... the science of peace






Introduction: Why The Theory of Evolution

Introduction: Why the Theory of Evolution?

Some of the people who have heard of "the theory of evolution" or "Darwinism", may think that these concepts only concern the field of biology and that they have no significance in their everyday lives. This is a big misconception because far more than a biological concept, the theory of evolution constitutes the underpinnings of a dishonest philosophy that has held sway over a great number of people.

That philosophy is "materialism", which holds a number of bogus views about why and how we came into being. Materialism maintains that there is nothing but the matter and that matter is the essence of everything, be it organic or inorganic. Starting out from this premise, it denies the existence of a divine Creator, that is, Allah. Reducing everything to the level of matter, this notion transforms man into a creature that heeds only matter and turns away from moral values of whatever kind. This is the beginning of big disasters that will befall a man’s life.

The detriments of materialism are not only limited to individuals. Materialism also seeks to abolish the basic values on which the state and society rest and generate a soulless and insensitive society that pays attention only to matter. Since the members of such a society can never possess idealistic notions such as patriotism, love for one’s people, justice, loyalty, honesty, sacrifice, honour, or good morals, the social order established by these individuals is doomed to be shattered in a short while. For these reasons, materialism is one of the severest menaces to the basic values of the political and social order of a nation.

Another great evil of materialism is its underpinning of anarchist and divisive ideologies that take aim at the perpetuity of the state and the people. Communism, the foremost of these ideologies, is the natural political outcome of the materialist philosophy. Seeking to abolish such sacred notions as state and family, it constitutes the fundamental ideology of every form of separatist actions directed against the unitary structure of the state.

The theory of evolution constitutes the so-called scientific foundation of materialism that the communist ideology depends on. By taking the theory of evolution as a reference, communism seeks to justify itself and to present its ideology as sound and correct. This is why the founder of communism, Karl Marx, wrote for Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species which laid the basis for the theory of evolution as "this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view". (1)

In point of fact, materialist notions of every kind, Marx’s ideas being foremost among them, have utterly collapsed for the reason that the theory of evolution, which is in fact a 19th century dogma on which materialism rests, has been absolutely invalidated by the findings of modern science. Science has disproved and continues to disprove the materialist hypothesis that recognises the existence of nothing but matter and it demonstrates that all beings are the products of creation by a superior being.

The purpose of this book is to reveal the scientific facts that refute the theory of evolution in all fields and to inform people about the ulterior, underlying, and real purpose of this so-called "science", which is in fact a fraud.

It should be pointed out that evolutionists have no answer to give to the book you are now reading. And they will not even attempt to answer it for they are aware that such an act will simply help everyone to a better understanding that evolution is simply a lie.


Karl Marx made it clear that Darwin’s theory provided a solid ground for materialism and thus also for communism. He also showed his sympathy to Darwin by dedicating Das Kapital, which is considered as his greatest work, to him. In the German edition of the book, he wrote: "From a devoted admirer to Charles Darwin". (left)

To Be Freed From Prejudice

Most people accept everything they hear from scientists as strictly true. It does not even occur to them that scientists may also have various philosophical or ideological prejudices. The fact of the matter is that evolutionist scientists impose their own prejudices and philosophical views on the public under the guise of science. For instance, although they are aware that random events do not cause anything other than irregularity and confusion, they still claim that the marvellous order, plan, and design seen both in the universe and in living organisms arose by chance.

For instance, such a biologist easily grasps that there is an incomprehensible harmony in a protein molecule, the building block of life, and that there is no probability that this might have come about by chance. Nevertheless, he alleges that this protein came into existence under primitive earth conditions by chance billions of years ago. He does not stop there; he also claims, without hesitation, that not only one, but millions of proteins formed by chance and then incredibly came together to create the first living cell. Moreover, he defends his view with a blind stubbornness. This person is an "evolutionist" scientist.

If the same scientist were to find three bricks resting on top of one another while walking along a flat road, he would never suppose that these bricks had come together by chance and then climbed up on top of each other, again by chance. Indeed, anyone who did make such an assertion would be considered insane.

How then can it be possible that people who are able to assess ordinary events rationally can adopt such an irrational attitude when it comes to thinking about their own existence?

It is not possible to claim that this attitude is adopted in the name of science: science requires taking both alternatives into consideration wherever there are two alternatives equally possible concerning a certain case. And if the likelihood of one of the two alternatives is much lower, for example if it is only one percent, then the rational and scientific thing to do is to consider the other alternative, whose likelihood is 99 percent, to be the valid one.

Let us continue, keeping this scientific basis in mind. There are two views that can be set forth regarding how living beings came into being on earth. The first is that all living beings were created by Allah in their present complex structure. The second is that life was formed by unconscious, random coincidences. The latter is the claim of the theory of evolution.

When we look at the scientific data, that of molecular biology for instance, we can see that there is no chance whatsoever that a single living cell-or even one of the millions of proteins present in this cell-could have come into existence by chance as the evolutionists claim. As we will illustrate in the following chapters, probabilistic calculations also confirm this many times over. So the evolutionist view on the emergence of living beings has zero probability of being true.

This means that the first view has a "one hundred percent" probability of being true. That is, life has been consciously brought into being. To put it in another way, it was "created". All living beings have come into existence by the design of a Creator exalted in superior power, wisdom, and knowledge. This reality is not simply a matter of conviction; it is the normal conclusion that wisdom, logic and science take one to.

Under these circumstances, our "evolutionist" scientist ought to withdraw his claim and adhere to a fact that is both obvious and proven. To do otherwise is to demonstrate that he is actually someone who is sacrificing science on behalf of his philosophy, ideology, and dogma rather than being a true scientist.

The anger, stubbornness, and prejudices of our "scientist" increase more and more every time he confronts reality. His attitude can be explained with a single word: "faith". Yet it is a blind superstitious faith, since there can be no other explanation for one’s disregard of all the facts or for a lifelong devotion to the preposterous scenario that he has constructed in his imagination.

Blind Materialism

The faith that we are talking about is the materialistic philosophy, which argues that matter has existed for all eternity and there is nothing other than matter. The theory of evolution is the so-called "scientific foundation" for this materialistic philosophy and that theory is blindly defended in order to uphold this philosophy. When science invalidates the claims of evolution-and that is the very point that has been reached here at the end of the 20th century-it then is sought to be distorted and brought into a position where it supports evolution for the sake of keeping materialism alive.

A few lines written by one of the prominent evolutionist biologists of Turkey is a good example that enables us to see the disordered judgement and discretion that this blind devotion leads to. This scientist discusses the probability of the coincidental formation of Cytochrome-C, which is one of the most essential enzymes for life, as follows:

The probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realised once in the whole universe. Otherwise, some metaphysical powers beyond our definition should have acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate to the goals of science. We therefore have to look into the first hypothesis. (2)

This scientist finds it "more scientific" to accept a possibility "as likely as zero" rather than creation. However according to the rules of science, if there are two alternative explanations concerning an event and if one of them has "as likely as zero" a possibility of realisation, then the other one is the correct alternative. However the dogmatic materialistic approach forbids the admittance of a superior Creator. This prohibition drives this scientist-and many others who believe in the same materialist dogma-to accept claims that are completely contrary to reason.

People who believe and trust these scientists also become enthralled and blinded by the same materialistic spell and they adopt the same insensible psychology when reading their books and articles.

This dogmatic materialistic point of view is the reason why many prominent names in the scientific community are atheists. Those who free themselves from the thrall of this spell and think with an open mind do not hesitate to accept the existence of a Creator. American biochemist Dr Michael J. Behe, one of those prominent names who support the theory of "intelligent design" that has lately become very accepted, describes the scientists who resist believing in the "design" or "creation" of living organisms thus:

Over the past four decades, modern biochemistry has uncovered the secrets of the cell. 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... Instead a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. 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 elephant is labelled intelligent design, the other side must be labelled God. (3)

This is the predicament of the atheist evolutionist scientists you see in magazines and on television and whose books you may be reading. All the scientific research carried out by these people demonstrates to them the existence of a Creator. Yet they have become so insensitised and blinded by the dogmatic materialist education they have absorbed that they still persist in their denial.

People who steadily neglect the clear signs and evidences of the Creator become totally insensitive. Caught up in an ignorant self-confidence caused by their insensitivity, they may even end up supporting an absurdity as a virtue. A good case in point is the prominent evolutionist Richard Dawkins who calls upon Christians not to assume that they have witnessed a miracle even if they see the statue of the Virgin Mary wave 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." (4)

The psychology of the unbeliever has existed throughout history. In the Qur’an it is described thus:

Even if We did send unto them angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless it is in God’s plan. But most of them ignore (the truth). (Surat Al-Anaam : 111)

As this verse makes clear, the dogmatic thinking of the evolutionists is not an original way of thinking, nor is it even peculiar to them. In fact, what the evolutionist scientist maintains is not a modern scientific thought but an ignorance that has persevered since the most uncivilised pagan communities.

The same psychology is defined in another verse of the Qur’an:

Even if We opened out to them a gate from heaven and they were to continue (all day) ascending therein, they would only say: "Our eyes have been intoxicated: Nay, we have been bewitched by sorcery." (Surat Al-Hijr : 14-15)

Mass Evolutionist Indoctrination

As indicated in the verses cited above, one of the reasons why people cannot see the realities of their existence is a kind of "spell" impeding their reasoning. It is the same "spell" that underlies the world-wide acceptance of the theory of evolution. What we mean by spell is a conditioning acquired by indoctrination. People are exposed to such an intense indoctrination about the correctness of the theory of evolution that they often do not even realise the distortion that exists.

This indoctrination creates a negative effect on the brain and disables the faculty of judgement. Eventually, the brain, being under a continuous indoctrination, starts to perceive the realities not as they are but as they have been indoctrinated. This phenomenon can be observed in other examples. For instance, if someone is hypnotised and indoctrinated that the bed he is lying on is a car, he perceives the bed as a car after the hypnosis session. He thinks that this is very logical and rational because he really sees it that way and has no doubt that he is right. Such examples as the one above, which show the efficiency and the power of the mechanism of indoctrination, are scientific realities that have been verified by countless experiments that have been reported in the scientific literature and are the everyday fare of psychology and psychiatry textbooks.

The theory of evolution and the materialistic world view that relies on it are imposed on the masses by such indoctrination methods. People who continuously encounter the indoctrination of evolution in the media, academic sources, and "scientific" platforms, fail to realise that accepting this theory is in fact contrary to the most basic principles of reason. The same indoctrination captures scientists as well. Young names stepping up in their scientific careers adopt the materialist world view more and more as time passes. Enchanted by this spell, many evolutionist scientists go on searching for scientific confirmation of 19th century’s irrational and outdated evolutionist claims that have long since been refuted by scientific evidence.

There are also additional mechanisms that force scientists to be evolutionist and materialist. In Western countries, a scientist has to observe some standards in order to be promoted, to receive academic recognition, or to have his articles published in scientific journals. A straightforward acceptance of evolution is the number-one criterion. This system drives these scientists so far as to spend their whole lives and scientific careers for the sake of a dogmatic belief.

This is the reality that continues to lie behind the assertion "evolution is still accepted by the world of science". Evolution is kept alive not because it has a scientific worth but because it is an ideological obligation. Very few of the scientists who are aware of this fact can risk pointing out that the king isn’t wearing any clothes.

In the rest of this book, we will be reviewing the findings of modern science that have led to the collapse of the evolutionist belief and the display of the clear evidences of Allah’s existence. The reader will witness that evolution theory is in fact a deceit-a deceit that is belied by science at every step but is upheld to veil the fact of creation. What is to be hoped of the reader is that he will wake up from the spell that blinds people’s minds and disrupts their ability to judge and he will reflect seriously on what is related in this book.

If he rids himself of this spell and thinks clearly, freely, and without any prejudice, he will soon discover the crystal-clear truth. This inevitable truth, also demonstrated by modern science in all its aspects, is that living organisms came into existence not by chance but as a result of creation. Man can easily see the fact of creation when he considers how he himself exists, how he has come into being from a drop of water, or the perfection of every other living thing.

Imaginary Mechanisms Of Evolution

The neo-Darwinist model, which we shall take as the "mainstream" theory of evolution today, argues that life has evolved through two naturalistic mechanisms: "natural selection" and "mutation". The basic assertion of the theory is as follows: Natural selection and mutation are two complementary mechanisms. The origin of evolutionary modifications is random mutations that take place in the genetic structure of living things. The traits brought about by the mutations are selected by the mechanism of natural selection and therefore the living things evolve.

When we further probe into this theory, we find that there is no such evolutionary mechanism at all, because neither natural selection nor mutations make any contribution to the claim that different species have evolved and transformed into one another.

Natural Selection

As process of nature, natural selection was familiar to biologists before Darwin, who defined it as a "mechanism that keeps species unchanging without being corrupted". Darwin was the first person to put forward the assertion that this process had evolutionary power and he then erected his entire theory on the foundation of this assertion. The name he gave to his book indicates that natural selection was the basis of Darwin’s theory: The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection...

