EVOLUTION

Science or Ideology?

irfan Yilmaz

Translated by Neva Tuna

TUGHRA
II DIS
New Jersey
Copyright© 2008 by Tughrn Books
Originally published in Turkish as I 10 Soruda Yaralllr.f ve Evrim Tarll.fmasr in 2008

11100908 1234

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording
or by any information storage and retrieval system without permission in writing
from the Publisher.

Published by Tughrn Books

26 Worlds Fair Dr. Unit C
Somerset, New Jersey, 08873, USA

www.tughrabooks.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Yilmaz, Irfan.
[101 soruda yaratilis ve evrim tartisniasi. English]
Evolution : science or ideology? I Irfan Yilmaz.
p.cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-59784-118-4 (pbk.)
I. Evolution (Biology) 2. Creationism. 3. Evolution (Biology)--Religious as-
pects--Islam. l. Title.
QH367.3. Y5513 2008
576.8--dc22
2008048153

Printed by
Neje Matbaacthk Istanbul - Turlr.ey
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ............................................................... ........................................ vii

l. A Perspective on Science and Belief ........................................................ 1

2. Arguments on the Origin of Life .......................................................... 15

3. Evolution and Creation: What Do They Promise? ............................... 29

4. Biological Mechanisms in Narurc ........................................................ 39

NaruraJ selection or the food chain of the ecosystem~ ........................... 42
Mutation: A Mysterious Key, or Random Bullets
Not Missing the Target? ...................................................................... 53
The Cell and Genetics ..................................................................... 53
Experiments and Observations ...... ·····················-·················--····----- 65
Macro mutations ................................................................. ........... 68
Can Struggle Explain Everything By lt>elf? ..................................... 71
Adaptation, or Generic Insurance of Sun'ivaJ? ...................................... 74
Natural Selection and Adaptation from the Perspective ofCrearion ...... 81
Fugitives from the Gene Pool ............................................................... 86
Static and Dynamic Species: The Secret of Adaptation ................... 97

5. Evidence for the Theory of Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? .... 101

What Do Paleontology and Geology Say? .......................................... 103
Daring according co scenario ................ ....................................... 105
Carbon-14 Dating: A Method with Limited Validity .................... 119
Mass Extinction- Discontinous Creation ...... .............................. 127
The Validity of Geological Evidence ..... . ······························ 139
Intermediate Forms . . . . . ... . . . ...... . . . . . ....... .. .... . ............................. 148
From Fish to Amphibians.................... ............................. 152
From the Land to the Sea I From rl1e Sea to the Land ................ 154
Transition from lnverrebrates co Vertebrates ............................... 158
VI Evolulion: Science or Ideology?

From Reptiles to Birds ................................................................. 159

From Reptiles to Mammals... . .......................................... 163
The Horse Story ......................................................................... 167
Climbing Up the Stairs or Taking the Ele,•ator? ................................ 170
Link with Marxism ..................................................................... 179
Is Similarity in Appearance Sufficient?.............................. . ..... 182
What Do Molecular Biology and Genetics Say? .................................. 194
Embryology ...................................................................................... 206
Vestigial Organs? ......................................................................... 212
Homology or a Common Plan in Creation ......................................... 218

6. From the Beginning of the Uni,·erse to the Chosen Earth ................. 223
Explosion: Bull's Eye ......................................................................... 237
The Chosen Planet ............................................................................. 239

7. From an Inorganic to an Organic World: Dice Turning

Up Double Six Each Time .................................................................. 241
From Inanimate to Animate ........ ...................................................... 246

8. Probability Calculations ...................................................................... 269

9. Toward a Model of Creation .............................................................. 287

If There Is A Work of Art, Then There Is An Artist ........................... 293
In Between Religion and Science ........................................................ 302
The Furure of Darn'inism .................................................................. 306

Closing Remarks ..................................................................................... 321

Notes ..................................................................................................... 325
Bibliography ............................................................................................ 335
Index ...................................................................................................... 343
 PREFACE

ver the past thirty-seven years of my career as an aca-

0 demic in biology, I have encountered counrless questions

on evolution and creation. In this book I have endeavored
ro answer these questions. As I was raised with the belief that the
"·hole human race is from Adam and Eve and that neither human
beings nor other species have ever been exposed to any evolution, I
remember being shocked to see the sketches of how apes gradually
mrn into human beings. The skulls found proved this fact with cer-
tainty! Our reachers told us that evolution is no longer a hypothesis
bur a scientifically proven fact. However, none of my reachers who
spoke in defense of evolution could influence me during my elemen-
tary and high school years. When I starred to study Zoology and
Botany at the university I realized that the worst was yet to come.
There was the compulsory Evolution Course given at the department.
What is more, the courses on Systematic Zoology and Botany,
Comparative Anatomy, Physiology, Histology, Embryology and
Generics were all taught in alignment with evolution scenarios. The
~'idea of evolution, was enforced to such an extent that it was con-

verted into a worldview, ideology, dogma- and even a religion to be

believed in. Making matters still worse, there was a shortage of pub-
lications presenting differing or opposing ideas. Nor could I find
satisfying information in religious texts to deal with the issue and
which does nor ignore the biological side of the subject or scientific
progress of the rime.
Vlll Evolution: Science or Ideology?

Wim me bombardments I was exposed to during my college

years, I was seriously at risk of perdition; mat is, I came closer to dying
as an ameist. Thanks to a friend of mine I narrowly escaped such a
deam because of me book he gave me: Nursi's Nature: Cause or Effect?
was me first work mat changed me flow of my life with its convincing
and strong language on the existence of God and His creation of
everything wim His infinite knowledge and willpower. Later, in 1976,
I got hold of ilmi Gerrekler Ipgtnda DanPinizm (Darwinism in the
Light of Scientific Truths). This book was a translated compilation of
John N. Moore's "On Chromosomes, Mutations, and Phylogeny'' 1
and A. N. Field's The Evolution Hoax Exposed. 2 1bis was indeed the first
book I had read that dealt directly with evolution.
In the following years, I starred to follow the publications in
favor of or opposed to evolution, especially those published in the
US. As time has elapsed, I have seen an increasing number of pub-
lications with arguments for or against evolution. After I became an
academician, I readily volunteered to teach the Evolution Course
when all the other faculty members hung back. Other professors
ducked our of teaching this course because they were shying away
from arguing with students and lacking asseniveness and knowl-
edge, they could not face up to differing views and controversies.
Bur I pressed to teach me course as I had focused on this contro-
versial issue for years. I wanted to teach it not in a strictly imposing
way that shows evolution to be "an absolutely proven law" bur in
an objective way with a democratic approach. I also wanted this
course not to be given under the title of"Evolution" but under such
titles as Philosophy of Biology or Biophilosoph,·, given that the
subject is not predicated on empirical research or verified through
experiments and observation.
Those who closely follow scientific developments know that
thought and movements opposing evolution have been growing rap-

Moore, "On Chromosomes, Mucacions, and Phylogeny," Creation Research

Society Quarterly, December 1972, pp. 159-171.
2
Field, T!Jc Evoluticn Hoax Exposed, TAN Books & Publishers, 1971.
 Preface ix

idly, especially in recent decades. In many countries, especially in the

US, scientists have started to increase their vocal opposition to the idea
of evolution-a concept which has, in fact, gained ideological peculiar-
ity rather than biological reality over the years-and are publishing
numerous articles against the theory of evolution through various
institutions and foundations. The effects of this process ofrransforma-
tion all over the world have finally reached Turkey, where evolution
has long been converted into a dogma with a materialistic and positiv-
ist mentality-a dogma which has been taught and imposed most
adamantly. Against the evolutionists' recent collection of signatures in
order for evolution to be taught unilaterally with no reference to cre-
ation at all, I feel that it is necessary for me to speak up.
Throughout mv professional career, I have pointed out all the
claims, evidence, and argumentation for and against evolution in
my lectures. I have let my students express their views freely with-
out intimidating them with low grades or imposing any pressure on
them. I have seen that the lessons were more efficient and interac-
tive and the students had so many questions to ask and really
wanted to deal with the issue. Yet in spite of all this, I became the
burr of the preponderant materialist and positivist mentality in my
countrv. Against the aggressive arrack.. of those who wished to take
the issue of evolution out of the scope of science, fixing it entirely
within an ideological framework and making it a "scientific camou-
flage" for their Marxist and atheist mentality, I have continued to
write articles for various publications under different pen names. I
am also planning to write my memoirs of the difficult and painful
experiences I have gone through as a scientist of zoology. I have
never given up striving for this cause, even though I was treated
unjustly and prevented from being a full professor for nine years.
I shall never forget the moment when my speech was inter-
rupted and I was forcefully removed from the lectern at the aca-
demic conference on "The Problems of Biology Education" held by
the Faculty of Sciences at Istanbul University. Not only was I pre-
vented from presenting my paper, I was also punished by the omis-
X Evolution: Science or Ideology?

sian of my paper from the conference proceedings book. Another

case of such an uncivilized approach victimizing persons who dis-
agree or choose to talk about something different was that of Dr.
Adem Tatli, the professor of botany, who was dismissed from his
position at the university just because he argued against and wrote
about "the evolution taboo.,,
Even though they tried really hard to suppress my arguments and
intimidate me into resigning or to dismiss me from reaching, they
could not find any srudent to attest to the false claim that I could not
reach my courses objectively. To this end, they even used a couple of
atheist srudents to record my lecrures secretly, but all the ambushes
they planned to incriminate me have come to naught. Nowhere in the
world has a scientist been exposed to academic persecution to such a
degree, including in the communist former Soviet Union. As the old
adage says, "The truth will out," so this oppression and persecurion
cannot last and people will finally express their ideas freely.
Doesn't all this show how ideological the idea of evolution has
become? For this reason, I have given my work the subtitle,
"Science or Ideology?" This book will nor be able to put an end to
this struggle-and, as a matter of fact, it should not be expected to
do so. However, I cannot remain silent in the face of unrelenting
attempts to place an atheist ideology at the foundation of the educa-
tion system in the name of "science" by pressure, manipulation,
fabrication and fear. It is to be expected that many scientists who
have long been suppressed in an antidemocratic atmosphere in the
country and especially by the directors of the Turkish Higher
Education Council, who maintained and enforced persistent pres-
sure and control through the use of harsh measures between 1994
and 2008, will be able to express their ideas freely. The articles and
lxx>ks theY will produce will, hopefully, be more in line with the
democratic ambiance of a country preparing to enter the EU.
Since my years as a teaching assistant I have become more
aware of an important fact: The articles and books published on
evolution did not only comprise those written in defense of evolu-
 Preface XI

tion. On the contrary, there were many publications against evolu-

tionary theorY. However, the vast majority of university students
were not even aware of them since publishing was mostly the
monopoly of certain interest groups tightly organized, and advocat-
ing certain thoughts in disregard of other views. What is more,
there was no internet at the time. I lived through the times when
university students were silenced because they queried with their
limited knowledge the dictatorial teaching of evolution and were
reviled by the professors as reactionary bigots.
Over years uf discussion with local and foreign academicians, I
have come to realize that academicians have differing views of evolu-
tionist thought. Whether they are atheist, Muslim, Christian or
agnostic, academicians often do not mean exactly the same thing
when they talk of evolution. Though it seems that there is dichotomy
between theistic and atheistic attitudes towards evolution, in reality
there exists a range of views about evolution. Accordingly, different
people advocate and adhere to different ver.<ions of evolution in
accordance with their own worldvicw, faith and philosophy.
Those academicians that have a strong faith in God and devo-
tion to their religion, whether they are Muslim, Christian or Jew,
believe that evolution is not a scientific theory but a dogma which
is being used as an instrument to deny God, and which has been
converted into a worldwide perception and a belief system.
There are also those who have little devotion to their religion
and are not sensitive about how evolution affects their faith.
Though they have faith in God, they accept evolution as a scien-
tific theory and believe that God has created existence in accordance
with the mechanisms and principles of evolution.
For atheists, on the other hand, evolution is undeniably clear and
is an absolutely proven fact. For such people, evolution is the indis-
pensable foundation of everything and the necessary condition shap-
ing the whole world. As for the agnostics, though they believe in the
ongoing process of evolution, they remark that it is impossible to say
anything certain about the beginning of the universe or life.
xii Evolulion: Science or Ideology?

There are also remarkable differences of opinion among the

believers in heavenly revealed religions. Though they all have faith
in God and stand against the idea of evolution, it is imponant, at
this point, to stress Islam's unique approach to the elucidation of
creation, satisfying both the mind and the hearr. I have tried to be
fair and conscientious in my evaluations, always keeping in mind
the possibility that my Muslim perspective may cast doubts in the
mind of some people who may question my objectivitY. Considering
the tolerant approach of the papacy toward evolution and their
emphasis that evolution can indeed be reconciled with the Christian
faith, I am convinced that the Islamic faith in God and the belief in
the Islamic faith in the intricate and infinite manifestations of such
Divine Attributes and Names in the whole of existence as the All·
Knowing, the All-Powerful, the All-Originating, the All-Governing
and the All-Omnipotent explain the phenomenon of creation best.
In addition, belief in God as a son of static entity, the description
of the universe as a clock which has been wound, or the belief that
God "leaves the universe to the coincidental moves of evolution"
are all far from the Islamic faith. Apan from those who believe in
God and oppose evolutionary theory, those who are too concerned
with being "scientific" and who pull back from their faith for the
sake of sacrosanct "science" constitute the majority among the fol·
lowers of other heavenly revealed religions.
It is also to be nored that there are some Muslim scholars who
argue that "evolution" can be elucidated with Islam and even claim that
some Qur'anic verses allude to it. However, they are deprived of sup·
poners as the related verses refer to creation and spiritual progres.• as a
matter of fact. After this preamble, let us focus on the is.me now.

ENDLESS QUESTIONS

The questions, HWhere did we come from?", "How did we come to

this world?", and "Where are we going?" are simply the most deeply
pondered questions of those who think. Other than the knowledge
 Preface XIII

about creation delivered by the heavenly revealed religions, the

hypothesis of"evolution" is probably the most common claim offered
in answer to the first question.
Such questions are the hallmark of a thinker, and what raises
them is human curiosity. In fact, the drive behind all invention and
discovery is the devotion to research and investigation which stems
from this curiosity. We observe the world and the universe that we
live in, and we gather information about things with this curiosity;
then we analyze this data using our intellect and logic. Some of that
information may not be very important for us-that is, it might not
affect our lives either positively or negatively-but it still might be
a crucial piece of information for those who specialize in and limit
themselves to that particular field of study. For example, for a food
engineer, how radio waves are emitted or how a satellite antenna
works does not hold any significance for his or her profession.
Similarly, an electronics engineer does not usually wonder about
how and which toxins certain bacteria secrete; however, if she or he
experiences food poisoning, then they will go to a doctor and may
learn about which bacteria caused the poisoning.
On the other hand, the questions which interest all human
beings-in that they are related to the reason behind our being in this
world, how we became living beings, and what will happen to us in
the future-will always remain important to us. We hope that by
getting sensible answers to them at different times and under varying
conditions, we will be fully satisfied-including in our minds and
hearts-after we secure their strong approval in our conscience. Our
logic and intellect combined with our souls, demand that we ask such
questions and seek reasonable answers to them in order to obtain
peace in our inner selves.
Uneducated people might not be curious about these questions,
and they may be satisfied with what can be learned from parents or
grandparents. Such people can find peace and comfort in ordinary
life in proportion to their personal beliefS. They will not have any
doubt about their religion and will simply find comfort in the cer-
xiv Evolution: Science or Ideology?

raimy that God creates everything in a way rhar He wishes, and He

extinguishes everything according ro His will. However, the possi-
bility of rwming across such a person these days is very small since
new communication devices have changed the world into a huge
community, and educational developments have brought all kinds of
scientific discussions even ro very small villages far away from urban
centers. Now, all types of information, right or wrong, reach people
via many kinds of media devices. While some questions are being
answered in this media bombardment, people have also become con-
fused by incorrect information and prejudicial comments about their
most important values and perspectives, and rhus their central way of
thinking is being turned upside down.
Most people's minds have been confused and the basis of their
beliefs has been shaken by this mass media deluge affecting the whole
world. The belief that "religion and science contradict'' has been
reinforced through misleading propaganda, and the dominant idea
that all creatures, including humans, carne into being by themselves
or by the random influences of forces, called "causes," and evolved
has led the world into a terrible downfall. In the struggle between
theism and atheism, a struggle which started at the beginning of
human life on Earrh, the very important tools of science and technol-
ogy have been used ro support atheism, following the lead of domi-
nant materialistic philosophies, and with the assistance of the mass
media. The basic arguments of atheism-namely, the expressions of
materialism, coincidence and nature-have never varied since the
Ancient Greek times. Only now, the representation of atheism has
been polished with science; hence people have become misguided,
and generations have been thrown into an emptiness of belief and
faith. As a result, humanity is drifting towards catastrophe, falling
ever deeper inro a crisis of belief.
Being only a biological hypothesis, "the idea of evolution" has
been converted into a belief system or worldview, and global com-
munities have been shaken by the directive ro believe in ir. In this
book, the degree ro which the idea of evolution is, or is nor scien-
 Preface XV

tific, the truths and deceits of which it is comprised, the artifice

which has been incorporated in it, and subjective comments which
have been made about it will be explained one by one. Although the
topics are dealt with briefly and can be understood by anyone hav-
ing a basic knowledge of high-school biology and general science,
I plan to expand at a later date on the issues which readers may
bring to my attention for further clarification.
In this work the emphasis is primarily on the main ideas,
rather than on technical details. The issues can be analyzed in a
much shorter way as judgmental sentences. However, in that case,
it might seem to have been written with an ideological "obsession,"
in much the same way as evolutionists write their ideas without
demonstrating the truth of their assertions; so I have preferred to
explain some of the topics in detail.
I would like to thank the team that has expended considerable
effort on this book. My sincere thanks go especially to geologist Dr.
Orner Said Gi:ini.illi.i for his help updating the astronomical and
geological information. I am also very grateful to all the employees
ofTughra Books for their meticulous work on the translation, edit-
ing, cover, design and publication of this book.
irfan Y Ilmaz
September 24, 2008
 1

A Perspective on Science and Belief

 A PERSPECTIVE ON SCIENCE
AND BELIEF

ust as believing in creation necessitates believing in the

J Creator, Who has infinite knowledge and power, sufficient to

do everything, and Who is eternal and everlasting, believing
m evolution conversely necessitates disbelieving in the Creator, the
One God, and putting unconscious and senseless laws of narure in
His place. In this case, atoms and coincidence will be considered to
have intellect, sense and knowledge, and those factors are placed in
the position of deity. Many people who do not have the true knowl-
edge of God's names and attributes claim that they believe in God;
however, in thinking that the Theory of Evolution does not contra-
dict the belief in One God, they become disobedient or atheistic
without even realizing it. For, even some of those who accept that
God created the universe in the beginning have a belief that after
the first creation, God let the universe run by itself, like setting up
a clock and that He did not intervene afterwards-that He simply
assigned everything to the laws of narure, and that those laws can
make a.ll the crearures, plants, animals, and even human beings,
come to life coincidentally, all by themselves.
At first glance, many people might not realize that the Theory
of Evolution causes disobedience to God. To be able to achieve this,
the idea of evolution has been erected as an elaborate montage,
decorated very well and hidden under an artificial compilation of
logic. However, when you dig out the subject by questioning it step
by step, in the end, you realize that the foundation of the Theory of
4 Evolulion: Science or ldeolo[D'?

Evolution is chance. You might become confused when you first

notice that chance is the basis of an idea which has dominated the
scientific world for 150 years. Even though it does not make sense
to you how millions of living beings-and their biological systems,
organs, tissues and cells-came into being through the unconscious
forces of nature flowing like a stream, and through the coincidental
reactions of chemical elements, it is expected that you will be help-
less in the face of "science," which has effectively been transformed
into a taboo, and the propaganda of the mass media, which presents
evolution as an event proven with certainty.
This represents such tragic, scientific and media exposure that it
is hard to avoid becoming a disbeliever without having a very strong
knowledge of God. In order to oppose any kind of distortion or lie
under the pretext of science, all knowledge and information that is
produced against evolution is derided as being "old-fashioned,"
"unscientific," ''unprogressive,,, and "dogmatic." If you are a scien-
tist yourself, worse things may happen to you, for the establishment
can do anything to obstruct your academic career; you may face a
media lynching, and any kind of deceit may be used to dismiss
you-simply because you attempt to question the dogma and you
have tried to come up with an alternative idea. Your opponents will
also argue that what you have written in this field does not have any
value since you believe in God. According to this distorted idea, "a
scientist cannot believe in God," "evolution is a certain phenomenon
which cannot be questioned," and hence "only after you accept that
there is evolution can you discuss how it happens."
These explanations should not be considered to be exaggerat-
ed; in fact, the present author has personally experienced such
unfortUnate incidents in the most painful way.
Before starting the debate about "creation versus evolution,"
and prior to discussing the scientific evidence for evolution, a basic
matter has to be clarified. If those who defend the Theory of
Evolution had approached this idea as a matter of belief, no one
could say anything to them, since belief and faith cannot be disput-
 A Perspective from Science and Belief 5

ed. No matter what a person believes in, she or he should be

respected. A' those who believe in God and creation have a right to
believe and have trust in God, those who believe in the Theory of
Evolution and creatures rising to become living beings have the
right to believe in the evolution and existence of creatures through
natural forces. Some people might be atheistic, agnostic or theistic-
and this is a matter of belief which concerns only those people. On
the other hand, they do not have a right to force people to accept
what they believe as "proven, absolute facts,, or as "scientific deter-
minations against which there cannot be any contrary opinion,-
nor, under the guise of"science," to label those who believe in God
as being "unprogressive.,
Nowadays, no one disputes the existence of gravity, air pressure
or the expansion of metals; rather, many physical events are
explained by these phenomena, which are expressed by formulas,
and problems are solved using such formulas. Being the subject of
science, we all know that these matters have nothing to do with
one's belief. However, the existence of angels and the jinn, for
example, is not a scientific subject; rather, it is a matter offaith. Such
concepts are generally not studied with the methods of science,
which are valid in a limited field, and they are not observed or expe-
rienced objectively-rather, they are personal experiences gained by
using one's heart and intuitive faculties, and thus related to a per-
son's belief.
The idea of evolution is neither similar to the laws of physics
mentioned above, nor does it have the character of being experi-
enced by a person's heart and soul. It is simply the subject matter
of belief, attained solely by observing the abundance of creatures in
nature and by interpreting some of the changes in living beings.
From this point, the "Hypothesis of Evolution" is just like a
matter of belief-and yet, it is also a kind of creed. Religion is the
main source for the values which shape a person's life. If a person
believes in God, others will observe the reflections of faith in every
moment of that person's life. So, too, belief in Evolution influences
6 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

the lives of those who adhere to it, and it is a main cause, just like a
religion, in shaping their lives. And certainly, those who believe in
Evolution should have the freedom to "practice" and teach their
beliefs. But it cannot be acceptable for them to attack those who
believe in divine religions and do not think in the same way they do,
or for them to consider their opponents to be enemies of science.
Historically, biology had been descriptive; namely, it had been
seeking to explain what was present since past times. It had tried to
reach deeper and arrive at universal knowledge by observing the
excellent design and harmonious art in living beings, and by gather-
ing information about the structures and operations of the systems,
organs, tissues and cells of plants and animals that we observe in
nature. Further, by analyzing this information, it had been trying
to understand general principles at higher levels. The beauty of a
living being that was examined, the perfect structures that are free
from any imperfections, and the holistic order and operation of the
ecosystem, used to urge every logical and brilliant person to search
tor a Creator.
Contrary to all this, the agreement between religion and sci-
ence was broken by the idea of evolution's assignment of these
perfect structures and mechanisms to mindless and unconscious
random operations of natural laws, instead of assigning the creation
of them to the Creator. Scientific thought became detached from
religious sanctity; simultaneously, science became a taboo which
could not be challenged. The practice of using biology's interpreta-
tion of the beauties of life to cause faith in people's hearts came to
be degraded to viewing life as a phenomenon that arose by itself.
Serving as a cause for technological improvements in astronomy,
engineering and medicine, constructed knowledge in physics and
chemistry increased the courage of those who gave a sense of holi-
ness to science and caused religious people to become timid and
develop the urge to refrain from science. However, these develop-
ments were the fruits of the talents that God gave to humans--Df
hard work, effort and devotion to research and experimentation.
 A Perspective from Science and Belief 7

God created the human being as the most perfect of all creatures
and gave them the authority to manage things on Earth, by raising
them to the position of being a "caliph" over them. Meanwhile,
humans began developing new technologies for their own happi-
ness and comfort, using the knowledge that God gave them, but
thev claimed these improvements as their own successes, and they
attributed every event to the laws of nature while rejecting the
Creator.
Christianity itself weakened under the common pressure of all
these factors; it was not able to recover the authority it lost with the
Renaissance and Reformation, and it fell to materialistic and posi-
ti,·ist ideas of the "new science perception." In this atmosphere, the
"H,·pothesis of Evolution" was made into a primary focus with the
assistance of the mass media and other "dark forces"-hidden agen-
das and influences-which controlled the scientific world. Thus,
c1·cry discovery, and each type of information or data obtained,
came to be interpreted from an evolutionary perspective-and
e1·cry scenario and piece of fiction that was written was commented
on in a way that supported evolution until it became the dominant
p.1radigm. In this way, the idea of evolution, which put on the
apparel of being scientific, was given the most prominent places in
science books. As Rifkin aptly mentioned, evolutionary theory has
been enshrined as the centerpiece of our educational system, and
elaborate walls have been erected around it to protect it from
unnecessary abuse. Great care is taken to ensure that it is not dam-
aged, for even the smallest rupture could seriously call into question
tire entire intellectual foundation of the modern worldview.'
For his part, Huxley spoke nonsense with confidence when he
st;lted that the Darwinian Theory of Evolution is no longer a thea-
''" but a fact. For him, no serious scientist would deny the fact that
evolution has occurred just as he would nor deny that the Earth
goes around the Sun. 2 Yct it is very strange that though it claims to
b..: "scientific," evolutionary theory has never respected a very essen-
ti;tl criterion for scientific studies: to listen to and try to understand
8 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

counter-arguments. In addition, evolutionists strove to make inef-

fective any possible resistance to their ideas bv excluding counter-
arguments as "unscientific" or even "fanatical"; thus, evolutionary
theory earned a "sacred" immunity in time. With the knowledge
God blessed them with humankind has developed technology for
pleasure and comfort; nevertheless, they have attributed all the
progress to their self-achievement and to laws in narure, and thev
have rejected belief in the Almighty Creator.
Darwin was an agnostic as to some of his attirudes, and he was
a deist as to other aspects, but he was acrually a faithful Christian
before he mentioned the hypothesis of evolution, and he even went
to ministry school. Yet, evolutionary thought had a huge impact in
the scientific world after it assumed its shape and was published as a
book. Basically, a couple of major factors can be mentioned regard-
ing the acceptance of evolutionary thought in Europe and about the
rapid spread of the theory among the scientific community.
First of all, the starting point for Darwin was the phenomena
that he observed in nature. At the beginning of the long voyage that
he took on the ship called Beagle, Darwin was amazed by the diver-
sity of living beings, the richness of variations in species, and the
perfection of various adaptations in subspecies. However, the
weakness of his religious understanding, namely his lack of knowl-
edge of God's names and attributes-knowledge that is particularly
exclusive to Islam-left him incapable of properly appreciating or
interpreting this prosperous narure. Meanwhile, Darwin had a
fairly limited realization of"struggle"-a necessity for namral selec-
tion and one of the specific principles of creation in the biological
world-which he speculated was the main principle underlying all
existence. This led him to build all of his theory on struggle, and
this focus on one side of the reality of biological diversity served
to increase his influence over others.
The second factor was the inadequacy of Christian scholarship
in explaining advances in the field of geology. The idea that Earth
had slowly changed over millions of years and had taken the form
 A Perspeclive from Science and Belief 9

it has today was not accepted in the beginning. When relatively

positive evidence was presented to prove that mountains, rivers,
lakes, seas, forests and deserts had gone through many stages, this
made it easier to accept the thought that plants and animals had
also slowly developed and evolved from simple forms over a very
long period of time.
The third factor was that the oppressive behavior of the Christian
establishment during critical historical periods which e>."tended back
to the Inquisition in the Middle Ages broke up the relations between
scientists and the Church. The misinterpretations of Christian theo-
logians, which resulted from literal interpretations of the Biblical
description of creation, was insufficient for a proper understanding
of scientific developments, and thus inherently contradicted man's
intellect and logic according to the needs of the time.
The fourth factor was that the context of the hypothesis of
evolution made it suitable grounds for comment by Marxist, mate-
rialistic and positivistic philosophical movements, as well as making
it serve certain fascist and racist doctrines. Another factor was the
expectations which were caused by rising income and prosperity
levels due to social and economic agitation in various sections of
English society during Queen Victoria's reign.
Evolution does not just consist of the claim, "Humans evolved
from apes," as the public commonly understands it. Even though the
biggest fuss is made over the idea that humans and apes differenti-
ated from the same ancestor by lineage split, this is acrually only a
parr of the evolutionary hypothesis. For this reason, it is possible for
some people to start thinking, "If God wills, He can create both
humans and apes from the same ancestor; or if He wishes, He can
bring man into existence from a living being similar to an ape."
Nevertheless, the basis of evolutionary thought relies on not only the
evolution of humans by itself, but also the evolution of the whole
universe-the evolution of everything, living and nonliving, by coin-
cidence, without needing a Creator. Simply, then, the debate over
humans evolving from apes is the reduced topical extent of the dis-
10 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

cussion in public. Of course, God can create any living being in any
shape according to His will. However, by trying to impose actual
mechanisms (isolation, mutation, adaptation and natural selection)
on the emergence of human beings, evolutionary thought claims that
the laws of nature-blind, mindless and unconscious forces which
came together by coincidence-created all living crearures.
According to evolutionary thought, then, the chain of coinci-
dences that started with the Big Bang sequentially followed one after
the other: they formed all of the galaxy systems, the star islands, bil-
lions of stars, the Milley Way, the solar system, and the Earth-and
the most convenient conditions for life on Earth for all living beings.
Such thinking asserrs that there is no need for a Creator since the
formation of all these mechanisms arose by itself without any knowl-
edge, willpower, power, intention and purpose. Thus, having such a
structure, evolution completely works as a tool of atheism.
Most evolutionists claim that the idea of evolution is a theory,
but for some of them it is almost a definite law. Indeed, evolution
is an idea that cannot go beyond being a hypothesis in its form. No
other hypothesis has been discussed for such a long time in the his-
tory of science. A hypothesis, proposed to explain any event,
becomes a theory--<Jr not-after it has been tested by many exper-
iments and observations, depending on whether the results confirm
it or not. If the hypothesis becomes a theory, then after it is used
for a while, it may either become a law and general principle---due
to the power of its explanation--<Jr it may be abandoned due to its
inadequacy.
Those who believe in evolution have conducted many experi-
ments to confirm their thoughts, and they have made elaborate
comments about countless observations they have made. However,
they have not found sufficient explanations or convincing proofs
beyond a certain level to support their idea; thus, their theory is left
incomplete and insufficient. In reality, we have no idea how condi-
tions were on Earth in the beginning. The first moment of the
creation of the universe, and the amazing, miraculous events that
 A Perspective from Science and Belief II

happened afterwards are not known either. Ideas are made up based
merely on some properties of the present elements and rocks, in the
belief that these are accurate indications of history. In addition,
evolutionists-who have described the conditions on Earth in the
beginning through their own desires---<hose the basic characteris-
tics of the artificial Earth in such a way that it could cause amino
acids, and thus proteins, to emerge by themselves, and then they
planned the Earth's atmosphere according to their dreams. However,
it was found out in these experiments performed within the condi-
tions considered to have existed on Earth at that time, that even
synthesizing one protein molecule, which is the minimum precon-
dition for life to emerge, is not possible. Besides, there arc so many
studies which show that the initial conditions of the Earth and
atmosphere did not take the forms which evolutionists claim. As
the reader will see from the answers to the questions below, despite
the fact that it has continuously been disproved by experiments,
evolution has persistently been defended as a theory. Never before
has a theory which has been exposed to so much refutation been
kept in the spotlight at such a level so as to distract so many people.
In fact, rather than being a law or even a general principle, evolu-
tion can only take its place as a hypothesis in scientific discussions.
Evolution is not a theory, nor has it any relation to science. The
definition of science, its characteristics, and the criteria of being
"scientific," have been explained in detail in countless books of
epistemology and the philosophy of science, and famous philoso-
phers, such as Kuhn, Popper, Lakatos, and Feyerabend, have dis-
cussed the structure of science. In short, science deals with events
that are determined by repeated experiments or by clearly measured
and evaluated data or criteria. Speculation, only, can be made about
events which happened once in the past so that their repetition is
impossible; thus, scientific criteria are not applicable in the search
for the true narure of those phenomena.
According to Karl Popper, in order for a theory to be scien-
tific, it has to give us the opportunity to prove its fallibility through
12 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

scientific experimentation. For example, physics is a true science

because it makes predictions about events, which can then be dis-
proved in principle. In other words, the possibility of demonstrat-
ing fallibility is not a weakness in a scientific field; rather, it pro-
vides a great advantage in terms of verification, and it builds a
strong base for studies in that field. Also, it provides opportunity
for separating error from truth, and the relative applicability of a
theory concordant with "nature" becomes observable. To Popper,
evolution is not scientific like physics and Marxism, since it has the
significant deficiency rhar phenomena arc always being observed
and interpreted only in order to verify it:.
Thus, the attribute of being falsifiable earns the merit of being
a fundamental concept in science, and we may call this "the criteria
of defining the limits." On one side, then, there are theories which
can be disproved through experimentation; on the other side, there
are groups of theories which are unclear and which do not allow
verification through testing. Those in the first group belong to the
field of science, while those in the second group belong to the field
of metaphysics. Evolutionary theory belongs to the second category.
Popper emphasizes the fact that evolution is not a scientific theory,
for Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical
research program; in terms of testable scientific theories, evolution-
ary theory is very rough and open to all kinds of criticisms. He does
not think that Darwinism can explain the origin of life. 3
Philippe Janvier says that a metaphysical theory can be true,
but a weighty deficiency arises. For him it is practically impossible
to test evolutionary rheory. 4 The reason is rhar if the history of life
on Earth, irs emergence and development, is thought of as a frame
by frame, true-life movie, it is not possible ro rewind the movie
and watch it again from the beginning. Since it is argued that evo-
lution occurred over a long (geological) time scale, it is not feasible
to test it through experiments or observations. For this reason, it
is not possible for the natural sciences ro disprove it. A theory
which does not provide the opportunity to disprove it, and rhus is
 A Perspective fi-om Science and Belief 13

nm falsifiable, does not have the qualities required to be accepted

as being scientific.
At least we can say that we are faced with a shameful and bewil-
dering situation. Just thinking or claiming that evolutionary theory
is scientific, on the other hand, does not simply make it suitable for
scientific testing. It cannot be observed, derived or measured.
However, its advocates want it to be considered a cenain and prov-
able fact about both the beginning and progress of life. In such a
case, every self-respecting scientist who has any confidence at all
would, and should, ask for concrete evidence about it. Yet, Russian
biochemist Alexander Oparin aptly says, "If we are after proof, we
will never be able to attain it. " 5 In his opinion, it is not possible to
find evidence in chemistry or physics concerning the biological
formation of the first creature.
Yet, if we cannot prove evolution by scientific methods, then
likewise, we cannot prove the opposite. This is undoubtedly a rea-
sonable assertion. The same thing is also true for all other theories
which conrractict the firm conditions which are set for the scientific
method. For, as discussed above, in order for a theory to be accept-
ed scientifically, it has to be open to falsification. In other words, a
theory has to be tested for its truth or falsehood to be proven. A set
of ideas that cannm, in principle, be falsified is simply not scientific.
For example, Newtonian physics is a theory which can be falsified
since Newton's Laws are open to experiments on their valictiry and
can be tested. Conversely, however, it is impossible to determine
whether evolutionary thoughts are scientific truths or not. Even
Darwin himself understood this essential truth. In a letter he wrote
in 1863, he admits that if we descend to details, we can prove that
no species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species
has ever evolved), nor can we prove that the supposed changes are
beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. 6
Therefore, since evolution cannot rely on scientific observa-
tions, it has to be a matter of personal belief. The best thing to be
said about evolutionary theory is that it represents a belief which is
14 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

neither provable nor falsifiable and which is shared by many people

about how life evolved. Certainly, everyone is entided to their own
beliefs, theories and personal opinions. However, evolution advo-
cates claim that evolutionary theory is something beyond being a
matter of belief. According to them, evolution is a clear fact, even
though it cannot be proved, and they do not show any tolerance
towards counter-arguments about the fundamental doctrines of
evolution.
Perhaps some will consider that this is not a tragic situation,
but it is still important to reflect for a moment on the evolutionist's
brutal attitudes while asserting their ideas, and their extreme intol-
erance toward alternative opinions. Such attitudes remind everyone
of a very common pattern of behavior which has been witnessed,
unfortunately, since the beginning of humaniry. Today, evolution-
ists are "devoted believers" with all their faculties: they were bap-
tized in natural selection, they started spreading the good news, and
they began distributing the message to others, so that they, too,
would accept Darwin's doctrines.
 2

Arguments on the Origin of Life

 ARGUMENTS ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

T
he crucial questions are how living beings arose on earth,
how many of them came to life, and how the over two
million animal and plant species which have been identi-
fied spread throughout the world (It is estimated that as many as
10-30 million species may exist). Significant improvements have
been made to the explanation and understanding of biological life
in the fields of anatomy, physiology, genetics, biochemistry and
cytology, and in the area of health and nutrition. Thus, biology is
predicted to be the pioneer among the branches of science in the
twenty-first century. For example, it is expected that the most dif-
ficult problems, such as cancer, AIDS and genetic diseases, will be
solved using biotechnological methods.
In spite of all these advances, the creation of the universe, the
Earth, life and humans all appear likely to remain secrets which exist
beyond the study of science, and which exceed the limits of science.
The claims about the first emergence of creatures will not go beyond
being speculative arguments as no one ever wimessed these events. It
is not possible to repeat the first creation through scientific experi-
ments and observation a.< one might replay a video recording over
and over in slow motion. The reason behind this is twofold: the
impossibility of recreating or regenerating the very first living beings
mentioned above; and the impossibility of designing or establishing
a model of the actual physical and chemical conditions which were
present during the process of the first creation.
18 EvolutiorJ: Science or Ideology?

