Sie sind auf Seite 1von 19

Evolution OR Creation

The creationism materialism debate has been established long time ago. Materialistic
dogma claims that there is nothing but matter, so for materialism to be adopted,
creationism has to be eliminated. The Evolution theory is the most well-known
production and so-called "scientific foundation" for materialism. Despite that it is not
based on scientific observations, evolution theory is adopted and strongly defended by
materialistic communities. The reason behind this defense seems to be that the
evolution theory is the only way to describe the origin of life and species based on
materialism. In this paper, the basic aspects of the evolution theory are briefly
described, and it is argued that the theory is falsified. In addition, the real reasons
behind the adoption of the theory are briefly described.

1 Introduction
Religion has always played a significant role in the past of mankind, the diversity of
events taking place in series leading from the ancient times to the present. The most
well-known and spaced religions are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which are
based on creationism. ("Creationism" is defined on the next page). Science is the
product of the general development of human civilization. Scientific theory is a
testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of
being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.
Many beliefs in many religions adapted by wide rages of communities contradict with
well tested and verified scientific theories, or even with human reason. This led to
religious persecutions against philosophers and men of science in many ages.
According to theses persecutions, in addition to other reasons, many scientists have
adopted the doctrine of Atheism, in which a man is free of any religion or belief.
Following this way, many theories have been shown up which deny completely the
existence of any divine forces operating in nature. The most well-known theory in this
field is the Evolution theory.
In this paper, a brief introduction is given about the history of relationship between
science and religion. A brief discussion about the evolution theory is presented. Then
a brief discussion is presented about, are there any contradictions between religion
and true science.

2 What is Religion?
A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a community, involving
adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions,
writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience [1].
Religion has always played a significant role in the past of mankind, the diversity of
events taking place in series leading from the ancient times to the present and still into
the future; " all of this is human history or religions history" the regulation that report
and interprets past religious events linking human beings, it is memorized and sealed
in script [2].

2.1 Creationism
Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were
created in their original form by a deity (often the God of Judaism, Christianity and
Islam) or deities[3]. Religions based on creationism are also called monolithic
religions. The most well-known monolithic religions are Judaism, Christianity and

2.1.1 Judaism

Judaism is the oldest and smallest of the world's monotheistic religions, about 12
million followers around the world. Most of Jews in the world live in Israel and the
USA. To convert to Judaism you have to be loyal to Torah (Jewish Law). In addition
circumcision has to be performed for men. The base of Judaism is to believe that there
is only one God. But this God doesn’t have endless power and knowledge. Jews
believe that God can be beaten by some of his creatures, and may need to study his
law from time to time in order not to forget.

2.1.2 Christianity

Christianity is originated in Palestine in the 1st century AD and is founded on the life
and teachings of the profit Jesus. There are about 2.1 billion followers of Christianity
around the world. Christians are split in many diverse doctrines. The three major
splitting doctrines are Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodox. Christians believe
that there is only one God. This God has endless power and endless knowledge. But
this God has some humane properties, for example he can marry to a human female.
This God can be in one of three cases: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Many Christians
argue that this belief is illogical as it is not logical that the Father and the Son is the
same person. As they found no answer for this question and many others, many
Christians have given up Christianity and converted to Islam or atheism.

2.1.3 Islam

Islam (Arabic for "submission to God") maintains that Muhammad (peace and prayer
be upon him) is the last in a long line of holy prophets, preceded by Adam, Abraham,
Moses, and Jesus. Muslims believe that there is only one God who has endless power
and knowledge. He created the universe by is own well, and so, He is controlling the
whole universe. God doesn’t have any humane properties. Nothing is similar to Him.
He is lonely and doesn’t transform between any different cases or personalities.
Muslims believe in Moses and Jesus as the profits of God.

3 What is Science?
Science is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the
physical world works. Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical
evidence of natural phenomena to collect data and analyze this information. A
scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and
experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses [6].

