfort or pain; all one needs is a few calluses to avoid damaging the skin. It is also clear that running-shoe companies and other footwear designers should pay more attention to how God designed our body and redesign more appropriate shoes for running.

The Molecule with a Thousand Faces

Original Article: Ehre D. et al., Science 327, 672 (2010).

Water freezes at 0 C… or perhaps not? Pure water can remain in liquid form at temperatures down to –40 C, which is known as a “supercooled” state. When agitated by stirring or adding impurities, supercooled water freezes instantly. A team of scientists report that under certain conditions, supercooled water freezes when warmed up (!). Supercooled water can freeze at a higher temperature on a positively-charged surface than it does on a negatively-charged one. Initially, the surface is negatively charged at a lower temperature. The surface becomes positively charged when warmed up and the supercooled liquid water solidifies. Will the day ever come when we will be able to understand the water molecule completely? This is something we just don’t know. What we know for certain though is that water, which is apparently the “most normal” substance around us, has already proven itself ironically as one of the most unusual ones in nature. We take this familiar molecule for granted within our daily routine, but H2O-or water as we know it-still remains a celebrity in the eyes of scientists.

Cancer-Causing DNA Mutations Are Deciphered

Original Articles: Pleasance, E.D. et al., Nature 463, 184 & 191 (2010).

DNA mutations are changes in the DNA code caused by external or internal agents known as mutagens. Scientists have identified mutations from lung cancer and skin cancer and have compared them to normal samples in order to find the mutations that lead to these cancers. They have identified ~23,000 mutations in lung cancer (small-cell lung cancer) and ~33,000 mutations in skin cancer (melanoma). The researchers revealed that most of these mutations are single-base DNA changes, suggesting that they are a direct cause of the carcinogens in tobacco smoke and UV light. Under normal conditions, our cells are equipped with a “DNA repair mechanism” which detects any changes in the DNA code and repairs it. However, when excess amount of mutations occur due to tobacco smoke in our lungs or to too much exposure to sunlight in our skin cells, the DNA repair mechanism cannot repair all of the mutations. Accumulations of these mutations lead to cancer-a state in which cell division has gone out of control. Scientists have calculated that every 15 cigarette causes one mutation in the DNA. These studies will be immensely useful for understanding the reasons behind the genetic changes in cancer and more importantly they will provide a comprehensive catalogue of mutations that can be used for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Scientists Inspired by the Spider Web

Original Article: Zheng, Y. et al., Nature 463, 640 (2010).

Even though spiders may not be the most appealing creatures living on earth, they are one of the most intriguing predators in the animal kingdom. For centuries the intricate ways that spiders hunt, their (relatively) enormous appetite, their strong senses and extraordinary craftsmanship have been fascinating research topics for scientists. In this study, researchers wondered why and how spider webs become decorated with pearl-like drops of water in humid weather conditions. At nanometric scales, the group revealed that the fibers which constitute the web of Uloborus Walkcenaerius-a non-venomous spider-change conformations after interacting with water. When the web becomes wet the fibers condense into knot-like structures which are distributed evenly along the entire silk. The geometric structure of the web results in surface-energy gradients that drive water particles towards the knots. Concentrating water molecules at the knots may help to keep the rest of the web dry, which is a necessary factor to capture prey. This extraordinary finding has inspired the building of an artificial spider silk, which exploits the same geometric trick, trapping and transporting water droplets. In the near future, such “green” materials could be used in a wide variety of applications, such as filtering substances out of chemical reactions without need for a catalyst.

Self-Sacrificing Mother Yeast Cells

Original Article: Liu, B. et al., Cell 140, 257 (2010).

Humanity has always searched for the fountain of youth. Yet, the process of aging is still a poorly understood concept in biology. How ironic that the budding yeast, a mere single cellular organism, has a fascinating way of keeping its offspring young and healthy. It was previously shown that protein aggregates appear within the cytoplasm of yeast cells as they age. These protein aggregates are thought to be toxic to the cells and thus potential risk factors to both mother and daughter cells. Researchers demonstrated that these aggregates are consistently transported to the mother cell, thereby allowing the daughter cells to make a fresh start to life. Polymerizing actin filaments, which are nucleated from the polarisome in the daughter cell, bind to these aggregates and push them towards the mother cell cytoplasm. In addition to being an amazing biological process, these self-sacrificing mother cells which keep their offspring healthy form a controversial issue. The common understanding in biology is that all organisms struggle for their own survival. However, why a simple organism like yeast prefers to have a healthy daughter cell and to jeopardize its own life is unclear and shows the existence of a mother’s mercy, even at the single-cell level.

