The Losses The Efforts to Prove the Claim of "The Evolution of Species" Caused ScienceThere are millions of living species on the earth, and these species differ from one another in a variety of ways. Consider, for instance, horses, birds, snakes, butterflies, fish, cats, bats, worms, ants, elephants, mosquitoes, bees, dolphins, starfish, jellyfish, camels... All these forms of life greatly differ from each other in their physical characteristics, habitats, hunting techniques, defense tactics, feeding habits, reproduction, and so on.
So, how did these creatures come into being?
Anyone who reflects upon this question, employing the faculty of his reason, would see that all living things are designed, that is, created. Every design proves the existence of an intelligent designer that has produced it. Living things, just as all other examples of design in nature, prove the existence of God.
And among His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the living creatures that He has scattered through them: and He has power to gather them together when He wills. (Surat ash-Shura: 29)
And God has created every animal from water: of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. God creates what He wills for, surely, God has power over all things. (Surat an-Nur: 45)
He created the heavens without any pillars that you can see; He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and He scattered through it beasts of all kinds. We send down rain from the sky, and produce on the earth every kind of noble creature, in pairs. Such is the Creation of God: now show Me what is there that others besides Him have created: no, but the transgressors are in manifest error. (Surah Luqman: 10-11)
Surely in the heavens and the earth, are signs for those who believe. And in the creation of yourselves and the fact that animals are scattered (through the earth), are signs for those of assured faith. (Surat al-Jathiyyah: 3-4)Having recognized the reality of creation, scientists established various disciplines, such as biology, anatomy, and paleontology. Noted scientists, like Carl Linnaeus, who categorized the living world under definite classes, and who is known as "the founder of taxonomy"; Georges Cuvier, the founder of fossil science and comparative anatomy; Gregor Mendel, the founder of genetics who discovered the laws of inheritance; or Louis Agassiz, who is considered the greatest American biologist of the 19th century, all practiced science with an awareness that all living species were created by God.
Some of the reptiles in the colder regions began to develop a method of keeping their bodies warm. Their heat output increased when it was cold and their heat loss was cut down when scales became smaller and more pointed, and evolved into fur. Sweating was also an adaptation to regulate the body temperature, a device to cool the body when necessary by evaporation of water. But incidentally the young of these reptiles began to lick the sweat of the mother for nourishment. Certain sweat glands began to secrete a richer and richer secretion, which eventually became milk. Thus the young of these early mammals had a better start in life.20
By the same token, the other component of the above claim, the story of "the evolution of reptile scales into mammal furs", is clearly at odds with scientific facts. Scales and fur have completely different structures:
1. Fur is follicular; that is, it grows out of a sac. Scales, on the other hand, are plate-like structures within the skin. In addition, scales develop, grow and are shed in a completely different way from that of fur. They definitely have nothing in common.
2. There is no scientific evidence suggesting that fur evolved from scales. Evolutionists have no fossil evidence to prove this claim, just as they can put forth no logical mechanism to account for this transformation.
Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century.21Evolutionist scenarios are not limited to these. Just as evolutionist paleontologist Dr. Colin Patterson admitted, "There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is."22 Evolutionists also put forth the fantastic claim that sea mammals, like whales and dolphins, evolved from bears that liked swimming. What's more, in order to provide a basis for this scenario, they have produced theories about half-bear/half-whale creatures, and even fabricated stories of "walking whales".
Science will continue to hopelessly pursue such myths, as long as scientists base their studies on incorrect hypotheses such as Darwinism. The acknowledgment of the reality of creation, on the other hand, will put an end to all these vain endeavors, which inhibit the progress of science. As we have mentioned earlier, all living things were created individually by God. Their physical characteristics, feeding habits, hunting techniques, defense tactics, the way they foster their young etc., all reflect perfect harmonies. There is no point in claiming and trying to prove that these harmonies could have come about by chance. This perfection could not have come into being haphazardly; it could only have come about through the power and control of our Lord, the supreme Creator. Therefore, it would be much more worthwhile to investigate verifiable realities and their details, rather than producing completely imaginary scenarios. Most importantly, research with such an intent would help us to better know God, the Almighty, Who created human beings and the entire universe from nothing.