However since Darwin’s time, there has not been a single shred of evidence put forward to show that natural selection causes living beings to evolve. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist of the Museum of Natural History in England, who is also a prominent evolutionist by the way, stresses that natural selection has never been observed to have the power to cause things to evolve:

No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question. (11)

Natural selection holds that those living things that are more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will prevail by having offspring that will survive, whereas those that are unfit will disappear. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of wild animals, naturally those that can run faster will survive. That is true. But no matter how long this process goes on, it will not transform those deer into another living species. The deer will always remain deer.

When we look at the few incidents the evolutionists have put forth as observed examples of natural selection, we see that these are nothing but a simple attempt to hoodwink.

Butterflies of the Industrial Revolution

In 1986 Douglas Futuyma published a book, The Biology of Evolution, which is accepted as one of the sources explaining the theory of evolution by natural selection in the most explicit way. The most famous of his examples on this subject is about the colour of the butterfly population, which appeared to darken during the Industrial Revolution in England.

According to the account, around the outset of the Industrial Revolution in England, the colour of the tree barks around Manchester was quite light. Because of this, dark-coloured butterflies resting on those trees could easily be noticed by the birds that fed on them and therefore they had very little chance of survival. Fifty years later, as a result of pollution, the barks of the trees had darkened, and this time the light-coloured butterflies became the most hunted. As a result, the number of light-coloured butterflies decreased whereas that of the dark-coloured ones increased since the latter were not easily noticed. Evolutionists use this as a great evidence to their theory. Evolutionists, on the other hand, take refuge and solace in window-dressing by showing how light-coloured butterflies "evolved" into dark-coloured ones.


The example of the butterflies of the Industrial Revolution is advanced as the greatest evidence for evolution by natural selection. However, evolution is out of the question in this example, as no new butterfly species is formed. On the left are trees and butterflies of the pre-Industrial Revolution era, and on the right are those of the post-Industrial Revolution era.

However, it should be quite clear that this situation can in no way be used as evidence for the theory of evolution, for natural selection did not give rise to a new form that had not existed before. Dark coloured butterflies existed in the butterfly population before the Industrial Revolution. Only the relative proportions of the existing butterfly species in the population changed. The butterflies had not acquired a new trait or an organ, which would cause a "change in species". In order to have a butterfly turn into another living species, a bird for example, new additions would have had to be made to the genes. That is, an entirely separate genetic program would have had to be loaded so as to include information about the physical traits of the bird.

Briefly, natural selection does not have the capability to add a new organ to a living organism, remove one, or change the organism into another species-quite contrary to the image that evolutionists conjure up. The "greatest" evidence put forward since Darwin has been able to go no further than butterflies in England.

Can Natural Selection Explain Complexity?

There is nothing that natural selection contributes to the theory of evolution, because this mechanism can never increase or improve the genetic information of a species. Neither can it transform one species into another: a starfish into a fish, a fish into a frog, a frog into a crocodile, or a crocodile into a bird. The biggest defender of punctuated equilibrium, Gould, refers to this deadlock of natural selection as follows;

The essence of Darwism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well. (12)

Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as a conscious designer. However, natural selection has no consciousness. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living beings. As a result, natural selection cannot explain biological systems and organs that have the feature of "irreducible complexity". These systems and organs are composed of the co-operation of a great number of parts and they are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. (For example, human eye does not function unless it exists with all its details). Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be able to figure the future in advance and aim directly for the benefit that is to be acquired at the last stage. Since natural mechanism has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing. This fact which also demolishes the foundations of the theory of evolution, also worried Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (13)

Natural selection only selects out the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a species. It cannot produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs. That is, it cannot make anything evolve. Darwin accepted this reality by saying: "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur". (14) This is why neo-Darwinism has had to elevate mutations next to natural selection as the "cause of beneficial changes". However as we shall see, mutations can only be "the cause for harmful changes".


Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nucleus of the cell of a living organism and which holds all the genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident" and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by the people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature...

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure and random effects can only cause harm to this structure. B.G. Ranganathan states:

Mutations are small, random, and harmful. They rarely occur and the best possibility is that they will be ineffectual. These four characteristics of mutations imply that mutations cannot lead to an evolutionary development. A random change in a highly specialised organism is either ineffectual or harmful. A random change in a watch cannot improve the watch. It will most probably harm it or at best be ineffectual. An earthquake does not improve the city, it brings destruction. (15)

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that may have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:

Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect - evolution to higher forms of life - results from mutations practically all of which are harmful? (16)

Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. Evolutionist geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus:

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. (17)

Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of the experiments carried out on fruit flies:

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. (18)

The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings have deleterious results. On this issue, evolutionists throw up a smokescreen and try to show even examples of such deleterious mutation as "evidence for evolution". All mutations that take place in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, or dwarfism. These mutations are presented in evolutionist textbooks as examples of "the evolutionary mechanism at work". Needless to say, a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary mechanism"-evolution is supposed to produce better forms that are more fit to survive.

To summarise, there are three main reasons why mutations cannot be pressed into the service of supporting evolutionists’ assertions:

The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure but impair it. Indeed, no "useful mutation" has ever been observed.

Mutations add no new information to an organism’s DNA: The particles making up the genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen.

In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism: A random change that occurs in a casual cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of radiation or by other causes will not be passed on to subsequent generations.

Briefly, it is impossible for living beings to have evolved, because there exists no mechanism in nature that can cause them to evolve. This agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which demonstrates that this scenario is far removed from reality.

A fruit fly (drosophila) with its legs jutting from its head: a mutation induced by radiation.

Mutations do not improve an organism, but rather harm it. Above, the effects of mutation on a human eye.

The Fossil Record Refutes Evolution

The Ever-missing Links

According to the theory of evolution, every living species has sprung from a predecessor. A previously-existing species turned into something else in time and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.

If this was the case, then numerous intermediary species should have existed and lived within this long transformation period.

For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles should have lived in the past which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile-birds, which acquired some bird traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already had. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms".

If such animals had really existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than the present animal species and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin explained:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains. (19)

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. It was his hope that they would be found in the future. Despite his hopefulness, he realised that the biggest stumbling-block in his theory was the missing transitional forms. Therefore in his book The Origin of Species he wrote the following in the chapter "Difficulties of the Theory":

...Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?... But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?... But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me. (20)

The single explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found.

Believing in Darwin’s prophecy, evolutionists have been searching for fossils and digging for missing links since the middle of the 19th century all over the world. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations showed that contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. Trying to prove their theory, the evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.

A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:

The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another. (21)

Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:

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 God. (22)

They have also had to deal with the futility of waiting for "missing" transitional forms to appear in the future, as explained by a professor of paleontology from Glasgow University, T.Neville George:

There is no need to apologise any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration... The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps. (23)

New Scientist, 20 Jan.1984, 
3)karinca fosili
National Geographic, vol 159
National Geographic, vol.159
National Geographic, vol.152


Examples exist of fossils aged millions of years old that are no differentfrom their current "descendants". These remains are clear evidence forthe fact that they have come into being not as a result of evolution butby special creation: (1) Shark aged 400 million years, (2) Grasshopperaged 40 million years, (3) Ant aged 100 million years, (4) Cockroach aged 320 million years.

Life Emerged on Earth Suddenly and in Complex Forms

When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to be seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years.

The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record-there are no pre-existing ancestors. The fossils found in the Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.

Most of the life forms found in this strata have complex systems like eyes, gills, circulatory system, and advanced physiological structures no different from their modern counterparts. For instance, the double-lensed, combed eye structure of trilobites is a wonder of design. David Raup, a professor of geology in Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities, says: "the trilobites used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today". (24)

These complex invertebrates emerged suddenly and completely without having any link or any transitional form between them and the unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them.

Richard Monastersky, the editor of Earth Sciences, which is one of the popular publications of evolutionist literature, states the following about the "Cambrian Explosion" which came as a total surprise to evolutionists:

Researchers have since uncovered thousands of exquisitely preserved fossils that offer a glimpse back to a pivotal event in the history of life. This moment, right at the start of Earth’s Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world’s first complex creat5res. In a blink of geological time a planet dominated by simple sponge-like animals gave way to one ruled by a vast variety of sophisticated beasts, animals whose relatives still inhabit the world today. (25)

How the earth came to overflow with such a great number of animal species all of a sudden and how these distinct types of species with no common ancestors could have emerged is a question that remains unanswered by evolutionists. The Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost advocates of evolutionist thought in the world, comments on this reality that invalidates the very roots of all the arguments he has been defending:

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. (26)

As Dawkins is forced to acknowledge, the Cambrian Explosion is strong evidence for creation, because creation is the only way to explain the fully-formed emergence of life on earth. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionist biologist admits this fact and states: "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence." (27) Darwin himself recognised the possibility of this when he wrote: "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection." (28) The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin’s "fatal stroke". This is why the Swiss evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengston confesses the lack of transitional links while he describes the Cambrian Period and says "Baffling (and embarrasing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us". (29)

As may be seen, the fossil record indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to the advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden and in a perfect state. In short, living beings did not come into existence by evolution, they were created.

A Creation MiracleThat Confounds Evolution

The trilobites that appeared in the Cambrian period all of a suddenhave an extremely complex eye structure. Consisting of millions of honeycomb-shapedtiny particles and a double-lens system, this eye "has an optimal design which would require a well-trained and imaginative optical engineer todevelop today" in the words of David Raup, a professor of geology. 


This eye emerged 530 million years ago in a perfect state. No doubt,the sudden appearance of such a wondrous design cannot be explained byevolution and it proves the actuality of creation. 

Moreover, the honeycomb eye structure of the trilobite has survivedto our own day without a single change. Some insects such as bees and dragonflies have the same eye structure as did the trilobite. This situationdisproves the evolutionary thesis that living things evolved progressivelyfrom the primitive to the complex. 

(*) R. L. Gregory, Eye and Brain: The Psychology ofSeeing, Oxford University Press, 1995, p.31. 

Deceptive Fossil Interpretations Of Evolutionists

Before going into the details of the legend of man’s evolution, we need to mention the propaganda method that has convinced the general public of the idea that half-man half-ape creatures once lived in the past. This propaganda method makes use of "reconstructions" made in reference to fossils. Reconstruction can be explained as drawing a picture or constructing a model of a living thing based on a single bone-sometimes only a fragment-that has been unearthed. The "ape-men" we see in newspapers, magazines, or films are all reconstructions.

IMAGINARY DRAWINGS: In their pictures and reconstructions, evolutionists deliberately give shape to features that do not actually leave any fossil traces, such as the structure of the nose and lips, the shape of the hair, the form of the eyebrows, and other bodily hair so as to support evolution. They also prepare detailed pictures depicting these imaginary creatures walking with their families, hunting, or in other instances of their daily lives. However, these drawings are all figments of the imagination and have no counterpart in the fossil record.

Since fossils are usually disordered and incomplete, any conjecture based on them is likely to be totally speculative. As a matter of fact, the reconstructions (drawings or models) made by the evolutionists based on the fossil remains are prepared speculatively precisely to validate the evolutionary thesis. An anthropologist from Harvard, David R. Pilbeam stresses this fact when he says "at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data". (53) Since people are highly affected by visual information, these reconstructions best serve the purpose of evolutionists, which is to convince people that these reconstructed creatures really existed in the past.

At this point, we have to highlight a particular point: reconstructions based on bone remains can only reveal the very general characteristics of the object, since the real distinctive details are soft tissues that quickly vanish in time. Therefore with the speculative interpretation of the soft tissues, the reconstructed drawings or models become totally dependent on the imagination of the person producing them. Earnst A. Hooten from Harvard University, explains the situation like this:

To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public... So put not your trust in reconstructions. (54)

Two drawings of Java Man seen above, which are totally different from each other, provide a good example of how fantastically fossils are interpreted by evolutionists. 

Steven Stanley's drawing
(Human Origins)

Maurice Wilson’s drawing 
(From ape to Adam The Search for the Ancestry of Man, Herbert Wendth)

As a matter of fact, evolutionists invent such "preposterous stories" that they even ascribe different faces to the same skull. For example, the three different reconstructed drawings made for the fossil named Australopithecus robustus (Zinjanthropus), is a famous example of such a forgery.

The biased interpretation of fossils or fabrication of many imaginary reconstructions may be an indication of how frequently evolutionists have recourse to tricks. Yet these seem innocent when compared to the deliberate forgeries that have been perpetrated in the history of evolution.

Evolution Forgeries

There is no concrete fossil evidence to support the "ape-man" image, which is unceasingly indoctrinated by the media and evolutionist academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce imaginary creatures, yet the fact that these drawings have no matching fossils constitutes a serious problem for them. One of the interesting methods they employ to overcome this problem is to "produce" the fossils they cannot find. The Piltdown Man, the biggest scandal in the history of science, is a typical example of this method.

Piltdown Man: An Orang-utan Jaw and a Human Skull!

