“We were thrilled to see a dome we came across in the cave after turning a few curves as we drifted along the current of the sea. What we saw in this pitch dark corner of the cave was a glorious sky adorned with thousands of stars and we felt as if on a remote planet yet unidentified. These mysterious stars would suddenly fade out as if they were frightened by each noise we made, the splash of the oars, or waves hitting the boat. They would glow back marvelously after a short while when their fear was over. It was an amazing luminousness coming out of thousands of lights.”

A scientist with infinite determination, Professor Illies says they now know who the players were who were involved in and the realities behind this enchanting show: Arachnocampa luminosa. This self-glowing fly, which is endowed with a peculiar light-radiating system, is known by different names in other parts of the world.

Mysterious light-radiating mechanisms

A microscopic organ found in the stomach of the glowworm is the source of light which creates the glow. Two chemicals are produced in two very close locations in this organ which is essential for the glowworm to continue its existence: Luciferin and Luciferase. These glowworms have no idea that they glow when these chemicals are mixed together with oxygen as the third component, which is taken in via respiration. They are neither blessed with the intellectual capacity to determine how much of these chemicals should be utilized or which stages this chemical reaction will go through; they are unaware of the nature of this glow, but they can radiate it for three consecutive hours thanks to this complex mechanism installed within.

A normal electric bulb can transform a maximum of 3-4% of the electrical energy supplied into light, whereas this output is 10% in the fluorescent bulb; the rest of the energy is released as heat, a waste in production. The ideal 100% efficiency would be to transform all energy into light with no release as heat. Today’s technology has not yet reached that level of illumination; even the most productive devices release heat to some degree. For thousands of years, however, the tiny bodies of glowworms are like power stations, yielding 100% light, a capacity which engineers have not yet achieved.

Can Darwinism explain a luminosa’s glowing mechanism?

The glowworms of the Waitomo caves are equipped with bioluminescence, a system of illumination that is the result of chemical reactions. Researchers are seeking answers to why Arachnocampa luminosa lives in the cave and radiates light. The first answer that comes to mind is that it uses this light to catch its prey. In a dark cave, the strong light attracts the prey which is caught by the sticky droplets secreted along silk threads that hang from a web. The glowworm digests its prey together with this thread. The explanations of evolutionists, based on natural causes regarding this complex bioengineering mechanism possessed by a worm, are far from satisfactory.

These explanations were confirmed (!) by behaviorist Niko Tinbergen, a Nobel-prize winner in medicine, in the introduction to his The Animal in its World (1972): “It is manifest that an animal can do stunning things and it can get accustomed to its habitat. The environment has shaped the evolution’s path, and it still does.” A hundred years after Darwin, Konrad Lorenz would state the following with additional emphasis: “The conviction that all the important details found in the structures and behavior of living things can be explained by the mechanisms discovered by Charles Darwin becomes stronger as I am getting older.” A superficial and distorted perspective on nature…

If we were to explain animal behavior according to the perception of evolutionists we would have to accept that during the evolution process of Arachnocampa the luciferin chemical came into being at a stage that was followed by the formation of lusiferase enzyme coincidentally, and thus the glowing started. Recently, it has been discovered that the larvae of glowworms also produce light. A larvae feeds on microorganisms (fungi spores) which are completely insensitive to light; this proves that the light produced is not a necessity for nutrition. Natural selection, a mechanism proposed by Darwin, cannot explain why the larvae wastes the energy obtained via nutrition under difficult circumstances by glowing. Each adult Arachnocampa goes through the larvae stage, which spoils Darwin’s “chain of development.” Coincidental mutations, natural selection, and re-combinations present nothing but contradictions.

According to an evolutionist scenario the latter stages of development witnessed one of the Arachnocampas started to produce light for no obvious reason (!). It became stronger with this new physiologic aspect; although it drew attention with this new light it did not become a prey to its enemies, but on the contrary it snared other insects more easily. It left this new hunting skill as a legacy for future generations (!). In the meantime, the remaining old-type Arachnocampas, which did not have this skill, became extinct with no trace left on earth. The glowworm thus perfected its physiology and anatomy, and there was no need for change for millions of years to come!

Evolutionists can do nothing but explain with unintelligent mechanisms the glowing that is created by a reflecting tissue at the back of the body and the fact that the light is condensed to be directed towards one course. Otherwise the light would only illuminate the roof of the cave. They further explain, with an analysis that is not based on logic, that the glowworm can detect air waves (like bats hunting by ultrasound waves), and thus can turn on and off the light, control the glow and hide from danger. It is so difficult for an evolutionist to accept creation that they adhere blindly to these theories. If one would argue how baseless these explanations were, they are likely to receive the response “a scientist should not be narrow-minded” and that “we are not at that stage to appreciate the importance of coincidence in the formation of such behaviors.” “This will change in the future when we attain the necessary information.”

Professor Ernst Mayr assures (!) us about the role of coincidence: “The variety in nature produced by mutation and re-combination takes place only by coincidence. The destiny of every being is determined by surrounding factors through selection. There are no long term decisions in nature. The existence of a thing is determined by these mechanisms for that moment.” Mayr would probably find it a silly question to ask whether the windshield wipers of his car came into being by coincidence.

“Surrounding factors determining perfection” brings along several questions. The limestone which forms the essential material of a cave is biologically dead, and it does not sound very logical to depict it as the primary factor in the occurrence of such a complex organism. There are a number of insects that live in these caves but which do not possess the characteristics of Aluminosa. Moreover, from a neo-Darwinist approach, insects living in these dark caves should have lost their vision in accordance with the theory. The natural selection mechanism argues that eyes which are of no use in these dark caves should be an unnecessary organ. These organisms could have channeled the energy they allocated for their eyes for a more functional sense, and this could avail them many advantages. On the contrary, these glowworms have perfect eyesight which they use in communication.

Science develops theories for observable objects. Under the twilight of the lack of information and blurred perspective on nature, these theories are perceived as realities. And science becomes the slave of the genie that science has released from the lamp. Joachim Illies underlines this as follows: “It is better not to disturb the sacred cows for no reason. Darwinism has become one of those sacred cows. These cows stand in the middle of the road and the traffic flows into byways so as not to disturb them.”

In the world of living things, examples of Arachnocampa luminosa are not few and they cause metaphysical headaches for the Darwinists. In the face of such pain they load the burden of keeping silent on the “Darwinist coincidence.” They silence their conscience and distort reality; their explanations do not make any sense. We wish they could turn to God Almighty for once, rather than chasing after coincidence and natural selection up so many blind alleys.

References

• Portmann, Adolf: An den Grenzen des Wissens – Vom Beitrag der Biologie zu einem neuen Weltbild; Buchclub Ex Libris Zurich 1975, S. 145 – 159.
• Darwin, Charles: Über die Entstehung der Arten durch naturliche Zuchtwahl; Parkland Verlag Koln 2002, S. 97 – 153.
• Illies, Joachim: Der Jahrhundert Irrtum; Umschau Verlag 1983 / Frankfurt am Main; 122 – 131, S. 92 – 117.
• Zimmermann, Walter: Evolution-Die Geschichte Ihrer Probleme und Erkenntnisse; Karl Alber Verlag Munchen 1953; 480 – 496.
• Thurkauf, Max: Die moderne Naturwissenschaft und Ihre soziale Heilslehre–der Marxismus; Novalis Verlag Munchen 1980, S. 190 – 217.

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.