Mutation ImpasseAnother assertion of the evolutionary theory which has wasted the science's time, was the delusive pursuit for "beneficial mutations". Mutations are changes that take place in the genetic code of an organism through the effect of radiation or chemicals. Though evolutionists claim that living things evolved through mutations, mutations are almost always harmful, and do not have an effect other than causing disorders in organisms. The radiation leakage in Chernobyl is an indication of the harmful effects of mutation. In the aftermath of this disaster, many people suffered illnesses such as leukemia, and serious disorders such as birth abnormalities.
Despite the negative effects of mutation, neo-Darwinism has put forth two concepts as "evolutionary mechanisms", one of which is mutation. Therefore, scientists were bent on proving that mutations could create beneficial effects on living things as far as the theory of evolution is concerned. However, as we have explained above, mutations are always harmful, and have never been observed to have an evolutionary effect.
Evolutionists tenaciously devised artificial mutation models, and worked for decades to observe a beneficial mutation. For instance, fruit flies were mutated numerous times, with the hope that they would give rise to "a mutation improving the genetic code". The result was an utter fiasco. Evolutionist Michael Pitman made the following remark about these extensive, albeit, inconclusive, mutation experiments:
Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type.24
In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge... or even a new enzyme.25Evolutionary arguments in other scientific areas have been no different. Nevertheless, evolutionists advocate Darwinism despite all scientific evidence, and then present their persistence as "scientific perseverance". What they practice, however, is not scientific perseverance, but resistance to science.
It must be mentioned that fossil excavations are carried out under very difficult conditions and require large budgets. Excavations conducted for the last 1,5 centuries, in regions such as African deserts, by crowded teams of researchers, maintaining camps for months under the scorching sun, and with budgets over billions of dollars, have not presented any concrete results. Well-known fossil researcher, Richard Leakey, and renowned science writer, Roger Lewin, made the following confession regarding the inconclusiveness of these studies:
If someone went to the trouble of collecting into one room all the fossil remains so far discovered of our ancestors (and their biological relatives) who lived, say, between five and one million years ago, he would need only a couple of large trestle tables on which to spread them out. And if that were not bad enough, a not unusually commodious shoe box would be more than sufficient to accommodate the hominid fossil finds of between fifteen and six million years ago!26
All these were a waste of time, knowledge, labor, money and resources, mistakenly undertaken under the guise of "science". All around the world, thousands of universities, scientific institutions and organizations, millions of scientists, instructors and students, laboratories, technicians, technical equipment and numberless resources, have been consecrated to the service of a false allegation. The end result is literally nothing, and, moreover, new discoveries continue to expose the fallacy of the evolutionary hypothesis. Evolutionist scientist, S.J. Jones, explains, in an article published in Nature magazine, the predicament of paleoanthropology, the study of fossil research into the origin of man:
Palaeoanthropologists seem to make up for a lack of fossils with an excess of fury, and this must now be the only science in which it is still possible to become famous just by having an opinion. As one cynic says, in human Paleontology the consensus depends on who shouts loudest.27
The Losses Those Who Deny "The Perfect Design in Nature" Caused ScienceTo deny the fact of creation, that is to say, "design" in nature, actually means inhibiting scientific research. A scientist who is aware of the existence of a design in nature embarks on his studies with the aim of investigating this design and its purpose. An evolutionist, however, would not have that objective, as he considers nature to be a purposeless collection of matter.
American physicist and philosopher, William Dembski, is another scientist who maintains that there is a "design" in nature. Dembski states that the evolutionary viewpoint, by denying the existence of a purpose in nature, holds back scientific progress. He quotes the evolutionists' term "junk DNA" as an example. (According to a hypothesis of evolutionist scientists, "junk DNA" are components of DNA that do not include any genetic information and therefore have no apparent genetic function). Dembski remarks:
…Design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as "junk" merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how "non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development." Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it…
Such examples are common in the world of science. Scientists who studied honeybees had a similar experience. Certain scientists, after calculating the angles formed by the honeybees to join the honeybee cells, determined that two angles formed by honeybees differed from the optimum angle by 0,020. (Measurements showed that angles formed by bees are 109.28 and 70.32 degrees. By very intricate calculation, it was determined by the mathematician Konig, that the optimum angles for such a purpose should be 109.26 and 70.34). Scientists working on the subject came to the conclusion that honeybees were at fault by this minute fraction. The Scottish mathematician Colin Maclaurin (1698-1746), not satisfied with this explanation, applied himself to a fresh and careful investigation of the question. He showed that, owing to a slight misprint in the logarithmic tables, the result previously obtained was errant to the exact amount of two minutes of a degree.29 So, it was revealed that bees had calculated the optimum angle correctly, and not the scientists!