A well-known doctor and also an amateur paleoanthropologist, Charles Dawson came out with an assertion that he had found a jawbone and a cranial fragment in a pit in Piltdown, England in 1912. Even though the jawbone was more ape-like, the teeth and the skull were like a man’s. These specimens were labelled the "Piltdown Man". Alleged to be 500 thousand years old, they were displayed as an absolute proof of human evolution in several museums. For more than 40 years, many scientific articles were written on the "Piltdown Man", many interpretations and drawings were made, and the fossil was presented as an important evidence of human evolution. No less than five hundred doctoral theses were written on the subject. (55) The famous American paleoanthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn said "...we have to be reminded over and over again that Nature is full of paradoxes and this is an astonishing finding about early man..." while he was visiting the British Museum in 1935. (56)

In 1949, Kenneth Oakley from the British Museum’s paleontology department attempted to try the method of "fluorine testing", a new test used for determining the date of some old fossils. A trial was made on the fossil of the Piltdown Man. The result was astounding. During the test, it was realised that the jawbone of the Piltdown Man did not contain any fluorine. This indicated that it had remained buried no more than a few years. The skull, which contained only a small amount of fluorine, showed that it was only a few thousand years old.

The latest chronological studies made with the fluorine method have revealed that the skull is only a few thousand years old. It was determined that the teeth in the jawbone belonging to an orang-utan had been worn down artificially and that the "primitive" tools discovered with the fossils were simple imitations that had been sharpened with steel implements. (57) In the detailed analysis completed by Weiner, this forgery was revealed to the public in 1953. The skull belonged to a 500-year-old man, and the mandibular bone belonged to a recently dead ape! The teeth were thereafter specially arranged in an array and added to the jaw and the joints were filled in order to resemble that of a man. Then all these pieces were stained with potassium dichromate to give them a dated appearance. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid. Le Gros Clark, who was in the team that disclosed the forgery, could not hide his astonishment at this situation and said that "the evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked - how was it that they had escaped notice before?" (58) In the wake of all this, "Piltdown Man" was hurriedly removed from the British Museum where it had been displayed for more than 40 years.

Nebraska Man: A Single Pig Tooth

In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, the manager of the American Museum of Natural History, declared that he had found a fossil molar tooth in West Nebraska near Snake Brook belonging to the Pliocene period. This tooth allegedly bore the common characteristics of both man and ape. Deep scientific arguments began in which some interpreted this tooth to be of Pithecanthropus erectus while others claimed it was closer to human beings. This fossil, which aroused extensive debate, was called the "Nebraska Man". It was also immediately given a "scientific name": Hesperopithecus haroldcooki.

Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of the Nebraska Man’s head and body were drawn. Moreover, the Nebraska Man was even pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole family in a natural setting.

All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles accredited this "ghost man" to such an extent that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased decisions relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised.

In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly-discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called prosthennops. William Gregory entitled his article published in Science magazine where he announced this fault as: "Hesperopithecus: Apparently not an ape nor a man". (59) Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and "his family" were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature.

Ota Benga: The African Native Put Into a Cage

After Darwin advanced the claim with his book The Descent of Man that man evolved from ape-like living beings, he started to seek fossils to support this contention. However, some evolutionists believed that "half-man half-ape" creatures were to be found not only in the fossil record, but also alive in various parts of the world. In the early 20th century, these pursuits for "living transitional links" led to unfortunate incidents, one of the cruellest of which is the story of a Pygmy by the name of Ota Benga.

Ota Benga was captured in 1904 by an evolutionist researcher in the Congo. In his own tongue, his name meant "friend". He had a wife and two children. Chained and caged like an animal, he was taken to the USA where evolutionist scientists displayed him to the public in the St Louis World Fair along with other ape species and introduced him as "the closest transitional link to man". Two years later, they took him to the Bronx Zoo in New York and there they exhibited him under the denomination of "ancient ancestors of man" along with a few chimpanzees, a gorilla named Dinah, and an orang-utan called Dohung. Dr William T. Hornaday, the zoo’s evolutionist director gave long speeches on how proud he was to have this exceptional "transitional form" in his zoo and treated caged Ota Benga as if he were an ordinary animal. Unable to bear the treatment he was subjected to, Ota Benga eventually committed suicide. (60)

Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ota Benga... These scandals demonstrate that evolutionist scientists do not hesitate to employ any kind of unscientific method to prove their theory. Bearing this point in mind, when we look at the other so-called evidence of the "human evolution" legend, we confront a similar situation. Here there are a fictional story and an army of volunteers ready to try everything to verify this story.

The Scenario Of Human Evolution

In previous chapters, we saw that there are no mechanisms in nature to lead the living beings to evolve and that living species came into existence not as the result of an evolutionary process, but rather emerged all of a sudden in their present perfect structure. That is, they were created individually. Therefore, it is obvious that "human evolution", too, is a story that has never taken place.

What, then, do the evolutionists propose as the basis for this story?

This basis is the existence of plenty of fossils on which the evolutionists are able to build up imaginary interpretations. Throughout history, more than 6,000 ape species have lived and most of them have become extinct. Today, only 120 ape species live on the earth. These approximately 6,000 ape species, most of which are extinct, constitute a rich resource for the evolutionists.

Evolutionists wrote the scenario of human evolution by arranging some of the skulls that suited their purpose in an order from the smallest to the biggest and scattering the skulls of some extinct human races among them. According to this scenario, men and modern apes have common ancestors. These creatures evolved in time and some of them became the apes of today while another group that followed another branch of evolution became the men of today.

However, all the paleontological, anatomical and biological findings have demonstrated that this claim of evolution is as fictitious and invalid as all the others. No sound or real evidence has been put forward to prove that there is a relationship between man and ape, except forgeries, distortions, and misleading drawings and comments.

The fossil record indicates to us that throughout history, men have been men and apes have been apes. Some of the fossils the evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of man, belong to human races that lived until very recently-about 10,000 years ago-and then disappeared. Moreover, many human communities currently living have the same physical appearance and characteristics as these extinct human races, which the evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of men. All these are clear proof that man has never gone through an evolutionary process at any period in history.

The most important of all is that there are numerous anatomical differences between apes and men and none of them are of the kind to come into existence through an evolutionary process. "Bipedality" is one of them. As we will describe later on in detail, bipedality is peculiar to man and it is one of the most important traits that distinguishes man from other animals.

The Imaginary Family Tree of Man

The Darwinist claim holds that modern men of today have evolved from some kind of ape-like creatures. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started 4-5 million years ago, it is claimed that there existed some "transitional forms" between modern man and his ancestors. According to this completely imaginary scenario, four basic "categories" are listed:

1. Australopithecines (plural form of Australopithecus)

2. Homo habilis

3. Homo erectus

4. Homo sapiens

The evolutionists call the so-called first common ancestors of men and apes "Australopithecus" which means "South African apes". Australopithecus, nothing but an old ape species that has become extinct, has various types. Some of them are well built, and others are small and slim structured.

The evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as "homo", that is "man". According to the evolutionist claim, the living beings in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus, and not very much different from modern man. The modern man of our day, that is, Homo sapiens, is said to have formed at the latest stage of the evolution of this species.

Fossils like "Java Man", "Pekin Man", and "Lucy", which appear in the media from time to time and are to be found in evolutionist publications and lecture books, are included in one of the four species listed above. These species are also assumed to branch into sub-species.

Some transitional form candidates of the past, such as Ramapithecus, had to be excluded from the imaginary human evolution family tree after it was understood that they were ordinary apes. (61)

By outlining the link chain as "Australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens", the evolutionists imply that each of these species are one another’s ancestor. However, recent findings of paleoanthropologists have revealed that Australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed at different parts of the world at the same time. Moreover, a certain segment of humans classified as Homo erectus have lived up until very modern times. Homo sapiens neandarthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) co-existed in the same region. This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that they are ancestors of one another.

Intrinsically, all findings and scientific research have revealed that the fossil record does not suggest an evolutionary process as evolutionists put forward. The fossils, which are claimed to be the ancestors of humans by evolutionists, in fact belong either to different human races or to ape species.

Then, which fossils are human and which ones are apes? Is it ever possible for any one of them to be considered as a transitional form? In order to get the answers, let us have a closer look at each category.

Australopithecus : An Ape Species

Australopithecus, that is the first category, means "southern ape". It is assumed that these creatures first appeared in Africa about 4 million years ago and they lived until 1 million years ago. There are some classes among Astralopithecines. The evolutionists assume that the oldest Australopithecus species is A. Afarensis. After that comes A. Africanus, which have slimmer bones, and then A. Robustus, which have relatively bigger bones. For A. Boisei, some researchers accept it as a different species and some others as a sub-species of A. Robustus.

All of the Australopithecus species are extinct apes that resemble the apes of today. Their cranial volumes are the same or smaller than the chimpanzees of our day. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet which they used to climb trees just like today’s chimpanzees and their feet have grasping abilities to hold onto the branches. They are short (maximum 130 cm. (51 in.)) and just like today’s chimpanzees, male Australopithecus is larger than the female. Many characteristics such as the details on their skulls, the closeness of the eyes, sharp molar teeth, mandibular structure, long arms, short legs, are evidence to show that these living beings were no different from today’s apes.

The evolutionists claim that although Australopithecines have the anatomy of an ape, they walked upright like humans and unlike apes.

This claim of "walking upright" is in fact a view that has been held by paleoanthropologists like Richard Leakey and Donald C. Johanson for decades. Yet many scientists have carried out a great deal of research on the skeletal structures of Australopithecines and proved the invalidity of this argument. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world-renown anatomists from England and the USA, namely, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, has shown that these creatures were not bipedal and had the same sort of movement as today’s apes. Having studied the bones of these fossils for a period of 15 years with the provision supplied by the British government, Lord Zuckerman and his team of 5 specialists reached the conclusion that Australopithecines were only an ordinary ape species and definitely were not bipedal, although Zuckerman was an evolutionist himself. (62) Correspondingly, Charles E. Oxnard, who is another evolutionist famous for his research on the subject, also likened the skeletal structure of Australopithecines to that of modern orang-utans. (63) Finally, in 1994, a team from Liverpool University in England launched an extensive research to reach a definite conclusion. Finally, they concluded that "the Australopithecines are quadripedal". (64)

Briefly, Australopithecines have no link with humans and they are merely an extinct ape species.

Homo Habilis: The Ape that was Presented as Human

The great similarity between the skeletal and cranial structures of Australopithecines and chimpanzees and the refutation of the claim that these creatures walked upright, caused great difficulty for the evolutionist paleoanthropologists. The reason is that, according to the imaginary evolution scheme, Homo erectus comes after Australopithecines. As the prefix "homo" meaning "human" implies, Homo erectus is a human class and its skeleton is straight. It cranial volume is two times bigger than that of Australopithecines. A direct transition from Australopithecines, which is a chimpanzee-like ape, to Homo erectus that has a skeleton no different from modern man’s, is out of the question even according to the evolutionist theory. Therefore, "links", that is, "transitional forms" are needed. The concept of Homo habilis arose from this necessity.

The classification of Homo habilis was put forward in the 1960’s by the Leakeys who are "fossil hunters" as a whole family. According to the Leakeys, this new species which they classified as Homo habilis had a relatively large cranial capacity, the ability to walk upright and to use stone and wooden tools, and had a relatively large cranial volume. Therefore, it could have been the ancestor of man.

New fossils of the same species unearthed in the late 1980’s, were to completely change this view. Some researchers like Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace who relied on those newly-found fossils, stated that Homo habilis, which means "man capable of using tools" should be classified as Australopithecus habilis which means "South African ape capable of using tools", because Homo habilis had a lot of characteristics in common with the apes named Australopithecines. It had long arms, short legs and an ape-like skeleton structure just like Australopithecines. Its fingers and toes were suitable for climbing. Its mandibular structure was very similar to that of today’s apes. Their 550 cc cranial volumes were the best indication of the fact that they were apes. In short, Homo habilis, which was presented as a different species by some evolutionists, was in reality an ape species just like all the other Australopithecines.

Research carried out in years to come indeed demonstrated that Homo habilis was no different than Australopithecines. The skull and skeleton fossil OH62 found by Tim White showed that this species had small cranial volume, and long arms and short legs which enabled them to climb trees, just like modern apes.

The detailed analyses conducted by American anthropologist Holly Smith in 1994 indicated that Homo habilis was not "homo", in other words, "human", but "ape". About the analyses she made on the teeth of Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo neandertalensis, Smith stated the following;

Restricting analysis of fossils to specimens satisfying these criteria, patterns of dental development of gracile australopithecines and Homo Habilis remain classified with African apes. Those of Homo erectus and Neanderthals are classified with humans. (65)

Within the same year, Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood and Frans Zonneveld, all specialists on anatomy, reached the same conclusion through a totally different method. This method was based on the comparative analysis of the semi-circular canals in the inner ear of humans and apes which provided for sustaining balance. The canals of humans walking straight differed considerably from those of apes who walked bent downwards. The inner ear canals of all Australopithecus and furthermore, Homo habilis specimens analysed by Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld were the same as modern apes’. The inner ear canals of Homo erectus were the same as modern men’s. (66)

This finding yielded two important results:

1. Fossils referred to as Homo habilis actually did not belong to the classes of "homo", i.e. humans, but to those of Australopithecines, i.e. apes.

2. Both Homo habilis and Australopithecines were living things that had a bent stride, and therefore, the skeleton of an ape. They did not have any relation whatsoever with the humans.