In addition to this, the human intellect-which IS cunous

about every event, questions everything, and aims to find an expla-
nation for all phenomena--<:ontinues to discuss ideas about the
origin or emergence of life under four categories. Three of those are
the outcome of the human mind and intellect, and the other is
based on divine sources. Simply put, there is no logical way other
than these four in which to consider this subject matter.
1- The most nonsensical and completely discarded argument
regarding the emergence of life is the idea of "abiogenesis"-the
claim that life emerged from lifeless material having no biological
origin whatsoever. According to this view, which is abandoned
today, living beings arose from non-living matter all by themselves.
The ancient Greek philosophers who were the very first advocates of
this theory-namely Aristotle (384-322 HCE), Thales (sixth century
HCE), Anaximander (610-545 HCE), and Xenophanes (560?-478?
BCE)-believed that living beings emerged from non-living matter
through so-called generatW spontanea (spontaneous generation),
entirely on tl1eir own. According to this line of thought, plant bugs
arose from dewdrops; frogs rose from marsh mud; and flies emerged
from decayed wood and organic material. These ideas found a num-
ber of fans in Europe well into the Middle Ages and even up to
modern times. In the seventeenth century, many biologists-;';uch as
a well-known Belgian, Dr. Jean Baptiste van Helmont (1580-1644),
a British scientist, Need.l1am (1713-1781), and a French researcher,
Poucher (1800-1872)-supported the theory of abiogenesis and
conducted experiments related to it. In fact, Van Belmont's thesis
that a mouse would arise from a dirty shirt and wheat in twenty-one
days remains an interesting historical claim relating to this idea.
The argument-which started with the idea that single-celled
living beings were produced in rich organic solutions, such as boiled
straw and meat broth-was vanquished by the experiments of
Francisco Redi (1626--1697), Louis Jablot ( 1645-1723), Spallanzani
(1729-1799) and ultimately, by Louis Pasteur (1822-1895). Upon
completing his experiment, Pasteur concluded that "obtained results
 Arguments on the Origin of Life 19

show that even microscopic living beings cannot be formed without

ancestors resembling them." After it was proven that single-celled
living beings which reproduce in straw and meat broth are acrually
emerging from spores which are transmitted from air to water, and
that the maggots which reproduce on flesh acrually emerge from the
larvae of the flies which leave their eggs on meat, no one continued
to claim that a living being could emerge from non-living matter.
On the other hand, naruralistic theory, which results from the
hypothesis of evolution and which we will mention below, is actu-
ally a kind of "modern abiogenesis." Even after it was understood
clearly that it is impossible for a living being to emerge from non-
living (inorganic) matter, either on its own or coincidentally, efforts
to search for a way to form a living being out of non-living matter
in various fashions through gradual accumulations over time have
been designated as evolution."
2- While abiogenesis is an idea which originated in ancient
times, "cosmic theory," the second idea, became known especially
after advances in astronomy. According to this view, dust pieces in
space, and the organisms on meteorites, such as bacteria, were the
first sources of life on Earth. It is thus claimed that even in the cold,
oxygen-free and lethally radioactive environment of outer space,
some of the organisms on meteorites and asteroids reached high
temperarures due to the friction which resulted when they entered
the atmosphere at high velocities, and they finally reached the Earth
to become the source oflife. This theory, almost abandoned today,
has been criticized from various perspectives, as no reasonable
proof to support it has yet been found. According to current scien-
tific knowledge, it seems impossible for any microorganism to
travel for so long in space through such strong radioactivity, to
survive in spite of the extremely high temperarures caused by fric-
tion upon entering the atmosphere, and to reach Earth safely under
such difficult conditions.
Besides, even if we allow that a living being somehow reached
Earth from outer space or from another planet, another crucial
20 Evolulion: Science or Ideology?

question-how did such a living being arise on that other planet?-

srill remains unanswered. Related to this is an interesting example
where cenain scientists first claimed that a meteorite, which
appeared to have a microscopic formation of worm patterns on it,
had broken off Mars and fallen to Eanh. In the beginning, it was
even suggested that the worm patterns were strucrures which had
formed as a result of bacteria activity, or a type of pathogenic fossil.
However, more recent srudies showed that the patterns were acru-
ally completely inorganic strucrures which were formed at very
high temperarures that would not allow such kinds of life. 7
3- The third argument is "naturalistic theory." Even though
it resembles abiogenesis at first glance, it is acrually different from
it. This is because while an original living being arises directly from
non-living matter according to the idea of abiogenesis, according to
naruralisric theory, a simple li\~ng being emerges first, and then this
simple living being forms a developed organism by evolving over a
very long rime. The idea of evolution is considered naruralistic, for
in order to build a foundation for their arguments based on the first
two ideas explained above, evolutionists use biological processes
most often to explain their materialistic opinions. For this reason,
this theory seems as if it is scientific at first glance-and since it
apparently gathers evidence from narure, it is considered "narural-
istic." Within naruralistic theory, there are two different underlying
hypotheses:
a. The Hypothesis ofAutotrophy: According to the hypothesis of
autotrophy, the first living being arose coincidentally by
itself and thus, that li~ng being had to make its own food
by itself since there was no food in the initial environment
on Eanh, for there was no other life yet. Because of this,
such a living being had to have the ability to synthesize its
own food from inorganic matter using sunlight (photosyn-
thesis) or some son of chemical matter (chemosynthesis).
In other words, according to the hypothesis of autotrophy,
it was necessary for the first living being, which effectively
 Arguments on Ihe Origin of Life 21

had to make its own sustenance, to have very well-devel-

oped enzymes and mature synthesis mechanisms. However,
the complexity of the biochemical reactions related to the
synthesis of organic matter has always been a problem for
this hypothesis. This is because it is so unlikely that a sys-
tem that requires a perfect plan and program could be
established suddenly, by itself, and be instantly ready for
the production of complex molecules, such as sugar, from
solar energy-or immediately able to conven them into
bigger molecules, such as starch and cellulose. The fact is
that it is more reasonable to accept the emergence of such
a complicated living being, with such excellent synthesis
mechanisms, as being possible only through the will of a
Creator Who has infinite knowledge and power. In other
words, no strictly scientific credit can be given to coinci-
dence-and thus, materialists have had to abandon the
hypothesis of autotrophy--one of the supposed pillars or
presuppositions of evolution.
b. The Hypothesis of Heterotrophy: According to the hypothesis
of heterotrophy, the other conceptual foundation or pre-
requisite of evolution, in order for a first primitive living
being to arise, inorganic matter in lifeless nature evolved
for long enough in favorable conditions-presuming first
that lifeless inorganic molecules (i.e., amino acids and pro-
teins) emerged, and then the first primitive cells, complex
cells, and primitive plants and animals-so that complex
plants and animals could eventually come to life randomly
by the coincidental compounding actions of those inor-
ganic molecules.
This assumption of evolution, which seems as if it explains
everything at first glance, was quickly raised to the level of a theory.
Since it supponed Marxist and materialistic views, it was presented
as if it were a proven law that had been confirmed by repeated
experiments. Thus, rather than a biological postulate, the idea of
22 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

evolution became an ideological doctrine-even a religion for

some. As will be explained later on, evolutionary theory posits coin-
cidental chemical reactions and random occurrences of mutations
and natural selection. This idea surely rejects the perfection, the
planned creation, in the universe-and thus, the Creator.
4- The last one is not an argument but the belief in the reality
of creation. It is a belief that all living and nonliving beings were
created with an excellent plan and design by a Creator Who has
infinite knowledge and power. As an obligation of this belief-
which is the foundation of the divine religions-it is understood
that nothing is purposeless. In addition, it is believed that the first
cause of everything is the Creator, One God, Who sees and takes
care of every living being at every moment. Thus, He created and
designed all creatures with the most suitable organs and senses, and
He prepared them for conditions on Earth in a most ideal way.
The realiry of creation is not an opinion; rather, it is the knowl-
edge which is put forward by all divine religions, and which is
agreed upon and confirmed by all prophets and holy books which
have delivered the revelations to humankind. The information
about creation has been conveyed to people in a special form, called
"divine inspiration," by the prophets of God. Divine inspiration is
a way of stating divine declarations, so it cannot be considered a
subject area of science, which is limited by experimentation related
to our material world and sense organs. It is the truth that can be
felt by intellectual, hearrfelt and spiritual experiences and observa-
tions of a person. For this reason, it cannot be constrained within
the confines of science; yet, to make divine inspiration clearer for
human minds, science could offer some evidence that opens hori-
wns, answers doubts, and brings the concept of creation closer to
rationality. In addition, it could help to manifest the impossibility
of disbelief by providing evidence about the fact that creatures
would not, in fact, have come into existence without a Creator.
The most powerful refutation of the theory of evolution and
materialistic philosophy came from Beditizzaman Said Nursi in
 Arguments on the Origin of Life 23

Turkey. Nursi concisely pointed to this issue first in AI-Mathnawi ai-

Nuri which he wrote in Arabic in 1923-24. Later in the 1930s, he
expounded on the topic in a treatise he called "On Narure" which
was published in his Lem'alar (The Gleams). 8 With impressive argu-
mentation Nursi gives convincing examples in this treatise against
the theory of evolution without mentioning it, for Nursi knew athe-
ism was the underl)~ng philosophy. The principles that Nursi pro-
poses in his article can be thought of as an enhanced prescription for
modern versions of abiogenesis, and his perspective is useful and
important in helping us to understand this issue. First, we should
re\~ew, in brief, the onh· four ways in which the existence of li~ng
beings and their perfection and order is considered possible:
a. Living beings come into existence by the random influ-
ences of forces, called "causes," such as air, heat, light,
damp and the forces of attraction in atoms.
b. Living beings come into existence from nonliving beings,
by themselves.
c. Everything is created by "narure."
d. God creates everything.
The impossibility of the first path, wherein "causes make living
beings come into existence," is ultimately explained by probability
calculations. It has been calculated that the probability of combin-
ing 40,000 atoms in a protein molecule in a particular design is 1
out of 10 160 , and the time that would be required for this process
to be completed is 10243 years. Thus, we face a separate problem
regarding whether the astounding odds against such a coincidence
make it even worth discussing. In addition to that, the miraculous
flow of all complex events without any malfunction or confusion in
a living body can never be attributed to unconscious or mindless
causes. A crearure having measure and order must surely arise
through planned organization and a great deal of knowledge; oth-
erwise, it would be impossible for innumerable causes to come
together with agreement in a living being in the most suitable
24 Evolution: Science or /deologr?

amount, time, place and conditions in order to form such a living

being. The uncertainty of the emergence of a living being by the
random influences of forces will also be explained in detail later
using "probability calculus."
The second path implies that in order for any living being come
into existence by itself, all the pieces forming the whole being must
know every detail of this whole being, and they must also be able to
intercommunicate in order to come to an agreement about which
function of the whole body they each will assume, following which
each one then has to take on its respective role. Thus, every single
atom that works in an organism has to have precise knowledge
about it so that the entire body can work and continue it.• functions
properly. As is well known, since matter has a tendency towards
disorder rather than order, it can neither form an orderly strucrure
nor can the necessary energy for the system to function be con-
served. According to the second law of thermodynamics, while it is
only possible for a living system to continue its existence by the
conservation and management of its matter and energy in a con-
trolled fashion, disorder and dispersal occur by themselves-they do
not need any external intervention. In other words, the Creator tak-
ing His will and willpower out of that living being is sufficient for
the system's matter and energy to lose order. In fact, even the sys-
tems that we think of as having their order broken by themselves
actually undergo disorder according to the will of the Creator.
Therefore, there has to be a source of infinite knowledge and power,
for this is a fundamental requirement for presen'ing the order of
matter and energy in living systems and for resisting disorder.
The third path essentially refers to nature as the universe itself,
wherein nature consists of components such as birds, trees, stones,
insects, bacteria, flowers, flies, and so on. If we claim that each
component is created by nature itself, then if we take these compo-
nents away, nothing at all should be left of "nature." Seeing this
impossibiliry of attributing existent things, animate or inanimate,
to nature and seeing all the rules or so-called "laws of nature" which
 A1guments on the Origin ofLife 25

are necessary for the subsistence of nature itself, all existent things
must inevitably be attributed to a form of agency which creates the
laws which are beyond and outside any one of the particular com-
ponents of nature. Thus, the existence of interactions governed by
natural laws presupposes a Lawgiver. In other words, nature is a
work of art, but not the Artist-and the face of the Earth is a paint-
ing, not the Painter Himself-for there must be an Artist Who
creates the painting that we call "nature."
Seeing the impossibility of these three paths, the fourth path,
God's creation of everything with His infinite knowledge and
willpower becomes the only reasonable way to explain the origin
of life.
Some metaphysical questions always arise after new discoveries
in various fields of science. This shows that the ostensible categori-
cal differences berween philosophy and science are actually artificial.
As a maner of fact, Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) comments on
this point in his text entitled "First Principles," from his collection
called Synthetic PhikJsf1Jhy:

[ ... ] At the unermost reach of discovery there arises, and must

eYer arise, the question- What lies beyond? As it is impossible to
think of a limit ro space so a.-. to exclude the idea of space lying
outside that limit, so we cannot conceive of any explanation pro-
found enough ro exclude the question -What is the explanation
of that explanation? Regarding Science as a gradually increa..-.ing
sphere, we may say that every addition to its surface does but
bring it into wider conl.l.ct with surrounding nescience. There
must ever remain therefore two antithetical modes of mental
action. Throughout all future time, as now, the human mind may
occupy itself, not only with ascertained phenomena and their
relations, but also with that unascertained something which phe-
nomena and their relations imply. Hence if knowledge cannot
monopolize consciousness - if it must aJways continue po.'i.-.iblc
for the mind to dwell upon that which transcends knowledge;
then there can never cease to be a place for something of the
nature of Religion; since Religion under all irs forms is distin-
guished from everything else in this, that its subject matter passes
the sphere of[ the intellect] [experience ]9
26 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

Philosophers who speculated on the existence and the begin-

ning of life could never avoid debate with others, for such specula-
tions have a tendencr to become some sort of a worldview. There
was a very serious debate between two French roologists, Cuvier
(1769-1832) and Lamarck (1744-1829). At first glance, it seems
that the dispute was about the difference between the fossils of
vertebrates and invertebrates, but it was actually not limited to this;
rather, the debate had an ideological side. Cuvier, advancing his
idea of catastrophism (recreation after certain extinctions), predi-
cated his thoughts on the Bible. To Cuvier, who saw the disconri-
nuiry among various species, it was impossible to claim the occur-
rence of transformation from one kind of species to another.
Contrary to this, Lamarck thought that species could change "as a
result of time and conditions"-namelv, that the transformation
from one kind of animal to another could occur.
In what was essentially a first debate about the idea of trans-
mutation, which would form Darwinian evolutionary theory in the
future, Lamarck tried to explain "the transformation of species"
based on the idea that some species emerged from others by virtUe
of a hrpothesized "inheritance of acquired characteristics," an idea
which would later be renamed simply as "Lamarckism." As evi-
dence, he claimed that giraffes could arise from a mammalian ani-
mal as big as a goat, for instance, as the result of efforts to reach
from the lower to the upper branches of trees, essentially stretching
their necks over the course of thousands of years. Many believed in
the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics at that time,
and people would continue to believe in it for a very long time.
Indeed, Darwin himself would later embrace this notion. However,
this hypothesis would eventually be abandoned in the twentieth
century due to improvements in genetics and cytology. It became
simple information which almost everyone knows today that
acquired characteristics crumot be transferred to future generations
unless they are transmitted to the genes. Just like the failure of
Weissman's unfortUnate attempts to obtain a tail-less mouse by cut-
 Arguments on rhe Origi" qf Life 27

ring off the tails of mice for a couple of generations, the classic
examples of the falsehood of Lamarckism include the continuity of
uncircumcised children born to Muslim and Jewish children, even
though they ha\·e been circumcised for hundreds of years; and the
unchanging size of Chinese females' feet, even though their feet
were purposefully narrowed in childhood for generations in times
past. We now consider the changes that occur strictly in the pheno-
types (in the ph\·sical appearance or manifestation of a living thing)
but not in the genotypes (in the genes of a living thing) to be
modifications onlv-and it is well known that modifications do not
have any importance for evolutionary theory today.
When Lamarck died, Cuvier wrote Elegy of Lamarck, which
was a kind of academic criticism rather than representing admira-
tion or commendation. The attitudes and feelings ofCuvier toward
Lamarck can easily be ascerrained by reading a couple of passages
from this elegy:
"[Lamarck's evolution] rested on two arbitrary suppositionsj
the one, thar it is the seminal \'apor which organizes the
embryo; the other, that efforts and desires m<1y engender
organs. A system established on such foundations may amuse
the imagination of a poet~ a metaphysician may derive from it
an entirely new series of systems~ but it cannot for a moment
bear the examination of any one who has dissected a hand, a
viscus, or even a feather."

Indeed, Cuvier basically blamed Lamarck for not examining

any organism anatomically. Even though they were buffeted by
Cuvier a little bit, Lamarck's ideas-and especially his theory of
"transformism"-had a cerrain philosophical viewpoint. In any
event, Lamarck was separated from his predecessors in this regard.
For example, before Lamarck, Maupertius (1698-1759), a cos-
mologist and mathematician, affirmed the idea of biological
change (mutation); on the other hand, he also tried to prove the
existence of God by aiming to reach a unique and simple principle
that combines all of the laws in the universe. Lamarck also
28 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

attempted to introduce the hypothesis of transformism, or trans-

mutation, by offering evidence, or what he called, "the pieces of
evidence." Further, he aimed to propose a svstematic correlation
between the fossil records and living invertebrates, and the taxon-
omy of the 150,000 invertebrates and 15,000 vertebrate species
which were known at that time.
So, what happened to the idea of transmutation after Lamarck
died? Needless to say, Cuvier did not support Lamarck's theory.
Since he was predominant not only politically but also scientifically
(he was a universiry rector and had close link.. with the political cir-
cles), he was the one who organized research groups and appointed
students \\~th respect to this purpose. Then, tiftv years later, Darwin's
advocates took control of everything, and they could not bear the
idea of someone else (i.e., Lamarck) having postulated or circulated
of the notion of transmutation other than Darwin.
But Lan1arckism existed and developed in spite of Darwin, and
it even came back as "Neo-Lamarckism" in the United States at the
begiruting of the twentieth century. At that time, most of those who
believed in Darwin and in natural selection as a totally new concept
revived Lamarck's idea of transmutation, and they accepted Darwinian
transmutation as an improved version of Lamarck's transmutation.
This comment was first expressed by one of Darwin's professors, the
British geologist, Sir Charles Lyell. According to Lyell, the only
thing that Darwin did was to improve Lamarck's theory since evolu-
tion, which was described as a transition from one species to the
other, is the fundamental notion behind transmutation.
In the twentieth century, especially Albert Gaudry (1827-1908),
a professor at the Natural History Museum in France, and later, his
student, Marcellin Boule (1861-1942), were pioneers of paleontolo-
gy. Some other paleontologists in different countries, such as Richard
Owen (1804-1892) in England, and Cope and Marsh in the United
States, were also very ambitious to improve on this theory, and Cope
would become the one who would cause the ideas ofNeo-Lamarckism
to be circulated widely.
 3

Evolution and Creation:

What Do They Promise?
 EVOLUTION AND CREATION:
WHAT DO THEY PROMISE?

hen we compare the belief in evolution and the belief

W in creation as to their advantages and disadvantages,

we clearly see how destructive the belief in evolution is
for human nature and social life.
la. The causes of change on which evolution is based are coin-
cidences, random chemical reactions, and casual mutations.
lb. However, according to the belief in creation, none of the
events in nature happens by chance, be it randomly or coincidental·
ly-not in the least.
2a. According to the hypothesis of evolution, biological events
and processes emerge only by means of material cause -effect rela-
tionships.
2b. Conversely, according to the belief in creation, causes can-
not be denied, but they are just the reflections of God's opera-
tions-thus, material causes should be sought as part of our efforts
to understand the ultimate reason behind natural phenomena.
3a. According to the hypothesis of evolution, natural selection
is a hard struggle in which the strong survive and the weak die.
Spiritual realities-such as affection, compassion and dependency-
cannot even be mentioned, let alone be accounted for. Instead of
cooperation and altruism, the dominant, inherent mentality is that
of thinking only about ourselves; thus, the idea that "I don't care if
others die of hunger so long as my own stomach is full," is valid
and reasonable according to the belief in evolution.
32 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

3b. However, according to the belief in creation, narural selection

is not merely a struggle to survive that is lacking in affection and com·
passion. Even though struggle in the competition to survive is evident,
cooperation, solidarity and compassion-veiled by divine compas·
sion-remain indispensable in this struggle. Every event in narure has
a wisdom and purpose that we do not know. For example, it is because
of the need to keep the balance in the ecosystem that weak and
unhealthy animals become food for strong ones. In this way, the sur-
face of Earth does nor become a dumping ground, there is enough
space for new generations as the old and sick are removed from the
environment, and the continuation of the food cycle is assured.
4a. According to the hypothesis of evolution, the laws of narure,
which make life arise from the elements of inorganic matter, do not
have an intellect, consciousness, knowledge or power; and thus, it is
poindess to search for an Authority, or Artist, since these "laws"
apparendy do not have a larger purpose. That is because the arrist of
the laws of narure, according to such thinking, is narure itself. This
logic supposes that any living mechanism is built by the coincidental
activities of the atoms and molecules which form it, and such a living
system operates by itself; therefore, there is no need to look for an
Artist behind any narural mechanism or its function.
4b. In contrast, according to the belief in creation, the laws of
narure are not the Artist but rather, the Artist's products-works of
art that do not have an intellect or consciousness. There is indeed a
Creator, Who establishes the "laws of narure," protects this system
by operating it according to His orders, takes preventive measures to
protect it, and governs those laws under which it functions optimally.
Since everyone admits that a desk or an automobile cannot come into
existence coincidentally by itself, and that a craftsman who makes
such things will need to be found, likewise, it is not possible for a cell
which is millions of times more complex rl1an a desk, or for a human
brain which is trillions of times more complex than an automobile,
to come into existence coincidentally without a Craftsman.
 Evolution and Creation: What Do They Promise? 33

Sa. Some materialists may attribute a hidden consciousness

and intellect to atoms and molecules when they observe their
unfailing functions and the faultless program of each atom in regard
to irs determination of where and when ro move within those bio-
logical processes-and they might even consider atoms and mole-
cules to be sentient crearures with willpower.
Sb. On the other hand, the belief in creation does nor amibure
any knowledge or willpower to atoms and molecules. Atoms and
molecules are particles without any will or consciousness, which
strictly obey the commands of their Creator and fulfill their duties
without any resistance or imperfection in their compliance.
6a. Even though it seems to be an assumption about biology,
evolution has acrually been the basic philosophical substrate for
materialism and atheism for one and a half cenruries. It has unhes-
itatingly been used to oppose belief in God under the appearance
of being scientific. For this reason, evolution should be consid-
ered not as a scientific theory bur rather, as a belief which is con-
trary to religion.
6b. In contrast, the belief in creation is a complete worldview
based on religious resources. There is no difference berween evolu-
tion and creation with respect to the measures for being considered
"scientific" today. The only difference is that evolution is an atheis-
tic worldview and creation is a theistic worldview.
7a. The particular language of those who support the ideol-
ogy of evolution will easily be recognized in their explanations of
narural phenomena: for example, "a living being has developed,"
"developed by evolution," "irs legs disappeared in rime," "gained
by adaptation," "emerged by natural selection." As these phrases
clearly reveal, the underlying claim is that there is no need for a
Creator since the laws of narure themselves somehow "create."
7b. However, those who believe in creation have also devel-
oped their own distinctive phrasing; for instance, "was created in
this form," "was created in the best form," "was planned and
designed in the most perfect way." As this type oflanguage reveals,
34 Evo/Uiion: Science or Ideology?

the Creator of the living being is implied through an emphasis on

harmony and planning, and through the focus on the inherent pro-
gram, organization and systems of natural forms and processes.
Sa. For evolutionists, the presence of appropriate organs in the
body and their excellent functions in an organism result from the
processes of adaptation and natural selection. Thus, it is not reason-
able to search for purpose or wisdom behind these structures, nor
to think about a Creator.
Sb. On the other hand, for "creationists," it is accepted that each
organ has been purposefully made by the Creator for a specific aim,
according to complex divine wisdom. As a matter of fact, since
organic factories like the cell, and complex organs like the eye, are
perfect systems, it is not possible for them to transform from a defec-
tive or partly-developed structure to a fully functioning form strictly
by evolution-for this itself would presuppose a certain purpose.
Does it really make sense to one who has reason and perception to
believe that rwo particular parts of the body could develop coinciden-
tally in order to form an eye or ear, consciously and decidedly, while
nothing was present in their place in the beginning?
9a. According to the hypothesis of evolution, there is no point
to putting humankind in another or higher position by separating
it from other living beings. Afrer all, humankind is just a lirtle dif-
ferent from the ape species; in other words, it is just a slightly more
intelligent animal. From this perspective, humans can simply follow
the most basic animal laws as other animals do; thus, they tacitly
obtain permission to abandon their ethical and humane values.
9b. Yet, according to the belief in creation, humans were delib-
erately and purposefully created to be distinctive from other creatures
on purpose, so that they might know and acknowledge their Creator.
That is why they have been given such faculties as the mind, con-
science, heart, and soul, as well as other attributes which enhance
their perceptive and cognitive abilities. Being the highest of all crea-
tures, humans should demonstrate that they are different in nature
from animals by recognizing their Creator and by following the
 Evolution and Creation: What Do They Promise? 35

ethical principles which their Creator orders in recognition and

gratirude for being created in such an honorable position, and to
demonstrate their understanding of the purpose of his existence.
lOa. The most widespread result of having faith in evolution as
if it were a religion is that as a worldview it is influential and causes
new discussions in almost all fields of science, from astronomy to
sociology, and from physics to psychology. Views such as Marxism
in economics and Freudianism in psychology, along with evolution·
ary theory, have become allies that attack the same target. People
with an understanding that narure is Owner-less, and who do not
admit that they will be called to give account of everything they have
done, are likely to cause the exploitation of the environment as well.
lOb. On the other hand, a faith which is based on one of the
divine religions, and the consequent worldview, will also be reflect-
ed in all scientific endeavors. One's views and evaluations of narure
in different fields of science will then highlight the principles of
one's ethical values and the substance of one's conscience, and the
scientific research which emerges from this perspective will be ben-
eficial to humaniry. Protecting the environment and all life, and
looking after both humankind and narure as trusts from God, will
be the results of this point of view.
In general, serious discussion about the ideas of evolution and
creation is rarely conducted among scientists whose thoughts have
been shaped by these two views. This is because the subject matter
exceeds the limits of science in that it has. a special fearure that
requires interpretation. If the subject matter were within the limits
of science-that is, if experiments and observations were performed
about evolution and creation-then there would not be such a
problem. For example, there is no difficulry with physics problems
that are included within the bounds of science, such as the law of
gravity, the calculation of the expansion of metals, or the lifting
force of water or air pressure. However, it is easily witnessed that
debates are raised and the subject matter is scrutinized as a world-
view or belief even in physics when it comes to any topic below the
36 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

atomistic scale-for instance, quanrum mechanics, antimatter, exis-

tence versus nonexistence, and so on.
The reason behind this is that humans feel the need to believe
in a value system and connect to it as a necessity of their nature
stemming from their creation. In order to satisfY the feeling of
belief and connection that is present in their hearts and conscious-
ness (and it is to be hoped that they come to know the books of the
Universe and the Qur'an or they are left wanting in this regard),
humans either view nature as the "art of the Creator," or as the
natural result of evolution. At this point, the situation of a scientist
has particular significance.
If we think about the fact that all scientists are raised in their
own family environment and in their own society, with certain
values and principles, we cannot expect any one of them to be abso-
lutely objective. In other words, how reasonable or realistic would
it be to expect a scientist to leave his or her belief entirely out of the
laboratory?
A scientist who performs his or her studies from the perspective
offaith-a "scientist offaith"-will always point to the Creator while
interpreting his or her studies. Another one who sees everything from
an atheistic point of view will interpret results according to materialist
and positivist philosophy. Yet, though both of them are clearly con-
sidered to be a belief and worldview, arguments and ideas that are
supposed to be discussed easily in a democratic country are presented
in an offensive and aggressive manner without showing any sign of
respect, tolerance or patience towards those of opposing ideas.
First of all, it is contrary to the methods and discourse of mod-
ern science to present evolution as if all of the issues about it have
been resolved, or as if it has been proven. As a matter of fact, the
evolutionary theory that was first proposed by Darwin always
raised reaction from very broad segments of society. Nonetheless,
evolutionary theory managed to quiet initial reactions-even in the
face of the doubts instilled by religious ideologies within the
Christian Church and particular interpretations of the Bible-partly
 Evolution and Creation: What Do They Promise? 37

because of rhe inadequacy of Christian resources in giving satisfac-

tory answers to rhose early suspicions. Thus, it slowly took its place
in rhe scientific community and began to give rhe impression rhat
it had gained a scientific identity. In rhe meantime, scientists of
fairh stayed silent because rhey feared rhe accusation of being
unprogressive and outdated in rhe oppressive atmosphere rhat was
created by evolutionists, who acrually used rhe public's interest and
trust in science to advance their own vested interests.
The arrangement of ape figures rhat is supposed to picture rhe
gradual rransition from rhe creatures similar to apes to humans rook
its place in textbooks as if it were evidence from nature. These figures
purported to demonstrate how ape-like creatures straightened up on
rheir two feet from four feet, developed bulging lower jawbones and
prominent foreheads, and molted rheir hair. In addition to rhis, a
debate was ignited wirh regard to which particular animals might be
human ancestors, amid rhe branches of pseudo-lineage trees rhat
presumed to show rhe coincidental "derivation" of all animals from
one anorher, from single-celled organisms to mammals.
Yet, even rhough evolution was presented as a proven law in
many countries until rhe 1950s, rhe discussions between rhe advo-
cates of evolutionary rheory and rhe supporters of creation really
heated up after it was understood rhat some of rhe fossils which had
been presented by evolutionists were fake and deficient.
In such an atmosphere-and while it was very hard ro express
any direct thoughts against evolution-Warson and Crick discov-
ered the DNA molecule and presented its stmcture in 1953. With
the discovery of the structure of DNA's double helix, the perfect
structure--Qf a program and process rhat does not allow coinci·
dence in the cell and thus in any living body-became widely
known and so the belief in creation was strengthened once again.
At the same time, some scientists developed new approaches that
disprove evolution to show that creation, the reality shown by reli-
gion, is in complete agreement with the realities which are discov-
ered bv the methods of modern science.
38 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