Honey Bee Collapses

Original Article: Ratnieks, F.L.W. & Carreck, N.L., Science 327, 152 (2010).

Throughout history an extensive loss of honey bee colonies has occurred in many different locations; however, in North America, particularly after 2006, there has been an increase in the disappearance of adult honey bees from hives, in which they abandon their food and brood; this has been coined a “Colony Collapse Disorder” (CCD). The most likely cause of the syndrome is seen to be the presence of a parasitic mite Varroa destructor. It is not the mite that causes bee death, but rather the number of bee viruses which it carries, such as the Israeli acute paralysis virus; it was previously thought that these were insignificant to honey bee biology. It has also been suggested that CCD is not caused by a previously unknown pathogen, but rather a combination of factors, which only have subtle effects on bee health if considered separately. The health of honeybee colonies is vital for agriculture. In 2000, the total U.S. crop value wholly dependent on honey bee pollination was estimated to exceed $15 billion. The sudden disappearance of honey bees and the complexity of the causes behind CCD remind us of the delicate balance that exists in nature.

The second leading cause of death in the United States, after heart diseases, is cancer, claiming around half a million lives every year.(1) People today are concerned more than ever about cancer and its terrible consequences. However, in the light of recent scientific findings, a very different picture can be seen: In an environment with increasing carcinogens, it is actually surprising to find most populations are cancer-free. This is because our bodies are equipped with systems to prevent cancer formation.

Cancer research over the last two decades has shown that cancer is a disease of the genome.(2) Changes in the DNA, called mutations, disrupt the regular cellular networks that control a state of delicate balance. People are continuously exposed to varying amounts of chemicals that have been shown to cause mutations in the genome which may lead to cancer formation. Exposure to harmful chemicals can occur due to being in an environment where these agents are present in the food, air or water, and also due to our own metabolism which may produce these chemicals. It has been estimated that exposure to environmental chemical carcinogens may contribute significantly to the formation of the majority of human cancers.(3)

Even though some of the mutations caused by these agents hit cancer-critical genes, cancer does not immediately develop. Furthermore, cancer is mostly seen in old age, when many mutations have accumulated in the genome. The reason why we are protected from developing cancer, even though our DNA is under numerous types of attacks everyday, is that our cells are equipped with several lines of defense against cancer formation. These built-in defenses include DNA damage repair systems, external and internal controls of cell division rate, and the programmed death of cells. All of these defenses have been given to our cells in order to protect us from getting cancer. If we were not to have these defenses, cancer would be a daily occurrence for every one.

It is possible to say that a cell’s first defense against cancer is similar to the regular maintenance of a car. One has to replace the brake pads, change the oil, etc., so that the aging of the parts will not cause failure that may lead to an accident. Similarly, chemical carcinogens from environmental pollution, ultraviolet rays from the sun, radiation from various sources, etc. all cause multiple types of damage in the DNA molecule. Therefore, our cells and genome need maintenance as well. This function is carried out by groups of proteins called DNA repair complexes. DNA repair mechanisms have been designed to correct the DNA damage before it can lead to inheritable mutations.(4)

If the DNA damage repair systems are intact, most of the damages to the genome are dealt with before they can cause problems. We observe the extent of attacks that can damage the DNA on our genome in many types of cancer where the DNA repair mechanisms are known to have been inactivated. In these cancer cells, mutations accumulate at a very fast rate, leading to more aberrant behavior. Also, individuals with defective DNA repair systems are more susceptible to developing various types of cancer.(4,5) Therefore, the first line of defense given to our cells against cancer is the ability to check and correct the integrity of our genome.

Every cell type in our body has been designed to proliferate at a certain rate that is suitable for the function of those cells. For example, neurons or muscle cells almost never divide after reaching adulthood, whereas the epithelial cells lining the interior of the intestines or under the skin divide at a fast rate continuously throughout our lives. The rate of division of a cell is mainly controlled by extra-cellular cues, i.e. a normal cell doesn’t grow or divide unless it receives growth and proliferation signals from neighboring cells.

There is a safe rate at which a cell must divide – just as a car needs to be driven at a safe speed. The requirement of cells for external stimuli in order to grow and divide is like the car’s need for someone to step on the gas pedal in order to accelerate. Normal cells cannot grow without control as neighboring cells produce growth signals when they are necessary and stop producing them in a regulated manner. A good example of the control of cell proliferation rate is seen in the wound healing process. When there is a cut in the skin, the cells adjacent to the wound are stimulated to divide rapidly by signals given from the injured cells; they divide and close the wound as soon as possible. However, when there are no wounds, there is no signal to divide and the skin cells only divide at a very slow rate, just enough to replace dying cells; this is a much slower process than wound healing. Cancer cells, on the other hand, are known to produce their own growth signals and proliferate abnormally fast and in an uncontrolled manner.(6) Therefore, the environmental control of cell division is an important barrier against cancer formation.