A person who is aware that God created all living things in a perfect form never supposes that there is an aberration in the design of an object of nature. He knows that every detail is created by God for a specific purpose.
Another misconception, adhered to by scientists who do not believe in the flawless creation of God, has again to do with honeybees. The 12 October 1996 issue of New Scientist contains a piece by Ben Crystall, where he maintains that honeybees beat their wings excessively, and therefore, their flight is inefficient. According to this article, honeybees beat their wings sometimes rapidly and sometimes slowly, yet fly at the same speed, and therefore they waste energy when they beat frequently. According to the writer, this was a failure in design.
A team led by Jon Harrison, of Arizona State University, has published research findings in Science (1996, vol. 274, p. 88) which suggest that there are good reasons for the differences in the wing-beat frequencies of honeybees. As the temperature of the environment was changed, the bee's body temperature, the rate of its wing-beats, and its metabolic rate was measured. As the temperature rose from 20 to 40 degrees C, the wing-beat frequency decreased. Research revealed that honeybees beat their wings less frequently in hot weather, whereas they beat them more frequently in cold weather. Yet, there was no change in their flight speeds. They were keeping their body and hive warm with the energy output they generated by beating their wings more frequently in cold weather. Ultimately, it was revealed that wings of honeybees had a dual function: flying and generating heat.
Another sophistry put forward by evolutionist scientists, who do not believe that God created living things distinctly and perfectly in their present forms, is the fallacy of "vestigial organs". Evolutionists, who argue that all living things evolved from a predecessor by chance, believe that there existed a number of "non-functional organs" in the human body, inherited from progenitors which had become vestigial over time by not being used. Scientists who do not believe in the creative attribute of God, caused a great deal of harmful confusion in the scientific study of these organs, which they assumed to be nonfunctional. As science progressed, it was understood that these supposedly nonfunctional organs are actually vital for the human body. The gradual decrease in evolutionists' long list of vestigial organs was the best indication of how flawed was this premise, that had impeded the progress of science. S.R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article, titled "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?", published in the magazine Evolutionary Theory:
Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that "vestigial organs" provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.30The list of vestigial organs compiled by the German anatomist R. Wiedersheim, in 1895, comprised of approximately 100 organs, including the appendix and coccyx. With the advancement of science, the number of organs in Widersheim's list gradually decreased, and it was discovered that these organs had in fact very important functions in the body. For instance, it was discovered that the appendix, which was supposed to be a "vestigial organ", was actually a lymphoid organ that fought against infections in the body. It was also discovered that the tonsils, which were included in the same list of vestigial organs, had a significant role in protecting the throat against infections, particularly until adolescence. It was found that the coccyx, at the lower end of the vertebral column, supports the bones around the pelvis, and is the converging point of certain small muscles. In the years to follow, it came to be understood that the thymus instigated the immune system in the human body by activating the T cells, that the pineal gland was in charge of the secretion of some important hormones, and the functions of many other supposedly non-functional organs were discovered. The semi-lunar fold in the eye, that was referred to as a vestigial organ by Darwin, is in fact in charge of cleansing and lubricating the eyebrow.
All of these examples point to one fact: in order for scientific research to be effective and expeditious, it must be founded on a correct premise. God created everything for a certain purpose, with a flawless and inimitable design. Therefore, the ultimate goal of a scientist investigating nature should be to discover the details of this perfection in all things, and explore the hidden purposes of every phenomenon he encounters.