3.1 What is Scientific Theory?
Scientific theory is a body of knowledge using controlled-variable experimental
methods to construct a formal and mathematically structured system. It studies the
character of natural reality [7].

Karl Popper [8] specified the characteristics of a scientific theory as follows:

1. Confirmations, or verifications, are to be obtained for every theory.

2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions.
3. Every scientific theory forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory
forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory is non-scientific if it is not refutable by any conceivable event.
Irrefutable theory is a vice.
5. A scientific theory must be testable. Every genuine test of a theory is an
attempt to refute, or falsify, the theory. Testability is falsifiability.
6. Confirming evidence count only when it is the result of a genuine test of the
7. Some theories, when found to be false through genuine testing, are still upheld
by their admirers, for example, as he said, “by introducing ad hoc some
auxiliary assumptions or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that
it escapes refutation”.

Many philosophers have argued that Popper's definition of theory as a set of

falsifiable statements is wrong [10] because, as Philip Kitcher has pointed out, if one
took a strictly Popperian view of "theory", observations of Uranus when first
discovered in 1781 would have falsified Newton's celestial mechanics. Rather, people
suggested that another planet influenced Uranus' orbit and this prediction was indeed
eventually confirmed. Kitcher agrees with Popper that "There is surely something
right in the idea that a science can succeed only if it can fail." [11]

The United States National Academy of Sciences [9] states that: “For a theory to
qualify as scientific it must be:

1. consistent (internally and externally)

2. parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
3. useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena)
4. empirically testable and falsifiable
5. based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
6. correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)
7. progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more)
8. tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

4 Is Science against Religion?
Most of the people who developed modern science believed in the existence of God.
They believed that God has created and to perceive His laws and the details in His
creation [12].

Astronomers such as Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo; the father of paleontology,

Cuvier; the pioneer of botany and zoology, Linnaeus; and Isaac Newton, who is
referred to as the "greatest scientist who ever lived", all studied science believing not
only in the existence of God but also that the whole universe came into being as a
result of His creation[12].

Albert Einstein, who is considered as the greatest transcendent scientist, stressed on

that science gives no benefit without belief and stated:

"I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation
may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame"[14].

Max Planck, One of the founders of modern physics, said:

”Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that
over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must
have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with” [15].

So, according to these great scientists, there are no contradictions between science and
the belief in the existence of God as the creator of the universe. The human mind
however is so structured as to comprehend the existence of an organizing will
wherever it sees order [12], and no one can deny the fantastic and amazing order that
exists in every discovered part of the universe.

4.1 Another point of view: Materialism

The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to
exist is matter, and is considered a form of physicalism. Fundamentally, all things are
composed of material entities and all phenomena are the result of material
interactions; therefore, matter is the only substance [16]. Materialistic philosophy
argues that matter has existed for all eternity and there is nothing other than matter
[12]. Materialists believe that there is no God who created the universe, according to
them; science and religion are two opposite directions. The Evolution theory is the
most well-known production and so-called "scientific foundation" for materialism.

5 Theory of Evolution
5.1 A brief history
Charles Robert Darwin is the person who proposed
the theory of evolution. He was born on 12
February 1809 in Shrewsbury, Shropshire into a
wealthy and well-connected family. Darwin took
only and amateur interest in biology, but no formal
education. Because of his interest, he sailed around
the world on the Royal Navy ship HMS Beagle in
the 1830s in a five years expedition. During this
journey, Darwin was impressed by various living
species, especially by certain finches that he noticed
in the Galapagos Islands. An Idea came up in his
mind that the variations in the beaks of those
finches were caused by adaptation to their habitat.
With this idea in mind, he concluded that the origin
of life and species lay in the concept of "adaptation
to the environment" [12].
Charles Darwin

According to Darwin, God did not interfere in the creation of different living species
but they came from a common ancestor and they became differentiated from each
other as a result of natural conditions [12].