In tum, each new research venture, and every discovery in the

fields of molecular biology, genetics, biochemistry, cytology,
embryology and physiology, actually shows how little information
scientists have about the phenomenon of life itself-as each new
discovery displays the marvels of complex life even more deeply. As
the realities which are proven and demonstrated by countless com-
plex and perfect biological structures-which cannot possibly have
arisen through coincidence-accumulate, they become an impass-
able obstacle for the notion of evolution. Believers in creation thus
managed to finally escape from the oppressive atmosphere which
was created in the early years of evolutionary ideology, and year by
year, the number of studies that show the deficient and false aspects
of evolutionary theory only increase. Pro-creation institutions, such
as the Institute for Creation Research in the United States, have
been established. Thus, the objections to evolution by scientists
who believe in creation have been strengthened over the past thirty
years, while the evidence supporting evolution has been increas-
ingly, and correspondingly, weakened.
This situation has caused great discussion in many institutions
in the West, and the idea of teaching both schools of thought as
the Philosophy of Biology has started to make headway. Similarly,
in countries like Turkey, various viewpoints have been added to
high school curricula and textbooks since 1980, but this objective
approach has consistently disturbed some advocates of evolutionary
theory. Because of this, they have tried to estrange the idea from its
true purpose by raising objections to teaching creation, such as the
idea that religion may interfere in the public sphere; they have
politicized the issue in a progressivism vs. reactionaryism and anti-
modernism conflict, where belief in creation was purported to stand
for the latter. We look forward to a near future where all kinds of
thought can be freely supported and no one is persecuted for their
ideas. I believe tolerant, bias-free discussion, in which both religion
and science arc duly respected and not set up as rivals, will yield
synthesized thoughts and brand-new combinations of ideas.
 4

Biological Mechanisms in Nature

 BIOLOGICAL MECHANISMS IN NATURE

efore we go on to the specific examples from various areas

B of science and their interpretation as accepted evidence by

those who claim that evolution occurred, it has to be said
that if evolution occurred, then there have to be some basic bio-
logical principles underlying the mechanisms by which such an
evolutionary process emerged. In order for the hypothesis of evolu-
tion to wear a scientific costume, in other words, such biological
principles have great significance and people are mostly misled
about this issue.
The most important reason for the success of the evolutionists'
presentation of their hypothesis as a theory or law is that they stan
from the biological principles placed by God in nature; however,
they completely misinterpret or misrepresent these principles in a
way which is contrary to their purpose. Since their initial points of
argumentation are biological principles that everyone accepts to a
certain degree, the resultant fallacy, and the defective understanding
which results, is perceived as if it were true. Those who first attempt-
ed to oppose the theory of evolution were nor able to understand
this logical trick and embarked on a path wherein they denied some
biological facts while aiming to oppose the theory of evolution. But
as improvements in research and analytical methods showed the
trurl1 of the biological principles, an erroneous conclusion formed in
the minds of many that the theory of evolution, which hinged on
these principles-albeit with critical distortions-was m1e.
42 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

However, there is no point on denying those basic biological

principles, which we will explain below. It will rather be under·
stood that all scientific fields-such as molecular biology, genetics,
embryology, physiology and anatomy-point to creation through
marvelous order and harmony when those principles are correctly
interpreted. The fundamental reason for insisting on the idea of
evolution as a certain principle simply because it wears the apparel
of being scientific is the faulty interpretation of biological princi-
ples-which are simply the declaration of the perfect harmony
between the genetic program of a living system and the environ-
ment where it lives-as evolutionary scenarios. Simply put, due to
their proficiency in covering the tautological suggestions that evo-
lutionists offered from within the triangle of mutation, adaptation,
and natural selection, due to their perfect familiarity with the
enduring paradoxes, and due to their inclination towards interpret-
ing every result to their own benefit, they have managed to give an
appearance of scientific fact to their evolutionary ideas. Below, we
discuss the real values of these three biological mechanisms and
how evolutionists interpret them

NATURAL SELECTION OR THE FOOD CHAIN

OF THE ECOSYSTEM?

Another hard-line approach of those who support evolution is that

they consider nature a place for struggle. Nonetheless, our interest
in and awe at all points of narure shows how beautifully it was cre-
ated and how amazingly it is maintained. Millions of varieties of
species and their innumerable living members sustain their lives in
different latitudes and regions. Each appears to be a small or large
component of a system that functions in perfect synchrony.
Discovering those biological mechanisms at the macro- and micro-
levels that constitute such processes and analyzing them in depth
became possible in the twentieth century as a result of improve-
ments in science and technology.
 Biological Mechanisms in Nalure 43

Evolution theorists often interpret the life of living beings in

narure in terms of the precondition of evolution by narural selec-
tion. Narural selection has a merit up to a certain point, but it is not
a fundamental law that is always acceptable. Besides, narural selec-
tion indicates a law of creation put in place to provide sustenance
for all living beings by means of the food chain, which is the basis
of the ecosystem.
When there are changes in environmenral conditions, such as
extreme temperarures, drought, brackishness of water, infectious
diseases, starvation, varied pH concentrations--or in the event that
the individuals of a certain species migrate to a different environ-
ment-some variations that are neutral or harmless might, in fact,
become important and the individuals in possession of them can
thereby find more favorable living conditions. Thus, some indi-
viduals become superior through the advantage of variations in the
new conditions, and their chances of staying alive compared to oth-
ers might increase. Seen from this perspective, physical and bio-
logical conditions carry a duty of being a type of"sieve" for narural
selection in such a way that living beings which are qualified to live
pass this sieve, while those that are not qualified die by "jamming"
in the sieve, as it were.
On the other hand, there is not a brutal struggle in narure
where only the strongest survive. Daily, we witness the reflections
of mercy and compassion in the operation of cooperation and soli-
darity alongside competition. Those who see the struggle of a small
animal population within a restricted area as the basis for all of life's
interactions fall into the error of their inadequate observations.
When we pay attention to the overall harmony and order of com-
monplace mechanisms within a wide range of ecosystems, we see
the reflections of enormous mere)' in the critical balancing acts
which comprise the partnerships, cooperation and solidarity wit-
nessed among and between various beings and species.
Every biologist uses narural selection according to his or her
own conception by slightly changing irs meaning and rendering it
44 Evo/Uiion: Science or ldeolof!J!?

compatible with what he or she believes. Thus, because all people

look at things from their own particular viewpoint, natural selec-
tion easily becomes a subject of dispute.
As to the definition issued by Darwin in 1859, natural selec-
tion is a mechanism for maintaining beneficial variations and filter-
ing out harmful variations. The very first question asked as pan of
the rejection of this definition so clearly deprived of evidence was
this: «Doesn't the notion of selection necessitate the existence of
selective willpower?"
The views which first sprouted in the mind of Darwin while he
was reading the political economist and demographer Thomas
Mal thus' Principle of Population transformed in the following years
into such ideas as:
a. There is potentially a geometrical increase in populations.
b. A state of constant and stable balance is observed in popula-
tions.
c. Resources are not infinite; they are limited.
The cumulative interpretation of these three separate obser-
vations was that «individuals within a population have to
struggle in order to stay alive." Then,
d. Each individual has a distinctive structure.
e. Most individual variations are inheritable.
The cumulative interpretation of these two last ideas was that
«the capability for surviving would differentiate each individual in
a population, and this would cause evolution over many genera-
tions." While the first part of this sentence was an observation of a
normal process that detects the strong varieties observed in namre
depending on the potential richness within species, the second pan
of the sentence, however, is nothing more than a judgmental
phrase predicated simply on a well-intentioned procrastination but
impossible to prove through experimentation.
N arural selection claims to explain the development of all spe-
cies, starting from the most primi£ive organism to the most com-
 Biological Mechanisms in Nature 45

plex ones, like human beings. If so, then shouldn't the most primi-
rive and simple ones have been wiped out from the Earth by now,
so that it could be filled only with species which are superior and
more complex?
Gertrude Himmelfarb gives the honeybee example in relation
to th.is issue, when she relates how Darwin sings the praises of the
honeybee for developing an excellent ability. To him, rhe process of
narural selection made the bee's ability perfect, so this riny being
could ger ro the point where ir can build the pores of a honeycomb
by using a lirrle bit of beeswax. Darwin was amazed by such archi-
recrural mastery, bur he could not explain why and how other bees,
such as bumblebees, which do not have the same talent as the hon-
eybee, could still survive, even though they do not have any such
special capabilities. The only thing that Darwin was able ro say was
this: ''Narure left visible traces of irs past handiwork on the way to
perfecting irs forms." However, this reasoning contradicts the idea
of narural selection, which claims rhar rhe better model forces other
relatives ro disappear and ir always wins. Yer even though they are
less gifted than their relatives, so ro speak, bumblebees are still able
ro grow up, reproduce and survive with their present physiological
attributes. Contemplating all such plants and animals, along with
the bumblebee, Himmelfarb asked the why there should be these
living, not dead, remains, and why narural selection itself had nor
eliminated these imperfect and superseded forms. 10
Evolutionists' answer ro Himmelfarb's question was this:
Bumblebees developed a srraregy of survival in which they attacked
honeybees and plundered their hives. Well, rhen these evolutionists
also have to answer how have hundreds of very delicate, measured,
and planned strategies of different types of bees developed coinci-
dentally. They have ro explain how queen bees, male drones, work-
ers, ere., each with unique abilities, are selected in the social orga-
nization of bees.
This question has never been answered since those crearures,
which should theoretically have disappeared by now through naru-
46 Evolution: Science or ldeolotJ!?

raJ selection due to the existence of "superior generations" have

actually not given up the race, and countless examples are still pres-
ent everywhere. Thus, the fact that not only the more "gifted"
creatures, but also the less so, survive renders evolutionary theory
both incongruent and inconsistent. What is strange still is that
Darwin saw natural selection as a slow process whereby each cho-
sen, new feature would provide apparent benefits to the individual
in the struggle for survival.
Natural selection can never be reconciled with the idea of irre-
ducible complexity. As Michael Behe states, irreducible complexity
is an important principle of structure and operation which is
observed in living beings. In short, a system can function well and
more productively with the presence of all of its parts. We may give
Behe's mouse trap as an example: the absence of any one of the ele-
ments that is set up to catch the mouse-namely the arc, moving
arms, caps, bait tray, and so on-will make the trap non-operative.
In order for the mousetrap to catch the mouse, all of the required
pieces have to be present in the appropriate arrangement or posi-
tion. This principle, termed "irreducible complexity," is seen in all
the organ systems of living beings.
Natural selection, functioning without intelligence or con-
sciousness, cannot be used to explain the addition of each small
piece, or function, of an organ or a body part in a precise way so
that it might eventually be useful for the entire system. Stephen Jay
Gould, of Harvard University, expresses this dilemma bluntly as
follows: "What good is half a jaw, or half a wing?" Indeed, surely a
half-organ or half-wing is not useful. In turn, N. Macbeth com-
ments on the complete dependence of Darwin's theory on natural
selection saying that Darwin's entire theory hinges on natural selec-
tion as a mindless process, as the impersonal operation of purely
natural forces. If it is mindless, it cannot plan ahead; it cannot make
sacrifices now to attain a distant goal, because it has no goals and
no mind with which to conceive goals. Therefore, Macbeth thinks
 Biological Mechanisms in Nazure 47

every change must be justified by its own immediate advantages,

not as leading to some desirable endll
In other words, every parcial change would have to be some- ·
how beneficial to the individual and to the species. However, if
someone were to claim that there are millions of animals whose
organs have still not been completed today, every reasonable person
would reject this idea immediately. Yet this is what Darwinians are
effectively saying. They cannot give any convincing answer to how
natural selection gradually produces the "portions of all the pieces"
which are necessary for an individual's survival. The organ which
best manifests this impossible quandary is the eye. Again,
Himmelfarb emphasizes a fundamental point about this in his
Darwin and the Darwinian Rcvolutian: Since the eye is obviously of
no use at all except in its final, complete form, how could natural
selection have functioned in those initial stages of its evolution
when the variations had no possible survival value? For
Himmelfarb, no single variation, indeed no single part, being of
any use without every other, and natural selection presuming no
knowledge of the ultimate end or purpose of the organ, the criteri-
on of utility, or survival, would seem to be irrelevant.
An eye is indeed a marvelous and complex system. Among the
parts, there is excellent synchrony which cannot be compared with
anything else. For the veterinarian R. L. Wysong, rwo bony orbits
must be "mutated" to house the globe of the eye. The bone must
have appropriate holes (foramina) to allow the appropriate "mutat-
ed" blood vessels and nerves to feed the eye. The various layers of
the globe, the fibrous capsule, the sclera and choroids must be
formed, along with the inner light sensitive retina layer. The retina,
containing the special rod and cone neurons, must be appropriate-
ly hooked up to the optic nerve which in turn must be appropri-
ately hooked with the mutated sight center in the brain, which in
turn must be appropriately hooked up with the brain stem (a grey
matter in the center of the brain) and spinal cord for conscious
awareness and lifesaving reflexes. Random rearrangements in DNA
must also form the lens, vitreous humor, aqueous humor, iris, cili-
48 Evolution: Science or ldeologr?

ary body, canal of Schlemm suspensory ligament, cornea, the lacri-

mal glands and ducts draining to the nose, the rectus and oblique
muscles for eye movement, the eyelids, lashes and eyebrows. All of
these newly mutated structures must be perfectly integrated and
balanced with all other systems and functioning near perfect before
the vision we depend upon would result. 12
Indeed, that is the eye. Even Darwin admitted a couple of times
that he did not want to take the structure of the eye into consider-
ation. He confided about this to his friend, Asa Gray, in 1860: "The
eye to this day gives me a cold shudder. " 13 After all, we are supposed
to believe that each micro mutation, occurring gradually, contributed
some beneficial properties by selection while combining to form the
complex eye structure; and further, that those tiny changes, which
happened randomly or by chance, somehow resulted in such an
organ as the eye, having delicate sensitivity and a marvelous function-
ing, with neither a previous plan or final purpose "in mind." Thus, it
seems that even Darwin did not believe his own theory in relation to
this point, and this can be clearly understood from his own state-
ments: ''To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable connivances
for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admirting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
In fact, not just the eye but thousands of complex biological
systems can be given as examples that disprove the claim about
improvement through natural selection. For when they are ana-
lyzed more deeply, all types of systems which are present and avail-
able for use in living beings, are made up of components which can
only be used as complements to the whole, while the parts which
comprise tl1e entire system do not, by themselves, have any benefi-
cial function for either the individual's or the species' survival.
There are also other problems that do not seem to be resolved
and which profoundly shake the cogency of natural selection. For
instance, a long-term or planned idea cannot be congruous with
 Biological Mechanisms in Nature 49

natural selection since each new intermediate form or feature has to

be deemed useful or else be eliminated immediately. Effectively,
Darwin saw natural selection as a kind of economic efficiency-as a
way for nature to "increase productivity." Darwin surmised that in
order to accomplish this goal, selection provided the necessary prop-
erties to the powerful so that they could surmount their rivals. In
other words, those new features would be selected expressly so that
an individual or species could resist or thrive in particular environ-
mental conditions. According to Darwin, for a species to exhibit
more new features than are needed could not be considered eco-
nomical or natural, because he understood frugality, simplicity and
moderation to be defining characteristics of nature. This means,
however, that if an individual manifested features that were excessive
at any moment in time but could be useful in future environmental
conditions, then Darwin's entire theory of natural selection would
be at risk since natural selection was indeed established on the idea
of chance coordinating exactly with existing conditions. According
to Darwin's scenario, there was no need for long-term planning, for
competition was instantaneous-and a living being which adapted
best to an existing environment would surely "win the race."
A person who studies evolutionary theory can be impressed at
first glance in the sense that everything seems to be explained in a
sensible manner and nothing appears to have been overlooked.
However, if one looks at it fairly for a while and thinks about the
subject deeply, one will easily see that the mechanism of natural
selection has been interpreted with substantial exaggeration. Yet
while the discrepancies and irregularities in the concept of natural
selection have been evident for many years, advocates of theory of
evolution have continued to strive to make the theory sufficient to
quiete criticisms, which have increased day by day. Every time natu-
ral selection is criticized from a new perspective, irs supporters sim-
ply reconstitute the fundamental principles of evolutionary theory.
In fact, it was not until the Nobel Prize winner, geneticist T. H.
Morgan, expressed his opinion that the idea of natural selection was
50 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

affected by faulty thinking and that no scientist had ever questioned

what was being considered with all these arguments. About the defi-
nition of narural selection proposed by Neo-Darwinists Morgan
stated that it may appear little more than a truism to state that the
individuals that are the best adapted to survive have a better chance
of surviving than those nor so well adapted to survive. " 14 Or, as
remarked by Gertrude Himmelfarb, the survivors, having survived,
arc thence judged to be the finest. 15 This determination surprised
the scientific community since those words seemed to announce "the
nakedness of the king," one might say. While Morgan directed atten-
tion toward a point which had seemingly never been considered until
then, other critics have since further crystallized the error of narural
selection which we are now faced with. For instance, as an important
developmental biologist, C. H. Waddington has dealt the final blow,
as it were, when it comes to displacing the theory from its effective
designation as "a holy taboo." Waddington said for an animal being
the most "talented" or "fittest" does nor necessarily mean that it is
certainly the strongest or healthiest or would win a beauty contest.
Indeed, narural selection stares that the fittest individuals in a popula-
tion (defined as those who leave the most offspring) will leave the
most of!Spring and it rums our on closer inspection to be a tautology
(unnecessary repetition), a statement of an inevitable although previ-
ously unrecognized relation. Once the sraremem is made, its truth
is apparent. 16
Those that are able to survive after elimination by narural selec-
tion are necessarily the ones which will have reproductive opportuni-
ties, arising from their advantageous and favorable fearures; yet even
they can only cause a horiwntal change within their species by trans-
ferring the genetic potential given to them to their offspring. Let us
take the example of the Biston betu/aria, or peppered moth, which is
often used to defend the idea of evolution as a result of narural selec-
tion. Some individuals of the species arc light-colored, almost white,
while some of them are dark-colored. Before the industrial age, when
there was no air pollution in Britain, the exterior walls of buildings
 Biological Mechanisms in Nature 51

were clean and light-colored; as a result, the birds that hunted the
peppered moths were not easily able to recognize the white-colored
ones, but thev could readily detect the dark-colored ones. Thus, the
number of dark-colored peppered moths was reduced, while the
number of white-colored ones increased. It was not until the facades
of buildings became dark due to industrial pollution that the dark-
colored peppered moths secured some "camouflage" and the white-
colored ones came to be more easily hunted; there was a consequent
decrease in the number of white-colored individuals and a parallel
increase in the number of dark-colored ones. Such a differentiation
in the species, which was determined by the zoologist, H. Kettlewell,
of Oxford University in 1924, is a horiwntal change which doe• not
represent a transition from one particular species to another-that is,
it is not a vertical change.
As seen in this example, the peppered moths did not unveil a
new feature that was not present in their genetic portfolio at the
onset; instead, they showed a shift from the light color to the dark
color within the limits of the color spectrum that already existed as
pan of their potential response to the environment. Since the
lighter peppered moths were hunted easily when pollution pre-
vailed, they simply died before they had an opponunity to repro-
duce; meanwhile, the birds did not recognize the darker moths so
easily, which allowed them to live longer and gave them a chance
to reproduce. Funher, according to Mendel's principles, the chance
of producing the darker moths as offspring from the darker parents
is higher, so the black-colored individuals became dominant in the
surviving population.
Yet, whenever a person questions evolutionary theory, the
advocates of the theory propose the miracle of the peppered moth
(!) immediately as if it were absolute evidence for the existence of
evolution. In biology books, pictures of peppered moths arc given
along with the impression that evolution has been proven for more
than fifty years. But as mentioned above, the "peppered moth
example" is actually and essentially a proof that demonstrates the
52 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

nonexistence ofcvoluticn rather than irs existence. But somehow, no

one questions the mechanism of natural selection to such a serious
extent. A change like that described in the example of the peppered
moth-the peppered moth being white or black-<:an only be
explained by the adjustment of the peppered moth to irs environ-
ment within the limits of its genetic potential in order for it to
maintain the continuation of the species. In other words, the light-
colored peppered moth's apparent conversion to a black-colored
moth is evidence for the presen'ation of the species, but nor for the
presence of evolution.
Natural selection, which is proposed as the fundamental mech-
anism and premise of the evolutionary hypothesis, is nothing but
the biological principle of the food chain in the operation of the
ecosystem which can clearly be seen as God's "Book of Nature,"
contrary to the perspective of evolutionists. Another point is that
this principle is given as a necessary driving force in the natural
operation of adaptations and rhus for the incidence of horiwntal
changes by which strong, enduring individuals arise within the
potential range of variability within a species-namely, "within the
genetic limits of a species." In this way, the unlimited reproduction
and distribution potential of each living species is balanced, and sick
or unhealthy animals are effectively prevented from spreading and
corrupting populations. In the meantime, food for innumerable
living beings is provided. If the grey muller us litter of five million
eggs is considered, the importance of the subject matter is under-
stood better. For if an offspring developed from each of the five
million eggs, and all of them developed, each and every grey mullet
us food supply would have to be taken into consideration. Yet,
since all creatures do not have unlimited reproduction opportuni-
ties within the limited conditions on Earth, only a certain number
of individuals from each species have the chance to live by means of
this excellent balance. If we go back to the example of the grey mul-
let, about one million of the five million eggs will be food for other
creatures, or they will simply perish and break up due to insufficient
 Biological Mechanisms in Nature 53

conditions while they are still in the embryonic stage. Another

couple of million eggs will reach the larval stage, and then become
food for small creatures, while others will reach infancy and then be
food for bigger fishes. Thus, those which will actually reach matu-
rity and have a chance at reproduction will be sufficient merely to
provide the continuation of the next generation.
We have probably all watched television documentaries about
lions and antelopes. If all lions and all antelopes were strong and
healthy, lions would always run after antelopes to obtain their food,
and the antelopes would always escape from them without being
caught, so that the lions would just keep trying to catch them, and
so on. However, both of these living beings need energy, a food
supply, in order to be able to run in the first place. Indeed, since
neither the lions nor the antelopes can stop running, according to
this scenario, both of them should die of hunger and exhaustion.
Nevertheless, such a dramatic example is never observed in nature
because of the inherent variation within all species, such that some
of the antelopes and some of the lions will be weak and powerless.
The powerful lions will catch the weak antelopes and eat them, and
then the meat left over from the antelopes will provide sustenance
for thousands of other living organisms, such as hyenas, jackals,
vultures, carrion crows, bugs, and bacteria. Meanwhile, the weaker
lions will also die early since they cannot hunt to find food. By
means of this food chain, a balanced population plan is achieved
among predators and prey, and thus the ecological systems of the
world are protected.

MurATION: A MYSTERious KEY, OR RANDOM

BuLLETS NoT MISSING THE TARGET?

The Cell and Genetics

Three common characteristics that living mechanisms bear are
reproduction, variation and heredity. All morphological and physi-
ological characteristics of a living being are transmitted by heredity
54 Et,olution: Science or Ideology?

from the male and female parents. In this way, every living being
resembles its parents, but this resemblance is never an exact same-
ness; namely, even the offspring of the same parents are nor identi-
cal except for monozygotic (single-egg) twins. While the occur-
rence of reproduction cells through meiosis is the most important
feature in living beings having sexual reproduction, verv rich varia-
tion still arises by means of the exchange of genes between homol-
ogous chromosomes. A gene or a part of a chromosome can cross
over between homologous chromosomes--Dne coming from the
organism's female parent and the other from the male parent-
where the information about the characteristics of the same parts of
a body arc coded. None of the millions of sperm cells is identical to
another; similarly, such richness in variety is also found in egg cells,
which occur through meiosis, even though they are not as numer-
ous as sperm cells. For this reason, an offspring formed by the fer-
tilization of an egg cell by any one of the millions of sperm cells,
each one of them having different properties, will be distinct from
all other off,pring. Not one of the billions of people on Earth looks
exactly like another because of this mechanism. (The possibility of
the exact resemblance of two people is actually one in seven trillion,
unless they are monozygotic twins). Thus, even though every
human being (assuming an absence of generic or developmental
deformities) has two eyes, two ears, one nose and two lips, the
actual features of every individual human being's face form dis-
similarly since there are countless possible variations in the chromo-
somal and molecular functions of genetic systems which, in mrn,
lead to infinitely many combinations.
Genes arc huge molecules where the information about the
strucmre, shape and functions of a living being are coded. They are
composed of smaller molecules, and, in turn, those smaller mole-
cules arc composed of atoms, while those atoms are composed of
minuscule particles. Even though huge DNA molecules and their
composite particles, genes, are not alive, they are still the maJor
material "cau,e" of a creature's becoming a living being.
 Biological Mechanisms in Nature 55

The idea, first proposed by Lamarck, about acquired characters

being transmitted to future generations through inheritance, was
disproved by manv researchers, and mainly by Weissman's experi-
ment. Ever after, natural selection started to find acceptance as the
driving force of the evolutionary mechanism; thus, how molecular
functions were genetically programmed became a rich research
subject among geneticists. Research in genetics also picked up
speed due to advances in molecular biology and the fact that the
discovery of Mendel's principles made it clear how living systems
were coded and how such information could cause changes to
occur during the reproduction process.
A living being's parents are not the same; nor are its offspring
the same. Rather, along with their ancestors, the parents and their
offspring get their genes (genotype) from the gene pool. While
they all belong to that particular species, they also show their own
characteristics (phenotype). Critically, however, the genetic mecha-
nisms, mutations and recombinations-that is, the new arrange-
ments of genetic information which are responsible for the same
characteristics between homologous chromosomes through cross-
overs and replacements-which cause variations are independent of
the actual needs of an organism. In other words, an organism's
being in need of swimming does not cause a variation whereby
hands and feet take the shape of flippers or fins. Thus, the occur-
rence of new varieties is completely beyond the will and knowledge
of the living mechanism, and knowledge of those varieties is with-
held until the living being is born. Indeed, each and every detail of
these reproductive processes is known and accomplished by the
Creator, Whose power and knowledge creates everything.
Both internal and external factors have an effect on the develop-
ment of a living mechanism. External factors include ecological
conditions, such as radiation in various intensities, temperarure,
moisture, and food. For example, the reason behind the difference
between a queen bee and worker bee is a difference in their nutri-
tion. Similarly, only after many years has it finally been understood
56 Evolulion: Science or Ideology?

that the temperature to which the eggs of a sea mrrle or crocodile

are exposed during their early development is one of the main deter-
minants of the gender of the embryo; in fact, a turtle's or a croco-
dile's becoming female or male depends onlv on a few degrees' dif-
ference in temperature. Yet, this mechanism is nor a simple phenom-
enon; rather, temperature merely plavs a role in triggering critical
biochemical reactions.
Internal factors include changes in the DNA molecule where
the generic program of the cell is coded, and such changes are
known as "mutations." However, in order for any change that
arises in the reproductive cells as a result of mutations which are
precipitated by external factors to be transmitted to the offspring,
these variations have to be transferred to the inheritance molecules
(i.e., they have to be inheritable). This is because, as mentioned
earlier, only variations which occur in the generic molecule (that is,
in the reproduction cells) can turn up as actual changes in pheno-
type in future generations; non-hereditary variations (i.e., modifi-
cations) simply caru10t enact permanent or lasting changes that
continue in future generations of a living being.
Even though the idea of "struggling to survive" is a valid bio-
logical principle, the idea of the "survival of the finest" starred to
be seen as the main propellant force behind the evolutionary
hypothesis, with its name, "natural selection," being inspired by the
discovery of mutations. According to this perspective, in order for
a species to be eliminated, either the environmental conditions had
to change in extreme ways, or mutations, which appeared in the
new generations of that species and disadvantaged them compared
to other species in a given habitat, would have to dominate. Bur,
critically, while mutations would make the species extinct, they
could never transform it into a new species.
In that it is considered to be functioning on emerged muta-
tions, natural selection can only happen when, or if, the changes in
different parts of an organism co-occur-that is, every single gene
which codes each crucial characteristic in which an alteration is
 Biological Mechanisms in Nalure 57

required must effectively mutate with respect to a plan so that it can

change at the ,-etY same time for a similar purpose. Yet those
changes cannot occur by chance. For example, mutations observed
in the emergence of subspecies (strains) are such changes, which are
accomplished according to the Divine Will, and which simply
belong to the creation plan which comprises the "genetic capacity"
of the species.
A mutation is a permanent and transmissible change to the
genotype (genetic material) of an organism that seems to occur
suddenly at a particular instant in time. Mutations usuall)' arise
through physical or chemical external effects; they seldom emerge
due to internal causes. Yet in order for a mutation to be observed
as a change in a living being, the variation has to occur on the DNA
(dem;yribonucleic acid) chain-specifically, on the gene which car-
ries particular genetic information, and even more specifically, on
the part where the information belonging to a specific protein is
coded. This was shown for the first time in the laboratory during
experiments on Drosophila (fruit flies).
All DNA has two chains which, as determined by the Will of
Infinite Knowledge, are made up simply of sugar and phosphate
groups. The two chains are composed of repeating sequences of four
"bases": adenine (A) and guanine (G), which have a "purine" struc-
ture (being five- and six-membered "heterocyclic compounds") and
thvmine (T) and cytosine (C), which have a pyrimidine structure
(being six-membered "rings"). Among those bases called "nucle-
otides," only specific pairs of them-specifically A with T, and G
with C---<:an consistently undergo hydrogen bonding. Thus, the two
helical chains, each coiled round the same axis, arc held together and
are described in terms of their sequences of "base pairs." However,
in RNA-which is used in "translating" genetic infonnation from
DNA to create proteins-since uracil (U) is present instead of thy-
mine (T), and RNA consists of only one helical chain rather than
t:wo, the generic information which comprises RNA is "read" as
consisting of three-letter ''words," each termed a "codon," which are
58 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

formed from sequences of three nucleotides in a row (e.g., GGA,

ACU, AUU, CCU, UAA GUA). In sum, while the proteins which
arc created to constitute the fundamental structure of a living mecha-
nism are composed of 20 amino acid<, four different nirrou; bases are
created with the potencial to form 64 possible codons of three nucle-
otides each. So, there is more than one possible codon which can
encode most amino acids. In addition, some codons cam· the spe-
cific information code that determines, or effectively marks, the
beginning and the end of the protein synthesis (coding region).
Mutations can occur as a result of the exchange of any base
with another base on a DNA chain, or by the insertion (addition)
or deletion (removal) of one or more bases. The mutations that
have occurred by the change of only one pair of bases on the
generic code of a DNA chain are called point mutations. In addi-
tion to this, there arc also nonsense mutations, by which the new
nucleotide changes a codon so that the codon no longer codes anv
amino acid, as well as missense (or nonsynonytnous) mutations, by
which the new nucleotide alters the codon so as to produce an
altered amino acid. Mutations that emerge as a result of insertions
or deletions cause more serious problems.
Since point mutations generally affect only one codon, they
usually do nor cause big changes. For example, a mutated codon
can continue to code the same amino acid or another amino acid
that does not change the function of the protein which can be syn-
thesized. On the other hand, in some cases, even the change of a
single nucleotide on a DNA molecule can cause drastic and deleteri-
ous results. For instance, the serious disease known as sickle-cell
anemia arises due ro this kind of point mlltation. An off<pring will
have the disease if he or she inherits the mutated sickle-cell gene
fron1 c~tch p~rent.
Further, in the event of adding or removing one or more DNA
bases, big changes will occur in the structure of a gene. Insertion
and deletion mutations cause «frame-shift mlltarions" that change
the groupings of nucleotide bases into codons, so that there is a
 Biologi,·ol Mechanisms in Nalure 59

shift in the "reading frame," so to speak, during protein translation.