Homo Rudolfensis: The Face Wrongly Joined

The term Homo rudolfensis is the name given to a few fossil fragments unearthed in 1972. The class supposedly represented by this fossil was also designated as Homo rudolfensis for these fossil fragments were found in the vicinity of Rudolf River in Kenya. Most of the paleoanthropologists accept that these fossils do not belong to a distinct species but that the living being called Homo rudolfensis was in fact a Homo habilis.

Richard Leakey, who unearthed the fossils, presented the skull he named "KNM-ER 1470" and said to have 2.8 million years of age, as the greatest discovery of the history of anthropology and had a sweeping effect. According to Leakey, this being, which had a small cranial volume like Australopithecus and yet the face of a human, was the missing link between Australopithecus and human. Yet, after a short while, it was to be understood that the human-like face of KNM-ER 1470 skull which frequently appeared on the covers of scientific magazines was the result of the flawed joining of the skull fragments-which may have been deliberate. Prof. Tim Bromage, who made studies on human face anatomy, outlined this fact which he disclosed by the help of computer simulations in 1992:

When it (KNM-ER 1470) was first reconstructed, the face was fitted to the cranium in an almost vertical position, much like the flat faces of modern humans. But recent studies of anatomical relationships show that in life the face must have jutted out considerably, creating an ape-like aspect, rather like the faces of Australopithecus. (67)

The evolutionist paleoanthropologist J. E. Cronin states the following on the matter:

... its relatively robustly constructed face, flattish naso-alveolar clivus, (recalling australopithecine dished faces), low maximum cranial width (on the temporals), strong canine juga and large molars (as indicated by remaining roots) are all relatively primitive traits which ally the specimen with members of the taxon A/ africanus. (68)

C. Loring Brace from Michigan University concluded the same as a result of the analyses he made on the jaw and tooth structure of skull 1470 and said that the size of the jaw and of the part containing molars showed that ER 1470 had exactly the face and teeth of an Australopithecus." (69)

Prof. Alan Walker, a paleoanthropologist from John Hopkins University who has done as much research on KNM-ER 1470 as Leakey, defends that this living being should not be classified under a "homo", that is, human species such as Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis, but on the contrary must be included under the Australopithecus species. (70)

In summary, classifications like Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis which are presented as transitional links between the Australopithecines and Homo erectus are entirely imaginary. As confirmed by many researchers today, these living beings are members of the Australopithecus series. All of their anatomical features disclose that they are each an ape species.

Following these creatures, each of which is an ape species, come the "homo" fossils which are human being fossils.

Homo Erectus and Thereafter: Real Human Beings

According to the fanciful scheme of evolutionists, the internal evolution of the Homo species is as follows: First Homo erectus, then Homo sapiens archaic and Neanderthal Man, later Cro-Magnon Man and finally modern man. However all these classifications are only original human races in reality. The difference between them is no greater than the difference between an Inuit and a black or a pygmy and a European.

Let us first examine Homo erectus, which is referred to as the most primitive human species. As the word "erect" implies, "Homo erectus" means a "man walking upright". Evolutionists have had to separate these men from previous ones by adding the quality of "erectness", because all the available Homo erectus fossils are straight to an extent not observed in any of the Australopithecines or Homo habilis specimens. There is no difference between the skeleton of modern man and Homo erectus.

The primary reason for evolutionists in defining Homo erectus as "primitive", is the volume of its skull (900-1100 cc), which is smaller than the average modern man, and its thick eyebrow projections. However, there are many people living today in the world who have the same skull volume as Homo erectus (for instance the pygmies) and there are some other races that have protruding eyebrows (for instance the Australian Aborigines).

It is a commonly agreed fact that differences in cranial volume do not necessarily denote differences in intelligence or abilities. Intelligence depends on the internal organisation of the brain rather than its volume. (71)

The fossils that have made Homo erectus known to the world are the fossils of Pekin Man and Java Man found in Asia. However it was understood in time that these two fossils were not reliable. Pekin Man consisted of some elements made of plaster whose originals were lost and Java Man was "composed" of a skull fragment plus a pelvis bone that was found meters away from it with no indication that these belonged to the same living being. This is why the Homo erectus fossils found in Africa have gained such increasing importance. (It should also be noted that some of the fossils said to be Homo erectus were included under a second class named "Homo ergaster" by some evolutionists. There is a disagreement between them on this issue. We will treat all these fossils under the classification of Homo erectus)

The most famous of Homo erectus specimens found in Africa is the fossil of "Narikotome homo erectus" or the "Turkana Boy" which was found near Lake Turkana Kenya. It is confirmed that the fossil was of a 12-year-old boy, who would have been 1.83 meters tall in his adolescence. The upright skeleton structure of the fossil is no different from that of modern man. Concerning it, American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted that "the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human." (72) Concerning the skull, Walker said that "it looked so much like a Neanderthal." (73) As we will see in the next chapter, Neanderthals are a modern human race. Therefore, Homo erectus is also a modern human race.

Even evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differences between Homo erectus and modern man are no more than racial variance:

One would also see differences in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time (74)

Prof. William Laughlin from the Univercity of Connecticut made extensive anatomical examinations on Inuits and the people living in Aleut islands and noticed that these people were extraordinarily similar to Homo erectus. The conclusion Laughlin arrived was that all these distinct races were in fact different races of Homo sapiens (modern man).

When we consider the vast differences that exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong within the single species of Homo sapiens, it seems justifiable to conclude that Sinanthropus [an erectus specimen-ALC]belongs within this same diverse species. (75)

There is, on the other hand, a huge gap between Homo erectus, a human race, and apes that preceded Homo erectus in the "human evolution" scenario, (Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, Homo rudolfensis). This means that the first men appeared in the fossil record suddenly and right away without any evolutionary history. There can be no clearer indication of their being created.

Yet, admitting this fact is totally against the dogmatic philosophy and ideology of evolutionists. As a result, they try to portray Homo erectus, a truly human race, as a half-ape creature. In their Homo-erectus reconstructions, they tenaciously draw simian features. On the other hand, with similar drawing methods, they humanise apes like Australopithecus or Homo Habilis. With this method, they seek to "approximate" apes and human beings and close the gap between these two distinct living classes.

Neanderthals: A Robust Human Race

Neanderthals are human beings who suddenly appeared 100 thousand years ago in Europe and disappeared-or were assimilated by being blended with other races-quietly yet quickly 35 thousand years ago. Their only difference from the modern man is their skeleton being more robust and their cranial volume slightly bigger.

Neanderthals are a human race and this fact is admitted by almost everybody today. Evolutionists have tried very hard to present them as "a primitive species", yet all findings indicate that they were no different from a "robust" man walking on the street today. A prominent authority on the subject, Erik Trinkaus, a paleoanthropologist from New Mexico University writes:

Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans. (76)

Many contemporary researchers define Neanderthal man as a sub-species of modern man and call it "Homo sapiens neandertalensis". The findings testify that Neanderthals buried their dead, fashioned musical instruments, and had cultural affinities with the Homo sapiens sapiens living during the same period. To put it precisely, Neanderthals are a "robust" human race that simply disappeared in time.

Homo Sapiens Archaic, Homo Heilderbergensis and Cro-Magnon Man

Archaic Homo sapiens is the last step before contemporary man in the imaginary evolutionary scheme. In fact, evolutionists do not have much to say about these men, as there are only very minor differences between them and modern men. Some researchers even state that representatives of this race are still living today, and point to the Aborigines in Australia as an example. Like Homo sapiens, the Aborigines also have thick protruding eyebrows, an inward-inclined mandibular structure, and a slightly smaller cranial volume. Moreover, significant discoveries have been made hinting that such people lived in Hungary and in some villages in Italy until not very long ago.

The group characterised as Homo heilderbergensis in evolutionist literature is in fact the same as Homo sapiens archaic. The reason why two different terms are used to define the same human race is the conceptual differences among the evolutionists. All the fossils included under the Homo heilderbergensis classification suggest that people who were anatomically very similar to modern Europeans lived 500 thousand and even 740 thousand years earlier first in England and then in Spain.

It is estimated that the Cro-Magnon Man lived 30,000 years ago. He has a dome-shaped cranium and a broad forehead. His cranium of 1,600 cc is above the average for contemporary man. His skull has thick eyebrow projections and a bony protrusion at the back that is characteristic of both Neanderthal man and Homo erectus.

Although the Cro-Magnon is considered to be a European race, the structure and volume of Cro-Magnon’s cranium look very much like that of some races living in Africa and the tropics today. Relying on this similarity, it is estimated that Cro-Magnon was an archaic African race. Some other paleoanthropological finds have shown that Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal races blended with each other and laid the foundations for the races of our day. Moreover, in our day, it is accepted that the representatives of the Cro-Magnon race still live in the different regions of the continent of Africa and the Salute and Dordogne regions of France. People bearing similar characteristics are also noted to be living in Poland and Hungary.

Species Living in the Same Age as Their Ancestors

What we have investigated so far forms a clear picture for us: The scenario of "human evolution" is totally a fiction. In order for such a family tree to exist, a gradual evolution from ape to man should have taken place and the fossil record of this process should have been found. However, there is a huge gap between apes and humans. Skeletal structures, cranial volumes, and such criteria as walking upright or bent sharply forward distinguish humans from apes. (We mentioned that with a recent research done in 1994 on the balance canals of inner ear, Australopithecus and Homo habilis were classified as ape, while Homo erectus was classified as human.)

Another significant finding proving that there can be no family tree among these different species is that the species that are presented as ancestors of each other in fact lived concurrently. If, as the evolutionists claim, Australopithecus converted to Homo habilis and if they, in turn, converted to Homo erectus, the eras they lived in should necessarily have followed each other. However, there is no such a chronological order.

According to the estimates of evolutionists, Australopithecines lived from 4 million years ago up until 1 million years ago. Living beings classified as Homo habilis, on the other hand, are thought to have lived until 1.7-1.9 million years ago. Homo rudolfensis, which is said to have been more "advanced" than Homo habilis, is known to be as old as 2.5-2.8 million years! That is to say, Homo rudolfensis is nearly 1 million years older than Homo habilis, of which it is supposed to be the "ancestor". On the other hand, the age of Homo erectus dates as far back as 1.6-1.8 million years ago, which means that Homo erectus specimens appeared on the earth in the same time frame as its so-called ancestor, that is, Homo habilis.

Alan Walker confirms this fact by stating that "there is evidence from East Africa for late-surviving small Australopithecus individuals that were contemporaneous first with H. Habilis, then with H. erectus." (77) Louis Leakey has found fossils of Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus almost next to each other in Olduvai Gorge region, Bed II layer. (78)

Most certainly there is no such family tree. A paleontologist from Harvard University, Stephen Jay Gould explains this deadlock of evolution although he is an evolutionist himself:

What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth. (79)

When we move on from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens, we again see that there is no family tree to talk about. There is evidence showing that Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens continued living up to 27,000 years and even 10,000 years before our time. In the Kow swamp in Australia, some 13,000 year-old Homo erectus skulls have been found. On Java Island, a Homo erectus skull was found that was 27,000 year-old. (80)

The Secret History of Homo Sapiens

The most interesting and significant fact that nullifies the very basis of the imaginary family tree of evolutionary theory is the unexpectedly old history of modern man. Paleoanthropological data reveal that Homo sapiens people who looked exactly like us lived as long as one million years ago.

It was Louis Leakey, the famous evolutionist paleoanthropologist, who discovered the first findings concerning this subject. In 1932, in Kanjera region around Lake Victoria in Kenya, Leakey found several fossils that belonged to the Middle Pleistocene Age and that were no different from modern man. However, Middle Pleistocene Age means a million years ago. (81) Since these discoveries turned the evolutionary family tree upside down, they were dismissed by some evolutionist paleoanthropologists. Yet Leakey always contended that his estimates were correct.

Just when this controversy was about to be forgotten, a fossil unearthed in Spain in 1995 revealed in a very remarkable way that the history of Homo Sapiens was much older than assumed. The fossil in question was uncovered in a cave called Gran Dolina in the Atapuerca region of Spain by three Spanish paleoanthropologists from the University of Madrid. The fossil belonged to the face of an 11 year old boy who looked entirely like modern men. Yet, it had been 800,000 years since the child died. Discover magazine covered the story in great detail in its December 1997 issue .

This fossil even shook the convictions of Ferreras, who was leading the Gran Dolina excavation. Ferreras said:

We expected something big, something large, something inflated... you know, something "primitive". Our expectation of an 800,000 years old boy was something like Turkana Boy. And what we found was a totally modern face.... To me this is most spectacular... These are the kinds of things that shake you. Finding something totally unexpected like that. Not finding fossils; finding fossils is unexpected too, and it’s okay. But the most spectacular thing is finding something you thought belonged to the present, in the past. It’s like finding something like... like a tape recorder in Gran Dolina. That would be very surprising. We don’t expect cassettes and tape recorders in the Lower Pleistocene. Finding a modern face it’s the same thing. We were very surprised when we saw it. (82)

The fossil highlighted the fact that the history of Homo sapiens had to be extended back to 800 thousand years ago. After recovering from the initial shock, the evolutionists who discovered the fossil decided that it belonged to a different species, because according to the evolutionary family tree, no Homo sapiens should ever have lived 800 thousand years ago. Therefore, they made up an imaginary species called "Homo antecessor" and included the Atapuerca skull under this classification.