Darwin's claim was neither based on a scientific discovery nor experiment, but with
the support of almost all materialist biologists of his time, his claim turned into a
theory. His idea was that any individual animal that was better adapted to its
environment had a better chance of survival and could therefore breed more
successfully and transfer qualities to next generations. Evolution will take place when
these advantageous qualities are accumulated in time and transformed the individual
into a totally different species. Darwin called this process: evolution by natural
selection. Based on natural selection, the origin of each living species is another
former species. According to Darwin, man was the most developed outcome of this
mechanism [12].

In 1859, Darwin published these views in his very famous book: The Origin of
Species By Means of Natural Selection. As his claim has not been based on any
scientific discovery or experiment, Darwin was well aware that his theory faced lots
of problems. The complexity of organs of different organisms and the fossil record,
which is incompatible with his claim, caused very challenging problems to Darwin’s
evolution hypothesis. Therefore he assigned a complete chapter in his book
confessing these challenges. He called this chapter: Difficulties of the Theory [12].
The American physicist Lipson commented on this chapter and stated:

“On reading The Origin of Species, I found that Darwin was much less sure himself
than he is often represented to be; the chapter entitled "Difficulties of the Theory" for

example, shows considerable self-doubt. As a physicist, I was particularly intrigued
by his comments on how the eye would have arisen” [18].

Darwin hoped that these difficulties would be overcome by new discoveries [12].

5.1.1 Critical situation of Darwinism

In 1865, Gregor Mendel, the Austrian botanist, proposed the theories of heredity
based on his work with pea plants. Based on Mendel’s discoveries, the science of
genetics has been born. In 1950s, the structure of the DNA has been discovered. In
1953, James Watson and Francis Crick published a scientific paper presenting the
structure of the DNA-helix. DNA is the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that
carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms [45]. The discovery of the
structure of the DNA put the theory of evolution into very critical situation. The
reason was that the structure of DNA is so complex, furthermore, it caries all
information necessary to create a complete individual. These developments caused the
evolution hypothesis to be no longer logically accepted. Therefore, this should have
been resulted in Darwin's theory being demolished. However, it was not, because
evolutionists insisted on revising and renewing the theory to a scientific platform [12].

5.1.2 Neo-Darwinism
Since Darwinism has been fall into a very critical situation, evolutionist biologists and
materialists had to start working hard and fast in order in order to find a proper
solution. The most challenging question to which Darwinism had to give an answer is:
How and in what mechanism can advantageous variations cause living organisms to
evolve? In order to find a proper answer to this question, a group of evolutionist
scientists of different specializations came together in a meeting organized by the
Geological Society of America in 1941 [12]. The answer which they came up with
after long discussions is: random mutations. Then, by adding mutation as the
evolving mechanism to the evolution hypothesis, they proposed the theory which is
known as: Neo-Darwinism.

There are two considerable comments on their answer: First, it is not logically
accepted that the all complex and well formed individual animals of different species
can be transformed from other species as a result of random mutations. Second, It is
well known that mutations that took place in the genes of organisms are either
harmful, actually most of them are, or have negligible effects which cannot be
considered as a support for the evolution claim. Neo-Darwinists performed lots of
experiments to prove that there are advantageous mutations. All of these experiments
failed. The fact is that there is no one clear example in nature for advantageous

The important question here is: If Neo-Darwinists claim that evolution took place in
nature as a result of advantageous mutations, why then they claim that evolution
needs a very long period of time to take place from one species to another? The fact is
that if the idea of random mutations is approved, then it is not strange to claim that
human has been evolved from frog by random mutations!