For example, if \\"e assume that a mutation has occurred on the first
codon in the nucleotide sequence TAG GGC ATA ACG ATT,
whereby an A base is added to it, the new sequence will become
T AA GGG CAT AAC GATT-and thus, information designating
a totallY different amino acid, or even a nonfunctional protein, will
be encoded.
It must also be understood that the mutated DNA chains are
paired, reproduced and transferred from generation to generation,
just like normal DNA. A mutated genetic code can revert to its
original normal form only by a new mutation. In such a case, the
second mutation will serre to repair the original gene, so that it
mav regain its normalli.mction. The effect of the first mutation thus
sometimes disappears fully or partially due to the occurrence of a
second mutation (called a "suppressor mutation"), even on a seg-
ment of the gene which is different from the first mutation.
Macro mutations that happen suddenly and cause big changes
in the phenotype are not important for creating variety and change
in a living mechanism since they do not let the living being stay
alive. For instance, in the case of a zygote or a developing embryo
which may be affected by radiation or a mutagenic chemical agent,
it is possible for the living mechanism to have organ deficiencies, or
severe physical deformities causing two heads or four arms, and so
on, depending on the rate of change in the genetic program. Those
who are born with such damage usually cannot stay alive long. In
the case of chondrodystrophic dwarfism in humans, for instance,
while the head and the body are normal, there are development
anomalies on the arms and feet. This disease emerges due to a muta-
tion on only one gene among thousands. Another chondrodystro-
phic anomaly is seen in dogs, by which they tend to be "long and
low''; it is the result of a mutation that is seen to be disadvantageous
for the dogs but advantageous for hunters, for such dogs can easily
find hidden hollows such as rabbit holes.
60 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

On the other hand, micro-mutations cause small variations in

the phenotype. Evolutionists inrerpret this genetic mechanism with
an exaggerated claim, which goes beyond its scope, when they state
that those micro-mutations will be deposited and diversifY the spe-
cies from generation to generation-that is, that the species will be
converted into a totally differenr species. According to evolutionarY
thought, mutations can sometimes form a new organ suddenh· after
they have been deposited for a while. So they argue that there
might be transitions from one species to the other through this
mechanism. For example, they say that the gill of a fish can turn
inro the lung of a frog, or that the leg of a lizard can change inro
the wing of a bird. They also assert that the feet of a mammal that
walks on Earth can transform inro a fin, that the fat layer under its
skin might get thinner through the shedding of its hair, and that the
lactation mechanism, and even the process of birthing, might
acquire a differenr character.
If we were to believe that the sudden results of micro-muta-
tions are able to achieve gradual changes in species-though when
the mutations happened, how each happened, and how strong an
effect each had when it happened are all unknown-it would be
necessary to accept that each and every mutation among innumer-
able mutations happens every time in the reproduction cells of the
same individual among numerous populations as if each mutation
were a conscious being with a purpose, which was aware of what it
is doing, in that those mutations support each other, happen in a
sequenrial order, and always reach their goal. For instance, in order
for land mammals to be able to live in water, thousands of muta-
tions that would cause hundreds of anatomical and physiological
changes in their bodies would have to happen in the same animal's
reproduction cells in a way that is conrrolled, occurring slowly in a
certain order, with vital timing and direction. In addition, such
changes could not have occurred in only one sex of a species; they
would have had to happen both in the male and female at the same
 Biological Mechanisms in Nature 61

rime-but such a case does nor even have a place within probabili-
tY calculations.
In fact, the claim that the occurrence of some small mutations
in each living being will result in useful and advantageous charac-
teristics for the living mechanism is not far from impossible. This is
because even a mutation that alters a very small part of an organ
causes a change limiting the operations of the organ and harming
it. The boundaries of the occurrence of mutations are not that
broad. Since they will damage the ideal strucrure of an organ, one
or more mutations are disadvantageous for the organ. Besides, a
change of an organ does not mean that the living being will com-
pletely change because such a case is harmful for that living mecha-
nism and will cause its death (since the integrity of the organism's
system is corrupted). For example, if the transformation of the gills
of a fish that comes out from sea to land to lungs is accepted for a
moment, since many changes are required-such as fins changing
to feet, the disappearance of scales, the differentiation of the arches
of the heart and aorta, the change of sense organs and the nervous
system, and the adaptation of muscles to the walking position-and
these cannot take place at the same time, then the simple transfor-
mation of a gill to a lung will not be useful enough, and it will cause
the certain death of the animal. Similarly, any sound intellect can-
not accept the viability of small coincidental changes in even tiny
portions of an eye and brain, as these are very complex organs, or
the viability of random alterations in the orderly encoding of the
genetic program of an eye or brain as the result of changes in the
nucleotide molecule that composes the DNA.
In effect, when mutations strike a perfect, orderly system that
works harmoniously, harmful effects can be observed, and the dis-
advantageous results of mutations for a living being are thus well
known. One may offer the following comparison: it is as possible
for a reproductive animal to transform into a different reproductive
animal by being exposed to destructive mutations as it is for a
62 Evolulion: Science or Ideology?

1930s roadster exposed to a shower of bullets from a machine gun

to transform into a new-model Mercedes.
Thousands of mutated cells come into existence in our bodies
every day, and our immune system destroys 99.9% of those defec-
tive cells, formed by harmful mutations, before they become risky
for the body. But if the immune system is weak and not working
properly, then the mutated cells produce cancerous rumors, which
gain a fatal character as they reproduce themselves. In turn, if the
mutations happen in our reproductive cells, these cause deficiencies
which prevent ovulation or the production of healthy spcrm--{)r
which precipitate miscarriages in females, so that even if ovulation
happens, the embryo is terminated at some point in the embryo-
logical development.
Despite this fact, evolutionists accepts that some genes are
specially selected and are exposed to mutation one by one as a result
of chance. In this case all of the three alternative consequences con-
tradict reason.
First of all, it is generally accepted that it is unclear and uncertain
how so many coincidences could co-occur. Also to accept any of the
following three alternative scenarios-which are each revealed when
sequential changes happen one after the other Strictly according to
chance-is absolutely contrary to rationality:
a. The first of these scenarios says, "Changes happened one by
one in a mutated organ which improved the function of that organ."
Yet such a case has never been observed in nature. A mutated organ
is always observed to be imperfect and defective, since random
operations which arc executed on any system which exists in equilib-
rium only cause inequilibrium and imperfections to arise in such a
system.
b. The second scenario claims sudden improvement in the fly-
ing mechanisms of birds as a result of small changes that happened
in anatomical structure and physical processes. Here the problem of
staying alive for a reptile whose body structure had changed vari-
 Biological Mechanisms in Nature 63

ously in many aspects has been ignored, and rhe incongruity of

"teaching" a reptile ro fly has emerged.
c. The third scenario claims that the parts of a complex organ
in different species developed coincidentally, and then those parts
somehow gathered rogether and formed a cohesive organ. Yet,
clearly, every piece of an organ like an eye, for instance, cannot
assemble themselves and form an eye after developing from indi·
vidual components in different living beings. Because a whole needs
all rhe necessary pieces ar rhe same rime, a single componenr is nor
useful. When we mulriph· rhe probability of the occurrence of a
beneficial murarion happening in one part of rhe "evenrual eye" by
rhe simultaneous occurrence of a beneficial mutation happening in
the other parts of rhe "eventual eye," we face probability numbers
approaching infinity which are obviously impossible. Similarly, the
evolurionist assertion that in order ro have a prokaryotic cell trans-
form into a eukaryotic cell each independent organelle of a cell
(rhe nucleus, centrosomes, golgi apparatus, mitochondria, chloro-
plasts, and so on) somehow goes into the prokaryotic cell and starts
a symbiotic life whereby they begin to "form a complete unit" is
doomed ro remain imaginary. What is more, it is not possible for
these organelles, each of which is equipped with a structure like a
tiny factory, to emerge independently by chance. Even with highly
developed modern molecular biology technology we have not yer
managed to uncover their complete structure; rhus arguing that
their organic molecules have combined on their own ro form these
organelles is not valid either.
According to evolutionary theory, natural selection which
operates through mutation causes a species ro become exrincr or to
change vertically (transforming from species ro species). However,
any improvement that is in an early stage is useless unless ir devel-
ops in a way that will properly function and will really operate. For
example, let us assume that an element of a wing instead of a leg
occurred by mutation in a reptile species. This is disadvantageous
for that animal, and ir is expected that the animal will be eliminated
64 El'olution: Science or ldeolog:v?

by natural selection due to the fact that it cannot perform its normal
functions with a deficient, mixed leg-wing appendage. The fact that
congenial evolution scenarios do not happen in real life is indeed
very clear.
Let us make a confusing matter clear here. The above state-
ments, on how mutations are observed one in a million times, and
that 99.9 % of mutations are harmful, take the changes in genetic
system (genome) into account. This is intended to explain the
changes that would alter the organs and the systems of our body and
that would happen in the genetic code as a result of adding new,
beneficial functions to it. This should not be confused with the
changes that take place in the cells of an immune system. The ability
to cause genetic changes continuously is given to various lympho-
cytes in our immune system in order for the immune system to be
able to fight against the changes in bacteria and viruses. In other
words, as an essential attribute of their identity, bacteria and viruses
are capable of frequent changes, which are made in their genetic
systems, so that new varieties continually arise. Due to the emer-
gence of such new bacteria and viruses, the ability of the host-for
example, the human being-to stay alive depends on new abilities in
the immune system which can cope with the attacks of these new
strains. It is true that those changes which are observed in the cells
of an immune system are actually mutations, in a manner of speak-
ing. However, those useful mutations, which emerge to protect our
lives, arc not random; rather, they are encoded in the DNA which
programs the operational principles of the immune system and the
general operation of immune responses in the body. Moreover, such
mutations are given for the protection of our lives, and they effect
perfect-what some might even consider "miraculous"--<:hanges
that cannot occur coincidentally or by themselves to alter our species
type. The expected mutations of evolutionists, then, are not the ones
that lymphocytes conduct in their daily battles against bacteria and
viruses, but rather the ones that occur in reproductive cells and
 Biological Mechanisms in Nature 65

which are somehow credited with transforming a gill into a lung,

scales into hair, or a fin into a leg.

Experiments and Observations

Bacteria and the fmit fly are two elements most frequently used
used in the experiments and observations that have been routine in
the field to find out the level of changes mutations can cause.
Bacteria are very convincing examples of the non-transformation of
one species to another. They are the fastest reproducing elements of
life. The,· constimte 75% of all living beings, and they have three
million years of history-if their age has been determined correctly.
They could cover the whole Earth, knee-deep, in thirty-six hours if
the\· were not somehow kept under control. Bacteria also mutate
much more than other living mechanisms; however, it has never
been observed thus far that any bacterium has transformed into
another living being.
The mutation rate of Escherichia coli bacteria, for instance, which
mutate \'ery frequently and have a division process which occurs
about every twenty minutes, is between 10·5 and 10· 10 . Yet, only the
very same type of bacterium's more resistant strains have been suc-
cessfully produced in hw1dreds of research attempts done on bacteria
using various mutagens. Indeed, the main reason behind the chal-
lenge.' for the pharmaceutical companies in the genetic capacities of
such bacteria types, which have gained resistance to many of the
antibiotics available today, is those mutations. On the other hand, as
mentioned aOOve, a new bacterium type has never come into exis-
tence through such small and limited mutations; rather, only differ-
ent strains of the same kinds of bacteria have ever been produced.
Yeasts, being single-celled living organisms, are found every-
where in our environment. They reproduce with very rapid division,
producing alcohol and carbon dioxide, while metabolizing organic
molecules. In mrn, some yeasts can convert alcohol to vinegar
because tl1ey have alcohol dehydrogenase, an enzyme tl1at helps them
to accomplish this process. This enzyme, being a protein, has a fu.nc-
66 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

tiona! molecular component which consists of four subgroups that

are loosely connected to each other. Each of those subgroups is made
up of 347 amino acids. Due to such amino acids, the enzyme has a
very high capacity for change and, critically, there is only one gene
that encodes all of the subgroups of the enzyme. In other words, the
subgroups are made according to the instructions on this one gene,
and in this way the enzyme becomes functional. With the occurrence
of just one mutation on this gene, the enzyme stans functioning
deficiently. So, by means of just one mutation made in a laboratory,
is it possible to create a scenario where the yeast cell can adapt with-
out its enzyme function being damaged?
Yeasts can live without oxygen Yeast cells which are deprived
of oxygen become dependent on the alcohol dehydrogenase
enzyme. When a different alcohol compound, which synthesizes to
a poisonous composite as a result of the action of the enzyme, was
given to such deficient cells, the mutated yeasts showed resistance
to such poisonous compounds. Studies showed that amino acids
which were extracted from horses, and which are present at the
same place in alcohol dehydrogenase, began to enter the yeast's
protein. For this reason, the yeast enzyme starred behaving like a
horse enzyme; namely, it acquired resistance to alcohol. Those
small changes are the same rype of genetic event that can always be
observed among members of the same species and that suppon the
arrangement of the process of varieties and strains. The diversity
that was caused by the molecular changes in different sections of
the DNA chain representing the genetic material-such as the split-
ting of small pieces, shifting, folding and rejoining-are normal
biological events that can always happen in all living cells. However,
everyone can observe that yeasts cannot transform into horses by
such processes, which are nonetheless described as "microevolu-
tion" by evolutionists. Because of this, it is more appropriate to use
the notion of "micro-change" instead of "microevolution."
Grasse questions the matter by asking how the Darwinian
mutational interpretation of evolution accounts for the fact that the
 Biological Mechanisms in NaiUre 67

species that have been the most stable-some of them for the last
hundreds of millions of years-have mutated as much as the others
do. Then, he answers that once one has noticed microvariations (on
the one hand) and specific stability (on the other), it seems very
difficult to conclude that the former (microvariation) comes into
play in the evolutionary process. He says that the evidence forces us
to deny any evolutionary value whatever to the mutations we
observe in the existing fauna and flora. 17
Being among the most experimented on of species, Drosophila
melanogaster (the fruit fly) was prominent material for mutation
experiments for many years due to its very short period of ovulation
and development (12 days). In these experiments, X-rays were used
to increase the insect's mutation rate by a factor of 15,000. By
doing so, the reproductive frequency and environment that the spe-
cies could have been expected to be exposed to over millions of
years under normal conditions was provided; hence it was expected
to evolve. But even though the mutation speed was increased that
much, no living mechanism other than a simple "fruit fly," which
admittedly underwent a few changes, could be achieved. It was
observed that all the mutant organisms were disabled insects whose
wings were not present, or whose feet became blunt, or whose
backs became humpbacked, or whose eyes were not present. Not a
single fly species having any superior ability whatsoever came into
existence out of all those countless mutations.
Moreover, about the two experiments Ernst Mayr performed on
fruit flies in 1948 he reports that in the first experiment, the fly was
selected for a decrea..e in bristles and, in the second experiment, for
an increase in bristles. Starting with a parent stock averaging 36
bristles, it was possible after thirty generations to lower the average
to 25 bristles, but then the line became sterile and died out. In the
second experiment, the average number of bristles was increased
from 36 to 56; then sterility set in. Any drastic improvement under
selection must seriously deplete the store of genetic variability.
According to Mayr, the most frequent correlated response of one-
68 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

sided selection is a drop in general fimess. This plagues virrually every

breeding experiment. 18

Macro mutations
After it was Wlderstood that transition from one species to another
species (i.e., from a yeast cell to protozoa) was not possible by micro
mutations, the emphasis was deliberately shifted to macro mutations,
to sec whether they are present or not. At the beginning of the rwen-
ticth century, Hugo de Vries (1848-1935) verified Mendel's princi-
ples once again through cross-pollination experiments on plants.
Hugo de Vries, who observed the presence of different properties
that were not seen in the wild samples and culntre types of the
Oenothera lnmarckiana (evening primrose) plant termed such chang-
es that suddenly arise in new generations "mutations" in 1886.
Animals different from their parents had been known for centuries.
As mentioned above, chondrodystrophic dwarfishness mutations
that result in long-legged or short-legged subspecies, for instance, are
established as a fact today. However, the transition of any dog into
another carnivorous animal other than a dog has never been wit-
nessed. Nonetheless, De Vries built up a new evolutionary theory
using the results of his crossbreeding experiments. According to this
theory, macro mutations were happening and natural selection had
little effect on macro mutations. However, since even micro muta-
tions are mostly harmful, and thus they are eliminated by natural
selection, he should have given answers to questions about what kind
of strange creatures macro mutations would cause, or whether they
could sun>ive or nor. Also, considering that transitions from species
to species were presumably possible by macro mutations, according
to this idea, should we not of necessity come across hWldred• of
examples of those species in a state of transition from one to the
other? Even more problematic, if everything actually worked like the
flowers in the De Vries experiment, how many arms or heads would
babies actually have, and would they be able stay alive? Yet, tl1rough
it all, De Vries was insistent about the formation of all species as the
 Biological Mechanisms in Nature 69

result of strong mutations, which happened at the species level,

according to his line of thinking, and he defended his theory of
"mutations, to the last.
Today, the realiry of changes in DNA which are called "muta-
tions" is completely understood and it is accepted by almost every-
one that De Vries's theory was exaggerated. Through advances in
the field of genetics, it came to be understood that the appearance
of those properties in the evening primrose that De Vries was
working on arose as a result of chromosomal changes now called
"translocations" and "deletions."
By crossing strains of a butterfly called Lymantria dispar from
different geographical regions, German zoologist and geneticist,
R.B. Goldschmidt (1878-1958) showed that distinctive properties
arc transferred to new generations and that the distinctive proper-
ties could be explained using Mendel's principles. However, he
exaggerated this later on and argued that fish undergo a mutation
whereby their chromosome numbers are doubled and they sud-
denly advance to become amphibians; then those amphibians trans-
form into reptiles, and then to mammals, by huge jumps of macro
mutations. Of course, geneticists found those claims unsupported,
and thus they rejected those ideas. Chromosomes are vel)' sensitive
structures and playing around with them in such a way just reduces
the chance of survival of the species.
It was acknowledged as a big disadvantage that not even a single
new living species had emerged as a result of mutation experiments,
and that on the contrary, mutations had been consistently observed
to cause random and idle results-or that, instead of improvements
to the living mechanism, they caused harmful and destructive regrcs-
stons.
Yet until tl1e 1960-1970s, the idea that evolution depended on
mutation and natural selection was the general opinion of evolu-
tionists due to the influence of the school of Thomas Hunt Morgan
(1866-1945). Generic recombinations did not enter their minds.
Even though the occurrence of genetic crossovers between the
70 Evolulion: Science or Ideology?

chromosomes during meiosis was discovered in 1880, the pivotal

role of crossovers in biological variation and diversification was
neglected. Today, we know that the biggest source of the diversity
within a species is the phenomenon of "genetic potential for pro-
duction of new variants," which is otherwise called, "intrachromo-
somal recombination."
After all, it can be said that such mutations, being the cause of
variations, each happen as a result of different genetic mechanisms,
and they each have a function in maintaining the species equilibri-
um-bur they do not cause or require any essential change. Thus,
producing enough variation and diversity within the species guaran-
tees the continued existence of the species. All genetic studies show
that in the event that only one type of individual is grown for the sake
of abating, or controlling, the variation in a species, the essential vari-
ability which is necessary for the continuation of that species is
reduced after a while. Reproduction experiment• also give results
which are contrary to Darwin's arguments. For Darwin analyzed
artificial production and then came to the conclusion that this causes
the production of berrer animals and plants, which can sun~ve more
effectively. The biggest mistake Danvin made in this regard is that he
confused "being more profitable" with "being more suitable or tal-
ented." By means of some techniques, a chicken that lays more eggs,
a cow that gives more milk, a sheep that gives more wool, and a com
stalk that gives bigger corn can be produced. However, while doing
this, the species' inherent ability to continue its own life, indepen-
dently and longitudinally, is substantially reduced. This is because
producers choose only the properties that seem profitable and ignore
the other features of a species for economic reasons; in so doing, they
actually harm tl1at species. According to British geneticist, Douglas
Scott Falconer (1913-2004) the improvements that have been made
by selection in the domesticated breeds have clearly been accompa-
nied by a reduction of fitness for life under natural conditions.
Although this breeding under special conditions seems to be a suc-
cess for purposes of profit, it is achieved at the expense of the overall
 Biological Mechanisms in Nature 71

ability of the species ro survive. For the producers effectively deprive

the species of its narural strength, which has been assigned to it, and
damage its capacity ro adapt; thus, they make it weak and less resis·
rant ro the harmful changes in its environment.
Grasse states that mutations look like a pendulum swinging
back and forth, only within the changing capability of the generic
system, but they never cause evolurion. They just make the present
characteristics undergo some kind of change within a certain range
around the central feature of the related characteristic.
Constituting one of the biggest deadlocks of the notion of evolu-
tion, some organs and behaviors termed "particularly equipped struc-
tures and specifically designed behaviors" are impossible to derive by
mutation without a precursor, either suddenly or gradually. For
instance, we cannot attribute any of the innumerable, marvelous and
surprising phenomena which are witnessed in living beings-too
voluminous to mention here-to organs developed by random muta-
tions, or ro randomly programmed neurons in the brains. We may
consider just a few examples to make the point, such as a bar's radar,
a dolphin's sonar, a firefl)~S glow, a glowworm's light, the biolumi-
nescence of deep sea fishes, the silk-making abilities of silkworms, the
honeybee's honey, the leech's ability to prevent blood from clotting,
and the astounding migrations of everything from martins to storks,
to conger eels, ro salmon. Each could easily be the subject of an entire
book on its own-and if we look at the subject matter from the point
of view of "irreducible complexity," and we examine in detail the
structure of those organs, we will be forced to admit that since all of
the components of those intricate organs would not function if even
one tiny part were missing, each of them was created as a w1ique and
integral design-a work of art.

Can Struggle Explain Everything By ltselj7

Darwinists see nature as a place of conllict where each organism
struggles for its own benefit. According to them, narural selection
guarantees the survival of those that have the most beneficial charac-
72 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

teristics and the highest degree of efficiency in terms of their achieve-

ment. Even though the truth overrurns this claim, such a presenta-
tion of namre has predominated so far. It is true that there is compe-
tition in narure, but this is not the only, or even the most dominant,
feamre of namre. By carefi.Il investigation of the behavior patterns
which have been observed benveen animals for a century, it is now
understood that there are many other fom1s of behavior which are
present among animals, other than competition.
In their book, Lift: Outlines of General Biolcgy, John Arthur
Thompson and Patrick G. Geddes point out the weakness of the
claim that there is such a big struggle for life in namre. They argue
that there is an exaggeration of part of the truth and rmderline the
fact that while one organism intensifies competition, another increas-
es parental care; one sharpens its weapons, but another makes
experiment in muma! aid. For them the struggle for existence needs
not be competitive at all; it is illustrated nor only by ruthless self-
assertiveness, but also by all the endeavors of parents for off<pring, of
mate for mate, of kin for kin. The world is not only the abode of the
strong; it is also the home of the loving. 1•
In turn, in his book, Ai!J'eny: A New Wotd,A New World, Rifkin
also emphasizes that natural selection looks good on paper, but as
with so many theories, when exposed to the complex workings of the
real world, the simplicity which made it so convincing in the first
place turns out to be its undoing. Rifkin gives the example that pro-
ponents of nan!fal selection would have us believe that there exists
some neat casual relationship between a victim and a predator inde-
pendent of their surroundings. For Rifkin one can almost visualize
the entire contest taking place in an arena fenced off from the vaga-
ries of the outside world. However, in the real world, the dexterity
of the contestants often has little if anything to do with their sLu-vi,·-
ability. It makes little difference whether one little ant's legs are more
swift than another's or wherl1er one chimpanzee is more intelligent
than another when a fire or hurricane m·ccps through a forest, kill-
ing, indiscriminately, everything in sight. Rifkin thinks namral cara-
 Biological Mechanisms in Nature 73

clysms are responsible for a great deal of death and desrruction, but
the killing is so random and widespread that it is just a matter of pure
luck which organisms are caught in the path and which are spared. It
can hardly be said that those which survived and reproduced were
in any sense of the word more fit; they were just more lucky.
Indeed, we should use notions of weakness and forcefulness
while comparing individuals within each species kind. Some indi-
viduals of the animal species can be weaker or powerless, while others
can be stronger. When all the members of a group belonging to the
same species face unfavorable and difficult conditions, the weak, vul-
nerable ones die while the strong, resistant individuals survive. Yet,
when a huge ocean wave hits the rocks, it kills everyone on it without
considering whether an individual is weak or strong-and all could
easih· die at once, or disappear, in a major catastrophe such as an
earthquake.
Some species actually have amazing defense and survival strate-
gies, distinctive attitudes given to them as divine urgings (what
evolutionists call "instinct"). Some bison types, for instance, gather
together in a circle against a ferocious animal like a lion. They stand
in such a position that their horns face outwards, and their hind
quarters arc inside the circle; in this way, they can resist anacks
while protecting their vulnerable offspring, who are sheltered in the
middle of the circle. Such an attitude makes even a lonely, weak ox
very strong through collective behavior.
In addition, the attitude of self-sacrifice to preserve its off-
spring (for the continuation of the next generation) is also seen in
some other species. Such altruistic behavior is not only beneficial
for the individual but also for the group. Yet while the group's total
productivity increases, the altruistic individual's own productivity
might acmally decrease. In other words, while "group selection"
supports altmism and leads to the viability or extinction of an entire
group, the organism's own selection supports selfishness and allows
the reproduction or the death only of the individual. So, can selec-
tion steer, or improve, such sacrificial behavior in favor of the
74 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

group or the individual? Of course, right after this question, the

following comes to mind: "Is there any purpose behind the concept
of selection?" For if there is, then the presence of the Owner of such
knowledge and power, Who makes selection purposeful, will be
sought. The answer to this is that since such a perfect and conscious
mechanism cannot proceed by itself or coincidentally, the existence
of a Creator is deemed both cenain and absolute.
Another crucial point we should emphasize here is that camou-
flage and mimicry (a deceiving characteristic which serves as the
chief means of protection of the weak against powerful predators),
both being means of survival other than struggle as well as common
living behaviors, are adjusted very critically.
As highlighted by Bergson in his book, Creative Evolution, it
is inevitable that we will err in ascribing knowledge and will-
power to the notions of adaptation and selection if we do not
attribute the excellent behaviors which are observable, and some-
times called "instinct," to infinite knowledge and power, and if we
do not see those attirudes as "divine urging."

ADAPTATION, OR GENETIC INSURANCE OF SURVIVAL?

Being a good observer, Darwin recognized the rich variety which

can be seen in the animal world. However, not knowing the genet-
ic mechanism behind these varieties was deceptive for him. Noticing
the small changes within species, Darwin arrived at the conclusion
(by way of a "shan cut") that these could create a transition from
one species to the other. That idea had an exciting and appealing
side for everyone. Critically, though, the fossil record and modern
techniques in animal breeding display the fundamental concepmal
errors of both Darwin and his current advocates. Indeed, variations
within a species that are harmonious with the environment simply
increase the species' ability to protect itself, and "insure" fun1rc
generations against serious environmental changes; in effect, those
 Biological Mechanisms in Nature 75

changes ensure the maintenance of the "biological borders" which

that species has had since its creation.
It can be said, then, that variations are not vertical-rather,
they are horizontal. In other words, the genetic combinations that
arise as a result of meiosis or of changes in the genetic code as a
result of other mechanisms cause diversity and richness within any
species, but they do not give any opportunity for transition from
one species to another new species. The multiplicity of variations
within the species is a kind of insurance for the continuation of that
species' generation. In this way, the existence of the species is main-
tained despite the difficulty of surviving under different environ-
mental conditions. The key factors which will make it easier for any
species to continue in future generations will be how much it can
reproduce, and the extent to which its offspring sustain this portfo-
lio of genetic variability. Even though some of its offspring are
certain to die in extreme conditions that may arise suddenly, some
of them (those which are more resistant to difficult conditions with
respect to their genetic code or genetical potential) will still have
the chance to survive, and the continuation of the species will be
ensured through those individuals.
In the statement, "Adaptation is a result of selection, such that
desert plants achieve sun•ival by adapting themselves to dry weather
conditions," the term "survival" (selection) expresses a result. Yet
when the notion of the "survival of the fittest" is used along with the
concepts of selection and adaptation, there arises a "barren cycle"-a
circular definition, as it were. The answer to the question, "Which of
them survive?" is given as, "The fittest onesn; and the answer to the
question, "\Vhich arc the fittest ones?, is then given a'i, uThe survi-
vors." Thus, we are faced with an absurd and tautological statement
which can be expressed succinctly as, "Those that live are the survi-
vors." Returning to the example, in order for desert plants to adjust
themselves to conditions, they first have to undergo selection and
then adaptation; rhus, after the elimination of unfavorable individu-
als, the rest of the population is said to have "adapted."
76 Evolution: Science or ldeoloKJ·?

Accorcling to the reasoning of evolutionists, if the fittest ones

are those that can adapt (i.e., those undergo selection first), then in
order for them to emerge, there has to be a process of adaptation
(i.e., those which undergo adaptation first). Such a circular defini-
tion is essentially a paradox which can only be resolved by consider-
ing it as a mechanism placed by the Creator as a central feature of
nature, and by refusing to attribute "willpower" to natural selection.
On the other hand, should natural selection be accepted as an
"authority'' having willpower, foresight, and knowledge-while also
denying any "cause" which created the balanced operation of the
ecosystem-then it is not possible to resolve this paradox. The
degree of fit of an organism's survival is determined by its strength
in life (health, fitness, power) and rate of reproduction in certain
environments and populations. However, such an achievement does
not only depend on the deterministic mechanisms of biology. The
survival of the weak along with the strong can only be explained by
such concepts as cooperation, solidarity, compassion and sacrifice
among animals-thus, there is the implicit necessi~· in any analysis
of taking the whole animal population into account.
Adaptation is a concept which fundamentally expresses the
suitability of some individuals' genetic substrate for their survival as
a response by which they can adjust to various environmental con-
ditions, but it does not have, and is not, a self-a "being" on its
own. This point should never be ignored when accepting adapta-
tion as a causal biological mechanism limited by generic substruc-
tures which were put in place by Divine Will in order for the eco-
system to operate in an orderly and harmonious fashion to ensure
the continuation of the species.
The process whereby an indi,·idual's physiology and pheno~'Pe
encounters and responds to environmental conditions is called
"physiological acclimatization." The increase in the number of red
blood cells among those who climb high mountains can be cited as
a common example of such a phenomenon. On the other hand, the
same physiological event is described by evolutionary theorY as a
 Biological Mechanisms ;, Nature 77

process which has emerged by the special forces of narural selection,

which increases the suitability of a living being in regard to irs envi-
ronment and changes the species gradually. Indeed, as a response to
the envirorunent, rl1e individuals of a species might change-bur to
what extent?
For instance, Eskimos have a high-far diet to be able to live in
the North Pole; however, they do nor suffer from the heart disease
and some of the cancer types that are generated as a result of high
fat in the diet. This is because there has been a favorable differen-
tiation in Eskimos' physiological process to metabolize the far
compatible to the polar climate. This differentiation, however, has
not transformed Eskimos to a species od1er than human; it has only
remained at the level of subspecies (race).
Adaptation, being an individual characteristic of organisms,
causes an average increase in the population's suitability to the
envirorunenr-bur ir does nor require or entail an increase in the
growth rare of the population. In order to understand adaptation as
a measure of survival, as well as the capacity for reproduction of a
genotype with respect to other genotypes, we may make use of the
comparison between the shape of a srrucrure and irs design by an
engineer who has created it for a cerrain purpose. For instance, the
design of a plant as an aphyllous (leaf-less) or spiny one, living in a
very dry envirorunent like a desert, is vital for irs survival in dut ir
ensures optimal water retention under difficult conditions. Simply
put, any other type of biological leaf structure would not allow it to
stay alive. The exquisite plan belonging to such a plant, called irs
"generic code," obviously demonstrates that there is an Infinite
Power Who designs that structure. Other examples of such intricate
designs include the butterfly's harmonious colors, which are ideal
for their diverse envirorunents, and the camouflage of insects, by
which they are protected from their enemies as a defensive adapta-
tion. Yet simply naming a biological law does not necessitate disre-
garding the deep wisdom, love, mercy and compassion underlying
these phenomena and the Artist, the Owner of infinite power, Who
78 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

designs all of creation-in other words, asserting biological realities

does not entail disrespecting or ignoring the Almighty. Saying,
"Living beings have coincidentally developed characteristics which
allow them the best fit all by themselves in order to adjust, as a spe-
cies, to the environment," is nothing but a very shameful statement
and a deliberate effort to cover up the truth.
Different animals that live in the same environment and within
a common region do not have the same behaviors, that is, they do
not respond in the same way in adjusting to the same environment.
For instance, observing how a wild female bee digs a hole to store a
dying grasshopper as food for her babies, one might ask why other
species in the same environment do not exhibit the same behavior.
Rather, the presence of specific activity patterns for each species is
readily observable. In that case, one has to joindy consider the par-
ticular behavior patterns of each species and its manner of adapting
to the environment. While studying the subject matter of adapta-
tion, it is very important to compare different species through
experiment and observation. As a case in point, in order to see if
their body structure is favorable for swimming, the following may
be understood from the analysis of the hydrodynamic features of
sharks. It is accepted that the body structure and sense of smell of
sharks are adaptations which direcdy affect their ability to survive by
allowing them to seek prey and hunt in the water, and to swim
quickly so they may escape from their enemies; seen from this per-
spective, a hammerhead shark's shape could be seen as being contra-
dictory to such hydrodynamic advantages. Further, there are a great
many creatures demonstrating wildly different appearances and
physiology in the sea; none of them looks like the shark, but they
still continue their lives in the most ideal conditions for themselves.
Thus, it is clearly seen that all species are created with sufficient
genetic potential to equip them with unique and particular recom-
penses and mechanisms to ensure their competitive advantage. If the
general shape of the species is not very hydrodynamic, then another
feature will compensate-be it the number of its fins, its ability to
 Biological Mechanisms in Nature 79

be camouflaged in the coral reefs where ir lives, the protective prop-

eny of irs skin or irs poison, irs celerit:y or agility, and so on-some-
thing will serve ro optimally offSet what might otherwise appear ro
be irs deficiency.
From the examples above, we deduce that nor every feature
which is considered in rhe domain of adaptation is acquired subse-
quently; rather, mosr of them are given ro the species from its ere-
arion. As a matter of fact, if ir were otherwise, the species could nor
stay alive long. Ir is also clear thar there are limiting factors on adap-
tation. If having legs is an advantage, rhen when snakes compere
with lizards in the same environment, snakes should always lose the
competition-and yer they do nor. Conversely, if being without legs
is the advantageous condition, how could the presence of both
legged and non-legged lizard types be explained? The fact that all
snakes have no legs shows that the particular structure and design
which belongs ro a certain form was nor given ro every group of
living beings; that is, there is a restriction applying ro every type in
terms of different aspects. Along with rhe presence of these "restrict-
ing factors," the living being is allowed ro change within the limits
of that species starting from embryonic development. Only when
there are extreme generic changes that strain the limits of the species
does "evolution" occur in a complex organism-bur when ir does, ir
results in miscarriages and deformities, which are nor viable and do
nor stay alive as they exceed the bounds of this restriction.
Certain sections of the generic system are very fixed and
unchanging. Since these are related ro the viral characteristics belong-
ing ro a taxonomic class of living beings, we pur the animals in big
categories-such as fish or birds, carnivores or herbivores, or tor-
raises and snakes- accordingly. Ir is also possible thar in rhe living
being's genotype, there might be restricting factors restraining the
occurrence of mutations which would change the basic features of
the class in which it was created. Therefore, for instance, we can eas-
ily distinguish birds, reptiles, worms, and insects.
80 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

In order for the species to display itself in various phenotypes

through new variations, the reality of the restricted factors that limit
the changes occurring in the genotype are not known yet. However,
as is known from reproduction phenomena in nature, while these
provide the protection of the species' own original characteristics bv
means of an excellent restriction mechanism, the small changes that
cause richness and subspecies are not obstructed. For example,
humans are able to live in both polar zones, where the temperature is
around - 60 °C, or in the Sahara, where the temperature is about +
60 °C; similarly, they can live in forests, mountains, tropics, lowlands,
and so on-and they may even undergo some physiological changes
while adjusting to such diverse geographic and climate ranges.
When we come across people from the different geographical
regions of the world, some differences in skull shape, cheekbones and
nasal bones, forehead projection, the width of the face and the shoul-
ders, and the height, color and proportion of their body parts all give
us a hint about which part of the world they are from. Nevertheless,
these characteristics emerging within the range of available genetic
variability do not alter the human species into another type of species
and do not change the crucial characteristics which define a human
being.
Here, a change in this regard could certainly be verified.
Environmental conditions can sometimes change very radically, but
since the genetic capacity of a living being cannot respond appositely
to such new circumstances, it is possible to witness the death of that
species and the extinction of its generation. For instance, the extinction
of dinosaurs can be given as an example. According to the information
we have today, they lived in past geological ages, but since they were
not designed to have the capacity to adapt to the disaster which hap-
pened 65 million years ago, dinosaurs disappeared. Nonetheless, there
is not a single shred of evidence showing that dinosaurs became
smaller and transformed into modern-day lizards.
In fact, there is no such necessity, since all the characteristics of
organisms have to be adaptive and well-adjusted. The imporrant
 Biological Mechanisms in Nature 81

thing is the adaptation of viral properties. Rather than the consis-

tency of all features considered one by one, both the integration of
these features during the development period, and the variability
accorded by the pleiotropic effect of the genes (whereby one gene is
responsible for, or affects, more than one phenotypic characteristic),
are essential. Further, nor all characteristics are programmed geneti-
cally; some are especially coded in a way so as to emerge under the
influence of the environment or learning. The ability of some genes
to display the coded information that is present in their true nature
to various degrees, as well as situations in which a protein is not able
to be synthesized by an existing gene, all show the "open aspects" of
the genes in regard to environmental effect,. Some of the behaviors
of humans and animals can be learned, and cultural heredity is also
possible. It is clearly seen from observations of nature that the power
of adaptation is limited within species groups. It should also be
dearly understood that a harmonious system, integrated with the
ecological conditions, is placed in the generic codes of living beings
for continuation throughout future generations.