A Hut 1.7 Million Years Old and Footprints of Modern Man 3.6 Million Years Old!

There have been many findings demonstrating that Homo sapiens dates even earlier than 800 thousand years. One of them is the discovery of Louis Leakey made in the early 1970s in Olduvai Gorge. Here, in the Bed II layer, Leakey discovered that the Australopithecus, Homo Habilis and Homo erectus species co-existed at the same time. What is even more interesting was a structure Leakey found in the same layer (Bed II). Here, Leakey found the remains of a stone-hut. The unusual aspect of the event was that this construction, which is still used in some parts of Africa, could only be constructed by Homo sapiens! So, according to the findings of Leakey, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and modern man must have co-existed approximately 1.7 million years ago. (83) This discovery must surely invalidate the evolutionary theory that claims that modern men evolved from any ape-like species like Australopithecus.

Indeed, some other discoveries trace the origins of modern man back to 1.7 million years ago. One of these most important finds is the footprints found in Laetoli, Tanzania by Mary Leakey in 1977. These footprints were found in a layer that was calculated to be 3.6 million years old and more importantly, they were no different from the footprints that a contemporary man would leave.

The footprints found by Mary Leakey were later examined by a number of famous paleoanthropologists like Don Johanson and Tim White. The results were the same. White wrote:

Make no mistake about it,... They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you. (84)

After examining the footprints, Louis Robbins from North California University made the following comments:

The arch is raised-the smaller individual had a higher arch than I do-and the big toe is large and aligned with the second toe... The toes grip the ground like human toes. You do not see this in other animal forms. (85)

Examinations made on the morphological form of the footprints showed time and again that they had to be accepted as the prints of a human, and more, a modern human (Homo sapiens). Russell Tuttle who examined the footprints wrote:

A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them... In all discernible morphological features, the feet of the individuals that made the trails are indistinguishable from those of modern humans. (86)

Impartial examinations of the footprints revealed their real owners. In reality, these footprints consisted of 20 fossilised footprints of a 10 year-old modern human and 27 footprints of an even younger one. They were certainly modern people like ourselves.

This situation put the Laetoli footprints at the centre of discussions for years. Evolutionist paleoanthropologists desperately tried to come up with an explanation as it was hard for them to accept the fact that a modern man had been walking on the earth 3.6 million years ago. During 1990s, this "explanation" started to take shape. The evolutionists decided that these footprints should have been left by an Australopithecus, because according to their theory, it was impossible for a homo species to exist 3.6 years ago. Russell H. Tuttle wrote the following in his article dated 1990:

In sum, the 3.5 million-year-old footprint traits at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that there were made by a member of our genus Homo... In any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy's kind, Australopithecus afarensis. (87)

To put it briefly, these footprints that were supposed to be 3.6 million years old could not have belonged to Australopithecus. The only reason why the footprints were thought to have been left by Australopithecus was the 3.6 million year old volcanic layer in which the footprints were found. The prints were ascribed to Australopithecus on the assumption that humans could not have lived at such an early age.

These interpretations of the Laetoli prints show us a very important reality. Evolutionists support their theory not by considering scientific findings but despite them. Here we have a theory that is being blindly defended no matter what, with all new findings that are against the theory being either ignored or distorted to serve its purposes.

Briefly, the evolutionary theory is not science, but a dogma kept alive despite science.

The Bipedalism Impasse of Evolution

Apart from the fossil record that we have dealt with so far, unclosable anatomical gaps between men and apes also invalidate the fiction of human evolution. One of these gaps has to do with the manner of walking.

Human beings walk upright on their two feet. This is a very special kind of motion not seen in any other species. Some other animals do have a limited ability to move when they stand on two hind feet. Animals like bears and monkeys can move in this way only rarely, such as when they want to reach a source of food and then only for a short time. Normally their skeletons lean forward and they walk on all fours.

Well then, has bipedalism evolved from the quadripedal stride of monkeys as the evolutionists claim?

Of course not. Research has shown that the evolution of bipedalism has never occurred, nor is it possible for it to have occurred. First of all, bipedalism is not an evolutionary advantage. The way in which monkeys move is much easier, faster, and more efficient than man’s bipedal stride. Man can neither move by jumping from tree to tree without stepping on the ground like a chimpanzee, nor run with a speed of 125 kms an hour like a cheetah. On the contrary, since man walks on his two feet, he moves much more slowly on the ground. For the same reason, he is one of the most unprotected of all species in nature in terms of movement and defence. According to the logic of evolution, monkeys should not have evolved to adopt a bipedal stride: humans should instead have evolved to become quadripedal.

Another impasse of the evolutionary claim is that bipedalism does not serve the "gradual development" model of Darwinism. This model, which constitutes the basis of evolution, requires that there should be a "compound" stride between bipedalism and quadripedalism. However, with the computerised research he conducted in 1996, the English paleoanthropologist Robin Crompton, showed that such a "compound" stride was not possible. Cromptom reached the following conclusion: A living being can either walk upright or on all fours. (88) A type of stride in-between cannot be possible because of extreme energy consumption. This is why it is impossible for a half-bipedal being to exist.

The immense gap between man and ape is not limited solely to bipedalism. Many other issues still remain unexplained such as brain capacity, the ability to talk, and so on. Elaine Morgan, an evolutionist paleoanthropologist, makes the following confession in relation to this matter:

Four of the most outstanding mysteries about humans are: 1) why do they walk on two legs? 2) why have they lost their fur? 3) why have they developed such large brains? 4) why did they learn to speak?

The orthodox answers to these questions are: 1) 'We do not yet know'; 2) 'We do not yet know'; 3) 'We do not yet know'; 4) 'We do not yet know'. The list of questions could be considerably lengthened without affecting the monotony of the answers. (89)

Evolution: An Unscientific Faith

Lord Solly Zuckerman is one of the most famous and respected scientists in the U.K. For years, he studied the fossil record and conducted many detailed investigations. He was honoured with the title of "Lord" for his contributions to science. Zuckerman is an evolutionist. Therefore, his comments on evolution can not be regarded as deliberately perverse remarks. After years of research on the fossils included in the human evolution scenario however, he reached the conclusion that there is no such family tree in truth.

Zuckerman also made an interesting "spectrum of science". He formed a spectrum of sciences ranging from those he considered scientific to those he considered unscientific. According to Zuckerman’s spectrum, the most "scientific"-that is, depending on concrete data-fields of science are chemistry and physics. After them come the biological sciences and then the social sciences. At the far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to be most "unscientific", are "extra-sensory perception"-concepts such as telepathy and sixth sense-and finally "human evolution". Zuckerman explains his reasoning:

We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time. (90)

What, then, is the reason that make so many scientists so tenacious about this dogma? Why have they been trying so hard to keep their theory alive, at the cost of having to admit countless conflicts and discarding the evidence they have found?

The only answer is their being afraid of the fact they will have to face in case of abandoning the theory of evolution. The fact they will have to face when they abandon evolution is the fact that man has been created by Allah. However, considering the presuppositions they have and the materialistic philosophy they believe in, creation is an unacceptable concept for evolutionists.

For this reason, they deceive themselves, as well as the world, by using the media with which they co-operate. If they cannot find the necessary fossils, they "fabricate" them either in the form of imaginary pictures or fictitious models and try to give the impression that there indeed exist fossils verifying evolution. Some media organs who share their materialistic point of view also try to deceive the public and instil the story of evolution in people’s subconscious.

No matter how hard they try, the truth is evident: Man has come into existence not through an evolutionary process but by having been created by Allah. Therefore, he is responsible to Him however unwilling he may be to assume this responsibility.


"Early humans were much smarter than we suspected..."

News published in New Scientist on March 14th 1998 tells us that the humans called Homo Erectus by evolutionists were practicing seamanship 700 thousand years ago. These humans, who had enough knowledge and technology to build a vessel and possess a culture that made use of sea transport, can hardly be called "primitive".

The Impasse Of Molecular Evolution

In previous sections of this book, we have related how the fossil record invalidates the theory of evolution. In point of fact we need not have related any of that, because the theory of evolution collapses long before one gets to any claims about the "evolution of species" and the evidence of fossils. The subject that renders the theory meaningless from the very outset is the question of how life first appeared on earth.

When it addresses this question, evolutionary theory claims that life started with a cell that formed by chance. According to the scenario, four billion years ago various inorganic chemical compounds underwent a reaction in the primordial earth atmosphere in which the effects of thunderbolts and pressure caused them to form the first living cell.

The first thing that must be said is that the claim that inorganic materials can come together to form life is an unscientific one that is not verified by any experiment or observation so far. Life only generates from life. Each living cell is formed by the replication of another cell. No one in the world has ever succeeded in forming a living cell by bringing inorganic materials together, not even in the most advanced laboratories.

The theory of evolution claims that the cell of a living being, which cannot be produced even when all the power of the human intellect, knowledge and technology are brought to bear nevertheless managed to form by chance under primordial earth conditions. In the following pages, we will examine why this claim is contrary to the most basic principles of science and reason.

The Tale of the "Cell Produced by Chance"

If one believes that a living cell can come into existence by coincidence, then there is nothing to prevent him from believing a similar story that we will tell below. It is the story of a town:

One day, a lump of clay pressed between the rocks in a barren land becomes wet after the rain. The wet clay dries and hardens when the sun rises, and takes on a stiff, resistant shape. Afterwards, these rocks, which also served as a mould, are somehow smashed into pieces, and then a neat, well-shaped, and strong brick appears. This brick waits under the same natural conditions for years for a similar brick to be formed. This goes on until hundreds and thousands of the same bricks have been formed in the same place. However, by chance, none of the bricks that were previously formed get damaged. Although exposed to storm, rain, wind, scorching sun, and freezing cold for thousands of years, the bricks do not crack, break up, or get dragged away, but wait there in the same place with the same determination for other bricks to form.

When the number of bricks is adequate, they erect a building by being arranged sideways and on top of each other having been randomly dragged along by the effects of natural conditions such as winds, storms, or tornadoes. Meanwhile, materials like cement or soil mixture form under "natural conditions" with perfect timing and creep into the bricks to clamp them to each other. While all this is happening, iron ore under the earth is shaped under "natural conditions" and lays the foundations of a building that is to be formed with these bricks. At the end of this process, a complete building rises with all its materials, carpentry, and installations intact.

Of course, a building does not only consist of a foundation, bricks, and cement. How, then, are the other missing materials to be obtained? The answer is simple: all kinds of materials that are needed for the construction of the building exist in the earth on which it is erected. Silicon for the glass, copper for the electric cables, iron for the columns, beams, water pipes, etc. all exist under the earth in abundant quantities. It takes only the skill of "natural conditions" to shape and place these materials inside the building. All the installations, carpentry, and accessories are placed among the bricks with the help of the blowing wind, rain, and earthquakes. Everything has gone so well that the bricks are arranged so as to leave the necessary window spaces as if they knew that something called glass will be formed later on by natural conditions. Moreover, they have not forgotten to leave some space to allow the installation of water, electricity and heating systems, which are also later to be formed by coincidence. Everything has gone so well that "coincidences" and "natural conditions" produce a perfect design.

If you have managed to sustain your belief in this story so far, then you should have no trouble surmising how the town’s other buildings, plants, highways, sidewalks, substructures, communications, and transportation systems came about. If you possess technical knowledge and if you are fairly conversant with the subject, you can even write an extremely "scientific" book of a few volumes stating your theories about "the evolutionary process of a sewage system and its uniformity with the present structures". You may well be honoured with an academic reward for your bright studies and you may consider yourself a genius shedding light on humanity.

The theory of evolution claims that life came into existence by chance. It is a claim that is no less absurd than our story for, with all its operational systems, systems of communication, transportation and management, a cell is no less complex than any city.

The Miracle in the Cell and the End of the Theory of Evolution

The complex structure of a living cell was unknown in Darwin’s day and at the time, ascribing life to "coincidences and natural conditions" was thought by evolutionists to be convincing enough.

The technology of the 20th century has delved into the tiniest particles of life and has revealed that the cell is the most complex system mankind has ever confronted. Today we know that the cell contains power-stations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all the necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their useable parts, and specialised cell membrane proteins for the in-coming and out-going control of materials. And these constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system.

W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist acknowledges that "the most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man." (91)

A cell is so complex that even the high level of technology attained by mankind cannot produce one. No effort to create an artificial cell has ever met with success. Indeed, attempts to do so have been abandoned.

The theory of evolution claims that this system, which mankind, with all the intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal cannot succeed in producing, came into existence by "chance" under the conditions of primordial earth. To give another example, the probability of the formation of a cell by chance is as unlikely as the chance printing of a book caused by an explosion in a printing-house.

The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in one of his interviews published in Nature magazine dated November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle expressed that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. (92) This means that it is not possible for the cell to come into being by coincidence and therefore, it definitely should have been "created".

One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain how the cell came into existence is the "irreducible complexity" of the cell. A living cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many organelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot remain alive. The cell does not have the chance to wait for unconscious mechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop. Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all the required organelles and functions and this definitely means that this cell had to have been created.