The Negative Effects on Evolutionist and Atheist Scientists From Knowing that Their Efforts Are In VainIn fact, conducting extensive research and study of fallacious and inconclusive hypotheses, is also emotionally draining for evolutionist scientists. When they come to understand that a majority of the research to which they have devoted their lives is futile and useless, they feel great despair. Conducting scientific research requires great discipline and self-sacrifice. Carrying out long drawn-out experiments and observations in the laboratory, for a premise which they know will come to nothing, and only to discover that the direct opposite of the hypothesis they want to prove is correct, is certainly quite upsetting for such scientists.
Over the past four decades modern biochemistry has uncovered the secrets of the cell. The progress has been hard won. It has required tens of thousands of people to dedicate the better parts of their lives to the tedious work of the laboratory… The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell - to investigate life at the molecular level - is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design!" The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. This triumph of science should evoke cries of "Eureka" from ten thousand throats.
But, no bottles have been uncorked, no hands clapped. Instead, a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. When the subject comes up in public, feet start to shuffle, and breathing gets a bit labored. In private people are a bit more relaxed; many explicitly admit the obvious but then stare at the ground, shake their heads, and let it go like that. Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling discovery? Why is the observation of design handled with intellectual gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the [issue] is labeled intelligent design, the other side must be labeled God.31Some evolutionists in the scientific community have admitted to suffering such desperation. For instance, evolutionist paleontologist, Dr. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, and also the author of the book titled Evolution, made the following famous comments in an address he made at the opening of the Museum of Natural History in New York:
Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence… Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way. 32Somewhere else in the same speech, Patterson also noted:
One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a non- evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long.33
More interestingly, not only the evolutionists of our day, but also Charles Darwin, the founder of the theory, often fretted about "spending his time for nothing", and that "he will be disappointed at the end". Darwin repeatedly talked about his worries over this point in his letters to his friends or in his articles. In one of these, he confessed that there is no evidence in nature to support his theory:
All nature is perverse and will not do as I wish it.35Darwin's lack of self-confidence is also manifest in his following words:
Nevertheless I doubt whether the work (of writing The Origin of Species) was worth the consumption of so much time.36
The Losses Evolutionist Frauds Have Caused For ScienceAs evolutionists were unable to discover evidence in support of their theory, now and then, they deceived humanity by distorting their scientific findings and perpetrating hoaxes. The most notorious of these hoaxes was the "Piltdown Man" scandal. Unable to discover fossils of the supposedly half-ape/half-human creatures, which they alleged to have existed, evolutionists finally decided to produce one themselves. By mounting an orangutan's jaw onto a human skull, and giving it a dated appearance by treating it with certain chemicals, for several years they exhibited the skull in the most famous museum of the world, as a "human ancestor". F. Clark Howell, an evolutionist himself, describes the detriment this fraud has caused for science as such:
Piltdown was discovered in 1953 to have been nothing more than an Ape's jaw placed with a human skull. It was a hoax placed on purpose. They recognized neither the jaw to be an ape's or the skull to be a human's. Instead, they declared each part as an in between of ape and human. They dated it to be 500,000 years old, gave it a name (Eoanthropus Dawsoni or 'Dawn Man'), and wrote some 500 books on it. The 'discovery' fooled paleontologists for forty five years.37
The perpetrator of another evolutionary fraud, Ernst Haeckel, not only confessed to his forgery, but also referred to the distortions committed by his colleagues in order to perpetuate their various ideologies:
After this compromising confession of "forgery" I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoners' dock hundreds of fellow culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of "forgery", for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed.38
Attempts to make observations, experiments and research concur with evolution, the covering-up of the truths, or their distorted presentation, has certainly been a serious impediment to scientific progress. The evolutionist writer W.R. Thompson admitted to that fact, though indirectly, with these words:
This situation where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.39The most interesting thing is that all the studies and experiments evolutionists make to prove evolution ultimately yield evidence that supports the fact of creation.
Scientific Findings Always Prove Creation Though Evolutionist Do Not Like ItAs mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, when science is guided by erroneous ideologies, time, money and labor are spent wastefully. Since the 18th century, science has been under the influence of materialists, and almost all research was intended to provide scientific evidence for the materialist philosophy. Therefore, scientific evidence discounting the materialist philosophy was either covered up or presented in a distorted manner.