Narural Selection and Adaptation from the

Perspecttue of Creation
Selection can be explained as "the general name for all types of pro-
cesses related to the survival of individuals which accomplish the
struggle oflife." Since the distinction between genotype and pheno-
type was not known in Darwin's time, living beings were thought to
have simpler systems of inheritance that could be changed easily, as
compared to the reality of the complex mechanisms and processes
which are understood today. A great many conclusions about inher-
itance have had to be changed in recent years as researchers have
become aware of the marvels of genetics and of the inherently mirac-
ulous molecular design of the coding which defines this system. The
biological world is classified into systems within one another, includ-
ing progressively larger components as one moves from gene, chro-
mosome, genome, organ, organism, species, genus, family, and to
82 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

group. Thus, the answer to the question, "At what system le\·el is
natural selection (supposed to be) working?" becomes a criticallv
important one if one hopes to understand an organism's traits.
For a long time, rather than considering the gene or genome,
an individual living being has generally been accepted as the selec-
tion unit-that is, the unit of operation on which selection is pre-
sumed to be working. However, the functional variation in the
DNA molecule which is now known makes the analysis of the
genotype from a reductive or atomistic point of view null; on the
contrary, this knowledge necessitates that countless components
and systems be studied using a holistic approach. A gene, having its
own molecular existence, is both stable and inheritable, but it is not
an independent structure. Cells and organisms carry the genes; in
this regard, they can be thought of as "containers" for the genes.
According to evolutionists, changes in gene frequencies within
a population cause selection completely dependent on coincidence,
or cause "genetic drift," a specific variation in the genes of a small
group. In effect, genetic drift is a statistical effect which occurs
within groups of the same species wherein there is a small gene pool,
and it is dependent on some natural processes which are an insepa-
rable part of the general equilibrium. In this way, it causes some
genetic traits of a small group belonging to a particular species to
disappear, become "shielded or hidden," or even to become more
common-all of this being independent of the reproduction rate.
Whereas certain alleles (variants of a gene) are carried by many indi-
viduals in bigger populations, so that the balance in a gene pool does
not normally change, genetic drift permits unfavorable biological
conditions to emerge. In this case, an important factor which is
called "founder's effect'' also arises; this concept is based on the fact
that some individuals within a migrating group which is separated
from the larger population would have different alleles represented
than the main group. So, the first founders of the migrating group
would not be truly representative of the main, or entire, population.
For instance, let us assume that within a community, some people
 Biological Mechanisms in Nature 83

have blue eyes while others have brown eyes. If only the people with
blue eyes migrate to a remote place due to strains on land use, for
instance, and establish a new community there, all of the children
born in the new community will have blue eyes-and in regard to
this trait, they will be differentiated from the people of the previous
commumry.
However, the changes which occur as a result of genetic drift
never form a new species; rather, they arc simply changes which
diversify the species' present capacity in various ways. In other words,
genetic drift has the capacity to increase riclUless and variation within
a species, but it does not add any new features to the genetic code.
DNA is open to fi.mcrional variations, which ensures that species
can adjust to varying environmental conditions. Degrading such an
excellent system to suit a reducrionist or atomistic viewpoint means
seriously understating this amazing phenomenon. That is why most
geneticists working today accept the genotype as a holistic and multi-
component system. Further, the "selection value" of any particular
gene is understood to depend on the structure of the genotype-in
other words, all of the genes-with which it belongs.
It is also important to comprehend that most of the changes
which occur in gene frequencies are neutral and do not have any
selective importance. TI1e examination of those types of change
clearly shows that there is no possible way in which mutations might
cause the evolution of a genotype by means of natural selection.
Indeed, being lower and mostly neutral, the selective value of the
changes which occur at tl1e molecular level are crucial in terms of
protecting the originality of the species. Otherwise, the concept of
"species" would become vague, and the genotype would be nothing
but a "gene soup" that could transform into anything. For this rea-
son, it can actually be said that natural selection is a mechanism given
for the protection of the generation of the species by means of opti-
mization, stabilization, cleaning, organizing, and ordering.
Further, even the flexibility of physiological adaptations that
are not strictly genetic in origin is under the control of the genes.
84 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

Important elements and functions of the generic code-such as

organizing genes, moving particles, and repetitive DNA sequenc-
es-were made clear by the discovery in 1966 of "polymorphism"
(numerous variations which allow quite different t:vpes to exist in
the same population of the same species, such as ants or bees) in the
genes which code the synthesis of enzymes. Thus, the necessary
potential-the full complement of abilities-which is necessary for
a living being to survive has been put imo its biological structure
wisely by the Owner of Eternal Power and Knowledge as a pro-
gram which integrates its composite and complex elements with
environmental conditions.
There is no possible way to predict the biological events that
reproduction cells and zygotes may face when a new living being is
born, but if we consider the possible circumstances only from the
biological point of view (not taking divine wisdom into account)
they can be described in brief as follows:
a- the loci (the specific sites of a particular gene) where muta-
tions can occur on the chromosomes;
b- the loci where chiasms may occur resulting in crossing over;
c- the splitting of the chromosomes;
d- which specific reproductive cells among billions of them
actually live;
e- which specific sperm and egg cell is then chosen, and why;
f- the development process which results from the combina-
tion of characteristics of the fertilized egg, and the influ-
ences of the outside environment-none of which can be
predicted.
Furthermore, the phenomenon of"pleiotropy" (whereby a sin-
gle gene affects more than one phenotypic trait) is also e\~dence for
destiny in reproduction because, for a gene to be "readable" in more
than one form shows that selection is actually a "hidden" and proba-
bilistic event in terms of destiny.
 Biological Mechanisms in Nature 85

At the time it was first proposed, natural selection was not

accepted. The main reason behind this was Darwin's lack of com-
prehension of the importance of variation and his lack of supportive
examples from narure. Due to d1e fact mat, on the one hand, a
probabilistic explanation could hardly have been understood during
a historical period when determinism was so popular, and, on the
oilier hand, all biologists used to believe me typological rl1ought
(essentialism) which had been influencing me West since Plato-
the presence of constant, stationary, and invariant forms had been
accepted. According to this line of thinking, there was only con-
tinuously changing uembroidcry" on such stationary forms.
Furthermore, in regard to the dissimilarity between me two indi-
viduals involved in sexual reproduction, it was not known that the
two critical cells are different depending on the various activities of
organizing genes. For this reason, me view that each living mecha-
nism has a unique and special structure, open to change, was seen
as an assault on the belief in creation. However, as a reality of the
Creator's handiwork, the variations in populations actually signify
the emergence of individuals with unique structures that belong
only to them. In fact, this is the richness of creation. Furthermore,
since the notion of "population" had not yet been advanced at that
period in time, biologists used to understand events on an indi-
vidual basis. Later on, when events came to be considered at me
level of population, it was understood that average values were just
an abstract number, so to speak, so that the acceptance of natural
selection became easier. Yet, even at that early point in the discus-
sion, a particular orientation prevailed over the interpretations of
natural selection, which effectively directed both attitudes and con-
clusions falselv towards ameism.
It is obvious mat natural selection exists "'' an intrinsic aspect of
d1e food chain among living mechanisms, and it works with adapta-
tion as an assurance for the protection of the generation. However,
as the correlation between any t\VO events cannot be evidence for
"causality" -for a cause-effect relationship between d1em-<omments
86 Evolurion: Science or ldeolog.·?

made about an event do not entail that both the reason and the result
are explained. Most of all, this is clearly seen when notions such as
the survival of the fittest, adaptation, and sex arc factored into the
biological system. Developing mathematical models which take the
gene as the primary unit of selection, population geneticist.• have
tried to explained selection at the level of the gene, but as a result of
neglecting to consider the whole individual, or the whole organism,
those smdies have vielded false result.•.
A• to the primary view of modern evolutionan· theon·, e'·olu-
tion is only a process of adapting to suitable environmental condi-
tions, or of taking advantage of oppornmities that arise as a result
of environmental changes. Since it does not have a definite purpose,
the particular way in which it develops cannot be predicted. Should
such point of view be accepted, the nan1ral conclusion which one
would reach is that everything-namre, humanity, and the human
body, including its complex anatomy and physiology-is the fmit
of coincidence, and that everything has arisen by itself from chaos.
In mrn, the fact that all living beings having a common SYStem of
genetic coding in terms of basic molecules is presented as evidence that
they have a common ancestor and origin. However, very same phe-
nomenon is, in fact, the seal of the Creator's unity and powerful evi-
dence of how He creates countless varieties using the same material.

fUGITIVES FROM THE GENE PooL

Interpreted as a mechanism of evolution, "isolation" is a phenome-

non that may acnJally be applied to the past, roo. According to
evolutionary thought, a population consisting of individuals belong-
ing to the same species might have been divided into many sub-
populations for a variery of rea•ons. For instance, a population
belonging to species A can be divided into a number of new popula-
tions, Al, Al, A3, A4, and so on, due to migrations or different
geographical factors. If those new populations cannot come into
contact with the original population in am· way, so that they become
 Biological Mechanisms in Nature 87

entirely isolated from ir, then they will only have a chance ro repro-
duce among themselves, rhar is, they will only have the oppommiry
to exchange genes in a more limited gene pool. Thus, each small
population will become a new gene pool by itself, and due to this
phenomenon of isolation, ir will nor be possible to add new genes
to that pool. As a resulr, rhc group of individuals consrimring this
gene pool will only be able to transfer the genes which are presently
in the pool to each other. In this way, certain traits will starr becom-
ing dominant in each gene pool in rime. As this isolation continues
over many years, each dominant rrair in the gene pool will become
even more obvious, and cvcnmally, ir will be evident that this popu-
lation, which separated from the original group thousands of years
ago, is comprised of individuals who arc substantially different from
those in the original population.
According to advocates of evolutionary theory, individuals
belonging to the new gene pool become so different from the former,
ancestral population rhar they can no longer be paired with individu-
als from the original gene pool and they cannot produce new off-
spring since they have become, effectively, a new species. According
to the well-known systemarician Mayr, a species is "a group of acm-
ally or potentially interbreeding populations that arc reproductively
isolated from other such groups," that is, one type of species cannot
interbreed with another species namrally to yield fertile offspring.
As briefly explained above, the differentiation of individuals in
dissimilar gene pools through the mechanism of isolation is true;
however, by exaggerating this phenomenon of differentiation evo-
lutionists propose rhc claim-which is acmally impossible ro verify,
experience or observe-that new species are created. However, in
order for such an assertion to be confirmed scientifically, very long-
term smdics, in the order of millions of years, would be required.
Thus, the existence of those mechanisms, which are necessary ele-
ments in the f:1brication and pretense of the evolutionary process-
and which, critically, cannot be falsified, and thus do not meet the
88 Evolulicm: Science or Ideolog:y?

most basic criteria required of scientific theory-must be consid-

ered to be a strictly non-scientific claim, a mere assumption.
Ultimately, then, while they do belong to unique gene pools,
individuals who have become different from each other over a long
period of time through isolation do not comprise an entirely new
species; rather, they are just the subtypes of the same species. When
the isolation among those subtypes is reduced or eliminated, the
individuals of both populations can successfully interbreed with
each other and produce crossbred strains.
As a matter of fact, this was achieved in the laboratory with
interbreeding experiments between different subtYpes, and cross-
bred offspring were reliably obtained. A' we are a type of living
species, the same phenomenon occurs among human beings. After
the individuals of the first population of humans initially repro-
duced, they began to spread to different regions of the world. Since
they were now far away from their parent population and com-
pletely isolated from it, they formed closed gene pools through mar-
riage only among people from their own subgroups. Over time, as
some genes became dominant over others (for example, as reflected
in the darkening or lightening of the skin color; eyes becoming
either more slanted or straightened; or hair acquiring or losing its
wave or curl; and so on) due to the environmental conditions and
selective interbreeding, groups with some prominent and distinctive
features resulted. However, these groups certainly do not each com-
prise independent species-rather, the~' are simply distinct strains of
the human species. Human beings from all groups can intermarry to
produce offspring who are commonly witnessed in the world today
as children of mixed heritage.
As briefly mentioned above, the rwo major mechanisms seen in
the process of the emergence of subspecies by means of isolation arc
as follows:
a. Geographical isolation: This rype of isolation occurs when part
of a population of a species becomes geographically isolated from the
remainder as a result of such geographical barriers as mountains, riv-
 Biological Mechanisms in Nature 89

ers, lakes, can~uns, deep valleys, and so on. For example, a tailed
salamander called Mcrtensiel/a luschani, which lives in the western
part of the Taros Mountains in southwestern Turkey, has about eight
subspecies, as determined by taxonomists. Those subspecies, which
have been sep•lrated from each other by certain mountain ranges and
valleys over a long period of time, are very slow-moving animals
which do not ha,·e capacity to migrate in order to remove the isola-
tion barrier; therefore, each of the subspecies has become diftcrent
from the rest of the population in terms of color and markings.
b. Ecological isolati<m: This generally follows geographical isola-
tion. As is commonlv known, in different geographical regions,
ecological conditions generally vary, too. If one of the individuals of
the same species were living in a forest, one were living in a steppe
region, and one were living in high mountains, for instance-so that
each one was specifically adapted to its surroundings and did not
migrate to other regions-they could not come together to inter-
breed, even if there were no geographical barrier between them.
Consequently, since each of them would interbreed only within the
gene pools that they form under these diverse ecological conditions,
after some time, a new subspecies, with predominant genes which
dispose individuals to that habitat, would be produced.
Other than these two, evolutionists differentiate three more
tvpes of isolation: genetic isolation, temporal isolation and reproduc-
tive isolation (either gamete or zygote-based). This approach is based
on the claim that population which are separated from each other
"take a form which cannot interbreed with other populations" after
some time. According to the claims of evolutionists, the populations,
which arc initially capable of interbreeding, eventually attain very
distinct characteristics upon their lengthy separation from each oth-
er-as a result of chromosomal changes resulting from gene muta-
tions-and thus, these two different populations will not be able to
reproduce when they interbreed since their gene series will not be
compatible (genetic isolation). In the case of temporal isolation,
those distinct populations start functioning in different seasons, so
90 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

they simply cannot find each other to interbreed. In the case of repro-
ductive isolation, either the structure of the reproduction organs of
individuals in different populations, or their reproductive behaviors,
change through mutation so that they cannor reproduce even if thev
find each other. All in all, for advocates of cvolutionarv thcor\·, those
three isolation tncchanisms also result in new species.
In fact, however, these claims about evolution can never be
proven, whether bv experiment or by observation. As such, it docs
not seem possible for the reproductive organs or the genetic codes
of thousands of individuals belonging to the entire population to be
changed bv random mutations without mining the species' normal
strucrure. In other words, even though such a change might occur
in one single individual, that extreme change would not have anv
imponance in the whole population since that mutated individual
would actually die and disappear after some time. It is cenainly a
weak assumption to claim that while all of the physiological proper-
ties of various subgroups separated from the same population pre-
dispose it to function in the same season, as a result of a mutation
a need to be active during different seasons will emerge in all of the
individuals. The case where a living being, active in winter, has
become inactive by mutating has never yet been observed, and,
further, the formation of subspecies can typically be wimcsscd by
examining the fauna of islands.
Living in the Galapagos Islands, a species of finches which
became popularly known as "Darwin's finches" and which have occu-
pied books about evolution, are first and foremost the most specula-
tive materials used by evolutionists.
The Galapagos Islands, which are made up of thineen main
volcanir islands, arc about a thousand kilometers west of South
America. They arc distributed around the equator, and the biggest
one is 112 km long and at most 32 km wide. The surface area of
some of those islands is not more than a couple of square kilometers.
And most of them are closer to each other than 100 kilometers.
 Biological Mechanisms ill lv'ature 91

Even though the physical properties are not ven· attractive,

Dam·in found those small islands striking and worthy of his atten-
tion. These islands are the only habitat for many animal and plant
species living there. Danvin states in his voyage notes that there are
at least one hundred native floral plants, dozens of unusual insects,
and about thim· unique bird species. Besides, there is also a giant
turtle species which is peculiar to this area, and two similar lizard
species-one which lives on land, and the other which lives in the
water. Among those, the marine iguana is vegetarian, feeding only
on seaweed; irs limbs arc held to the side and its dive is typically
shallow, while it can sta\· submerged for considerable lengths of
time. The most remarkable aspect of these animal groups is that
most of them-turtles, i6'1.1anas, finches, and others-are different
from one island ro the other in such a way that the forms special to
each island look as though they belong to distinct species. Of course,
the fact that subspecies could arise over time due to reproduction
only among themselves, through the effects of genetic variations and
the isolation of gene pools, was not known at that time. And yet it
was specifically those apparent variations among the finches which
triggered the "first structures" of evolutionary thought in Danvin's
mind. He points out the following in his notes:
1ltc distribution. of the tenants of this archipelago would not be
nearly so wonderful, if, for instance, one island had a mocking-
thrush, and a second island some other quite distinct genus; if
one island had it.'i genus of lizard, and a second island another
distinct gcnLL'i, or none whate\·er- or if the different islands were
inhabited, nm by representative species of dte same genera of
plants, bur by rmall~· different genera .... Bur it is the circum-
stance, that se\·eral of the islands possess their own species of the
tortoise, mocking-thrush, finches, and numerous plant'i, these
species ha\'ing the same general habits, occupying analogous situ-
ations, md ob\·iously filling dte same place in the natural econo-
my of this archipelago, that strikes me with wonder. 20

He simply could not acknowledge the creation of bio-diversity,

composed of completely different species or subspecies, among such
92 • Evolution: Science or Ideology?

proximal islands. As the fixity of species doctrinal approach assumes

immutability, Darwin's sentiments revealed that he could not com-
prehend the way in which different species could be created one bv
one, specifically for those small islands, where some of the environ-
ments consisted only of a few sharp-pointed rocks. The onlv possi-
bility for the creation of those variant species which he could f.1rhom,
or which he could allow, was the idea that somewhat similar species
living on different islands had arisen from a common parent species
through evolution. In fac1:, however, his misunderstanding mav be
traced to the fact that he personally lacked a prolound belief in a
Creator God Who is Almightv and All-Knowing, and he did nor
have comprehensive knowledge of God. For the divergent species
which he observed could actually be explained as representing varia-
tion within the species rather than anv sorr of transition from one
species to another. Such diversity could also be explained as being
the separate creation of distinct species on a parent continent from
where they might have eventually migrated to the islands and then
tmdergone drift within the species as the result of isolation from the
source population-or even as the distinct creation of species on
those parricular islands. Unfommately, Darwin was nor able to per-
ceive the other possibilities. At this point, one cannot help but ask
the following two questions: Is it really possible, or conceivable, that
a small volume of sharp rocks could acrualh· create something, or
transform life forms into something else? Com·ersely, is it not pos-
sible, and even easy, for a Creator with Infinite Power over every-
thing to create whatever He wills?
It should be mentioned that none of the animals belonging to
those islands is as well known as the small land birds which arc now
commonly known as "Darwin's finches." As mentioned above, the
Galapa;!<" Islands are composed of thirreen major islands, six smaller
ones, and manv islets consisting only of small rocks. In total, there
arc fourrcen distinct types of finches living within this group of
islands. Displaying dear distinctions from each other, these birds
were classified as fourteen different species belonging to six genera.
 Biological Mechanisms in Nature 93

The biggest one is about as big as a crow, and the smallest one is
about the size of a sparrow. Their plumage is different in color, rang·
ing from light brown to black. Further, the shape of the beak chang-
es from one species to the orher; while some have a small conical
beak (the Geospiza genus), some have a beak similar to a parrot's beak
(the Camarhynchus genus), and some other groups are comprised of
thin-beaked birds, like carnelian cherry birds (the Cactospiza and
Certhidea genera). This variation in the morphology of beaks reflects
ti.mdamental differences in both their eating habits and their general
beha\~ors. Some species, having a big conical beak or a parrot-like
beak (land finches) are seed and cactus eaters which spend most of
their time hopping on the ground. Those that have long, thin beaks
(perching birds) are insect-eaters like serins which spend most of
their time on tree branches. The species which has a drilling beak
much like a woodpecker, and which climbs upright along the trunk
of a tree, uses an important feeding technique: it inserts the needles
of a cactus plant into small cracks, or slits, in a tree in order to extract
insects. Long, thin-beaked warbler finches, which have sharper and
more slender beaks, move very fast in a position in which they half·
open their wings; in this way, they swiftly hop around bushes and on
the branches of trees while looking for insects. 1lms, even though
they are very diverse in terms of height, color, beak morphology,
beha~or and food preferences, the fourteen finch species of the
Galapagos Islands are assumed by advocates of evolutionary theory
to be very closely related. For this reason, according to the artificial
classifications which have been done, the frnches are included in the
Fringillidae family by some taxonomists, while they are considered to
be part of the Embe1izidae family by others (as in the zoological ency-
clopedia by Bernhard Grzimek). As frequently occurs with other
animal groups, another taxonomist could still come up with an
entirely different classification in the future, whereby she or he may
put all of rhese species into different families or genera. Such revi-
sions are common in taxonomy and will be continuously spotlighted
as a result of the discovery and evaluation of new biological proper·
94 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

ties. Indeed, by no means may we say annhing definite about the

families or genera into which the birds that are now included in the
Fringillidae and Embe1izidae families, for instance, will be classified in
the wake of fumre crossbreeding experiments or new chromosomal
srudies-nor may we establish with certaintv whether thcv are going
to be considered under a new genera, family, or species name.
Consequently, in any context where the notions of species and sub-
species are being discussed-and given tl1at all of the systematic cat-
egories other than species are admittedly synthetic-it is a grossly
premarure decision to say that these finches came from a common
ancestor. The insistence on such a view is a false judgment which
does not sufficient!\· rely on evidence. On what rype of evidence, for
instance, relies the rejection of the idea that each species can1e sepa-
rately from a parent continent?
In the era when Darwin lived, it might have been seen as rea-
sonable to interpret the evidence such that some of the finches liv-
ing in those isolated islands were deemed related, and originating
from a common parent species, since they did, in fact, display a
kind of morphological continuity with respect to the shape of their
beaks, their height, and the color of their plumage. On the other
hand, in a time like today, where the advances which have been
made in molecular biology, generics, zoology, and the migration of
the birds, for example, has altered both our knowledge and funda-
mental concepts, such a claim can only be proposed as a prejudg-
ment for ideological reasons.
Darwin wrote the following: "Seeing this gradation and diversity
of strucrure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one
might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archi-
pelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends."21
But how clid Darwin know whether there had acrually ever been a
scarcity of finches? How could he know about how those birds ini-
tially came to the Galapagos Islands? What made him insist that they
could not have come from the mainland separately? If one finch spe-
cies could reach there from the continent for the first time, could
other bird species not reach it as well? Why could the fmches not have
 Biological Mecha11isms in Nature 95

been created in, or for, the Galapagos Islands specifically? (Note that
the dassic problem here is mainly due to the fact that those who do
not believe in the Creator deem that it is not possible for Him to cre-
ate and establish whatever He wills, wherever He prefers.) Couldn't
some of those that had reached this place have reproduced subspecies
or crossbred descendents? (In fact, in this regard, Darwin's finches
were greatly exaggerated by Dr. Jonathan Wells in his book, Icons of
EPolution, a point which we will investigate below, when we argue
specifically against Darwin's assertions.) In addition, couldn't some of
the same finch species, which had remained on the mainland, simply
have become extinct? (In this regard, we need to remember that her-
mit ibis birds, for example, were at risk of extinction until very
recently). Besides, given that conditions are acrually not so different
from one pan of the Galapagos Islands to the other-even by
Darwin's own admission-how could such variation among the
finches arise as a result of enviromnental conditions?
In addition to the remarkable variation between species which is
witnessed in the archipelago, according to Darwin, there was anoth-
er aspect of the narural history of the islands which worked against
the doctrine of fixism, or immutability, of species: despite the
uniqueness of the fauna of the Galapagos, most of the species there
were obviously related to sister species on the nearest continent, the
South American mainland, located roughly six hundred miles to the
east. Darwin commented on this relationship as follows:

If this character were owing merely to immigrants from America,

there would be little remarkable in it; but we see that a vast
majority of all the land animals, and that more than half of the
flowering plants, are aboriginal productions. It \\'as most striking
to be surroWlded by new birdc;, new reptiles, new insects, and yet
by innumerable trifling details of structure, and even by the tones
of voice and plumage of the birds, to have the temperate plains
of Patagonia, or the hot dry deserts of Northern Chile, vivid.Jy
brought before my eyes. 22

In other words, while enviromnental conditions were really quite

similar to continental conditions, most of the living species were
96 Evolulion: Science or ldeolor;,a·?

Wlique to the archipelago. In fact, this isolated archipelago bore ob\i-

ous similarities to South America. For this reason, according to
notion of "the fixity of species" which was supported by Darwin's
opponents at that time, the fauna of the Galapagos Islands should
indeed resemble the fauna of South America-but not, for example,
the fauna of the Cape Verde Islands, which are actually far closer in
climate, geology and general characteristics. The Cape Verde Islands,
located on an archipelago near Senegal, in the Macronesia ccorcgion
of the North Atlantic Ocean, was a necessary stop for Darwin's ship,
the Beagle, so that it could catch the trade winds and reach South
America expeditiously, as did other ships. Commenting on tl1e vari-
ous observations he made during his four-week stay in the region of
the Cape Verde Islands, Darwin wrote the following:

Why, on these small points of land, which ''"irhin a late gcologic;'ll

period must have been cm·ercd by the ocean, which arc formed
of basaltic lava, and therefore differ in geological character from
the American continent, and which arc placed under a pcL'llliar
climate-why were their aboriginal inhabitants, associated, I may
add, in different proportions both in kind and nwnber from
those on the continent, and therefore acting on each other in a
different manner-why were they created on American types of
organization? It is probable that the islands of Cape de Verde
group resemble, in all their physical conditions, far more closely
the Galapagos Islands than these latter physically resemble the
coast of America; yet d1c aboriginal inhabitants of the two
groups are totally unlike; those of the Cape de Verde Islands
bearing the impress of Africa, as the inhabitants of the Galapagos
23
Archipelago arc stamped with d1at of Amcrica?

Indeed, Darwin's question was based on the observation of an

important phenomenon: namely, if creation in a geographical
region is strictly, and ideally, suited to the climate, physical geogra-
phy, and geological characteristics of that region, then why do the
native populations of the Galapagos Islands and those of the Cape
Verde Islands not resemble one another? However, Darwin's think-
ing became shallow, or limited, at this point.
 Biological Mechanisms in Nature 97

The answer to the question is simply that this phenomenon,

which exhibits the richness of creation, is not restricted to the
Galapagos Islands. To all well-traveled naruralists, it is obviously
apparent that very similar environments on various continents are
often occupied by quite different, and tmrclated, species. In general,
different, yet mainly related, forms populate adjacent geographical
regions within any greater continental area. So why can the same
types of environments not be populated by the same species? First of
all, why should they be? Is this not a case, then, which acrually proves
that knowledge, willpower and planning are not essential attributes,
or abilities, of "narure"-which is assumed to possess some sort of
virtual power according to evolutionary thinking? Indeed, these
questions are strictly logical and have nothing to do with either the
belief in a particular faith, or even belief in the Creator.
Darwin was not the only Victorian naturalist whose belief in the
fixity of species was shaken just by a trip-specifically, by witnessing
the phenomena of geographical variation in isolated regions. Having
such a great influence on Darwin's geological thinking through his
book, Lyell, who resisted the idea of organic evolution for many
years, felt the impact of Darwin's argument after he had been exposed
to the phenomenon of geographical variation on the Canary Islands.
Also, in 1858, Alfred Russell Wallace, who subsequently proposed
the "theory of evolution by natural selection" with Darwin to the
Linnean Society, accepted the idea of evolution after he identified a
similar phenomenon in Malaya and in the Indonesian Islands.