The fact is that neo-Darwinism seams to be ideological dogma rather than a scientific
theory. Actually, it functions as a religion for evolutionists. The Darwinist professor
of philosophy and zoology Michael Ruse confesses this in these words:

“And certainly, there's no doubt about it, that in the past, and I think also in the
present, for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements
which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion ... And it seems to me very clear
that at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to
a kind of naturalism.”[21]

5.2 Natural Selection

Natural selection is known as the process by which the genotypes in a population that
are best adapted to the environment increase in frequency relative to less well-adapted
genotypes over a number of generations [46]. This process is well known to biologists
before Darwin time. Darwin was the first one who claimed that natural selection can
evolve a new species from another. His claim had no single scientific evidence.

Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History in
London and a very famous evolutionist, clearly confesses that natural selection has
never been observed to have the ability to cause things to evolve [12]:

“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

5.2.1 Natural Selection and Complexity

The fact is that there is no single scientific evidence which supports the claim that
natural selection can improve the genetic information of a species. The most famous
advocate of punctuated equilibrium, Stephen Jay Gould, refers to this impasse of
natural selection as follows:

“The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative
force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.” [23]

It is clear that evolutionists present natural selection as a conscious designer [12]. This
can be easily concluded because only a conscious designer is able to design the very
complex organs of different living organisms. Most of these organs are too complex
to be formed through evolution. If we took some examples of the human organs such
as: the eye, the ear, and the brain, we can easily conclude that by logic these organs
are too complex to have evolved. In addition, these organs are composed of a great
number of parts cooperating together, and are of no use if even one of these parts is
missing or defective [12].

Since natural selection has no intelligence, it is not capable of forming any of these
organs even through a very large number of evolutionary steps. This fact worried
Darwin, who wrote:

"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." [24].

Through natural selection, individuals with higher fitness are more likely to reproduce
than are individuals with lower fitness. Natural selection cannot produce new species
or new organs. Darwin accepted this fact saying:

"Natural selection can do nothing until favorable variations chance to occur" [25].

This is why neo-Darwinism has had to elevate mutations next to natural selection as
the "cause of beneficial changes" [12].

5.3 Mutation
A mutation is a permanent change, a structural alteration, in the DNA or RNA.
Mutations can be caused by many factors including environmental insults such as
radiation and mutagenic chemicals. Mutations are sometimes attributed to random
chance events [26]. 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 [12]. This is
actually because the very complex structure of DNA, so that, any random change can
damage it. B.G. Ranganathan states:

“First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are
harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes;
any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the
better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such
as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building
which, in all probability, would not be an improvement”. [27]

The evolutionist Warren Weaver states:

“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?” [28]

5.4 The biggest myth: Origin of Life

Theory of evolution claims that life started with a cell that formed by chance.
According to this scenario, four billion years ago various lifeless chemical compounds
underwent a reaction in the primordial atmosphere on the earth in which the effects of
thunderbolts and atmospheric pressure led to the formation of the first living cell [12].

First, this claim cannot be adopted as fact simply because it is not verified by any
scientific observation or experiment. Second, it is scientifically non-logic, simply
because organic molecules are so complex that their formation cannot possibly be

explained as being coincidental and it is manifestly impossible for an organic cell to
have been formed by chance. It is well known that, till now it is not possible to form a
living cell by bringing inanimate materials together, not even in the most advanced
laboratories with the help of modern technology.

One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain how the cell
came into existence is the "irreducible complexity" in it. 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.

The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar
comparison in an interview published in Nature magazine. Although an evolutionist
himself, Hoyle stated that:
“The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to
the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing
747 from the materials therein” [40].

5.4.1 Formation of Proteins

The fact is that formation, under natural conditions, of just one single protein out of
the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell is impossible [12].
This can be deduced as follows:

The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids [47]. 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. Each amino acid has to be in the proper place and
in the right order.

Harun Yahya, The famous Turkish writer states:

“An average-sized protein molecule is composed of 288 amino acids, and contains
twelve different types of amino acids can be arranged in 10 300 different ways. 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/ 10 300 which is practically zero. (In practice, probabilities smaller than
1 over 10 50 are thought of as "zero probability")” [12].

Some evolutionists accept that the probability of the incidental 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"[41].