Cancer cells cannot divide uncontrollably unless they are independent of the external stimuli to divide. However, cancer cells can produce their own growth and proliferation signals, so they are free from external constraints. But even then, all is not yet lost. This situation of uncontrolled and rapid cellular proliferation is like a car in which the accelerator has become jammed– the car accelerates continuously and an accident is impending. In this situation the way to prevent too much speed is to step on the brake of the car. Similarly, in a cell, there are a set of genes called tumor-suppressor genes, which are responsible for stopping cell division upon excessive growth stimuli.(7) These genes act like brakes in cell division and prevent further progression into a malignant state. In many cancers,(8) it has been shown that these genes have been inactivated. If the brakes of the car are functional, you can safely bring your car to a stop and fix the problem that caused the accelerator to jam. Similarly, if a cell starts to divide too rapidly, it can stop dividing and repair the damage that caused the uncontrolled growth. Therefore, tumor suppressor genes represent a third line of defense.

If all the previous safety valves fail, there is one more defense to cancer. A situation in which a cell with harmful mutations promotes its own proliferation and cannot abort the division process is similar to one where the accelerator of the car is jammed and the brakes don’t work. In this case, in order to prevent greater damage, one can choose to hit a wall or a tree to stop the car– this will total the car, but will prevent further damage to others. Similarly, if a cell begins to grow uncontrollably and can’t slow down its rate of division, a process called apoptosis, or programmed cell death is initiated. In apoptosis, the cellular DNA and cellular compartments, like lysozomes, Endoplasmic Reticulum, and Golgi are degraded, and the cell shrinks in size. In the end, the cell dies and is absorbed by neighboring normal tissue. Therefore, the programmed death of an aberrantly behaving cell is another way that the body is protected from cancer. As expected, in cancer cells defects in this last line of defense are observed as well.(9)

These four mechanisms, i.e. DNA repair, external/ internal cell division suppression, and programmed cell death, are only the ones that we are aware of at this time. In addition to these, there are multiple levels of other redundant safety checks. All these safety features work without our knowledge or will. Findings from cancer research show that the design of cells was carried out so intelligently that even the carcinogenic environment which we produce today was accounted for within the genes of the very first human being.

Notes

1. Cancer Statistics 2006. 2006, American Cancer Society.

2. Vogelstein, B. and K.W. Kinzler, “The multistep nature of cancer.” Trends Genet, 1993. 9(4): p. 138-41.

3. Wogan, G.N., et al., “Environmental and chemical carcinogenesis.” Semin Cancer Biol, 2004. 14(6): p. 473-86.

4. Dixon, K. and E. Kopras, “Genetic alterations and DNA repair in human carcinogenesis.” Semin Cancer Biol, 2004. 14(6): p. 441-8.

5. Jiricny, J., “The multifaceted mismatch-repair system.” Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 2006. 7(5): p. 335-46.

6. Brattain, M.G., et al., “Growth factor balance and tumor progression.” Curr Opin Oncol, 1994. 6(1): p. 77-81.

7. Hanahan, D. and R.A. Weinberg, “The hallmarks of cancer.” Cell, 2000. 100(1): p. 57-70.

8. Coleman, W.B. and G.J. Tsongalis, “Molecular mechanisms of human carcinogenesis.” Exs, 2006(96): p. 321-49.

9. Dlamini, Z., Z. Mbita, and T. Ledwaba, “Can targeting apoptosis resolve the cancer saga?” Future Oncol, 2005. 1(3): p. 339-49.

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.)

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.

Cancer is a major cause of illness and death in developed countries. The risk of death from cancer has also been increasing in the less developed countries. As improvements in medical care have reduced deaths from infectious diseases and increased life expectancy, cancer has become the leading cause of death in many societies. For example, according to the American Cancer Society, about one in three people in the USA will develop cancer at some point in their life, and about one in four will die from it. Each year about 500,000 individuals die of cancer, a rate of about one death per minute, and more than one million new cases of cancer are diagnosed annually in the US. Currently more than 10 million individuals are receiving medical treatment for cancer in US hospitals and medical centres.

What are the causes of cancer?