Static and Dynamic Species: The Secret of Adaptation

In addition to the biological principles mentioned above, the cases
witnessed in narure are occurrences of new subspecies, which repre-
sent systematic subgroups belonging only to same species and which
increase the diversity within a species. Thus, adaptation is a phenom-
enon which is observable at the end of a process of competition
whereby a species is able to overcome difficulties as a result of tolerat-
ing the new physical conditions, using its own particular morpho-
98 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

logical, physiological and beha,ioral characteristics. A species might

have many variants in its new generations. If some of the offspring
which are thus produced within the species' genetic capacity do not
have the information to code for specific biological activities which are
required, or suitable, for that environment, or to sustain themselves in
new conditions which may arise in that environment, then those off-
spring may not be able adapt to the new cirrumstances and they will
perish as a result. Meanwhile, those offspring which have a generic
capacity which makes them suited to the new environment-that is,
those which have the physiological mechanisms required for their vital
activities, as well as the correct genetic information to operate their
organ.' so that they may adapt to the environment in which they live-
will survive and reproduce to yield more offspring which are also
favorable to that environment. Yet the ocrurrence of variations among
even those new generations will be naturally evident from time to
time. On the other hand, evolutionary theory claims that those small
changes which are initiated within the species would exceed the
boundaries of the species eventually and thus result in an entirely dif-
ferent species- with diverse genetic material, and which could not
interbreed with the previous generation-after a very long process. Of
course, being a completely fanciful assertion, neither field observations
nor cytological or genetic studies in the laboratory can confirm it.
For instance, as a result of dealing with insecticides, ob\ious
decreases in the sizes and growth rates of insect populations are seen.
However, the frequency of resistant genotypes starts to increase in
time. As a result of the resistance of these individual genotypes to
harsh en\ironmental conditions, populations will often maintain a
steady genetic constitution with respect to many traits. This attribute
of populations, the ability to reproduce very well-adapted pheno-
types, is called "generic homeostasis." Mosquitoes which have gained
resistance against DDT, and bacteria which have become resistant to
antibiotics, are very good examples of adaptation. Thus, even though
both DDT and antibiotics were quite powerful weapons when they
were synthesized for the first time, they have lost much of their previ-
ous strength as a result of the high capability for adaptation (coded in
 Biological Mechanisms in Nature 99

the genetic programs) of insects and bacteria. Meanwhile, the resis-

tance of those insects and bacteria that have survived has increased.
However, neither the legs nor wings of the mosquito have ever
changed, nor has the bacteria transformed into another living being.
In effect, the most important thing at which Darwin wondered
during the process of purring together evolutionary theory was the
tremendous variation in flora and fauna species. For in addition to
a feeling of amazement, it gave him the enthusiasm to search for the
source of such variation.
Evidently, the most closely witnessed diversity is in domestic
animals and plants-and it is truly striking. A good number of cat
races, such as the Angora, Manx, and Siamese, for example, can be
counted within the cat species. Similarly, tens of plum and grape
species could be mentioned. As a result of such evidence, Darwin
came up with the idea of transformation of species such that a great
many small differences within one species would eventually accumu-
late to result in a completely new species. In effect, the change of a
grape to a plum, or that of a cat to a tiger--Dr vice versa----<:ould now
be claimed. While none of the proponents of the idea have ever been
able to accomplish such a thing, Darwin still believed in the possibil-
ity of its occurrence. For their part, neither cultivators nor breeders
shared Darwin's optimism because their own experiences disposed
them towards the reality that there are restrictions on growing, or
steering, diverse animal and plant species. It was simply not possible
to break the boundaries which determine the species' characteristics
and true nature, though individuals having some differences with
respect to partial properties could be bred or grown. If a certain
horse type, for example, were bred for many generations-be it
small or big, heavy or slight, short- or long-tailed, curly- or smooth-
haired, and so on----<:ertain new types of horses could result. But in
all cases what would be obtained would still be a horse-not a rhi-
noceros. Indeed, Darwin, who recognized this problem, alleged that
in order for the macro-change to happen, still more micro-changes
would have to accumulate over time, so there simply had not passed
sufficient time for the macro-changes to occur.
100 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

As it rurns our, the advances made in production techniques

for the past five decades have not given any credit or justification to
DaiWin's predictions; on the contrary, they have thoroughly shaken
what he proposed. Furthermore, the developments in the field of
fossil records have brought about additional counter-evidence
against evolutionary theory.
The claim that mutations within species somehow become a
collective and synergetic power (supporting each other) over time
to cause a morphological change resulting in a new species lies at
the core of neo-DaiWinian synthesis. In other words, this assump-
tion, which necessitates a transition from micro-changes to macro-
changes, constirutes the basis of the idea of evolution. However,
scientific realities do not support that assumption. Those who con-
duct improvement, or breeding, srudies accept that some changes
might occur "within a species," through selectively raising cross-
bred animals and plants, and as a result of choosing high-quality
strains. Yet starting from the very first pigeon that was srudied for
selective breeding, all the pigeons which resulted, for generations,
were still pigeons-never eagles or even a different subspecies.
Probable or possible supposed improvements have restrictions,
then, and they are dependent on laws pertaining to genetic mecha-
nisms. Further, the net effect of these laws governing transformations
from the original types is such that the improved species rerurn to
their initial forms after a while unless there arc deliberate interven-
tions from outside. In other words, selectively produced strains, like
huge plants and dwarf animals, have a narural tendency to go back to
their original sizes or strucrures in subsequent generations.
In brief, the emergence of variations within species through the
mechanisms of adaptation and narural selection, and which arc the
result of principles which have been placed in the book of narure by
the Creator, only cause a kind of horirontal diversity that we refer
to as races or subspecies within the same species-but the idea of
vertical change, meaning a transition from species to species, is
acrually not even a question.
 5

Evidence for the Theory of Evolution,

or Preconceived Opinions?
 EVIDENCE FOR THE THEORY OF
EVOLUTION, OR PRECONCEIVED OPINIONS?

WHAT Do PALEONTOLOGY AND GEOLOGY SAY?

volutionists who run after evidence from diverse fields of

E science in order to promote the evolutionary hypothesis to

the level of a theory or law have demonstrated an unbeliev-
able level of skill in distorting each new discovery toward their own
world views. In fact, should you look at all the fields of science from
a certain world view, and accept that view as the foundation of science
in its entirety, you would be able to use all kinds of information by
twisting it for the sole purpose of supporting such an idea. And that
is exactly what evolutionists have done. Evolution is taken for grant-
ed from the start, and all interpretations are forced to strengthen this
idea. As new discoveries actually disprove what evolutionists claim,
the advocates of evolutionary thought simply and immediately back
down from their previous claims, and then buckle down to distort
the new information in the same direction, searching for new routes
to arrive at their evolutionary ideas. Despite all their effortS, however,
not a single serious experiment or observation which could verify the
evolutionary hypothesis has ever been presented. The existing asser-
tions have been highlighted over and over again, but all of them have
already been disproved. Piece by piece, we can investigate the defi-
cient and misleading information, and the incomplete or corrupted
logic, that they propose as evidence according to the scenarios they
have been trying to establish in all fields of science from molecular
104 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

biology to genetics, from anatomy to physiology and embryology,

and from general geology to astronomy and paleontology.
"Paleontology'' is a field of science which srudies the fossil evi-
dence of geological periods. As a discipline of science, paleontologv
became prominent with one particular concept, the extinction of liv-
ing forms, and Cuvier was the pioneer of this field. Paleontology
began with Cuvier's discovery of some mammalian fossils near Paris
which belonged to living forms whose representatives no longer
existed.
Cuvicr thought that vertebrate fossils indicated the disconti-
nuities of the past, meaning that there were "gaps" between species.
In contrast, Lamarck thought that there was continuiry throughout
fossil history. Cuvier believed that periodic disasters or catastrophes
had befallen the Earth; each one had wiped out a number of spe-
cies, and evenrually, such an event had wiped out all life on the
Earth. This approach of his would later be called the theory of
"catastrophism." Opposing this notion, there were other ideas
which relied on the steady accumulation of narural events over
enormously long spans of time. They asserted that the geological
processes now in operation, and thus directly observable, were suf-
ficient to explain the geological or paleontological remains from the
distant past. This concept is what is referred to by the phrase, "the
present is the key to the past," and the famed geologist, Charles
Lyell, led the movement which was based on this particular under-
standing. Counted as one of the founders of geology, Charles Lyell
was also an advocate of the doctrine of"uniformitarianism," which
was initially popularized by him in the eighteenth cenrury, but
which was later left behind in second place. Human beings surren-
der quickly, and they believe, it seems, only in the face of concrete
objects that they can see with their eyes and hold with their hands.
Being aware of this fact, evolutionists have advanced all of their
claims by somehow managing to "give shape to flesh and bones";
as a result, they have succeeded in making their ideas popular and
accessible. Distorting paleontological remains by adorning them
 Evidence for the Theory of Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? I 05

with imaginary exaggerations, making scenarios about the findings

as if they were explaining a truthfully witnessed process, and, at
least as important as the first two, expertly employing the mass
media for their interests-all these lie behind their success.
A discussion among paleontologists and paleoanthropologists,
which would acrually require specialized knowledge to fully appreci-
ate or understand, is presented to the general public as if "an impor-
tant problem related to evolution has been resolved," or "one of the
lost links between humans and apes has been found." However, the
truth is that what is presented is nothing but an opinion based on a
scenario accepted as fact, or a mere debate related to some recently
found fossil pieces.

Dating according to scenario

The evolutionary hypothesis also betrays serious problems and con-
tradictions regarding the dating of the age of the Earth and the dat-
ing of fossils belonging to various geological times. As we will men-
tion in detail below, dating methods other than those which purport
to prove the various ages of animal phyla in a manner which is favor-
able to the evolutionary scenario are excluded from the literature by
advocates of evolutionary theory. For instance, "Rock paintings
found in the South Mrican bush in 1991 were analyzed by Oxford
University's radiocarbon accelerator unit, which dated them as
being around 1,200 years old. This finding was significant because
it meant the paintings would have been the first bushman paintings
found in open country. However, publicity of the find attracted the
attention of Mrs. Joan Ahrens, a Cape Town resident, who recog-
nized the paintings as being produced by her at art classes and later
stolen from her garden by vandals."24 The significance of an incident
like this is that it reveals that mistakes can be unveiled only in those
rare cases where chance grants us some external method for verify-
ing the dating technique. But what happens in those cases where
there is not a firm reference present? In fact, age datings are done
according to arbitrary scenarios. Since there are different dating
106 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

methods, each one having distinct advantages and disadvantages

over the other, one might easily enough choose the one which ben-
efits a particular line of thinking while rejecting the others.
As an example of fraud in this field being motivated by the desire
for ideological and corporate profit, the activities of Prof. Reiner
Prorsch von Zieten, of Frankfurt University, should be mentioned.
Prorsch von Zieten systematically falsified the dares on numerous
human "stone age" fossils found in Europe. He dared the fossils as
thousands of years older than their actual age. He was also accused
of selling the universil:)'s skulls for his own profit and plagiarizing
other scientists' work. According to The Guardian newspaper's
report, he even manufactured fake fossils and introduced the ape fos-
sil found in France as if it had been dug up in Swirzerland. 25 A com-
mittee at Frankfurt Universil:)' investigated the case and found that
"Professor Prorsch von Zieten has bastardized scientific truths for the
past thirty years." Der Spiegel Magazine reported the fraud as follows:
"The frauds of an anthropologist at the carbon-daring laboratory at
Frankfurt University since 1973, which has dated the ages of hun-
dreds of fossils, falsified the ages of some important fossil samples on
purpose .... "26
Concern about Protsch von Zeiren's carbon-dating estimates
arose following a routine investigation of German prehistoric
remains by rwo other anthropologists. Thomas Terberger, of
Greifswald Universil:)', and Marrin Street, of the Research Center
for the Early Stone Age, in Neuwied, wanted to check the authen-
ticity of the fossils using modern techniques. So, they sent the
fossil samples that Prorsch von Zeiren claimed to be from the
stone age from Germany to Oxford Universil:)• for resting. The
results which came back from the carbon-daring department at
Oxford Universil:)• were described as a "disaster" by the rwo sci-
entists. These are important remains that Oxford scientists simply
no longer believe to be prehistoric. The female "Bischof-Speyer"
skeleton, which Protsch von Zeiren estimated to be 21,300 years
old, was only 3,300 years old. A skull discovered near Paderborn-
 Evidence for the Theory of Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? I 07

Sande, in Germany, which Protsch von Zeiten dated as being

27,400 years old, so it was considered to constitute the oldest
human remains ever found in the region, is now believed to
belong to a man who died about 250 years ago. In addition, the
skull fragments called Hahnhiifersand man were not 36,000 years
old, as Protsch von Zeiten claimed, but were rather a mere 7,500
years old. 27 Needless to say, those unfortunate evolutionists who
had founded their scenarios on Protsch von Zeiten's data, and
claimed that that Neanderthal man and Homo sapiens had mated
to produce entire generations together, were shocked. Wrongly
dubbed the "earliest German," and falsely presumed to be a vital
missing link between humans and Neanderthals, Hahnhiifersand
man was forced to step down from his throne, since at the time of
his existence, as correctly dated, Homo sapiens was already well
established and Neanderthal man was extinct.
Further, with his false claims, Protsch von Zeiten caused other
scientists working on the propagation of the human population in
Europe to make profound mistakes. Due to his fraud, uncountable
baseless interpretations about the spread of Neanderthal man in
Europe and prehistoric Germany were included as "scientific facts" in
anthropology books. Anthropologist Chris Stringer, of the Natural
History Museum, in London, aptly summarizes the issue: "VVhat was
considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals
once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are hav-
ing to rewrite prehistory. "28
When this deceit of Protsch von Zeiten's was uncovered, some
of the fundamental bases of the field of anthropology collapsed, and
evolutionary theory was deeply wounded. Also, the following state-
ment of Thomas Terberger clearly shows how evolutionary "theory''
was erected on a cmmbling foundation: "Anthropology is going to
have to completely revise its picture of modem man between 40,000
and l 0,000 years ago. "29
All geological dating techniques are based on the fundamental
principle of calculating the rate of some continuous natural pro-
108 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

cesses. One of the most advanced dating methods today is the

vibration rate of quartz crystal, which acts by applying electric
potential. The best-known example of this technology is in the
quartz crystalline watches that many of us wear. Another technique
is the decay rate of radioactive elements from the day they were
created until today.
Nonetheless, it is not sufficient to have only the dating processes
available in our hands. In order to measure the accurate passage of
time, three important conditions have to be fulfilled. First, it is neces-
sary to accept that processes remain stable and unchanged, even
through times when we are not making any observations. Second, it
is necessary to know the beginning value of the clock; that is, we
need the correct answers to questions equivalent to the following:
"How much water was present at the time when the water clock
starred working?" or, "What was the height of the candle before it
was lit?" Thrd, it is necessary to prevent external factors from inter-
fering while the process is in operation-just as our electric clock will
stop due to the interruption of power if we carry it while we jog
outside; in other words, it is crucial to be certain that the conditions
under which nature's processes operated in the past did not experi-
ence any discontinuity equivalent to a power outage.
In fact, the determination of all these conditions is a problem
in dating calculations that we still face today. Since we do not have
a technique to observe the times in question-as these have been
left in history--or to verify the accuracy of the measurements, we
should be absolutely sure that those three conditions all held at the
same time in the past, just as they can be ascertained to do so today.
Yet, here is where the main problem and disagreements begin.
For instance, let us consider the amount of salt currently in the
oceans, along with measures of its influx from the land, to estimate
the age of the Earth (as developed by the Irish geologist, John Joly,
in 1898). Assuming that the oceans were made up of fresh water in
the beginning, and that salt was deposited as a result of land pieces
undergoing erosion under the impact of rain-so that the salt con-
 Evidence }Or the Theory of Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? I09

rained in them was carried ro the seas, and then dissolved in water-
this technique seems promising at first glance. Further, assuming
that the corrosion rare of land has remained constant until today-
therefore equaling about 540 million rons of salt being deposited
yearly-this method appears useful. Joly calculated the average salt
concentration in the oceans today (about 32 gram per liter) and then
the amount of salt in all the oceans (approximately 50 quadrillion
tons). From there, he divided the total salt in the oceans (in grams)
by the rare of salt added yearly (as grams per year), and thereby esti-
mated the age of the Earth to be about 100 million years.
However, if the three conditions mentioned earlier are insisted
upon, the shortcomings of Joly's technique become immediately
apparent. First, we cannot be sure that the rare of dissolved salt enter-
ing the oceans each year throughout geological times was constant.
There is also reasonable cause ro think that climate conditions varied
a great deal throughout geological rimes-and included, at different
times, ice ages, severe droughts, and extreme rainfalls; this variability
could have had an inestimable impact. Second, there could have been
some amount of salt present in the oceans in the beginning; in fact,
it is nor known with certainty that there was nor any salt present, and
recent srudies actually suggest that salt might have entered ocean
basins from fused magma w1der the Earth's crust. Third, it indeed
appears that external factors interfered in a process which might have
seemed stable. Ir is now known that huge amounts of salt are circu-
lated again and again in the atmosphere, and new evidence advances
the idea that the salt in the oceans might have become constant by
now, having reached a kind of equilibrium. For as soon as the salt
carried by rivers deposits itself in the oceans, it is transferred ro the
air via evaporation, and then simply comes down again on land as
precipitation. While large amounts of salt evaporate through bio-
logical processes, even greater amounts go into the srrucrures of deep
ocean sediments as a result of chemical processes that clearly inter-
rupt the normal functioning of our "clock."
llO Evolurion: Science or Ideology?

In measuring the age of the Eanh, all radiological techniques

are also disabled by the same shortcomings to a certain degree.
"Radiometric dating'' techniques, which are used to reach back 4.5
billion years, consist of methods aiming to determine the age of
rocks and eanh based on the decay of the radioactive elements they
contain, which have a very long half-life and thus stay radioactive
for a long time. The radioactive elements which are relevant to such
studies are uranium and thorium, which decay to become helium
and lead; rubidium, which decays to strontium; and potassium,
which decays to argon.
The basic principle is this: radioactive uranium-238, urani-
um-235, and thorium-232 atoms are created in such a way that
they can slowly transform into various lead atoms (uranium-238
into lead-206 and helium gas; uranium-235 into lead-207 and
helium gas; and thorium-232 into lead-208 and helium gas) over a
very long time periods. Critically, the decay rate of each of these is
remarkably constant. Unstable uranium and thorium atoms pro-
duce alpha particles periodically, yet which atom will decay, as well
as when it will decay, is not known in advance. There are billions
of atoms in a single deposit of uranium, and thus statistical calcula-
tions are required in order to guess the probability of the decay of
any particular atom.
The most important part of the theory is that the type of non-
radioactive lead-for example, the radiogenic lead-206 which
radioactive uranium-238 eventually decays into-is chemically dis-
tinct from normal lead (lead-204), which is present in the rocks but
is neither radioactive nor radiogenic. Thus, in order to determine
the age of a certain rock, the amounts of radioactive uranium and
radiogenic lead in the sample are measured. Since the decay rate is
known, it is possible to determine the duration of the decay, and in
this way, researchers can date the rock in question.
The half-life of one of the most widely used isotopes, urani-
um-238, is calculated to be 4.5 billion years. This means that half
of the given amount of uranium-238 becomes lead-206 after 4.5
 £1'idencef0r the Theory of Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? Ill

billion years. For example, if measurements showed that half of a

rock were made up of uranium-238 and the other half were made
up of lead-206, this would be assumed ro mean that the rock is 4.5
billion years old. However, recent srudies have raised imporrant
questions about the rcliabilit:y of this technique.
If the lead formed by radioactive activities is really the last
product of radioactive decay only, then the rocks in the Earrh's crust
can be assumed nor ro have contained any radioactive "parent lead"
when they were initially formed-and that might be a respectable
starring point for the measurements. However, a closer look reveals
that this assumption is acrually nor valid, for observations and
experiments have determined the presence of a separate process
whereby "normal" lead transforms into a form which cannot be
distinguished from "radiogenic" lead. This transformation occurs as
normal lead caprures free neutrons. Those neutrons are aromic par-
rides which have the energy ro transform normal lead ro radio-
genic lead (which is a candidate for acquiring radioactivity). In a
radioactive uranium seam, some uranium-238 atoms narurally
transform into lead-206 as a result of fission (the division of the
uranium atom's nucleus into two); and some uranium·238 atoms
divide into rwo by narural fission-and neutrons are released dur-
ing the process of fission. All these neutrons simultaneously converr
the normal lead around them (lead-204) and radiogenic lead
(lead-206) into lead-208, step by step. Yet, even with careful
experimentation and measurement, this lead-208 isotope cannot be
distinguished from the lead-208 which is a radiogenic product of
the alpha decay of thorium-232. Critically, while the lead-208 iso-
rope can clearly be obtained in rwo different ways, evolutionists
claim that all the lead-238 isotope which is detected is a radiogenic
product of the decay ofrhorium-232. Therefore, as there is a lor of
"radiogenic" lead present, evolutionists assume that the decay pro-
cess must have been raking place for a long rime, and this bends and
rwisrs the measurements of the age of the Earrh towards the favored
112 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

concept of an "old Earth" which the purported evolutionary see-

. .
nano requtres.
Along with lead, the other product of the process of uranium-238
decay is radioactive helium gas with an atomic weight of 4. The total
amount of helium in the atmosphere is supposed to be an accurate
reflection of the radioactive helium which has formed via this decay
process throughout every period in world history. Ob\~ously, if the
uranium-lead dating technique is to be considered reliable, then the
amount of radiogenic helium in the atmosphere has to provide a value
for the Earth's age which is consistent with that arrived at through
measurements of the amount of radiogenic lead in the Earth's crust.
However, the ages which are calculated are so different that they can-
not even be compared. For if the Earth is truly 4.5 billion years old,
then there should be approximately 10 trillion tons of radiogenic
helium-4 present in the atmosphere. But there are only 3.5 billion
tons present-thousands of times less than expected.
Some geologists have tried to explain this massive discrepancy
by assuming that the difference-that is, the missing 99.96% of the
expected helium-somehow escaped to outer space from the Earth's
gravitational field, but there is no e\~dence for this supposed phe-
nomenon. Further, in order to explain the missing helium gas, and
assuming the Earth is really 4.5 billion years old, then the atmo-
sphere would have to lose helium very rapidly-at the rate of about
10 16 atoms per cubic centimeter per second. However, rather than
losing helium, the atmosphere continues to gain a good amount of
helium each year, as new studies show. The reason is that Earth is
moving towards what can be termed a "thin sun" atmosphere which
is fundamentally based on hydrogen and helium, due to nuclear pro-
cesses which are occurring on the Sun, and it is simply acquiring
more helium as part of this process.
If we consider the measured amount of helium-4 in the atmo-
sphere now and apply radioactive dating techniques to this, we will
come to the conclusion that the Earth is only about 175 thousand
years old. However, our reliability criteria will still be invalid due
 Evidence for Ihe Themy of Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? 113

ro the possible entrance of helium-4 from outside, which will effec-

tively prevent accurate rates of measurement.
Consequently, the "clock arbitrator role" attributed to radioac-
tive decay is endangered in either case, as the measured value is not
the decay rate but rather the amount of decay products-while the
exact origins of such amounts are unknown. For this reason, all
radioactive dating methods used for the determination of the Earth's
age are quite defective and are unreliable.
Along with the problems just described, analvtical methods
based on the decay of potassium to argon, or of rubidium to stron-
tium, are also riddled with the defects mentioned above. While all
of the geochronometric methods developed to calculate the age of
the Earth harbor some uncertainties, only one of those techniques-
the one based on the decay of uranium and similar elements-ren-
ders the age of the Earth in billions of years. Therefore, only this
technique is applauded by evolutionists, while the other methods
are simply ignored. This is because evolutionists require such a long
geological past to prove Darwinian evolutionary theory, in that
evolutionary processes are assumed to give results only over a very
long period of time. This publicity campaign has been so successful
for Darwinians that almost everyone today, including scientists
from other fields, believes that the radioactive dating method is the
only notable and flawless method among those in existence because
of the constancy of universal decay. Yet, these widely accepted
beliefs are not actually supported by evidence.
There are many problematic aspects of the methods based on
the decay of potassium to argon, or of rubidium to strontium.
Critically, potassium minerals are abundantly fow1d in many rocks.
Potassium-40 decays after emitting an electron, transforming into
argon-40 gas, which has a half-life of 1.3 billion years.
The advocates of the potassium -argon method argue that the
argon gas which is formed by the decay of potassium-40 is held in
the crystal srrucrure of the mineral formed-"like a bird in cage"-
and deposits over time; thus, the assumption is that the deposited
114 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

radioactive isotope can then be used as a clock when it is measured

upon irs release. However, the potassium-argon method is uncenain
since the final product used in the analysis, argon-40, is a very com-
monly fatmd isotope which is ubiquitous in the aanosphere and in
the Eanh's crust and rocks. Indeed, argon is the twelfth most com-
mon element on Eanh, and more than 99% of all argon is the iso-
tope, argon-40. In terms of physics and chemistry, it is nor possible
to say whether an argon-40 sample is constituted by radioactive
decay, or whether it was present in the structure of the rocks while
they were formed. Besides, since argon is an inactive element that
does not enter into reactions with other elements, the argon atoms
are always retained in the crystal structures of the minerals-whether
or not they are radioactive. So it has been calculated that nor even 1%
of the argon still present on Eanh could have originated from radio-
active activities if the Eanh were 5 billion years old; therefore, at least
some of argon-40 in all potassium minerals should most likely have
been directly formed as argon from the stan, rather than forming
through radioactive decay. Therefore, if we insist that radiogenic
argon-40 is "a bird in cage," then we have to admit that this cage
holds some other birds, too, which have essentially same plumage
and cannot be distinguished from the argon-40.
It is imponant to note that the irregular and abnormal entrance
of argon into potassium minerals is not a mere estimate; rather, this
finding is supponed by many studies performed on volcanic rocks
whose ages were first calculated incorrectly. As a case in point, even
modern volcanic lavas, which were formed in recent history, have
been calculated by the potassium-argon method as being 3 billion
years old!
A similar study of the potassium-argon technique, which was
done on Hawaiian basaltic lavas, delivered ages ranging from 160
million years to 3 billion years. Then, in 1969, McDougall, of the
Australian National University, calculated the age of lavas in New
Zealand as being 465 thousand years; however, using carbon-14
dating, a piece of tree found in the lava was dated to be younger
 Evidence for lhe Theory of Evolurion, or Preconceived Opinions? 115

than 1,000 years old. The reason for the massive age discrepancy
here is the possible entrance of argon-40 into the environment dur-
ing its initial formation, along with the legacy of argon-40 arising
from the source of the magma.
Now let us imagine that the rocks that the samples were taken
from were heated again by subsequent volcanic activity. In fact, it
isjust as possible as abnormal enrichment (i.e., the entrance or gain
of argon-40) that those mineral samples could have been abnor-
mally impoverished. Such disordered and disrupted samples will
surely render incorrect aging if we only try to apply a simple clock
method.
In short, unfonunately, an independent way of verifying the
age of any sample has not yet been found. In the meantime, ages
which "seem correct" are immediately allowed, as they "give an
impression" which is compatible with evolutionary scenarios-that
is, with uniformitarianism-and thus, a portable data base is mirac-
ulously constructed.
As for radiogenic strontium (strontium-87), it is formed as a
result of the decay of rubidium in rocks. However, in general, rocks
contain ten times more normal strontium-87 than radiogenic stron-
tium. Thus, the rubidium-strontium technique also raises suspicion
since, just as in the case of the uranium-lead method, the same
neutron capture processes are at work-only here, strontium-86
transforms into strontiwn-87 by capturing one neutron.
The most embarrassing aspect of all these different dating meth-
ods is that they do not generally give compatible ages for the same
rock samples. In an effort to make the ages compatible, numbers are
adjusted until they "seem to be correct." Thus, scientists responsible
for dating get around the "unreliability problem" by labeling "suit-
able" rocks to date, and rejecting ''unsuitable" rocks from the analy-
sis-their suitability being prejudged according to evolutionary crite-
ria. This practice explains why the results of many dating methods
confirm each other-it is simply that all the rock samples which might
deliver different ages are rejected as being ''unsuitable for dating."
116 Evolution: Science or Ideo/oro'?

For his part, Richard Milton believes rhat rhere are at least four
ways by which scientists working on dating get into trouble and
error: 30
First, rhere are mistakes rhat cannot be tested. Since independent
evidence is not considered, most of rhe dated ages are not shown as
being faulty. In very rare situations where rhere is independent evi-
dence present, like rhe cases of rhe volcanic lavas in Hawaii and in
New Zealand, or rhe case of rhe paintings bY Joan Ahrens mentioned
above, the measured ages are found to be surprisingly wrong. The
response of supporters of rhe radioactive dating med1od ro rhis is rhat
they simply reject rhose independent verification studies by describ-
ing rhem as a "perversion," and instead prefer to continue to give rhc
creclit to rheir own findings, which are obviously favorable to an "old
Earth" view. But while doing this, rhey rhrow away rhe only means
of controlling or checking rhe reliability of dating merhods which is
available today. It seems, rhen, that they are so sure about their ideas
and their "rheot)>' rhat rhey do not need any scientific verification to
be done.
Second, events are only considered to happen in their own
"playground." Here, a mistake made on rhe arc of rhe mirror of the
Hubble Space Telescope can be given as an example. Even rhough
the mirror was manufactured in a laboratOI')' equipped with the
most advanced technology in the world, the mistake in the arc of
the mirror was not discovered by normal control processes. An
error in the order of a millionth of a meter could have been found
immediately, but a huge error that no one considered checking-
amounting to one centimeter-went completely undetected. This
was simply because such a big mistake had never even been imag-
ined, and as the measurement criteria had not been set up to work
outside the narrow range of what was considered possible, no one
perceived rhe problem which occurred on a much wider scale.
Similarly, with dating methods, the accepted value of criteria
has remained within the limits of the "playground" since Charles
Lyell first estimated that the Cretaceous period ended 80 million
 Evidence for 1he Theory ofEvolulion, or Preconceived Opinions? 1I 7

years before today. His ideological colleagues would simply con-

sider any dating expert who offered to check 20 million, 10 million
or even 5 million bemnd this "playground" to be "crazy." Most
importantly, this scientist might not even be able to obtain any
funds for his or her research studies.
Third, another reason for potential mistakes is that "minds
become locked." The frequent revision of physical constants, which
occurs very often, is not well acknowledged. It must be remembered
that the speed of light, the gravitational constant, and Planck's con-
stant all underwent important revisions before they became interna-
tionally accepted phenomena. One of the reasons for those revisions
is that all scientists can make mistakes, and these should be corrected.
However, scientists always seem prefer to correct those mistakes with
respect to currently accepted realities and values; thus, they give the
measured values a senseless, imposed direction. A name has even
been given to such a style ofthinking-"intellectual deadlock."
Fourth, there is strong professional pressure on scientists to
support the generally regarded opinion-the status quo. Because of
this, it will be very difficult, and even pointless, for scientists to per-
form their srudies independently or express their ideas freely. For
instance, let us consider a rock sample belonging to the end of the
Cretaceous period, a period which is believed to designate a time
frame about 65 million years in the past. A scientist dating this
sample as being only 10 million years old, or 150 years old, could
not possibly consider publishing this result, since it would be
assumed to be totally wrong. On the other hand, another scientist
dating the same sample as being 65 million years old could publicize
his or her results widely and publish easily. Therefore, the published
dating numbers are always consistent with predetermined ages,
never contradictory to them. Should all of the "unacceptable dat-
ings" be taken out of the trash can and put together with the pub-
lished dating results, we would simply be faced with a scattered plot
consisting of random numbers only.
118 Evolulion: Science or Ideology?

Related to the unfolding of dating errors (in spite of the fact

that all kinds of precautions were taken, and careful attention to
detail was given), Milton summarizes how the individuals con-
cerned could have been urged to do wrong in the following inci-
dent, in which even the world's most reputable isotope-dating labo-
ratory was involved.
Paleontologists discovered many human fossils and tools in
Lake Turkana (previouslv known as Lake Rudolph), in Kenya.
There was an ash layer defined bv Kav Behrensmeyer of Harvard
University as "The KBS Tuff" (the Kay Behrensmevcr Site), which
was among the significant findings.
When Richard Leakey first staned to examine the initial data in
Lake Turkana, in 1967, it became necessary to determine the age of
the KBS Tuff. Even though it seemed to be suitable for potassium-
argon dating, since it was an organic ani fact, it was not in its original
form (not young); it was corroded, contaminated, carried awav by
water, and deposited as sedimentary rock. Thus, it contained unknown
materials, including odd particles that yielded anomalous ages.
Realizing this, the geologists who conducted the dating study chose
only the younger pieces from this sedimentary rock formation.
Still, various attempts to date it yielded a wide range of results,
ranging from 0.52 to 220 million years of age. Then, in 1969, F.J.
Fitch, of Cambridge, and J.A. Miller, ofBirkbeck College, London,
determined the age of the KBS Tuff to be "approximately 2.6 million
years." Later, significant consequences followed from this assenion.
For when Richard Leakey found a human skull under the KBS Tuff,
he declared that it had been discovered under sedimentat\' rock "reli-
ably dated" as being 2.6 million years old.
Later, in 1976, Fitch, Miller and Hooker published their sec-
ond paper on the subject, re-calculating the age that they had deter-
mined in 1969 using a more accurate decay rate; they then con-
cluded that the skull was 2.42 million years old. In their studv, they
ascribed their results to "a small programme of conventional rota!
 Evidence for the Theory ofEvo/Uiio,, or Preconceived Opinions? 119

fusion K-Ar age determinations on East Rudolf pumice samples

undertaken at Berkeley Lab."
Another aspect of this matter is that scientists stan determining
the ages by first selecting rocks that arc considered to have the right
age, and abandoning samples that seem to have the incorrect age.
There is no doubt that this is done obviously and intelligently.
Surely, one should be asking the following questions: How do
those scientists, working on dating, know which rock has the right
age, and which one has the wrong one? What is the reasoning
behind the apparent "urge" for them to accept findings of 2.6 mil-
lion years, for instance-but reject 0.5 million years, or 17.5 mil-
lion years, in the interest of "being scientific"?
The answer from advocates of dating to these questions is that
any scientist would reject a couple of measurements which yield
extreme values and would consider instead the majority of numbers
gathered together on a "plateau," or in a straight line, when they are
plotted. Yet if the measurement process were flawed in the first place,
the invariability of the results crumot be support for their accuracy.