Moreover, every study and experiment made by evolutionists to prove evolution produced further evidence in support of creation. Science is relatively simple and trouble-free for those who believe in God's existence. Investigating a phenomenon known to exist, and looking for evidence for it, would cause no trouble for scientists. On the contrary, to seek out non-existent evidence is "tedious" and "annoying", as they themselves attest.
This is how renowned evolutionist scientist, British zoologist Richard Dawkins, assesses how scientific discoveries are consistently in support of the fact of creation:
For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.40
A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God41
ConclusionOur immediate surroundings, and the universe we live in, teem with numerous signs of the fact of creation. Implicit in the fascinating system of a mosquito, the glorious artistry in the wings of a peacock, a complex and perfectly functioning organ like the eye, and millions of other forms of life, are signs of the existence of God, and His supreme knowledge and wisdom, for people who believe. A scientist who maintains that creation is a fact views nature from this perspective, and derives great pleasure in every observation he makes, and every experiment he conducts, gaining inspiration for further studies.
On the other hand, believing in a myth such as evolution, and adhering to it despite the findings of science, results in an emotional state of despair. The harmony in the universe and the design in living things becomes rather a great source of trouble to them. The following words of Darwin offer us a glimpse into the sentiments of most evolutionists:
I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of complaint... and now trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!42The feathers of a peacock, as well as countless other signs of creation in nature, continue to discomfit evolutionists. Turning a blind eye to such apparent miracles, they develop an ambivalence to such truths, accompanied by a mental state of denial. A good case to this point is the prominent evolutionist Richard Dawkins, who goes so far as to call upon Christians not to assume that they have witnessed a miracle, even if they see the statue of the Virgin Mary waving to them. According to Dawkins, "Perhaps all the atoms of the statue's arm just happened to move in the same direction at once-a low probability event to be sure, but possible."43
In order for science to progress, these holdovers of the 19th century must be pushed aside, and free-thinking scientists bold enough to admit the facts they apprehend take their place.
|20. George Gamow, Martynas Ycas, Mr. Tompkins Inside Himself, Allen & Unwin, Londra, 1966, p. 149 |
21. Pat Shipman, Birds Do It. Did Dinosaurs?, New Scientist, February, 1, 1997, p. 28
22. Colin Patterson, Harper's, February 1984, p.60
23. Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York, Academic Press, 1977, p. 103
24. Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London, River Publishing, 1984, p. 70
25. Gordon Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper and Row, 1983, p. 34-38
26. Leakey, R., & Lewin, R. People of the lake: Mankind and its beginnings. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1978, p. 17
27. S.J. Jones, A Thousand and One Eves, Nature, vol 34, May, 31, 1990, p. 395
28. William A. Dembski "Science and Design", First Things, No. 86, November, 1998, p. 26
29. G. Mansfield, Creation or Chance! God's purpose with mankind proved by the wonder of the universe, Logos Publications
30. S.R. Scadding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence For Evolution?", Evolutionary Theory, Vol 5, May 1981, p. 173
31. Michael J.Behe, Darwin's Black Box, New York: Free Press, 1996, p.231-232
32. Colin Patterson, Evolution and Creationism, Speech at the American Museum of Natural History, New York (November 5, 1981)
33. Colin Patterson, Evolution and Creationism, Speech at the American Museum of Natural History, New York (November 5, 1981)
34. The Earth Before Man, p. 51
35. Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol.I, New York:D. Appleton and Company, 1888, p.413
36. Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol.I, New York:D. Appleton and Company, 1888, p.315
37. F. Clark Howell, Early Man, NY: Time Life Books, 1973, p.24-25
38. Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, New York: Ticknor and Fields 1982, p. 204
39. "Introduction," Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin (Dutton: Everyman's Library, 1956), p. xxii
40. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, London: W. W. Norton 1986, p. 229
41. Mark Czarnecki, The Revival of the Creationist Crusade, MacLean's, January, 19, 1981, p. 56
42. Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Boston, Gambit, 1971, p. 101
43. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, London: W. W. Norton, 1986, p. 159