Harold F. Blum, a very famous evolutionist scientist, states that "The spontaneous
formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all
probability" [42].

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

“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” [43].

6 A question about “Chance”

I had many discussions myself with many evolutionists about the origin of life. In
these discussions we discussed the complexity of the living cell. I asked every one of
them one question: Please give me any scientific or logical description that my mind
can accept, on how a living cell can be formed by chance!

They were separated into two groups:

One group gave the answer that: You have to take the time factor into account. It is
not accepted that only chance can form a living cell, but chance in addition to
billions of years can.

William Stokes, an American geologist, admits this fact in his book Essentials of
Earth History, writing that the probability is so small and stated:

"It 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" [42].

The answer is also so naïve simply because time factor is not effective when talking
about chance. Chance remains chance and is not dependent on time. Time factor is
effective only in one case: if there is trial and error, and that there have been
millions of billions of trails along the billions of years age in order to reach the right
structure of one living cell. If this case is to be considered, no one can deny the fact
that to perform trial and error there must be someone, an intelligent thing, to perform
each trial then deduce that the result is wrong, which will lead him to perform the next
trial…etc. And this thing must be fast enough to perform these trials so fast, and must
be intelligent enough and has a very strong memory in order not two repeat one false
trial out of millions of billions of trials. So, even if we took the time factor into
account, there is no possibility for the process of life creation to be performed without

The other group stated: It is not logically accepted, but it is the only assumption we
have to describe the origin of life. There is only one other assumption, that life is
created by God, which cannot be scientifically accepted. So, we have to adopt the
first assumption.

This answer is more logical than the first one. But let us take an un-biased look on
there answer. Why the concept of God is not scientifically accepted?

Materialists say that: Creationists claim that God created everything and that He is
the origin of everything, but when we ask Creationists: Who created God? What is
His origin? They reply saying: God has no origin. He is the origin and the creator
of everything. No one created Him.
This answer is completely unacceptable logically or scientifically, simply because
every existing thing must have an origin.

The reply is so simple. Materialists claim that matter is the origin of everything, and
in the same time, they claim that everything must have an origin. These two claims
are contradicting each other, simply because they cannot be used together to answer
the following question:

What is the origin of matter? How did the first matter originated?

No materialist can answer these questions.

So, we have only two hypotheses: First, life is formed by chance from matter, and
second, life and matter are created by God.
Both hypotheses don’t give scientific description for the first origin (i.e. the origin of
matter for materialism, and the origin of God for creationism). But the second
hypothesis is closer to being scientific as it assumes that formation of the very
complex and ordered forms of life and the fantastic ordered universe are created by a
centre of endless intelligence and endless power Who is God, while materialistic
hypothesis assumes that all forms of life are created by chance, which has no sort of
intelligence, in addition to long period of time.
Taking into account that the creation hypothesis exists long time before evolution
hypothesis. If the evolution hypothesis is to falsify the creation hypothesis, then the
evolution hypothesis must be more logical and more scientific than the creation
hypothesis. The fact is that the evolution hypothesis has no scientific or logical base.
The logical action in this case is to adopt the creation hypothesis till a more
scientifically accepted one is proposed.

An important issue must be considered: Even if we accepted the possibility that life
can be formed by chance can be accepted, why is life so complex, well formed, and
ordered in such a fantastic way? Why it is not in a miss or very simple?

Darwin himself asked similar questions:

“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?” [30].

7 Is the Evolution theory falsifiable?

Many creationists claim that the evolution theory is not falsifiable, so it is not a
scientific theory. My point of view is different: It is falsifiable.

The Evolution theory can be outlined into two main hypotheses: The first tells us
about some things that had happened in the past, and the second tells us about some

things that will happen in the future. In both cases, the assumed time period is
millions of years.

Till now, with the current modern technology, we still cannot have a look in the
future, so the second hypothesis is not falsifiable.