C..arbon-14 Dating: A Method with Limited Validity

Following the Second World War, in 1949 an American chemist,
Willard Libby, made a discovery that secured him the Nobel Prize
in chemistry. His invention was truly a landmark in the sn1dy of
prehistoric periods, but at the same time it turned out to be a devel-
opment which shook contemporary knowledge and data in regard
to dating, and mainly in regard to the age of the Earth.
Libby's invention, which is known as carbon-14 (or radiocar-
bon) dating, provided the oppommity to determine the age of
orgruuc remains. Thus, in the 1950s, field archeologists gave certain
ages to the first prehistoric humans, surprising their professors of the
former generation by using this new method. It was discovered
through this new technique that Neolithic sites in Russia and Mrica
were actually only about 50,000 years old. In addition, the city of
120 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

Jericho, in Palestine, then thought to have been the first human

habitation, was deemed to have been established 11,000 years ago.
Archeologists, paleontologists, and especially paleoanthropolo-
gists, then began to apply the carbon-14 dating technique to deter-
mine the age of organic materials containing carbon (like bones,
teeth, charcoal, and so on) which were thought to be younger than
50,000 years
The principle i., simple. When cosmic particles coming from
space reach the upper part of the atmosphere, they continuously
bombard the well-known, stable carbon-12 atoms, which are rich
in carbon dioxide (C0 2 ). Thus, the carbon-12 atom emits 2 neu-
trons alternately, and radioactive carbon-14 is formed. Yet, car-
bon-14, which is distributed in an orderly way, is transferred to
plants through C0 2 (photosynthesis) first, and then taken by ani-
mals as food and thus incorporated into the food chain. There is no
difference between carbon-14 and carbon-12 as far as living is con-
cerned: both are common and ordinary forms of carbon which arc
found naturally on Earth and can be used by any plant or animal,
as required. In fact, a living being takes in both of them continu-
ously, in a defined proportion, until it dies. But upon death, while
the amount of carbon-12 remains constant, radioactive carbon-14
continues to decay, so that the ratio of carbon-14 with respect to
carbon-12 decreases. The determination of the amount of car-
bon-14 in a sample taken for dating necessitates calculating the
decay rate of one gram of carbon in one minute. Since the half-life
of carbon-14 is accepted as being 5,700 years, the analyzed organ-
ism's death date is calculated on this basis.
Radiocarbon is relatively hard to find; only a small portion of
the total carbon in an animal's or a plant's structure is radiocarbon,
but it is very simple to make measurements for dating. As soon as it
is formed, radiocarbon starts decaying. When an amount of radio-
carbon is formed in the atmosphere, half of this amount decays after
5,700 years and becomes nitrogen gas. Then, half of the remaining
amount decays in the next 5,700 years; and this goes on until very
 Evidence for the Theory of E~·o/urion, or Preconceived OpinioiiS? 121

small amount of residue, which cannot be measured, remains. For

instance, after 5, 700 vears, a tree contains only half of the radiocar-
bon (compared to ordinarv carbon) which it had while it was alive;
and after two half-vears (i.e., 11,400 years), it contains only one
fourth of that ratio. Only an immeasurable residue remains abour
five half-lives latcr·--or approximately 30,000 years later. For this
reason, the radiocarbon dating technique can only be used for the
age determination of remains yow1ger than a narural "ceiling" value
of 50,000 years, at most. In other words, samples must be younger
than 50,000 years for the technique to provide valid results.
The radiocarbon test works on the remains of crearures which
were alive at one time-for example, the bones in a grave which is
thousands of vears old, or the wooden pillars of Roman times. In
order to figure out the age of such organic material, it is necessary
to measure the amount of radiocarbon left, and from there, to find
out when the creature stopped taking in radiocarbon-that is, when
it died.
The value of the method unfolds when we need to learn the age
of a papyrus piece, for example, or how old a found skull is. In
short, the carbon-14 dating technique is based on knowing the true
ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 on Earth, and most importantly,
knowing with certainty that this ratio remains constant in time. In
other words, in order for this test to work reliably, the ratio of
radiocarbon to ordinary carbon on Earth has to be constant-
unchanged since when the crearure lived and died, until the time of
resting. Indeed, this ratio has been assumed to be constant since the
day the rest was first developed, but recent advances in this field
show that this assumption is incorrect. If archeologists suddenly
discovered the grave of a person and would like to date the bones,
but there happened to be more carbon-14 at the rime the person
was living than at the time of the dating test, then the determined
age of the bones would necessarily be wrong and that person would
seem to have lived more recently than he or she really did. Con-
versely, if there were less radiocarbon present while that person was
122 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

living than at the time of testing, then the person would be deemed
to have lived fi.mher in the past than he or she realh· did.
While developing this technique, Libbv and his co-workers
were right to believe that the amount of carbon-14 in the world
could not possibly have varied in the course of human existence on
Earth, since their estimated rime since creation was much smaller
than the accepted value of the world's age, at 4.5 billion vears. So,
Libby considered the radiocarbon rare to be constant as an "equi-
librium value" of the radiocarbon resen-oir.
According to Libby, there was a 30,000-,·ear transition period
required for carbon-14 to become established after the Earth was
created and irs atmosphere was first formed. At the end of this
period, the amount of carbon-14 formed b\· the influence of cosmic
radiation would be balanced to zero b\· the amount of carbon-14
decaying. In other words, using Libb,·'s terminologv and conceptu-
alization, the radiocarbon storage on Earth would reach an equilib-
rium at the end of 30,000 years.
Yet according to uniformitarian geology (the assumption that
the rates and conditions of natural processes operating in the course
of geological times are the same as those that can be obsen,ed to be
operating in presenr time), since rhe world is thousands of rimes
older than the time needed for the rcsen'oir to be filled-30,000
years-radiocarbon must have reached a steady stare billions of years
ago and remained constant throughout the relarivelv recent time
period when humans were created. In order to test such a crucial
part of his theory, Libb\' performed measurements related to both
the production and decay rates of radiocarbon and found a consider-
able discrepancy. For his findings revealed that radiocarbon was
being formed 25% faster than it was decaving and disappearing.
Since this rc:mlt was inexplicable according to any conventional sci-
entific means, he simply credited the startling discrepancy to experi-
mental error.
Then, in the 1960s, Libby's experiments were repeated by chem-
ists working with more sophisticated techniques. Since the radiation
 Evidence for the Theory ofEmlution, or Preconcei\·ed Opinions? 123

amount in question is so small (i.e., a decay of a couple of atoms per

second), and since it is necessary to eliminate all the other radiation
sources which could affect the results, the experiments required very
sensitive instnimcnts and measurements. Critically, the new experi-
menL' revealed that the discrepancy which was originally observed by
Libby himself was not merely an experimental error but rather, an
unequivocal faa. Richard Lingenfelter, who verified the discrepancy,
commented as follows: "There is strong indication, despite the large
errors, that the present natural production rate exceeds the natural
decay rate by as much as 25% ... It appears that equilibrium in the
production and deem· of carbon-14 may not be maintained in
derail." 31
These results were confirmed by the publications of Hans Suess of
University of Southern California in journal of Geoplrysical Research 32
and V.R. Switzer, in Scimce 33 along with some other scientists.
A professor of metallurgy at Utah University, Meh~n Cook has
reviewed the results of Suess and Lingenfelter and has concluded that
the present production rate of carbon-14 is 18.4 atoms per gram per
minute, and the decay rate is 13.3 atoms per gram per minute; thus,
he figured out a ratio indicating that produaion exceeds decay by
about 38%. 34 OJOk describes the meaning of this discovery as fol-
lows: "This result has two alternate implications: either the atmo-
sphere is, for one reason or another, in a transient build-up stage as
regards carbon-14 ... or else something is wrong in one or another of
the basic postulates of the radiocarbon dating method."
Melvin Cook has taken the matter one step fi.mher by consider-
ing the latest measured data on radiocarbon production and decay,
and working backwards to the point where there would have been
zero radiocarbon. In doing so, he tried to ascertain the age of the
Earth's atmosphere by using the radiocarbon technique. The con-
clusion he reached, using Libb)~S own data, is that the age of the
atmosphere is around 10,000 years.
The idea that life on Earth may have a history as short as
10,000 years inevitably seems unreasonable to anyone who was
124 Evolution: Science or ldeo/ogr?

brought up with the teachings of uniformitarian geologv and evo-

lution theory--Dr to any high school smdent or uni\·ersin· smdent
who opens a standard geology textbook. But has the radiocarbon
technique been tested against artifacts of known age, and thor-
oughly proven to be valid? Has it been widely Yerified in archeol-
ogy, with consistent results? Have anv fundamental discrepancies in
the technique been discovered?
In fact, radiocarbon dating was anempted on some objects
whose age was independently known from archeological resources,
and it scored early victories. A wooden boat from an Egvptian
pharaonic tomb, whose age was alreadv independent!\- known to be
3,750 years, was one of the first artif.Kts tested. The radiocarbon
dating trial delivered a date ofbenvccn 3,441 and 3,801 years, with
only 51 years of minimum error. (One has to wonder whether the
good result was "found" because of the known age of the artifact.)
However, it was right after this promising starr that the radiocar-
bon technique ran into difficulties. Anomalous dates obtained from
successive assays indicated that some crearures might have inter-
acted with certain parts of the reservoir which were deficient in
carbon-14, and thus, they appeared to be much older than they
really were.
Hole and Heizer summarized the situation which resulted from
those anomalous discoveries in their lxx>k, Introduction to Prehistoric
Archaeology. According to them for a number of vears it was thought
that the possible errors were of relatively minor consequence, but
more recent intensive research into radiocarbon dates, compared
with calendar dates, shows that the namral concentration of car-
bon-14 in the atmosphere has varied sufficiendy to affect dates sig-
nificantly lc>r certain periods. Because scientists have not been able to
prcdicr the ;lmounr of variation theoretically, it has been necessary to
find parallel dating methods of absolute accuracy to assess the cor-
relation between carbon-14 dates and the calendar. 35
Being accepted as the oldest living thing on Earth, the Bristle-
cone pine, which grows at high altitudes in the mountains of Cali-
 Evidence for the Theory of Evolulion, or Preconceived Opinions? 125

fornia and Nevada, was used to assess radiocarbon dating by means

of comparison testing with a parallel dating method.
The Bristlecone pine has been proposed for developing the sci-
ence of dendrochronology (dating past events bv tree rings) by
Charles Ferguson, from the University of Arizona. Since it lives for
a very long time, it is very useful-and its particular sequence of
tree rings is said to characterize specific vears in the past, allowing
a younger tree to be compared to older trees (including dead ones)
to extend the tree-ring chronology further back, step by step. Fer-
guson's cross-dating method is used to correlate one core sample to
another bv way of those particular signatures provided to him, in
order to establish a master chronological scale that spans from as far
as 8,200 years ago w1til today, enabling researchers to check the
variations in radiocarbon datings.
In turn, Hans Suess has performed radiocarbon dating on the
Bristlecone pine based on samples from the master chronology scale
and produced a "deviation table" that enables the inaccuracies of
the radiocarbon dating technique to be corrected up to about
10,000 years ago. However, a calibration method has not yet been
developed for these scales; that is, there is not any settled criteria,
or benchmark that we know of from the past to today. The inven-
tor of the radiocarbon dating method, Willard Libby, did not ini-
tially think that large deviations would be possible. That is because
Libby and co-workers assumed that cosmic rays remain constant-
even though they lacked a single piece of evidence to suppon this
assumption. But now we know that cosmic rays fluctuate and that
variations do occur in time.
More recently, a new difficulty has been introduced into the
controversy. The fundamental principle upon which dendro-
chronology is based (i.e., that a tree ring forms each year) has been
questioned. R. W. Fair bridge, well known for his dendrochronolo-
gy studies related to the Holocene epoch, states that as with pale-
ontology, certain pitfalls have been discovered in tree-ring analyses.
Sometimes, as in a very severe season, a growth ring may not form.
126 Evolution: Science or ldeolo~·?

In certain latitudes, the tree ring's growth correlates with moisture,

bur in others it may be correlated with temperature. From the cli-
matic viewpoint, these two parameters are often inversely related in
different regions.'6 Similarly, if the growth starts in the spring and
stops due to unexpected cold weather later, and then starts over
again, the growth of two rings in one \'ear is also possible, thus
introducing further errors into the tree-ring daring method.
The key question here is how to explain the discrepancy between
the formation rate of carbon-14 and its decay rate in the atmosphere.
In 2001, Warren Beck, of the Universitv of Ariwna, and his col-
leagues, working on the analysis of a stalagmite which started l(>rming
45 thousand years ago in the Bahamas, discovered that atmospheric
carbon-14 levels soared dramatically between 45,000 and 33,000
years ago. They proposed that this might have been due to a burst of
galactic cosmic rays from a nearby supernova explosion which dra-
matically increased the production of cosmogenic isotopes.
In that case, if the carbon-14 concentration changed signifi-
cantly during this period, then daring the fossils of this period
becomes impossible. The director of the Radiocarbon Daring
Laboratory of Lyon, Jacques Evin, states that the variation of car-
bon-14 rate over rime in the atmosphere has been known for a long
rime and that is why the determined ages alter frequently. The big-
gest carbon-14 change observed three thousand years ago makes it
impossible to use this method and the other calibration methods
like tree rings, coral growth lines and lake sedimentaries' sedimenta-
tion limits. He also mentions that the results of this study do nor
correlate with the results of the bones belonging to the same rime
period, and he sums up the problem somewhat cynically. For him
when archeologists give a sample to dating experts for radiocarbon
datings to be done, they are first asked how many digits of a num-
ber they expect. 37 In consideration of all the facts, then, we are left
with a strong feeling about the unreliabiliry of carbon-14 dating.
No matter how scientific a subject matter is, it is possible only
up to a certain point to obtain concrete information or e\~dence for
 Evide11ce for the TlreoiJ· of Evolution, or Preconceil•ed Opinions? 127

it in all fields of science. Then, it is left to one's point of view and

one's intention as to how to fill in, or complement, the points where
it is not possible to secure sufficient supportive evidence. Ideally,
scientists should be objective and express only what they have deter-
mined by means of experiment and observation-and if they articu-
late their opinions, they should differentiate their ideas from the
definite information or findings. Unfortunately, that is not the case
today. Some scientists conduct their experiments with presupposi-
tions about the results, and they look at their findings from that point
of view, too. Further, if the experiments or field work do not deliver
the desired results, then they completely distort their findings.
Another aspect that one should always keep in mind as a neces-
sity of the nature of science is that what seems correct one day might
be disproved the next day-so matters should not be considered
settled once and for all. We have seen the fact that even very well-
known, "right'' findings can be disproved by sounder and more level-
headed evaluations. This should be taken into account especially
when trying to describe events which occurred in the geological past
and which are impossible to repeat. In essence, science has limits, and
it is important for those dealing with science to perceive those limits.
Yet, as is seen in the above discussion of the problems with the car-
bon-14 dating method and with uranium-lead dating, evolutionary
theory has been progressively losing the very support that it was
struggling to establish as irs foundation. Therefore, in addition to the
fact that it does not satisfy the necessary conditions for being a scien-
tific theory, its existence as an imposition, a value judgment, and a
worldview, has gradually become more obvious.

Mass Extinction - Discontinous Creation

George Cuvier first introduced the idea that biological and geo-
logical processes did not always function uniformly in the world's
history, and did not always display gradualiry. Rather, those pro-
cesses had sometimes become more complex, faster, or gotten out
of order during major catastrophes, so that it was sometimes a
128 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

puzzle how species had existed and become extinct, rhus, challeng-
ing the fundamental base of evolutionary thought, which was uni-
formitarianism. Confirming this, geological and paleontological
studies show that life on Earth has not been uniform, bur that the
creation of new species after mass extinctions has been observed
from time to time. Despite the speculation about geological age
determinations, most people admit some of the datings which evo-
lutionists propose, which stare that starting abour 650 million years
ago, mass extinctions happened 440, 380, 250, 210, 65, and 35
MYA, as well as 10,000 years ago. Except for an incident at the
Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (65 MYA) and the one at the end of
the Permian Period (250 1-!YA), the three others at the beginning of
the list were stretched over wider time periods, possibly up to 10
million years in duration. Considered in order of their occurrence
from the distant past to more recent rime, some are seen as being
related to a flood, and some as small model of a kind of dooms-
day-the end of the world and life. All these show that geological
and biological processes on Earth have not always had the same
form; in other words, they have not occurred uniformly, for they
have been significantly interrupted from rime to time, and big cha-
otic formations have taken place over a very shore period of time.
In other words, uniformitarian thought, through which Lyell and
Darwin tried to manufacture their notion of gradual evolution, is
found to fail.
While doing research in Wales in 1823, the British geologist,
Adam Sedgewick, determined that fossilized sediments were formed
on w1fossilized sediments suddenly, not gradually. He named the
period when these fossilized sediments were deposited the "Cambrian
period", and the sediments which were situated below became
known as marking the "Precambrian period." According to the nwn-
bers that modern dating methods produce, all the rocks formed in
that given period are accepted as belonging to the Cambrian, even
though some of the Cambrian sediments found in Wales were first
deposited at the begi1ming of the period, about 540 MYA, and some
 Evide11ce for the Theory of Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? 129

were deposited towards its end, about 490 MYA. We mean here to
explain the antecedent-consequent relationship in the creation of liv-
ing beings, rather than to dissect the mathematical accuracy of the
numbers related to debated geological ages.
Sedgewick described the beginning of the Cambrian period as a
layer featuring the first trilobite fossils found, and this idea has been
widely accepted for a century. Note that trilobites, which are thought
to have lived between about 550 and 440 ~IYA, are considered to be
the first arthropods and resemble today's crabs. No matter where
these are in the world, the places where trilobite sediments are found
on unfossilized sediments are accepted as pointing to the Cambrian
base. However, today, this limit is considered to be lower, and today,
geologists are getting a very good picrure of the special "footprint"
which marks the beginning of the Cambrian period.
Sedgewick's discovery of such large, complex fossils, which
were created suddenly, was certainly trouble for Charles Darwin. In
The Origin of Species, Darwin mentioned that the Precambrian
period was very long and rich with living beings. If that was indeed
the case, then where were the fossils of those creatures? If Darwin
was right, in order for the complex structured creatures in the low-
est layers of the Cambrian to appear, a very lengthy evolution
period, wherein primitive "messenger" creatures would have trans-
formed into more complex and structurally diversified creatures,
had to have passed. Yet Darwin was never able to disprove this, the
firmest criticism supported by evidence which was ever directed
toward his theory. Instead, he complained about the missing fossil
records, and he expressed a belief in the presence of a series of miss-
ing layers under the first trilobite layers, all over the world. He was
quite sure that old Precambrian fossils had to be present some-
where. But while the presence of old Precambrian fossils turns out
to be true, these are not fmmd in the far distant past, but rather on
the Precambrian layers which are right below the Cambrian lay-
ers-and they are both rare and very small. Most importantly, they
do not have skeletons. In other words, a sudden transition happens
130 Evolulion: Science or Ideology?

from short, nonskeletal fossils to long, skeletal fossils. The forma-

tions that declined during the hundreds of millions of years of the
Pre-Cambrian Period, and thus the ones that could, or even should,
have the missing links between the big phyla, according to evolu-
tionary theory, in fact contain almost no animal fossils. Yet, if tran-
sition forms were ever present, their fossils should have been found
in countless Pre-Cambrian rock formations.
Today, the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary is calculated to
be 543 MYA, and the oldest trilobite fossils are calculated to be 522
million years old. The 21-million-year period between 543 MYA and
522 MYA does not have any fossils in any place around the world;
thus, it is named the "pre-trilobite" period. Therefore, according to
its accepted age (though the correctness of this age is still debated),
our planet was bare of animal life for its first 3.5 billion years. No
clear fossil record belonging to the first 4 billion years has ever been
found. Nonetheless, as mentioned above, many kinds of bulky ani-
mals were created in the oceans about 550 MYA. Still considered one
of the most difficult biological events to explain, this time in geo-
logical history is known as the "Cambrian explosion." In fact, the
majority of representatives of the large invertebrate phyla, which
seem decidedly primitive, also first appear on formations represent-
ing a very short interval of the Cambrian Period, about 600 MYA.
In a geological instant essentially, arthropods, mollusks and some
vertebrates appear as tl1e first animals in the fossil record, and our
Earth became a planet replete with invertebrate sea life.
More obvious evidence of the Cambrian explosion is found near
the small town Addy, in the state of Washington, in the US. It is
observed here that there are no fossils present in the lowest levels of
thousands of quartzite layers, which are in order on top of each
other-bur when moving up the levels, tl1e presence of innun1erable
fossils is suddenlv observed (so much so, in fact, that ir could be said
that the layers abound with fossils). In Addy, there are also remains
of Cretaceous creatures similar to small oysters, called brachiopods,
as well as sponges and couple of very small mollusks. However, the
 Evidence for lhe Theory of Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? 131

most conunon fossil remains found in the first layers there are trilo-
bites, just like in Wales. At first glance, trilobites look like big insects
and crabs-but when they are examined closely, they do not resemble
anv existing living being. The length of trilobite fossils ranges from
the microscopic up to I meter. They have a large numbers of thorns
and heads that look like helmets, as well as distinctive eyes, feet, gills
and various jointed legs. Clearly, then, trilobite fossils are evidence of
complex and srrucrurally sophisticated creatures. 38
But if Darwin's evolutionary theory were right, then the first
fossils to appear on Earth had to be more primitive than the trilo-
bites. Nonetheless, in many other places on Earth, the very first
fossils "·hich are found on top of unfossilized layers are always tri-
lobites-and it is so in Addy, too. Critically, this means that animals
with complex structures were created on Earth without evolution-
ary forerunners.
It was in 1909 that the American paleontologist, Charles Doolittle
Walcott, made one of the most spectacular discoveries of an assem-
blage of new fossil species, which he recovered from the Burgess Shale
formation, in British Columbia, in Canada. He found a remarkable
collection of wonderfully preserved animals dating back to Cambrian
times, about 600 MYA. Along with many well-known animals, such as
jellyfish, starfish, trilobites and early mollusks, which were present in
these ancient sedirnenLs, Walcott found many species that were obvi-
ously the representatives of hitherto unknown phyla. 39
One of the most important of these species was Hallucigenia. It
apparendy propelled itself across the sea floor by means of seven pairs
of sharply pointed, stilt-like legs. It had a row of seven tentacles along
its back, and each of those ended in strengthened pincers. Another
unique form was Opabinia with five eyes across its head and a curious
grasping organ extending forward from its head and ending in a sin-
gle bifurcated tip, which it probably used for catching its prey. Being
a member of the Chordate phylum, the Pikaia was also included
among Cambrian fauna which were found in the Burgess shale. 40
132 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

In view of all this information we can conclude that geological

studies do not demonstrate an evolutionary change occurring in the
layers of the Earth. Rather, a multitude of species of fauna and flora
arise suddenly in geological layers and preserve their original struc-
tures for millions of years until they become extinct.
Only a very small proportion of all fossil formations were inves-
tigated back in Darwin's time, and the number of working paleon-
tologists then was not more than the number of fmgers on two hands.
Many regions of Earth had never even been walked on, and geologists
and paleontologists had examined only a minute segment of the
world. Endless regions of Asia, Australia and Mrica remained
untouched and unexamined by them. Thus, rather than admirting
defeat, Darwin insistently argued that an insufficient number of fossils
had been looked at; he tried to stand up to his opponents, who
rightly claimed that the absence of transitional forms could not be
explained by evolutionary theory, and he stated that many of the miss-
ing transitional fossils were simply hidden underground, waiting to
be discovered. Indeed, he said that it was still possible to fmd living
"missing links" on the undiscovered parts of Earth, but his hope was
bound only to the fossils. Thus, the search for missing links continues
with fossil formations. Paleontological activities have come to such a
point that most srudies in this discipline can be said to have been
completed since 1860. So, only a small portion of hundreds of thou-
sands of fossil species that are classified today were known by Darwin.
Yet all of the fossils discovered since then belong neither to "transition
species" nor to "ancestors" of those fossils. Rather, they either look
like a species still living today, or they belong to a species which does
not resemble any living today, instead representing a completely dif-
ferent systematically categorized species which is now extinct.
Many possible causes for mass extinctions could be mentioned,
originating either on the Earth itself, or outside the world. The
majoriry of such major events, namely those at the end of the
Precambrian, Ordovician, Permian, Triassic and Cretaceous periods,
are thought to revolve around massive fires following asteroid colli-
 Evidence for the Theory of Evolution. or Preconceived Opinions? 133

sions and/or large-scale, periodic volcanic activity-either of which

resulted in massive chemical changes in the atmosphere and water,
rapid cooling of the air, the halt of photosynthesis, major break-
downs in the food chain, significant temperarure and level changes in
ocean water on a global scale, and weakening of the Earth's mag-
netic field as a result of some inversion of the magnetic poles and
particular types of weather changes which are thought to impact on
seismic activity. Ir has been determined that collecrive extinctions
especially affected tropical sea animals, and many extinction events
overlapped with climatic cooling cycles.
With respecr to such calamities, the relative importance of
activities taking place outside of the Earth (such as possible periodic
phenomena resulting from the particular rotation of the Earth's solar
system within the galaxy, including consequences from the activities
of the Sun and other cosmic effects) has not completely been defined
yet. As witnessed by the fact that 97% of the Earth's rocks are
younger than 2 billion years old, what amounts to the continuous
renewal and regeneration of the Earth's crust has caused the foot-
prints of geological history to be wiped out. The discovery of only a
small volume of fossils of living species, as well as the quantitative
and qualitative insufficiency of these in providing accurate data, make
it more difficult to understand certain geological events, especially
the causative factors behind collecrive extinctions.
The oldest mass extinction which is acknowledged in the pale-
ontological archives-if, indeed, present age determinations are
considered to be true--<>ccurred about 650 MYA, during the
Vendian period of Precambrian times. Significant numbers of
stramarolites, acritarchs (phyroplanktons) and the soft, multicellular
fauna of the Ediacaran period (which takes its name from the
region of Australia where it was first designated) became extinct in
this point in geological history 41 Even though this extinction event
is not still known well due to the temporal distance clouding age
datings and correlations, the possible influence of glaciation has
been proposed as a causal factor.
134 Evolulion: Science m·JdeolorJ!?

The first crisis which was larger than the one which took place in
the Vendian occurred at the end of the Ordovician period, about 440
MYA. Up to 12% of the organisms living in the seas became e:\-tina,42
and up to 22% of all living organisms are thought to have become
extinaY This crisis was conneaed with a very significant cycle of
glaciation which caused massive atmospheric cooling and a consider-
able drop in sea leveL The groups which were most affected were tri-
lobites, graptolites and the first echinoderms-while conodonts,
ostracods, chitinozoans, acritarchs and corals suffered only partiallv.
In turn, another mass extinction occurred at the end of the
Devonian period, which ended 380 MYA; more precisely, it occurred
at a time in the late Devonian which is termed the "Frasnian-
Famennian botmdary," 367 MYA. The ecos\'Stems of the seas, par-
ticularly coral reefs in tropical regions, were significantly affected by
mass extinctions in this boundary. In fact, 90% of all phytoplanktons,
all chitinowans, a significant portion of all fishes, and 65% of all the
placoderm species in the seas became extinct. The specie.' living in
shallow water were affected more than those living in deep water,
and organisms living in tropical regions were impacted more than
those living at higher latitudes. In all, 14% of the animal families
belonging to the seas were extinguished as a result of this crisis.
Important changes in the chemistry of the oceans are proposed as the
reason for the crisis; and even though the idea is still lacking a con-
vincing explanation, it has also been surmised that the crisis may have
been a consequence of underwater volcanism. 44
The next mass extinction, at the end of Permian Period, about
250 MYA, is viewed as the greatest of mass extinctions-the most
significant and most pervasive of all. Approximately 90% of all the
species in the oceans, and more than two thirds of reptilian and
amphibian f.1milies, suffered extinction in the last couple of million
years of this period. Furthermore, the only extinction that insects
ever suffered throughout all of geological historv happened at this
point, as 30% of insect orders vanishcd! 5
 Evidence for the Theory of Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? l3 5

Recent discoveries of important borderline layers in Italy,

Austria and Southern China have shown that the time span of this
extinction cycle was much shorter than it was first assumed to have
been-specifically, the sudden change which caused disastrous envi-
ronmental conditions happened much faster than originally thought,
and the last crisis phase took less than a million years. It is also sug-
gested that the Permian oceans could have witnessed a very com-
plex extinction model within a very short period of time geologi-
cally, according to the Earth's scale, as 49% of all families and 72%
of all genera are thought to have become extinct at this point.
The extinctions in ocean environments happened particularly
in tropical regions, and reef ecosystems especially were destroyed.
Carbon isotopes in sediments indicate a significant drop in the
organic productivity of the oceans during this period. Eventually,
the oceans became poor in terms of organisms.
This colossal biological crisis at the end of the Permian got the
artention of many paleontologists, and various explanations were
advanced, from asteroid collisions to global weather cooling.
Basically, the main phenomenon associated with the mass extinc-
tions of this period was the significant drop in sea level. According
to Anthony Hallam of Birmingham University, sea levels dropped
about 200 meters toward the end of the Permian, and continental
shelves became exposed. However, this water level decrease was not
due to glaciation; rather, it was caused by the continental shelves
becoming one single piece ("Pangaea").(36, 37) This might have
been the case because Pangaea withheld some quantity of water as
an interior sea, and/or because of an increase in the volume of ocean
basins resulting from the ridge openings of the middle ocean con-
trolling continent movements.
The mass extinctions at the end of the Triassic period were
determined to have occurred 210 MYA in the seas. Most of the ammo-
nites became extinct, and conodonts totallv disappeared. While gas-
tropods (a cia" of mollusks typically having a one-piece coiled shell
and flattened muscular foot, with a head bearing stalked eyes),
136 E"L-·o/ution: Science or Ideology?

bivalves (mussels), sponges and many sea reptiles were wiped out,
significant new creatures were observed, especially among land rep-
tiles. Very imponant groups incurred massive losses or were com-
pletely destroyed during the late Triassic, and their places were
mostly assumed by cenain groups (dinosaurs, crocodiles, frogs, liz-
ards, mammals, and so on), which appeared in tl1e Jurassic and sub-
sequent periods. Relating the possible reasons for the crisis at the end
of Triassic, researchers have advanced many hypotheses, including
sea level drops and weather changes. Yet as paleontologist Michael
Denton very appropriately poims out, the "event'' which took place
wa.• not only the cause of the mass extinctions but also its result. For,
in fact, the emergence of various new groups occurred in living envi-
ronments which had become vacant by vinue of the extinction of
previous forms. The matter to which we need to pay attention to
here is that older forms were not eliminated by the pervasive arrival
of new ones; rather, those which had completed their duties were
discharged by the Divine Power, and new creatures were created
especially by Him, with new roles in the life scene.
Biologically, not only all the dinosaurs but also many other
groups of organisms played important roles in Mesozoic ecosys-
tems were destroyed at the end of the mass extinctions of the Cre-
taceous-Tertiary boundary (65 MYA}, including two significant
cephalopod groups, the ammonites and belemnites; big sea spong-
es; plesiosaurs and mosa..aurs; and flying reptiles, such as ptero-
saurs, which had remained alive since the Triassic. Other groups
were also affected to a cenain degree without becoming completely
extinct, while a significant reduction in the variery of plankton in
the seas occurred.
However, what is particularly imeresting is that not all of the
groups suffered from the crisis with the same degree of severiry; fun-
damentally, a selective Willpower protected some of the living groups.
While land venebrates like dinosaurs became extinct, most reptiles,
such as crocodiles, frogs, lizards and snakes, were not affected much
and survived. In general, fresh water animal groups were not overly
 Evidence for the Theory of Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? 13 7

affected. With regard to mammals, marsupials were affected severely,

but placental mammals emerged from the crisis with a relatively light
impact. Meanwhile, in the oceans, benthic forms (which live near or
on the ocean floor) were influenced less than plankton (which live
near the surface of the water); and while ammonites were extin-
guished, nautiluses survived.
Very significant geochemical anomalies arose in the sedimen-
tary layers of the Cretaceous~ertiary boundary. Some of these have
become the "interpreters" of certain biological phenomena. Two
major hypotheses-that of an asteroid hit and widespread volcanic
activity-have been proposed to explain the mass extinctions at the
Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary.
According to the first hypothesis, known as the "asteroid
hypothesis," an asteroid which was 10-15 km in diameter, and
which is estimated to have entered the atmosphere at a velocity of
30 km per second, could have hit the Earth and generated an explo-
sion ten times bigger than that which would result from the detona-
tion of the total number of nuclear bombs currently in existence. It
has been estimated that the temperature caused by the resulting fire
ball would have reached 18,000 "C and destroyed all living organ-
isms in its vicinity as a result of precipitating widespread forest fires.
It has been predicted that by effectively covering the face of the
Earth in smoke and dust, the cloud rising from the ground as a
result of the asteroid hit would have prevented sunlight from reach-
ing the Earrh for a couple of months; thus, darkness and cold tem-
peratures (averaging about -30 °C) might have caused the death of
plant colonies by preventing sufficient photosynthesis, thereby
entailing the death of herbivores.
Conversely, the hypothesis of volcanism rests on the finding of
a particular clay mineral, smectite, on a layer where volcanic ash had
been deposited over a time span of tens of thousands of years.
According to Vincent Courtillot, as witnessed in the last 200 mil-
lion years of the Earth's history, volcanic activity which drives ba•alt
overland on a massive scale has been observed. 46 The compatibility
138 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

of substances fotmd in the fresh lava of the Hawaiian Kilauea Vol-

cano, and the amounts of some elements-such as iridium, anti-
mony and arsenic-which are present in the sedimentary layer asso-
ciated with the Cretaceous:rerriary botmdary, supports the hypoth-
esis of volcanism.<7 During this massive volcanic activity, which is
assumed to have lasted for more than a hundred thousand years,
poisonous gas spread continually in the atmosphere 48 This wide
volcanic zone, which coated thousands of kilometers in central
India and reached up to 2,400 meters in thickness in patches, con-
stimtes the most dense basaltic lava laver in the world.
The mass extinction mechanism of the volcanism hypothesis
shows some differences from that of the asteroid hypothesis. First,
the extinction event is expanded to a broader time span. Second,
the darkening of the sky and cooling are considered to be depen-
dent on large quantities of gas and ash that the volcanoes pulver-
ized-as opposed to the dust and fire clouds which are considered
to have resulted from the asteroid hit. Third, the resultant "acid
rain" is thought to have been caused by excess of volcanic sulphur
rather than atmospheric reactions related to the impact tempera-
ture; so, the acid produced would have been nitric· acid according
to the asteroid hypothesis and sulphuric acid according to the vol-
canism hypothesis. Fourth, the increase in poisonous gas, causing
the death of countless animal colonies through respiratory afflic-
tions, is assumed to be dependent on volcanism instead of huge,
sudden fires. Last, it has been proposed that metals like cadmium
and mercury mixed into the seas, according to the volcanic hypoth-
esis, thereby poisoning many sea crean1res.
However, based on statistical analyses, ma.o;s extinctions are
defined as cyclic, and they are estimated to have happened once every
26 million years for the past 250 million years 49 This is interpreted
by advocates of the asteroid hypothesis as .<igni~·ing that celestial
bodies periodically hit the Earth and cause mass extinctions. Various
hypotl1eses cormecting tl1e eJ-."tinctions of the Cretaceous-TertiarY
 Evidence for the Theory of Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? 139

boundary and those of other periods with the cooling of the weather
follow from these processes .so
In addition, some of the advocates of the asteroid hypothesis
have attempted to speculate that a shower of comets has hit the
Earth, one after the other (rather than just one hit), thus causing
extinctions to be spread over time-but this proposition has gener-
ally not been accepted.
Furthermore, and considered to be evidence for the asteroid
hit, a long-sought crater was found, after many years of searching,
in the Yucatan region of Mexico, in 1991; its diameter of 180 km
was very close to the predicted size of 150 km in diameter.
The mass extinctions at the Eocene-Oligocene boundary (35
MYA) are named the "Great Break" (or "Grande Coupure"). While
some extinctions occurred in the seas during this transitional time, the
most significant extinctions were observed among land mammals.
The latest mass extinction event is thought to have happened
10,000 years ago, at the end of the last icc age (the Pleistocene
epoch). Animals that became extinct during this period include
huge slow-moving animals, such as mammoths, mastodons, glypt-
odonts, and others. This extinction phenomenon is very well pre-
sented in North America, where data shows that an excessive
increase in hunting overlaps with the arrival of the first human
inhabitants. On the other hand, data in regions such as Mrica, Asia
and Europe, where human beings had been living for a long time,
are not as clear in terms of the scale of these extinctions and their
time frames. Overall, interpretations have long sought the reasons
behind the extinction of these colossal mammals in the weather
changes which occurred as the ice age came to the end. 51