Probabilistic calculations make it clear that complex molecules such as proteins and nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) could not ever have been formed by chance independently of each other. Yet evolutionists have to face the even greater problem that all these complex molecules have to coexist simultaneously in order for life to exist at all. Evolutionary theory is utterly confounded by this requirement. This is a point on which some leading evolutionists have been forced to confession. For instance, Stanley Miller's and Francis Crick's close associate from the University of San Diego California, reputable evolutionist Dr. Leslie Orgel says: 

    It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.(1)

The same fact is also admitted by other scientists: 

    DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither  can DNA form without proteins.(2)

    How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate? For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer.(3)

1 Alexander  I. Oparin, Origin of Life, (1936) NewYork, Dover Publications, 1953 (Reprint), p.196. 
2 Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers", Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, cilt 13, no. 4, 1988, p. 348 
3 Jeffrey Bada, Earth, Subat 1998, p. 40 

Proteins Challenge Coincidences

So much for the cell, but evolution fails even in explaining the building-blocks of a cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of but a single protein out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell is not possible.

Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called "amino acids" that are arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. These molecules constitute the building blocks of a living cell. The simplest is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are some proteins that are composed of thousands of amino acids.

The crucial point is: the absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Every amino acid has to be at the right place and in the right order. The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged as a result of chance, despairs in the face of this order since it is too wondrous to be explained by coincidence. (Furthermore the theory is even not capable of explaining the claim of "coincidental formation" of amino acids, which will be discussed later.)

The fact that the functional structure of proteins can absolutely not come about by chance can easily be observed even by simple probability calculations that anybody can understand.

An average-sized protein molecule is composed of 280 amino acids of which there are twelve different types. These can be arranged in 10300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) Of all these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid chains that are either totally useless or else potentially harmful to living things.

In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein molecule is "1 out of 10300". The probability of this "1" to occur is practically impossible. (In mathematics, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1050 are accepted as "zero probability").

Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is rather a modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" becomes inadequate.

When we proceed one step further in the development scheme of life, we observe that one protein alone means nothing by itself. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma Hominis H39, contains 600 "types" of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability calculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility.

Some who are reading these lines now and who have so far accepted the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation may suspect that these numbers are exaggerated and do not reflect the facts. That is not the case: these are definite and concrete facts. No evolutionist can have an objection to these numbers. They accept that the probability of the coincidental formation of a single protein is "as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes". (93) However, instead of accepting the other explanation, which is creation, they go on defending this impossibility.

The same fact is confessed by many evolutionists. For example, Harold F. Blum, a famous evolutionist scientist states that "the spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability." (94)

Evolutionists claim that molecular evolution took place within a very long period of time and that this long period made the impossible possible. Nevertheless, no matter how long the given period may be, it is not possible for amino acids to form proteins by chance. William Stokes, an American geologist, admits this fact in his book Essentials of Earth History writing that this chance is so small "that it (protein) would not occur during billions of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids." (95)

So what does all this mean? Perry Reeves, a professor of chemistry, answers this question:

When one examines the vast number of possible structures that could result from a simple random combination of amino acids in an evaporating primordial pond, it is mind-boggling to believe that life could have originated in this way. It is more plausible that a Great Builder with a master plan would be required for such a task. (96)

If the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible, it is billions of times more impossible for about one million of those proteins to come together properly by chance and make up a complete human cell. What is more, a cell is at no time composed of a mere protein heap. In addition to the proteins, a cell also includes nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, and many other chemicals like electrolytes arranged in a specific proportion, harmony, and design in terms of both structure and function. Each of them functions as a building block or co-molecule in various organelles.

Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University and a DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation of the 2000 types of proteins found in a single bacteria (There are 200,000 different types of proteins in a human cell). The number that was found was 1 over 1040000. (97) (This is an incredible number obtained by putting 40,000 zeros next to 1)

A professor of applied mathematics and astronomy from University College (Cardiff, Wales), Chandra Wickramasinghe, comments:

The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence. (98)

Sir Fred Hoyle comments on these implausible numbers:

Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific. (99)

The reason Hoyle used the term "psychological" is the self-conditioning of evolutionists not to accept that life could have been created. These people have determined the rejection of Allah’s existence as their main target. For this reason alone, they go on defending unreasonable scenarios which they also acknowledge to be impossible.

Left-handed Proteins

Let us now examine in detail why the evolutionist scenario related to the formation of proteins is impossible.

The correct sequence of proper amino acids is not simply enough for the formation of a protein molecule. Besides this, each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in the composition of proteins must be left-handed. There are two different types of amino acids called "left-handed" and "right-handed". The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person’s right and left hands.

Amino acids of either of these two types can easily bond with one another. An astonishing fact has been revealed through research: all the proteins in plants and animals, from the simplest organism to the most profound, are made up of left-handed amino acids. If even a single right-handed amino acid gets attached to the structure of a protein, the protein is rendered useless. Interestingly enough, in some experiments the bacteria that were given right-handed amino acids immediately destroyed those amino acids and in some cases they formed left-handed amino acids from the fractured components so they could use them.

Let us for an instant suppose that life came into existence by chance as evolutionists claim it did. In this case, the right and left-handed amino acids that were generated by chance should be present in roughly equal amounts in nature. Therefore all living things should have both right and left-handed amino acids in their constitution because chemically it is possible for amino acids of both types to combine with each other. In fact, the proteins existing in all living organisms are made up only of left-handed amino acids.

The question of how proteins can pick out only the left-handed ones from among all amino acids and how not even a single right-handed amino acid becomes involved in the life process is something that still confronts evolutionists. There is no way for them to account for such a specific and conscious selection.

Moreover, this characteristic of proteins intensifies the confusion of the "coincidence" impasse of evolutionists. In order for a "meaningful" protein to be generated, it is not enough for the amino acids to be in a certain number, in a perfect sequence, and to be combined together with the right 3-dimensional design. Additionally, all these amino acids have to be selected from the left-handed ones and not even one right-handed amino acid may exist among them. Yet there is no natural selection mechanism to identify that a right-handed amino acid has been added to the sequence and to recognise that this is erroneous and must therefore be removed from the chain. This situation once more eliminates the possibility of coincidence and chance for good.

In the Brittanica Science Encyclopaedia which is an outspoken defender of evolution, it is indicated that the amino acids of all the living organisms on earth and the building blocks of complex polymers such as proteins have the same left-handed asymmetry. It is added that this is tantamount to tossing a coin a million times and always getting heads. In the same encyclopaedia, it is stated that it is not possible to understand why molecules become left-handed or right-handed and that this choice is fascinatingly related to the source of life on earth. (100)

If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance or to accept that there is conscious intervention? The answer should be obvious. However, despite this apparent obviousness, evolutionists take refuge in coincidence simply because they do not want to accept the existence of "conscious intervention".

A situation similar to the left-handedness of amino acids also exists with nucleotides, the smallest units of DNA and RNA. Unlike the amino acids in living organisms, only the right-handed forms of nucleotides are chosen. This is another situation that can never be explained by coincidence.

As a conclusion, it is definitely proven by the probabilities we have been examining so far that the source of life cannot be explained by chance. If we attempt to calculate the probability of an average-sized protein composed of 400 amino acids being selected only from left-handed amino acids, we come up with a probability of 1 out of 2400, that is 10120. Just for a comparison, let us remember that the number of electrons in the universe is estimated at 1079, which is much smaller than this number. The probability of these amino acids forming the required sequence and functional form would generate much larger numbers. If we adjoin these probabilities and if we expand the subject to the formation of a higher number and type of proteins, the calculations become inconceivable.

Correct Bond is Vital

Even the long list above does not put an end to the impasses of evolution. It is not enough for amino acids to be arranged in the correct numbers, sequences, and required three-dimensional structures. The formation of a protein also requires that amino acid molecules with more than one arm be linked to each other only through certain arms. Such a bond is called a "peptide bond". Amino acids can make different bonds with each other; but proteins are made up of those and only those amino acids, which are joined by "peptide" bonds.

A comparison will clarify this point: Suppose that all the parts of a car were complete and correctly placed with the only exception that one of the wheels was fastened in place not with its nuts and bolts but with a piece of wire in such a way that its hub faced the ground. It would be impossible for such a car to move even the distance of one meter no matter how complex its technology or how powerful its motor. At a first glance, everything seems to be in the right place, but the wrong fixture of even one of the wheels renders the entire car useless. In the same manner, in a protein molecule, the joining of even one amino acid with another with a bond other than a peptide bond renders the entire molecule useless.

Research has shown that amino acids combining at random happen to combine with a peptide bond only at a ratio of 50% and that the rest combined with different bonds that are not present in proteins. To function properly, each amino acid making up a protein must be joined only with a peptide bond in the same way that it has to be chosen only from among the left-handed ones.

This probability is the same as the probability of each protein being left-handed. That is, when we consider a protein made up of 400 amino acids, the probability of all amino acids combining among themselves with only peptide bonds is 1 over 2399.

Zero Probability

As can be seen below, the probability of formation of a protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids is "1" over a number formed by placing 950 zeros next to 1, which is a number incomprehensible for the human mind. This is only a probability on paper. Practically, such a possibility has "0" chance at realisation. In mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 over 1050 is statistically considered to have a "0" probability of realisation.


10950  =


100 .000. 000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000 .000. 000.000 .000.

The probability of an average protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids being arranged in the correct quantity and sequence in addition to the probability of all of the amino acids it contains being only left-handed and being combined with only peptide bonds is "1" over 10950

A probability of "1 over 10950" is far beyond the limits of this definition.

While the improbability of the formation of a protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids reaches such an extent, we can further proceed to push the limits of the mind with higher levels of improbability. In the "haemoglobin" molecule, which is a vital protein, there are 574 amino acids, which is more than the amino acids making up the protein mentioned above. Now consider this: in only one out of the billions of red blood cells in your body, there are "280,000,000" (280 million) haemoglobin molecules.

The supposed age of the earth is not sufficient to afford the formation of even a single protein by a "trial and error" method, let alone a red blood cell. Even if we suppose that the amino acids have combined and decomposed by a "trial and error" method without losing any time since the formation of the world to form a single protein molecule, still the required time period is longer than the world’s present age to catch up with the probability of 1 over 10950.

The conclusion derived from all these is that evolution falls into a terrible abyss of improbability right at the stage of the formation of a single protein.

Is There a Trial and Error Mechanism in Nature?

Finally, we conclude with a very important point in relation to the basic logic of probability calculations, of which we have given some examples. We indicated that probability calculations made above reach astronomical limits and that these astronomical possibilities are practically impossible to occur. However, this is a much more important and chaotic aspect for the evolutionists. It is that under natural conditions, these probabilities cannot even start any trial period at all, because there is no trial and error mechanism in nature that attempts to produce proteins

The calculations we have indicated above to show the probability of the formation of a protein molecule with 500 amino acids are valid only for an ideal "trial and error" environment which does not exist in real life. That is, the probability of obtaining a useful protein is "1" over 10950 only if we suppose that there exists an imaginary mechanism in which an invisible hand joins 500 amino acids at random and then seeing that this is not right, disunites them one by one and arranges them in a different order for the second time, and so on. In each test, the amino acids should be disunited one by one and be arranged in a new order, the synthesis should be stopped after the 500th amino acid has been added and it should be ensured that not even an extra amino acid is involved. The trial should then be stopped to see whether the protein has yet been formed or not, and in case of failure, all should be dissolved and tested for another sequence. Additionally, in each trial, not even one extraneous material should be involved. It is also imperative that the chain formed during the trial should not be detached and destroyed before reaching its 499th bond. These conditions mean that the probabilities we have mentioned above can only take place in a controlled environment where there is a conscious mechanism directing the beginning, end and each stage of the process, and where only "the selection of the amino acids" is left to chance. It is, without doubt, impossible for such an environment to exist under natural conditions. Therefore the formation of a protein in the natural environment is logically and technically impossible, regardless of the "possibility" aspect. In fact, to talk of the probabilities of such an event is quite unscientific.

Some uninstructed evolutionists do not grasp this. Since they assume protein formation to be a simple chemical reaction, they make ludicrous deductions such as "Amino acids combine by way of reaction and then form proteins". However, the accidental chemical reactions taking place in an inorganic structure can only bring about simple and primitive changes. The number of these are certain and limited. For a somewhat more complex chemical material, huge factories, chemical plants, and laboratories have to be involved. Medicines and many other chemical materials we use in our daily life are of the same type. Proteins have much more complex structures than these chemicals produced by industry. Therefore it is impossible for proteins, each of which is a wonder of design and engineering in which every part fits in its place in a certain order, to originate as a result of haphazard chemical reactions.

Let us for a minute put aside all the impossibilities we have described up to now and suppose that a useful protein molecule still evolved spontaneously "by coincidence". Yet at this point, evolution again has no answers, because in order for this protein to sustain its presence, it would need to be isolated from the natural setting that it is in and protected under very special conditions. Otherwise this protein would either disintegrate from exposure to natural earth conditions or else join with other acids, amino acids, or chemical compounds, losing its properties and turning into a totally different and useless substance.