For the first hypothesis, the theory claims that the existing species have not existed in
the same physiological shapes million years ago, but they have transformed from their
predecessor through many transition forms throughout these ages. The only way to
verify or falsify this hypothesis is to be able to have a look at the living organisms that
existed millions of years ago.
If we found out that the living environment has been full of transition forms of life
(taking into account that the number of transition forms must be much larger than the
number of well shaped and complete forms), and the existing species have not been
living in these past ages, then this will be verification for this hypothesis. If we found
out that the living environment has not been full of transition forms of species and/or
the same living organisms have been existed in the same shapes millions of years ago,
then this will be a falsification for this hypothesis.
If the first hypothesis is verified, this cannot be used as a complete verification for the
second hypothesis. But if it is falsified, the second hypothesis, and the whole theory
as well, will be falsified. This is simply because the second hypothesis is based on the

The question is: Is there a way to have a look on the living environment millions of
years ago? The answer is yes, through the fossil record.

7.1 Fossil Record

According to the theory of evolution, every living species has evolved from a
predecessor. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over
millions of years [12]. If this was the case, then numerous intermediary species should
have existed and lived within this long transformation period. 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” [29].

As Darwin himself knows that it is very difficult to verify his assumption based on the
fossil record, 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” [30].

Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist paleontologist comments:

“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” [32].

Derek V. Ager, another famous British paleontologist evolutionist stated:

“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” [31].

Douglas Futuyma, a very famous evolutionist biologist gives a very important


"Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did
not, they must have developed from pre-existing 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." [35].

Richard Dawkins, the Oxford University zoologist, and one of the foremost advocates
of evolutionist thought in the world [12], comments on this fact that seems to
undermine the very foundation of all the arguments of evolution that he has been

“The fossil record proves that transitional forms never existed, no evolution took
place and all species have been created separately in a perfect form. For example…e
the Cambrian strata of rocks... 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” [33].

Despite that Dawkins stated these comments; he is still defending the evolution

Darwin himself argued that:

"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." [34].

Some evolutionists may claim that the large number of missing transition forms
between species, which supposed to be in the same evolution chain, is because the
existing number of fossils is not sufficient, and these gaps will be filled in the future
[12]. As explained by T. Neville George, a professor of paleontology from Glasgow

“There is no need to apologize 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” [36].

7.1.1 Living Fossils

A living fossil can be defined as: “An organism that lived during ancient times and
still lives today, relatively unchanged”. Examples of living fossils are: The
Coelacanth, the horseshoe crab, the gingko tree, cycads, horsetails, club mosses, many
other organisms [37]. Evolutionists claim that all living species have been
transformed from a predecessor, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions
of years. If this claim is true, why many fossils which are similar to living organisms
have been found all over the world, and aged millions of years? Shouldn’t we have
found the fossils of their predecessors instead?

Mark Ridley, a very famous evolutionist commented this situation as follows:

“There are fossils over 300 million years old that are very similar to the modern
species. There have been two conjectures about why these groups have changed so
little, but no general theory. Two possible reasons for the existence of living fossils:

• Stabilizing selection: Some living fossil species live in relatively isolated habitats,
with no apparent competitors; and if their habitats have been stable there will have
been no pressure for them to change.
• Absence of genetic variation: There is no evidence that living fossils have peculiar
genetic systems that might prevent evolutionary change. The amount of protein
polymorphism in modern living fossils has been measured by gel electrophoresis and
is not noticeably low” [39].

The two reasons mentioned by Mark Ridley are simply refutable. For the first, it is
well known that many of the living fossils are animals that live in completely non-
isolated inhabitants with many competitors. The second mentioned reason is just
confusion more than a reason, as the idea actually opposes the evolution assumption.

In an article in the magazine Natural History, Stephen Jay Gould describes this
inconsistency between the fossil record and the theory of evolution:

“The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent
with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their
tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they
disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden
appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady
transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'” [38].