Scientific evidence gathered over the last hundred years has dispelled the superstition, once prevalent, that cancer is a contagious disease. But, despite significant advances in the last decade, its underlying mechanisms are still a mystery.

The link between cancer and genetic mutation was shown early in this century: normal cells mutate into malignant ones because of changes in chromosome constitution.

There are four points which support the idea that cancer has a genetic origin:

1. More than 50 forms of cancer are known to be inherited to one degree or another
2. Some tests detecting mutations have shown that most environmental toxic agents which are called carcinogens are also mutagens.
3. Work with cancer-associated viruses has revealed the presence of some mutant genes, known as oncogenes, that promote and maintain tumour growth.
4. The chromosomal abnormalities found in particular forms of cancer, especially leukemia.
5. The environment and behaviour can also play a significant role in the genesis of cancer.

The existence of high rates of specific cancers in particular families has been known since early in the 19th century. Many explanations have been offered for this phenomenon, including multiple gene inheritance, environmental agents or even mere chance.

Hereditary forms of cancer

Recent advances in cancer research have provided some clues about the relationship between mutant genes and the cellular events that lead to tumour formation. Experimental evidence suggests that as few as two mutational events may be sufficient to cause a cell to become cancerous (see Figure I). In those forms of cancer that show a heritable predisposition, the first mutation is present in the germ cells and is transmitted genetically. The second mutations are acquired by somatic cells through spontaneous replication errors or exposure to environmental agents that cause genetic damage, resulting in cancer. On the other hand, not all individuals who inherit the first mutation will develop cancer.

If the second mutational event does not occur, then no tumour will develop. Research has focused particularly on two classes of genes in carcinogenesis: tumour suppressor genes which normally function to suppress cell division, and proto-oncogenes which normally promote cell division. 

Tumour suppressor genes

Tumour suppressors are detected in the form of chromosomal deletions (or other inactivating mutations) that are tumorigenic. The strongest evidence for their nature is provided by certain hereditary cancers. There is also now evidence that changes in these genes may be associated with the progression of a wide range of cancers. About 10 tumour suppressors are known at present. These genes act at certain points to inhibit cell division. These and or their gene products must be absent or inactive for normal cell division to take place. If tumour suppressor genes become deleted or inactivated by mutation, control over cell division is lost, and the cell can proliferate in unchecked fashion. The example of breast cancer illustrates how mutations in tumour suppressor genes are involved in the development of cancer:

The genetic link to breast cancer

In the USA, the ratio of women getting breast cancer is approximately 1 in 8. It is the most common form of cancer in women: 46,000 women die and 182,000 new cases are diagnosed each year. Epidemiological factors may also be involved in breast cancer, but geneticists have focused on the question – Is there a genetic predisposition to breast cancer? Their answer, for the present, is Yes: though involved in only about 5% of all eases, a particular gene has been identified and located on chromosome 17. It is responsible for susceptibility to a form of breast cancer that appears in the third and fourth decades of life. About one in 200 females inherits this gene, and 80% to 90% of these will develop breast cancer. Besides breast cancer, a gene has been found on chromosome 17 in sufferers from astrocitoma (brain tumours), colon, lung and bone cancers. This finding suggests that there is a mutation on this gene (called p53), and as a result the cells start growing abnormally.

The Future

Investigations into the tumour suppressor genes are an example of the recent progress in molecular aspects of cancer research. A better understanding of molecular carcinogenesis and molecular epidemiology will eventually decrease the quantitative and qualitative uncertainties associated with the current state of cancer risk assessment. It may be possible to immunize patients against their tumours by using these findings about genes-cancer relationships. Indeed, determination of the type and number of mutations in p53 and other cancer-related genes in tissues from ‘healthy’ individuals may allow the identification of those at increased cancer risk and their consequent protection by preventive measures.

Although there have been many and most welcome developments in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases, including cancer, there is a definite and reliably cure only for some of the infectious diseases. However, we firmly believe there are definite remedies for all diseases in the universe except death.

References

• HARRIS, ADRIAN L. (1990) ‘Mutant p53-The commonest genetic abnormality in Human Cancer?’ The Journal of Pathology.
• HARRIS, CURTIS C. (1993) ‘p53: At the Cross-roads of Molecular Carcinogenesis and Risk Assessment’, Science, 262.
• CUMMINGS, M. (1994) Human Heredity, West Publishing Company, St Paul. Lewm, B. (1994) Genes 5, Oxford University Press, New York.
• LEWIN, B. (1994) Genes 5, Oxford University Press, New York.

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.