The Evolutionary Fuss Made About Looking for Answers to the Generation of Life

The question of "how living things first appeared" is such a critical impasse for evolutionists that they usually try not even to touch upon this subject. They try to pass over this question by saying "the first creatures came into existence as a result of some random events in water". They are at an road-block that they can by no means get around. In spite of the paleontological evolution arguments, in this subject they have no fossils available to distort and misinterpret as they wish to support their assertions. Therefore, the theory of evolution is definitely refuted from the very beginning.

There is an important point to take into consideration: If any step of the evolutionary process is proven to be impossible, this suffices to prove that the whole theory is totally false and invalid. For instance, by proving that the haphazard formation of proteins is impossible, all other claims regarding the subsequent steps of evolution are also refuted. After this stage, it becomes meaningless to take some man and ape skulls and make speculations about them.

How living organisms came into existence out of inorganic things was a question that evolutionists did not even want to mention for a long time. However this question, which had constantly been avoided, grew to be an inevitable problem and attempts were made to settle it with a series of studies in the second quarter of the 20th century.

The main question was: How could the first living cell have appeared in the primordial atmosphere of the earth? In other words, what kind of an explanation could be brought to this problem by evolutionists?

The answers to the questions were sought through experiments. Evolutionist scientists and researchers carried out laboratory experiments directed at answering these questions but these did not create much interest. The most respected study on the origin of life is the experiment called the Miller Experiment conducted by the American researcher Stanley Miller in 1953. (The experiment is also known as "Urey-Miller Experiment" because of the contribution of Miller’s instructor at the University of Chicago, Harold Urey.)

This experiment is the only "evidence" allegedly used to prove the "molecular evolution thesis" advanced to mark the first stage of the evolution period. Despite the passing of nearly half a century, and the accomplishment of great technological developments, nobody has taken any further steps. In spite of this, Miller’s experiment is still taught in course books as the evolutionary explanation to the earliest generation of living things. Being aware of the fact that such studies do not support them and on the contrary refute their thesis, the evolutionists deliberately avoid embarking on such experiments.

Miller’s experiment

Stanley Miller’s aim was to put forward an experimental discovery showing that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, could have come into existence "by chance" on the lifeless earth billions of years ago.

In his experiment, Miller used a gas mixture that he assumed to have existed on primordial earth (but which later proved to be unrealistic) composed of ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water vapour. Since these gasses would not react with each other under natural conditions, he inserted energy stimulation to the milieu to start a reaction among them. Supposing that this energy could have come from lightning flashes in the primordial atmosphere, he used an artificial electricity discharge source to supply it.

Miller boiled this gas mixture at 1000C for a week, and in addition he introduced an electric current. At the end of the week, Miller analysed the chemicals formed at the bottom of the jar and observed that three out of 20 amino acids, which constitute the basic elements of proteins, were synthesised.

This experiment aroused great excitement among evolutionists and was promoted as an outstanding success. Moreover, in a state of intoxicated euphoria, various publications carried headlines such as "Miller creates life". However, the molecules that Miller had managed to synthesise were only some "inorganic" molecules.

Encouraged by this experiment, evolutionists immediately produced new scenarios. Stages following amino acids were hurriedly hypothesised. Supposedly, amino acids had later united in proper sequences by accident to form the proteins. Some of these chance-formed proteins placed themselves into cell membrane-like structures which "somehow" came into existence and formed a primitive cell. The cells united in time and formed living organisms. However, Miller’s experiment was nothing but make-believe and has since proven to be false in many aspects.

Miller’s Experiment was Nothing but Make-believe

Miller’s experiment sought to prove that the amino acids could form on their own under primordial earth conditions but it has inconsistencies in a number of points. These inconsistencies are as follows:

1. By using a mechanism called a "cold trap", Miller isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed. Had he not done so, the conditions of the environment under which the amino acids were formed would immediately have destroyed these molecules.

Doubtless, this kind of a conscious mechanism of isolation did not exist under the primordial earth conditions. Without such a mechanism, even if one amino acid was obtained, it would immediately be destroyed. The chemist Richard Bliss expresses this contradiction as follows: "Indeed, without this cold trap, the chemical products would have been destroyed by the electric source." (101)

Indeed Miller, in his previous experiments, could not form any single amino acid using the same materials without the cold trap mechanism.

2. The primordial atmospheric environment that Miller attempted to simulate in his experiment was not realistic. In the 1980s, scientists agreed on the view that nitrogen and carbon dioxide should have existed in this artificial environment instead of methane and ammonia. After a long period of silence, Miller himself also confessed that the atmospheric environment he used in his experiment was not realistic. (102)

So why did Miller insist on these gasses? The answer is simple: without ammonia, it was impossible to synthesise an amino acid. Kevin Mc Kean tells about this in an article published in Discover magazine:

Miller and Urey imitated the ancient atmosphere of earth with a mixture of methane and ammonia. According to them, the earth was a true homogeneous mixture of metal, rock and ice. However in the latest studies, it is understood that the earth was very hot at those times and that it was composed of melted nickel and iron. Therefore, the chemical atmosphere of that time should have been formed mostly of nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O). However these are not as appropriate as methane and ammonia for the production of organic molecules. (103)

American scientists J.P. Ferris and C.T. Chen repeated Stanley Miller’s experiment under an atmospheric environment that contained carbon dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen, and water vapour, and were unable to obtain even a single amino acid molecule. (104)

3- Another important point that invalidates Miller’s experiment is that there was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere at the time when they were thought to have been formed. This fact, overlooked by Miller, is revealed by the traces of oxidised iron and uranium found in rocks that are estimated to be 3.5 billion years old. (105)

There are other findings showing that the amount of oxygen at that stage was much higher than originally claimed by evolutionists. Studies also show that at that time, the amount of ultraviolet radiation to which the earth was exposed was ten thousand times more than the estimates of evolutionists. This intense ultraviolet radiation would unavoidably have freed oxygen by decomposing the water vapour and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

This situation completely negates Miller’s experiment, in which oxygen was completely neglected. If oxygen had been used in the experiment, methane would have been decomposed into carbon dioxide and water, and ammonia would have been decomposed into nitrogen and water. On the other hand, in an environment where oxygen did not exist there would be no ozone layer either, therefore the amino acids would have immediately been destroyed since they would have been exposed to very intense ultraviolet rays without the protection of the ozone layer. In other words, with or without oxygen in the primordial world, the result would have been a destructive environment for the amino acids.

4. At the end of Miller’s experiment, many organic acids had been formed with characteristics detrimental to the structure and function of living things. If the amino acids had not been isolated and had been left in the same environment with these chemicals, their destruction or transformation into different compounds through chemical reactions would have been unavoidable.

Moreover, a large number of right-handed amino acids were formed at the end of the experiment. (106) The existence of these amino acids refuted the theory even within its own reasoning because right-handed amino acids were of those amino acids which are unable to function in the composition of living organisms. To conclude, the circumstances in which amino acids were formed in Miller’s experiment were not suitable for life. In truth, this medium took the form of an acidic mixture destroying and oxidising the useful molecules obtained.

There is one concrete reality which all these facts point to: Miller’s experiment cannot claim to have proved that living things formed by chance under primordial earth conditions. The whole experiment is nothing more than a purposeful and controlled laboratory experiment to synthesise amino acids. The amount and types of the gases used in the experiment were ideally determined to enable amino acids to originate. The amount of energy supplied to the system was neither too much nor too little but arranged precisely as to enable the necessary reactions to occur. The experiment apparatus was isolated so that it would not allow the leaking of any harmful, destructive, or any other kind of elements to hinder the formation of amino acids that were likely to be present in the primordial earth conditions. No elements, minerals or compounds that were present in the primordial earth conditions and that were likely to change the course of the reactions were included in the experiment. Oxygen, which would have prevented the formation of amino acids because of oxidation, is only one of these destructive elements. Even under ideal laboratory conditions, it was impossible for the produced amino acids to maintain their existence and avoid destruction without the "cold trap" mechanism.

In fact, with this experiment evolutionists themselves refute evolution for if the experiment proves anything it is that amino acids can only be produced in a controlled laboratory environment where all the conditions are specifically designed by conscious intervention. That is, the power that brings about life cannot be by unconscious chance but rather by conscious creation.

The reason evolutionists do not accept this evident reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organised the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on the subject:

All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did. (107)



Today, Miller’s experiment is a subject totally disregarded even among the evolutionist scientists. In the 1998 February issue of the famous evolutionist science magazine Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled "Life’s Crucible": 

Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Miller’s atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. "It’s a problem," he sighs with exasperation. "How do you make polymers? That’s not so easy."(1) 


As seen, even Miller himself has accepted that, today, his experiment will not lead to any conclusion in terms of bringing an explanation to the origin of life. The fact that our evolutionist scientists embrace this experiment fervently only indicates the misery of evolution, and the desperation of its advocators. 

In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled "The Emergence of Life on Earth", the following is told on this topic: 

Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different from what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia. 

That’s bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules - the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.(2)

In brief, neither Miller’s experiment, nor another evolutionist trial can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance and thus confirms that life is created. 

1. Earth, "Life's Crucible", February 1998, p.34 
2. National Geographic, "The Rise of Life on Earth", March 1998, p.68 

Primordial World Atmosphere and Proteins

Despite all the inconsistencies we have cited above, evolutionists still refer to Miller’s experiment to avoid the question of how amino acids were formed on their own in the primordial world atmosphere. Even today, they continue to deceive people by pretending that the problem has been solved by this fallacious experiment.

However, to explain the second stage of the origin of life, the evolutionists faced a greater problem incomparable to that of the formation of amino acids: "proteins", that is, the building blocks of life which are composed of hundreds of different amino acids uniting with each other in a certain order.

Claiming that proteins were formed by chance under natural conditions is much more unrealistic and unreasonable than claiming that amino acids were formed by chance. In the preceding pages we have studied the mathematical impossibility for the haphazard uniting of amino acids in proper sequences to form proteins with probability calculations. Now, we will examine the impossibility of proteins being produced chemically under primordial earth conditions.

Protein Synthesis is not Possible in Water

When combining to form proteins, amino acids form a special bond among themselves called the "peptide bond". One water molecule is released during this peptide bond formation.

This fact definitely refutes the evolutionist explanation that primordial life originated in water, because according to the "Le Châ telier Principle" in chemistry, it is not possible for a reaction that releases water (condensation reaction) to take place in a hydrate environment. The realisation of this kind of a reaction in a hydrate environment is said to "have the least probability to occur" among all chemical reactions.

Hence oceans, which are claimed to be the places where life began and amino acids originated, are definitely not appropriate settings for amino acids to form proteins. On the other hand, it would be irrational for evolutionists to change their minds and claim that life originated on land, because the only environment where amino acids could have been protected from ultraviolet radiation is the oceans and seas. On land, they would be destroyed because of the ultraviolet rays. The Le Châ telier Principle disproves the claim of the formation of life in the sea. This is another dilemma confronting evolution.

Another Desperate Effort: Fox’s Experiment

Challenged by the above dilemma, evolutionists began to invent unrealistic scenarios on this "water problem" that absolutely refuted their theories. Sydney Fox was one of the best known among these researchers. Fox advanced the following theory to solve this problem. According to him, the first amino acids must have been dragged to some cliffs near a volcano right after their formation in the primordial ocean. The water contained in this mixture that included the amino acids present on the cliffs, must have evaporated when the temperature increased above boiling point. Thus, the amino acids which were "dried", could have combined to form the proteins.

However this "complicated" way out was not accredited by many people, because the amino acids could not endure such high temperatures. Research verified that the amino acids were immediately destroyed at high temperatures.

But Fox did not give up. He combined the purified amino acids in the laboratory "under very special conditions" by heating them in a dry environment. The amino acids combined but still no proteins were obtained. Actually what he acquired were simple and disordered loops of amino acids arbitrarily combined with each other, and these loops were far from resembling any living protein. Furthermore, if Fox had kept the amino acids at a steady temperature, then these useless loops would also be disintegrated. (108)

Another point that nullified the experiment was that Fox used not the useless end products obtained in Miller’s experiment but pure amino acids from living organisms. However, this experiment which was intended to be the continuation of Miller’s experiment, had to set out from the results obtained by Miller. Yet neither Fox, nor any other researcher used the useless amino acids produced by Miller. (109)

Fox’s experiment was not received positively even in evolutionist circles because it was clear that the meaningless amino acid chains (proteinoids) he obtained could not be formed under natural conditions. Moreover, proteins, the basic units of life, could still not be produced. The problem of the origin of proteins still remained standing. In an article in the popular science magazine of the 1970’s, Chemical Engineering News, Fox’s experiment was mentioned as follows:

Sydney Fox and the other researchers managed to unite the amino acids in the shape of "proteinoids" by using very special heating techniques under conditions which in fact did not exist at all in the primordial stages of the earth. Also, they are not at all similar to the very regular proteins present in living things. They are nothing but useless, irregular stains. It was expressed that even if such molecules had formed in the early ages, they would definitely be destroyed. (110)

Indeed, the proteinoids Fox had obtained were totally different from real proteins both in structure and function. The difference between proteins and "proteinoids" was as huge as the difference between a piece of high-tech equipment and a heap of unprocessed raw material.