It is quite clear that the fossil record simply refutes the evolution theory, as it simply
falsifies the first hypothesis of the theory. Actually, if we consider it as science, it is
nothing more than falsified science.

8 Darwinism and Racism
One of the most important aspects of Darwinism is racism. Darwin considered that
white Europeans are more advanced than other human races. While Darwin
presumed that man evolved from ape-like creatures, he surmised that some races
developed more than others and that the latter still bore simian features [12]. In his
book, The Descent of Man, which has been published after The Origin of Species,
Darwin commented on the greater differences between men of distinct races [19].
He said:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races
of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the
world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes... will no doubt be exterminated.
The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene
in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as
low as baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the

So, according to Darwin, life is a battle even between different races of mankind.

9 Why Evolution Theory?

If the theory of evolution can be hardly accepted as a scientific hypothesis, and it is
actually falsified, so, why does it have this huge amount of consolidation and support?
Why it is included in many essential courses to be taught to our children as a great
and verified scientific theory? Why whenever a scientist or a researcher tries to write
or present his point of view against the theory, he is faced with gibe and merciless
unreasonable attacks from many scientific (materialistic based) communities?

The answer is very simple: It is the only way out.

The only way for atheism and materialism to live is to adopt the evolution theory.
Without this theory, materialists cannot answer many questions:

• Who created life?

• Who created this fantastic order around us?
• Who created these so many species of organisms with this amazing and
fantastic physiological structure?
• Who created man with his fantastic capabilities of mind?

The answer always has been: God created the universe. Evolution theory assumes
that we don't have to refer to God to be able to explain the origin of life and species.
It gives one answer to all of the previous questions: Accident.

Despite that this answer is completely non-logical and opposes human reason, there
no other way to deny God. It is the lonely solution for materialists to be able to say:

“There is no central power or intelligence that created and controlling the universe,
God is a myth and belongs to inchoate thinking.

In the pre-scientific ages, man needed God, which is a fictitious concept, of the
center of intelligence and the source of all power in the universe, the one who can
do any thing and/or change any of the rules of nature at any time by His free well,
simply because He put those rules. Man needed God as a source of power and a
one upon whom he falls back from many disasters and non-describable natural

Now with the evolution of science, man is able to understand most of the natural
events and describe most of the natural laws. Mankind’s ability to control nature is
increasing exponentially. So soon, man kind will be able, with the help of scientific
evolution, to control the whole earth. Everything will be under control, so nothing
will be able to cause harm to man. That is why there is no need for God. Mankind
can do without Him, because simply He is nothing. Fictitious religious concepts
must be destroyed. God has to be removed from our minds where He exists and no
where else.

Believing in God is slavery, and mankind must be free. We must be freed of any
belief. We should formulate our rules our way. We cannot live with stupid religions
that chain us.

We must do our best fighting all beliefs. We have to kill God in human minds”.

This is simply what is inside the mind of every materialist.

Sir Fred Hoyle stated:

“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” [43].

The reason why Hoyle used the term "psychological" is the self-conditioning of
evolutionists not to accept that life could have been created.

10 Conclusion
Despite that the evolution theory has no scientific base; it is strongly adopted and
defended in many scientific communities. The only reason beside this is that it is the
only solution for materialistic dogma to ignore the existence of God. There seems to
be no scientific reasons to adopt the evolution theory, but only psychological. The
only logically accepted assumption for the formation of life is that it is created by
unmeasured intelligence, what points only at one concept: God.

I’d like to repeat the words of Max Plank which titled, “Where is Science going?”:

“Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that
over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must
have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with” [15].

Yes, where is science going?

Is this the way to thank God for all His favors?

