... the science of peace




    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 honored 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                         BACK TO TOP   

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 specialized 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                                                                         BACK TO TOP

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                                                                                           BACK TO TOP

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                                                                                           BACK TO TOP

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                                                                                                  BACK TO TOP

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?                                                BACK TO TOP

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.

                                                                                                                                                           BACK TO TOP

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                                                                                              BACK TO TOP

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                                             BACK TO TOP

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                                                        BACK TO TOP

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                                                            BACK TO TOP

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 Ch‚ 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 Ch‚ 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                                                        BACK TO TOP

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 Ch‚ 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                                                                          BACK TO TOP

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?                                                              BACK TO TOP

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"          BACK TO TOP

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

  Imaginary Mechanisms
  The Fossil Record's Refutations
  Deceptive Fossil Interpretations
  Evolution Forgeries
22 The Scenario Of Human Evolution
  The Impasse Of  Molecular Evolution