Furthermore, there was no chance even for these irregular amino acid chains to survive in the primordial atmosphere. Harmful and destructive physical and chemical effects caused by the heavy ultraviolet exposure and unstable natural conditions would cause these proteinoids to disintegrate. Because of the Le Châ telier Principle, it was also impossible for the amino acids to combine under water where ultraviolet rays would not reach them. In view of this, the idea that the proteinoids were the basis of life eventually lost support among scientists.


A number of  evolutionist experiments such as the Miller Experiment and the Fox Experiment have been devised to prove the claim that inanimate matter can organise itself and generate a complex living being. This is an utterly unscientific conviction: every observation and experiment has incontrovertibly proven that matter has no such ability. The famous English astronomer and mathematician Sir Frederick Hoyle notes that matter cannot generate life by itself, without deliberate interference: 

    If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes (proteins produced by living cells) have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You will find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.(1) 

Evolutionist biologist Andrew Scott admits the same fact: 

    Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The 'fundemental' forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest... But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment.(2)

1 Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, New York, Holt, Rinehard & Winston, 1983, p. 256 
2 Andrew Scott, "Update on Genesis", New Scientist, vol. 106, May 2nd, 1985, p. 30 

The Miraculous Molecule: DNA

Our examinations at the molecular level so far have shown that the formation of amino acids has not been illuminated by evolutionists at all. The formation of proteins is a mystery on its own, yet the problem is not limited only to amino acids and proteins: these are only the beginning. Beyond them, the perfect structure of the cell leads the evolutionists to an impasse. The reason is that the cell is not just a heap of amino-acid-structured proteins; it is a living mechanism that has hundreds of developed systems and is so complex that it has rendered man incapable of solving its mystery. Complex systems aside, evolutionists are unable to explain the formation of even the basic units of the cell.

While the theory of evolution has been unable to provide a coherent explanation for the existence of the molecules that are the basis of the cell structure, developments in the science of genetics and the discovery of nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) have produced brand-new problems for the theory of evolution. In 1955, the work of two scientists, James Watson and Francis Crick, on DNA launched a new age in biology. Many scientists directed their attention to the science of genetics. Today, after years of research, the structure of DNA has been revealed to a great extent.

The molecule called DNA, which is found in the nucleus of each of the 100 trillion cells in our body, contains the complete construction plan of the human body. The information regarding all the characteristics of a person, from the physical appearance to the structure of the inner organs, are recorded in DNA by means of a special coding system. The information in DNA is coded within the sequence of four special bases that make up this molecule. These bases are specified as A, T, G, C according to the initial letters of their names. All the structural differences among people depend on the variations in the sequence of these letters. This is a sort of a data-bank composed of four letters.

The sequential order of the letters in DNA determines the structure of a human being down to its slightest details. In addition to features like height, eye, hair and skin colours, DNA of a single cell also contains the design of 206 bones, 600 muscles, a network of 10,000 auditory muscles, a network of 2 million optic nerves, 100 billion nerve cells, 130 billion meter long veins and 100 trillion cells in the body. If we were to write down the information coded in DNA, then we would mean to compile a giant library consisting 900 volumes of encyclopaedias of 500 pages each. This incredibly voluminous information is encoded in the components of DNA called "genes".

Can DNA Come into Being by Chance?

At this point, there is an important detail that deserves attention. An error in the sequence of nucleotides making up a gene would render the gene completely useless. When it is considered that there are 200 thousand genes in the human body, it becomes more evident how impossible it is for millions of nucleotides making up these genes to be formed by coincidence in the right sequence. An evolutionist biologist, Frank Salisbury, comments on this impossibility by saying:

A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension. (111)

The number 41000 is the equivalent of 10600. This number is obtained by adding 600 zeros to 1. As 10 with 11 zeros indicate a trillion, a figure with 600 zeros is indeed a number difficult to grasp. The impossibility of the formation of RNA and DNA by a coincidental accumulation of nucleotides is expressed by the French scientist Paul Auger in the following way:

We have to sharply distinguish the two stages in the chance formation of complex molecules such as nucleotides by chemical events. The production of nucleotides one by one - which is possible- and the combination of these with in very special sequences. The second is absolutely impossible. (112)

Even Francis Crick, who has believed in the theory of molecular evolution for many years, confessed to himself after discovering DNA that such a complex molecule could not be formed by coincidence spontaneously, as a result of an evolutionary process:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle. (113)

Evolutionist Prof. Ali Demirsoy was forced to make the following confession on this issue:

In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is a probability way beyond estimate. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic. (114)

A very interesting dilemma emerges at this point: while DNA can only replicate with the help of some enzymes that are actually proteins, the synthesis of these enzymes can only be realised by the information coded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, either they have to exist at the same time for replication. American microbiologist Jacobson comments on the subject:

Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth-all had to be simultaneously present at that moment (when life began). This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance, and has often been ascribed to divine intervention. (115)

The quotation above was written two years after the disclosure of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick. But despite all the developments in science, this problem remains unsolved for evolutionists. Two German scientists Junker and Scherer explained that the synthesis of each of the molecules required for chemical evolution, necessitates distinct conditions, and that the probability of the compounding of these materials having theoretically very different acquirement methods is zero:

Until now, no experiment is known in which we can obtain all the molecules necessary for chemical evolution. Therefore, it is essential to produce various molecules in different places under very suitable conditions and then to carry them to another place for reaction by protecting them from harmful elements like hydrolysis and photolysis. (116)

In short, the theory of evolution is unable to prove any of the evolutionary stages that allegedly occur at the molecular level. Rather than providing answers to such questions, the progress of science renders them even more complex and inextricable.

Interestingly enough, the evolutionists believe in all of these impossible scenarios as if they are each a scientific fact. Since they are conditioned not to admit creation, they do not have any other chance but to believe in the impossible. A famous biologist from Austria, Michael Denton tells about this subject in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis:

To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence! (117)

Another Evolutionist Vain Attempt: "The RNA World"

The discovery in the 70s that the gasses originally existing in the primitive world atmosphere rendered amino acid synthesis impossible was a big blow for the molecular evolutionary theory. It then was understood that "primitive atmosphere experiments" of evolutionists such as Miller, Fox and Ponnamperuma were invalid. For this reason, in the 80s new evolutionist attempts were put forth. As a result, the scenario of the "RNA World" was advanced, which proposed that it was not the proteins that were formed first, but RNA molecules that contained the information of the proteins.

According to this scenario advanced by Walter Gilbert, a chemist from Harvard in 1986, billions of years ago an RNA molecule that somehow managed to self-copy formed by coincidence. Then this RNA molecule started to produce proteins being activated by external effects. Thereafter, it became necessary to store this information in a second molecule, and somehow the DNA molecule emerged.

Being made up of a chain of impossibilities in each and every stage, this hardly imaginable scenario only magnified the problem and brought up many inextricable questions rather than provide any explanation for the origin of life:

1. When it is impossible to explain the coincidental formation of even one of the nucleotides making up RNA, how can it be possible for these imaginary nucleotides to form RNA by coming together in a proper sequence? Evolutionist biologist John Horgan admits the impossibility of the chance formation of RNA as follows;

As researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA arise initially? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under plausible ones. (118)



The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is accepted as one of the basic laws of physics, holds that under normal conditions all systems left on their own will tend to become disordered, dispersed, and corrupted in direct relation to the amount of time that passes. Everything living or non-living wears out, deteriorates, decays, disintegrates, and is destroyed. This is the absolute end that all beings will face one way or another and according to this law, this unavoidable process has no return. 

This is something that all of us have observed. For example if you take a car to a desert and leave it there, you would hardly expect to find it in a better condition when you came back years later. On the contrary, you would see that its tyres had gone flat, its windows had been broken, its chassis had rusted, and its motor had decayed. The same inevitable process holds true and even more quickly for living things. 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the means by which this natural process is defined with physical equations and calculations. 

This famous law of physics is also known as  "the Law of Entropy". Entropy is the range of the disorder involved in a system in physics. A system’s entropy is increased as it moves towards a more disordered, dispersed, and unplanned state from an ordered, organised, and planned one. The higher a system’s disorder, the higher is its entropy. The Law of Entropy holds that the entire universe unavoidably proceeds towards a more disordered, unplanned, and disorganised state. 

The validity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the Law of Entropy, is experimentally and theoretically established. The most important scientists of our age agree on the fact that The Entropy Law will preside as the ruling paradigm over the next period of history. Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist of our age, said that it is the "premier law of all of science". Sir Arthur Eddington also referred to it as the "supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe".(1)

Evolutionary theory is an assertion that is advanced by totally ignoring this basic and universally true law of physics. The mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts this law. The theory of evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and inorganic atoms and molecules spontaneously came together in time in a certain order and plan to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA after which they gradually brought about millions of different living species with even more complex structures. According to the evolutionary theory, this supposed process that yields a more planned, more ordered, more complex and more organised structure at each stage has formed all by itself under natural conditions. The Law of Entropy makes it clear that this so-called natural  process utterly contradicts the laws of physics. 

Evolutionist scientists are also aware of this fact. J.H. Rush states: 

    In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order.(2)

The evolutionist scientist Roger Lewin expresses the thermodynamic impasse of evolution in an article in Science

    One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more, order.(3)

Another evolutionist scientist, George Stravropoulos states the thermodynamic impossibility of the spontaneous formation of life and the unfeasibility of explaining the existence of complex living mechanisms by natural laws in the well-known evolutionist magazine American Scientist: 

    Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can ever form spontaneously but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with the second law. Indeed, the more complex it is, the more unstable it is, and the more assured, sooner or later, is its disintegration. Photosynthesis and all life processes, and life itself, despite confused or deliberately confusing language, cannot yet be understood in terms of thermodynamics or any other exact science.(4)

As acknowledged, the Second Law of Thermodynamics constitutes an insurmountable obstacle for the scenario of evolution in terms of both science and logic. Unable to put forth any scientific and consistent explanation to overcome this obstacle, evolutionists can only defeat it in their imagination. For instance, the famous evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin notes his belief that evolution overwhelms this law of physics with a "magical power": 

    The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall available energy for life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the exact opposite. We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth.(5)

These words very well indicate that evolution is totally a dogmatic belief. 


Confronted by all these truths, evolutionists have had to  take refuge in a mangling of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, saying that it holds true only for "closed systems" and that "open systems" are beyond the scope of this law. 

An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy matter flow in and out, unlike a "closed system", in which the initial energy and matter remains constant.  Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: that it is constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law of entropy does not apply for the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and inanimate structures. 

However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs a motor, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to convert the energy in gasoline to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the car will not be able to use the energy in gasoline. 

The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts. 

As may be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms could have existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth. Indeed, the real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how complex energy converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in plants, which cannot be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into being on its own. 

The influx of solar energy into the world has no effect that would on its own bring order. No matter how high the temperature may become, amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by itself is not enough to make amino acids form the much more complex molecules of proteins or for proteins to form the much complex and organised structures of cell organelles. The real and essential source of this organization at all levels is conscious design: in a word, creation. 


Quite aware that the Second Law of Thermodynamics renders evolution impossible, some evolutionist scientists have made speculative attempts to close the gap between the two so as to render evolution possible. As usual, even those endeavours show that the theory of evolution faces an inescapable impasse. 

One person distinguished by his efforts to marry thermodynamics and evolution is the Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine. 

Starting out from the Chaos Theory, Prigogine proposed a number of  hypotheses in which order forms from chaos (disorder). Despite his best efforts however, Prigogine has been unable to pull off  the wedding. This is clearly seen in what he says: 

There is another question, which has plagued us for more than a century: What significance does the evolution of a living being have in the world described by thermodynamics, a world of ever-increasing disorder? (6)

Prigogine, who knows quite well that theories at the molecular level are not applicable to living systems, such as a living cell, stresses this problem: 

The problem of biological order involves the transition from the molecular activity to the supermolecular order of the cell. This problem is far from being solved.(7)

This is the point most recently arrived at by Chaos Theory and related speculations. No concrete outcome has been attained that would support or verify evolution or eliminate the contradiction between evolution, entropy, and other physical laws. 

Despite all these evident facts, evolutionists try to take refuge in simple subterfuges. Plain scientific truths show that living things and the ordered, planned, and complex structures of living things could in no way have come into being by coincidence under normal circumstances. This situation makes it clear that the existence of living beings can only be explained by the intervention of a supernatural power. That supernatural power is the creation of Allah, who created the entire universe from nothing. Science has proven that evolution is still impossible as far as thermodynamics is concerned and the existence of life has no explanation but Creation. 

1 Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, New York, Viking Press, 1980, p.6 
2 J. H. Rush, The Dawn of Life, New York, Signet, 1962, p 35 
3 Roger Lewin, "A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity", Science, vol. 217, 24.9.1982, p. 1239 
4 George P. Stravropoulos, "The Frontiers and Limits of Science", American Scientist, vol. 65, 
November-December 1977, p.674 
5 Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, p.55 
6 Ilya Prigogine, Isabelle Stengers, Order Out of Chaos, New York, Bantam Books, 1984, p. 129 
7 Ilya Prigogine, Isabelle Stengers, Order Out of Chaos, p. 175 

The Law of Thermodynamics holds that natural conditions always lead to disorder. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is an unscientific theory that utterly contradicts with this law. 





* Copy Rights; http://www.islamicity.com   http://www.islamology.com http://www.harunyahya.org