At the end I’ll mention an Aya of the Holy Quraan:

“The likeness of the life of the present is as the rain which We send down from
the skies: by its mingling arises the produce of the earth- which provides food for
men and animals: (It grows) till the earth is clad with its golden ornaments and is
decked out (in beauty): the people to whom it belongs think they have all powers
of disposal over it: There reaches it Our command by night or by day, and We
make it like a harvest clean-mown, as if it had not flourished only the day before!
Thus do We explain the Signs in detail for those who reflect”

(Sura: Jonah, Aya: 24)

God help us…

[4]Pojman, Louis P (1999). in Robert Audi: The Cambridge Dictionary of
Philosophy, (2nd edition). "the view that there are no gods".
[5] Eller, David (2004). Natural Atheism, p 12.
[6] scientific method, Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
[8] Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, London: Routledge and Keagan Paul,
1963, pp. 33-39; from Theodore Schick, ed., Readings in the Philosophy of
Science, Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2000, pp. 9-13.
[9] Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences,
Second Edition (1999) National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
[10] Hempel. C.G. 1951 "Problems and Changes in the Empiricist Criterion of
Meaning" in Aspects of Scientific Explanation. Glencoe: the Free Press. Quine,
W.V.O 1952 "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" reprinted in From a Logical Point of
View. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
[11] Philip Kitcher 1982 Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Page 45
Cambridge: The MIT Press.
[12] Harun Yahya,”The Evolution Decint”, TA-HA PUBLISHERS, UNITED
KINGDOM, 1999.
[13] Dan Graves, Science of Faith: Forty-Eight Biographies of Historic Scientists and
Their Christian Faith, Grand Rapids, MI, Kregel Resources.
[14] Science, Philosophy, And Religion: A Symposium,1941, CH.13.
[15] Max Planck, Where is Science Going?,
[17] Harun Yahya, “New Research Demolishes Evolution”, 2008.
[18] H. S. Lipson, "A Physicist's View of Darwin's Theory", Evolution Trends in
Plants, Vol 2, No. 1, 1988, p. 6.

[19] Benjamin Farrington, What Darwin Really Said?, London: Sphere Books, 1791
pp. 54-56.
[20] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd ed., New York: A.L. Burt Co., 1874
p. 178.
[21] Michael Ruse, "Nonliteralist Antievolution", AAAS Symposium: "The New
Antievolutionism," February 13, 1993, Boston, MA
[22] Colin Patterson, "Cladistics", Interview with Brian Leek, Peter Franz, March 4,
1982, BBC.
[23] Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Natural History, Vol 86,
July-August 1977, p. 28.
[24] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard
University Press, 1964, p. 189.
[25] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard
University Press, 1964, p. 177.
[27] B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988.
[28] Warren Weaver, "Genetic effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, Vol 123, June
29, 1956, p. 1159.
[29] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard
University Press, 1964, p. 179.
[30] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard
University Press, 1964, pp. 172, 280.
[31] Derek V. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record", Proceedings of the British
Geological Association, Vol 87, 1976, p. 133.
[32] Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January
19, 1981, p. 56.
[33] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, London: W. W. Norton 1986, p. 229.
[34] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard
University Press, 1964, p. 302.
[35] Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, New York: Pantheon Books, 1983, p. 197.
[36] T. Neville George, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective", Science Progress, Vol
48, January 1960, pp. 1, 3.
[38] Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5,
May 1977, p. 14.
[39] Mark Ridley, ”Evolution”, Blackwell Science; 2nd edition (November 1996).
[40] "Hoyle on Evolution", Nature, Vol 294, November 12, 1981, p. 105.
[41] Ali Demirsoy, Kahtim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara: Meteksan
Publishing Co., 1984, p. 64.
[42] W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co.,
1991, p. 304.
[43] Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, New York, Simon
& Schuster, 1984, p. 148.
[47] Tomihiko Higut, Yutaka Yoshiha, and Kayo Kuroiw, “A Simple, Rapid Method
for Purification of €-Subunit, Coupling Factor 6, Subunit d, and Subunit e from
Rat Liver H+-ATP Synthase and Determination of the Complete Amino Acid

267, No. 31, Issue of November 5.