The Validity of Geological Evidence

The geological evidence-namely, fossil records-is continuously
highlighted as the sole witness of the process of"transitioning from
species to species," and this is claimed to happen very slowly in
terms of both geological and astronomical time. To understand
140 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

whether a living species such as the ape, whose representatives are

still alive today, has gone through changes or not during the geo-
logical time period is very hard. It is necessary to perform an accu-
rate paleontological study to come up with a definite judgment as
to whether it-or any of its limbs or other features (e.g., its arms,
legs, fingers, teeth, etc.) have changed. This is done by the analysis
of evidence belonging to species which are completely extinct, like
dinosaurs and other species. That is because it is not common to
come across fossils that have been totally preserved, and that makes
it almost impossible to obtain the necessary information to make
comparisons between fossil samples of the same species which lived
in different time periods. In order to be able to complete such pale-
ontological research, it would be necessary to undertake the follow-
ing phases of study:
1) Collecting systematic rock samples, starring from what is
older to younger, from fossilized rock formations through-
out geological times;
2) Establishing whether or not the fossils belonging to a cer-
tain species are common in those rock formations;
3) Ascertaining the number and specific characteristics of such
fossils, in the event that they are found; and
4) Establishing whether or not there is a reasonable and suffi-
cient number of fossil samples in each layer to represent the
growth stages of the individuals which are among the species
to be examined, starting from binh to maturitv, for each
sample gathered (i.e., a "family picture" should emerge, with
infants, youth and elders, all together).
Funhermore, the growth pattern of the individuals of that spe-
cies from binh to adolescence should be observed in such a family
picture. Since this picture would show a family of individuals which
represent the growth stages at different ages, starring from binh, it
could be defined as a "horizontal cross-section of time." In addition,
the changes that the species to which this famih· belongs have gone
 Evidence .fOr the nleOIJ' ofEvo/urion, or Preconceived Opinions? 141

through from irs creation to today (i.e., throughout its geological

time period) should also be mentioned. Evolutionists prejudge the
nature of this process by titling it "phylogenetic evolution"-with-
out ever completelv understanding whether or not such a living
being has actuall1· been through any changes in the past.
In paleontological research consistent with "scientific" meth-
ods, the "growth series"-Qr the populations of the same species on
each layer from which the samples are gathered-would have to be
determined first. Then, from borrom to top, the comparison
between parallel forms-such as baby to baby, child to child, ado-
lescent to adolescent, and old to old-among the fossils represent-
ing the pertinent geological ages, for example, from 15 MYA to now,
would have to be performed. Only in this way would it truly be
possible to claim "scientifically" anything about whether or not any
species has been through changes during its geological time scale.
In fact, such research and analysis has not been carried out in most
parts of the world; and even though there have been some places
where there was an opportunity to apply these research methods, it
has been impossible to reach reliable results. All these indicate that
paleontological-and especially, paleoanthropological-research is
not sufficient to explain all of the stages of the history of life;
rather, it is inadequate. That is because the fossils found do not
provide a chance to perform an ideal study, like the one mentioned
above-and the problem is not only related to the quantity of fos-
sils, but also to their quality. Since fossilization is a selective pro-
cess, the existent fossils are very few in number, insufficient and
disorganized. For instance, the fossil samples of invertebrates which
do not have any type of bony or cartilaginous skeleton are extreme-
ly small in number, and they fall far short of being revealing. Ver-
tebrate fossil samples are also inadequate to explain the changes in
species throughout the history of life. Infant and youth fossils can-
not easily be preserved since their bone structures are very brirrle
and so only a very few of them are ever found. A< a result, this
makes it impossible to understand not only the anatomical differ-
142 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

ences in species along the axis of horizontal time, bur also general
changes in the vertical time axis. For example, the total number of
human baby fossils found prior to 1998 all around the world is only
eight. The last two, which were discovered in South Mrica, were of
children aged about one and three years old, who li,·ed about 2 MH
(assuming that the dating is correct).
Even more problematic, it is obviouslv nor possible to repeat
events that have been experienced in geological history in order to
perform experimental observations. Only a minute number of the
«footprints" of such events have been preserved reliably so far. Pale-
ontology, or paleobiology, which has played a major role in our
search to understand the history of life, has not been able to over-
come all of these drawbacks. As a result, objections are simply
deemed to obstruct the compatibility of the proposed theories with
the criteria of «science." Depending on the data they have, paleon-
tologists establish some scenarios, models and theories, intending
to explain the past. Nonetheless, the requirement of «being scien-
tific" is not met-not only in terms of the research methods pur-
sued, but also in terms of the consistency of the theory.
There have been a few studies done to find evolutionary rela-
tions between humans and apes among other living species by
attempting to apply the above-mentioned method of scientific
analysis, but not a single one of those studies has been able to attain
a conclusion because the number of completely preserved fossils on
which the theory is founded is negligible in comparison to its pre-
sumptions. There have been very few human and ape remains,
belonging to various ages and different ecological environments,
found in different parts of Mrica, Asia and Europe. In some cases,
there are substantial time gaps, like a million years, between two
fossil remains. Further, since the fossils which arc found are not
completely preserved, and each fossil has many defects, the criteria
being used for paleontological analyses and comparisons cannot be
standardized. In other words, the fossils cannot be compared in
terms of the structure and volume of the skull, projection of fore-
 Evide11ce for the Theory· of Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? 143

head, arc of eyebrow, nasal passages, cheekbone, jawbone, teeth,

upper and lower arm bones, tibia, thighbone or pelvis. For example,
some paleontologists find only a forehead and nasal bone, while
some ochers find a pelvis. Then rhey draw a conclusion chat is far
beyond what rhcy would be able to derive scientifically-and thus,
rhey attempt to explain the history of rhe species. At this stage,
where neither distant nor close relevance can actually be established
with cenaint:y, ideological preferences take their role. As stated by
Geoffrey A. Clark, an expert in prehistoric anthropology and archae-
ology at Arirona State University, chis situation is caused by rhe fact
chat scientists who come from different research backgrounds do
not share rhe same paradigms, preconceptions or prejudgments.
Thomas Kuhn (1922-1995) comments chat each community has
traditions panirular to different areas constituting irs intellectual life.
These traditions are located on a base called the "metaphysical para-
digm concept." The notion of a paradigm is a way of problem-
solving determining scientists' "point of views toward the world"
implicitly. The concept of a metaphysical paradigm is, hovewer, all
of rhe prejudgment, preconception and preacceptations related to
our knowledge of rhe universe. Therefore, Kulm argues chat it is
impossible to come to an agreement in debates, resembling the dia-
logue of rhe deaf, concerning rhe origin of man, and even if new
data are found, rhe problem will not be resolved, because rhe data
are dependent on paradigms, and they are only meaningful within
the conceptual framework, which defines rhem. 52
In order to show that the discontinuities between rhe big ani-
mal groups can be filled with transitional forms, it is not sufficient
to find just one or two types of organisms which have doubrful
connections but which then assume the designation of a transi-
tional form in rhe geological formations being examined. In fact,
rhe correct determination of a fossil organism's status in the taxo-
nomic system, and its biological kinship, is much harder to ascer-
tain than that of a living form, so this can never be achieved with
true certainty. First of all, 90% of an organism's biology takes part
144 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

in the anatomy of its soft parts, and these are not preserved in fos-
sils. For instance, let us assume that all marsupials had become
extinct and the entire group was known only through skeletal
remains. In that case, who could guess that their reproductive sys-
tems are very different from that of placental mammals, and even
more complicated than mammals in some aspects? Could we distin·
guish a marsupial mouse, a marsupial squirrel, or a marsupial wolf
from a placental mouse, a placental squirrel, or a placental wolf, just
by examining their skeletons? Note that the placenta is a vascular,
fleshy, spongy tissue which holds to the uterus very tightly via
many points of attachment and connects the fetus with the parent.
Except for marsupials and monotremes, all mammals are placental.
Marsupials are mammals for which the embryological development
in the mother's uterus is fairly short, so the females have an external
pouch containing the teats where the young are fed and carried
about once the main development after birth is completed.
Monotremes are a subclass of land and water mammals, having a
cloacae (posterior opening) in which the ducts of the urinary,
genital, and alimentary systems terminate, and they reproduce by
laying eggs. But could we tell anything about the branching of the
aorta of an animal that had already become extinct, and for which
not a single living individual of that class still survived? Could we
learn anything about the unique structure of its heart or kidneys,
the shape of its stomach, or the length of its intestinal tract, just by
looking at the remains of its skeletal system?
It is worth going further into detail with a simple examination
of the contrast between the placental dog family and one particular
non-placental predatory marsupial. Known as the Tasmanian wolf,
and having a dog-like demeanor, the meat-eating Thy/acinus lived
in the open forests and scrub lands of the island of Tasmania, very
close to Australia, until very recently-only becoming extinct in the
1930s. Even though there is no kinship between this carnivorous
non-placental marsupial and the placental dog, they both look so
much like each other in terms of their general appearance, skeletal
 Evidence for the Theory of Evolucion, or Preconceived Opinions? 145

structures, teeth, skulls and other organs, that only an experienced

zoologist would ever be able to distinguish them from one another.
However, there was a very critical point of divergence between the
two groups in the anatomy of their soft tissues, specifically in
regard to the placenta---evidence which has effectively vanished
through decay and thus did not fossilize. Yet if only their fossils
were to be examined, both could be considered to be the same spe-
cies. The fact that they were actually different species could only be
ascertained by comparing the living representatives.
For about a century, the fish belonging to the Coelacanth
(Sarcopterygii) suborder, which are lobe-finned, have generally been
thought of as the ideal ancestors of amphibians; therefore, those
fish have been classified as being the intermediate forms in the tran-
sition between fish and land mammals. This decision was essen-
tially founded on a certain number of characteristics of the skele-
ton-specifically, the arrangement of the bones of the skull, the
position of the teeth and the backbone, and the plan of the fin
bones. Also, since Rhipidirtian fishes actually bear a closer physical
resemblance to the first known amphibians, in addition to all the
markers mentioned above, it had been assumed that the biology of
their soft tissues included a transitional characteristic between typi-
cal fish and amphibians.
Yet, in 1938, fisherman pulled a living example of an old
Rhipidistian ancestor into their fishing nets around the Cape region of
South Mrica, in the Indian Ocean. The astonishing discovery of this
fish, called Latimeria chalumnae, of the Coelacanth suborder, showed
that this species, which was thought to have been extinct for a hun-
dred million years, was actually still living. Since the Coelacanth is
admitted as a close ancestor of the Rhipidirtia, the chance to examine
first-hand the biology of one of the classical evolution links was
obtained.
Finally, the opportunity was available to determine the specific
characteristics and functions of a purported ancestor of the verte-
brates. This anticipation was based on two prejudgments. The first
146 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

was that Rhipidistia were the closest ancestors of tetrapods; and the
second was that Latimeria had evolved from Rhipidistia.
On the other hand, the examination of the living Coelecanth
was disappointing. The largest portion of its anatomv, especially
the anatomy of its heart, intestines, and brain, did not fit at all with
what was expected of the alleged ancestors of tetrapods. In other
words, the modern Coelacanth does nor display any evidence of
having any pre-adapted organs which could be used on land. For
this reason, even though the biology of the soft parts of Rhipidistian
fishes is similar to that of their alleged ancestors, the Coelacanths, in
terms of their skeletal structures, they actually are very different
from the first amphibians with respect to their general physiology.
The claim of Latimeria evolving from Rhipidistia has been seriously
criticized by Barbara Stahl, in a broad srudy of the internal organs,
which was briefly alluded to aboves 3
If the case of the Coelacanth is evidence for anything at all, it is
the reality of how hard it is to reach a conclusion related to the
general physiology of organisms just by considering their skeletal
remains. Hence, since the biology of the soft tissues of extinct
groups cannot be known with any real accuracy, the status of sup-
posed transitional forms-even the ones which may appear to be
the most convincing-must be regarded as uncertain.
From the point it has reached today, the srudy of fossils is chal-
lenging to the notion of evolution very strongly. In order to make
the big gaps separating the known groups smaller, very many inter-
mediate varieties are needed. In The Origin of Species, Darwin
emphasized this point over and over again and tried to convince the
reader to believe that it is necessary to admir the presence of innu-
merable transitional forms in advance:
By the theory of narural selection all living species ha,·c been con-
nected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences nor
greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at
the present day; and these parem-species, now generally extinct,
have in their rum been similarly connected with more ancient
 Evidence for the Theory of Evolution, or Preconceived Opbrions? 147

species; and so on backwardli, always con\'erging to the common

ancestor of each great class. So that the nwnber of intermediate
and transitional links, bet\vccn aJJ li\'ing and extinct species,
must have been inconccinbly great. But assured.Jy, ifthis theory
were true, such have lived upon this Earth. 54

However, talking about continuity based on skeletal fossils

causes important problems. In order to support the idea that a big
separation in nature does nor comprise an impasse of discontinuities,
those who believe in evolution as though it were a religion reflect on
the similarities in fossil forms with regard to skeletal morphologies
with exaggerated interpretations issued for the general public, since
they simply cannot talk about soft tissues. Yet, to be able to do that
in the first place, continuity should already have been proven by
intermediate fossils that would clearly and uncontestedly show the
purportedly perfea gradual transition from one species to another.
Nonetheless, as Stanley stares, the known fossil record is nor, and
never has been, in accord with gradualism. The fossil record itself
provides no documentation of continuity of gradual transitions from
one kind of animal or plant to another of quite different form.
According to Pierre Thuillier, the occurring "phenomena" do
not give clear and exact answers. The fossils discovered in geologi·
cal formations do not form perfect, completely continuous series.
There have always been gaps and missing links between fossil
forms. If one blindly insists on continuity, one could claim that
those links only seem to be missing, as Darwin argued. He spoke
about the lack of paleontological evidence at that time and claimed
that some fossils were simply lost due to some coincidental reasons
(or that they had not been discovered yet). But that is nor the only
possible reason, since both gaps and discontinuities are undeniable
realities. In conclusion, the graded evolution scenario, with one
species following after another-along with the phylogenetic trees
representing the notion of gradualism on which this concept is
founded-is seen to be an artificial construct.
148 Evolulion: Science or Ideology?

Such a viewpoint has been supported not only by Eldredge and

Gould, but also by many other scientists. John Sepkoski, from
Chicago University, states very clearly that he is tired of listening to
people talking about the lack of evidence in fossil records-';
The facts described above also ex-rend to plants. The very first
representatives of all big groups suddenly appeared on rock formations
in complex shapes specially created with many fearurcs. Being one of
those groups, angiosperms belong to the period from about 130 ~tYA
to 65 MYA, which geologists call the Cretaceous Era. Similar to the
sudden emergence of animal groups in Cambrian rocks, the sudden
rise of Angiosperms is another case which has resisted explanation
since Darwin's rime. Angiosperms were created as different groups in
such a way that they could survive without undergoing any changes.
Soon after their initial appearance, the face of the Earth experienced
renewed vegetation within a very short rime. Darwin was concerned
about this sudden event, and in a letter to Hooker, he confessed that
"The rapid development, as far as we can judge, of all the higher plants
within recent geological times is an abominable mystery."
Consequently, those examples which demonstrate that fossils
can be misleading highlight two evident facts: first, that a major
claim such as evolution necessitates strong evidence; and second,
that the claim is effectively deprived of such evidence. In turn, the
community of biologists is under obvious pressure from evolution-
ists to assist them in abnegating the existence of God. Other than a
few exceptional individuals, the entire community pretends not to
see these realities while, unfortunately, the public remains unaware
of this desperate situation.

INTERMEDIATE FoRMs

The number of animal species living, given a name, and included in

taxonomic systems today is about two million. If the possibility of
finding ten million species is accepted, a very simple rationale like
the following could be of help in clarifYing the requirement that so
 Evidence .fOr Ihe Theory of Em/Ulion, or Preconceived Opinions? 149

mam· species should have left millions of transitional forms behind

while "transforming" from a single-celled living form through ran-
dom mutations and natural selection over time.
For instance, let us think about two species considered to be in
somewhat close systematic groups. Let us imagine that there has
been a transition between a mole, from the insectivora family of
mammals, and a cat, from the predatory carnivora family-<Jr that
they came from same ancestor. However, there are almost one
hundred differences in the skeletal and muscular systems which can
be counted between these two species. Further, should one reflect
on all the "smaller" differences in their bodies-like their teeth,
digestive tracts, and sense organs-it will become obvious that the
number of unique species characteristics reaches into the thousands.
Roughly speaking, one could think that "the two species do not
differ much," since both animals have two eyes, two cars, four legs,
a spine, brain, stomach, intestinal traer, and so on. However, when
considered by an animal sysrcmarician, namely, when one goes
down deeper in the details, the actual differences between the mole
and cat will reach up to hundreds of thousands. As a further exam-
ple, should the feet of a mole and a cat be compared, the special
purpose in their stmcrures will be seen in that one is suited to dig-
ging the soil, thus functioning as a blade, while the other is suited
to hunting prey, thus functioning as a paw. Based on this, the struc-
tures and the functions of the bones and muscles display many
minute differences. Also, the series of teeth in their mouths are very
different: in fact, a mole docs not have canine teeth, which are par-
ticular to predators. Meanwhile, the sense of sight of a mole, which
always lives in a dark environment, does not have the same capacity
or operational mechanism as the sight of a cat-even in the same
conditions, given the same amount of light. Rather, each species is
equipped with distinctive organs and systems so that it may be ide-
allv suited for the environment in which it lives, the manner in
which it acquires sustenance, and the specific actions which are
necessary to provide for all of its needs. Furthermore, all these dif-
150 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

ferences arc present together at the same time, meaning that the
individuals of a given species have the oppommitv to thrive under
the most favorable living conditions, as the prescnt-dav sintation of
every species displays; not a single species which could be called an
"intermediate form," and which could be considered to be at a stage
of"partial evolution," has ever been witnessed. After all, when we
take into account the fact that each diverse organ strucntre exhibits
integrity within the organism to which it belongs, and that each
species displays complete unity with, or suitabilitv within, its eco-
system, it is clear that such coordination and regulation is a particu-
lar preference-that is, a special creation.
Furthermore, if those species really had come from a common
ancestor, as evolutionary theory claims, there would have to be
dozens of transition fossils, which would necessarily carry many of
the characteristics of both species, purportedly showing "gradual"
differentiation. The characteristics of those intermediate fossils
would differ from each other over time, and cats and moles, which
are totally distinct species, would emerge as two separate groups
among the most recent fossils. On the other hand, such a scenario
has never been encountered in nantre. In spite of very deliberate
and ambitious sntdies which have been done continuously for more
than fifteen decades, the fossils of so-called "intermediate forms"
between cats and moles, or between these animals and their imagi-
nary common ancestors, have never been found.
Should the above example be extended to all species in nantre, it
would logically result in a sintation whereby millions of intermediate
forms should be available to fill paleontological collections-which
are, instead, full of animal fossils belonging to species which arc still
living today, or to extinct species like dinosaurs. Among those collec-
tions, we have never seen a single fossil that displays transitional
characteristics. Even though iris easy to draw on paper the figures of
a flying mammal, such as a bat; or a running mammal, such as a deer;
or a swimming mammal, such as a dolphin; or a climbing mammal,
such as a sloth; or a c1igging mammal, such as a squirrel, and so on-
 El'idence for the Theory q_( Evolurion. or Preconceived Opinions? lSI

and to somehow "unify" them under a shared ancestor by indicating

a reference back to the past with da~hed lines, it is actually not pos-
sible to show individual representatives of such drawings or any of
the hundreds of transition forms which are presumed to be present
between animals with supposedly common ancestors.
Above, as an example, we gave two animals which are included
in the same class (mammalian), so the basic functions of most of
their systems-such as respiration, circulation, excretion and repro-
duction-show similarities. Bur when we imagine the radical differ-
ences between cenain groups with respect to these vital functions,
"·hich are critical for each organism's optimal functioning within its
mm distinct ecosystem-like fish and frogs, frogs and lizards, or
lizards and birds-it becomes clearer how careful one should be
when speaking on this matter. On the other hand, keen advocates
of the theory of evolution seem to think that ir is easy ro say that a
running lizard, who somehow "understood" that it would not be
able to catch insects while mnning, sraned to develop wings by
essentially "stunting" irs front and back feet and irs long rail, and
"acquiring" a beak from a different material entirely, somehow, and
shonening irs tongue. Evolutionists make these claims on behalf of
science, expecting both their students and the public at large to
imagine such nonsensical ideas right along with them.
According to David Raup, curator of the Field Museum in
Chicago, where examples of 20 percent of all discovered fossil spe-
cies arc kept, the evidence does not at all suppon Darwin's conren-
rion of gradual, step by step evolution, with numerous intermediate
forms bridging one species to the other: "Most people assume that
tiJssils provide a very imponant pan of the general argument made
in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life .... Well,
we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the
fossil record has been greatly expanded .... ironically, we have even
fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's
time." 56 In fact, the non-existence of transitional or ancestral forms
in all those fossil crates is accepted as one the most striking proper-
152 Evolulion: Science or Ideology?

ties of fossils by paleontological authorities. In a publication by the

British Museum, it is stated that none of the fossils examined is the
ancestor of another.
In terms of general characteristics of fossil formations, there are
striking gaps between phvla, classes and orders, and new sorts sud-
denly appear in environmental settings. It is verv interesting that
fossils in layers of sedimentary rocks arose as quite complex and
perfect structures. Medusa (jellyfish), molusca, porifera, arthropods,
cmstaceans, and many other invertebrates existed together during
the Paleowic Era. So, it would be essential for evidence of evolution
for transitional fossils indicating ancestral forms to be widelv found
in rock formations dated to pre-Paleozoic times, but this has never
been observed. Aware of this failure, American paleontologist, G. G.
Simpson, confessed his reservations in 1961, upon his examination
of the fossil record, as follows: "It remains tme, as every paleontolo-
gist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that
nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the
record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, com-
pletely continuous transitional sequences."57 This admission obvi-
ously demonstrates that there are not any intermediate fossils in
evidence in the transition stage. However, at the same time, Simpson
discussed fossils in such a way as to deliberately emphasize the
occurrence of gradual transition in some aspects in his book, and the
answers to many of the following questions will address how those
supposed "transition fossils" are indeed invalid and misleading.

From Fish to Amphibians

The origin of fish species, and the subject of their possible ances-
tors, has also been a continuous mystery for evolutionists who do
not want to acknowledge creation. According to the present fossil
record, most known fish groups seem to have arisen within a very
short time interval about four hundred MYA. Upon their initial
appearance, they, too, were separate and isolated with respect to
previous living groups. None of the fish groups introduced by pale-
 El'ide,icefiJr Ihe Theory ofEvolulion. or Preconceived Opinions? 153

ontology are classified in a way such that one is viewed as an ances-

tor of another-rather, all of them have the same "value," meaning
that each of them is neither an ancestor nor a descendant of anoth-
er. Thus, the Lord of the worlds, the Lord of all classes of beings,
manifests His infinite knowledge, wisdom, will and power by creat-
ing innumerable creatures, both in quantity and variel:)', as the
essence of His art.
The absence of transition forms in fossil formations is also
clearly proven by <mother specific group which has unique character-
istics that its supposed ancestors did not possess-amphibians. Let us
consider the proposed transition from fish to amphibians (organisms
that can live both on land and in the water, such as frogs, toads, and
salamanders) according to evolutionary theory. The differences in
their structures and functions are numerous, and even the occurrence
of a small change would have taken millions of years; therefore,
surely, innumerable linking forms between fish and an1phibians
should have emerged in the meantime-as evolutionary theory
would necessitate. However, not a single representative of such pro-
posed "bridge forms" has ever been found anywhere on Earth.
We understand from the fossil record that many old amphibian
groups, whose representatives have long been extinct, existed for a
period of about fifty million years, about three hundred M\"A. The first
amphibians had the front and back feet of a normal tetrapod, which
made it easy for the animal to move over land. Thus, it was ready for
life on Earth from the starr-in other words, it docs not represent a
transition to a living form. Once again, each group is isolated and
different from the other right from the first emergence, and thus none
of the groups can be considered to be an ancestor for another.
Furthermore, there is also a basic difference between the anat-
omy of all fish and all amphibians which is not linked by transi-
tional forms: the pelvic bones of all species of fish, living or fossil,
are small and closely embedded in muscle, and there is no joint
between the pelvic bones and the vertebral column. This is because
there is no need for the pelvic bones to carry the weight of the body
!54 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

in fish, as water provides the necessary support. On the other hand,

in tetrapod amphibians, living or fossil, the pelvic bones are verv
large and firmly attached to the vertebral column; this is the t\·pe of
anatomy which an animal must have in order to \\·alk. But there arc
absolutely no transitional forms of pelYic bones which are evidenced
between fish and amphibians.
Instead, the fi>Ssil record• show that bem·een the fin of crossop-
terygians (lobe-fi1med fishes) and the foot of amphibian Ichthyostega
(the earliest true tetrapods), there is an anatomical gap so large that
it makes one ask the most basic question once again: \'Vhere are the
millions of intermediate forms that would be required to exist in
order for the former to evolve into the latter? The links are nowhere
to be found. The first amphibian was created in such a way that it
could move easily overland with four normal feer-t\vo at the front
and two at the back.

From the Land to the Sea I From the Sea to the Land
Animals such as seals, manatees, dugongs and otters, which are
either fully aquatic or partially aquatic mammals, are specialized
representatives of different groups, and none of them can be the
ancestor of rodav's whales. We would have to force ourselves to
assume rhe existence of many species, totally extinct, in order to
reduce the gap. Evolurionisrs starr this series with a small land
mammal, an insect-eater about the size of a mouse, and they pro-
pose certain ((phases" from otters, to seals, to dugongs, respectively,
until they evenmally reach the imaginary ancestor of modern
whales. At this point, it is necessary to imagine many primitive
whales to fill the significant gap at the branching area where tooth-
less whales arc distinguished from the toothed ones. According to
evolu:io,,m· rhcorv, departing from being such unspecialized land-
forms, those inuginary species series must have caused sub-branch-
ing. This is because the rationale which lies behind this "rheorv" is
actually "random branching." However, none of the above-men-
tioned animals is sufficiently primitive to allow for mere coinci-
 Evidence for lhe Theory of £\'0/lllion, or Preco11cei~·ed Opi,ioiiS? 155

dence to have steered its development. Therefore, the reality of

creation comes to mind once again, for the Crearor, Who has
power over and knowledge of everything has created all living
beings with wisdom according to His particular preferences.
However, this idea is totally contrary to the spirit of Darwinian
theory, for it ruins any attempt at proposing a finn mechanistic
explanation for the history of living beings. Yet Danvin's idea
necessitates the existence of innumerable sub-branches causing
many unknown species to emerge, and the presence of many more
species between the gaps than those that could have emerged if
evolution had followed rhe shortest path. Darwin simply countered
that some of those species could have been eliminated by narural
selection and the remaining ones would gradually have been "trans-
li.>rmed" into sea mammals. Such a dream was so beautiful that he
was reluctant to abandon it, but it had nothing to do with reality.
In fact, in order ro change a land mammal into a whale, there
ha\·e ro be countless changes in a great number of organs and sys-
tems. The following are just some of rhe major alterations required:
modification of the back feet; improvement of the tail fins; appear-
ance of a new profile; shortening of the front feet; transformation of
rhe skull to permit nostrils to come to the top of the head; change in
the trachea; modification in behavior; altered functioning of the kid-
neys to allow survival in salt water; the formation of special nipples
to allow newborns to be fed w1der water; the complete change of the
birth process; and so on. To account for all those changes, we would
have to consider the existence of thousands of transitional species
along the shortest path from the imaginary ancestor, living on land,
to the common ancestor of the modern whales.
Life on land has irs own particular living conditions, as docs
life in seawater and life in freshwater. On land, the body faces the
danger of losing water and drying out. For this reason, its skin is
protected by a hard, dry, keratin laver, which prevents the body
trom losing water. Also, in order for land animals to act against the
force of gravity, thev also have to have stronger legs. In the sea,
156 Evolutim1: Science or Ideology?

there is no danger of drying our, but animals are exposed to a lor

of salt entering their bodies (as in the case of sea fish) or to losing
excessive amounts of salt (as in the case of freshwater fish). In addi-
tion, the necessary hydrodynamic body and shape of their fins for
swimming have to be different from the shape of a leg which is
useful on land. Indeed, even we look at them only in terms of their
outer morphology, we see that each animal is created with such
design and wisdom that each and C\'CIT property of animals not just
allows, but enhances, their belonging ro rwo different mediums-
and that from the glands on the skin to the dissimilar muscles of
fins and legs, all of the conditions of the medium in which the ani-
mal is living are taken into account.
The genetic program coded in the DNA determines e\·en the
tissues relating to the smallest organ. First, all of the changes which
can possibly occur have to arise in the form of information, either in
the animal's zygote (impregnated egg), or in the sperm and egg,
separately. For example, for even onh· the kidney ncphrons to change
to strucrures totally different from those suitable for life on land,
complete knowledge of the entire stmcrure of an animal is required,
and a very strong Power is necessary to put this knowledge into
practice. We arc currently able to understand how one characteristic
transforms into another in accordance with other characteristics, and
without changing the whole genetic system, only through the appli-
cation of modern knowledge of physiology; however, the evolution-
ists' only basis for the transformation of one characteristic into
another is the concept of random mutation. Yet, we arc incapable of
calculating how manv well-directed, controlled, and successful muta-
tions would be required for only the kidnevs to change. This is
because the occurrence of any random mutation in the kidneys only
damages rl1e normal functioning of the kidnev and puts the life of the
living form in dangcr--Qr, at best, it yields no visible improvement
since the co-ordinate changes in the other functions or aspects of the
kidney would nor simultaneously occur.
 Evidence for the Theory ofEvolution, or Preconceived Opinions? 157

Nevertheless, a change in only the kidney rubules would not be

sufficient either. Requiring numerous critical calculations, it is nec-
essary for other essential changes to also occur for the successful
transition from land to water, such as in the strucrures of the respi-
ratory system-including the lungs, heart vessels and brain, and all
other functions and organs responsible for respiration. All of those
changes have to happen at the same time since, if all the changes
which have an effect on a system and which are supposed to trans-
form it from one level to another do not occur together, that system
cannot continue its operation. Therefore, the necessity of the co-
occurrence of hundreds of exact and successful mutations on the
DNA has to be considered.
If we accept that so many random mutations could occur over-
night, it means that we should also accept that a bird might come
out of a lizard egg, or a cow might give a birth to a seal. Seeing that
such a proposal is very tenuous indeed, evolutionists, willingly or
not, arc obliged to conclude that transitions must be extremely
gradual. On the other hand, in order for the transitional living form
to sun~ve at each stage of such a gradual transition process, that
living being would have to come to life with the precisely necessary
organs-neither with missing nor additional organs. However, in
this case, such a living being really could not be called a transi-
tional living form because in order for it to be considered a transi-
tional form, some of its characteristics would have to belong to the
previous form, while some of the characteristics would have to be
completely original, belonging only to itself as a new form. In such
a case, there would emerge a very difficult problem: the compatibil-
ity of two distinct models within the same system. Besides, such
changes, evidently directed towards a certain goal, would have to
be pursued with a totally embracing Willpower and conscious-
ness-yet evolutionists do not admit such a possibility in the least.
Nonetheless, if we tty to explain the well-directed changes
which are presumed to occur in transitional forms by relying on the
notion of successful random mutations, we have to at least acknowl-
!58 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

edge how uncertain the emergence of information coding only the

most suitable structure among millions of possibilities acrually is-
and how it is virtually impossible to ensure the compatibility of the
change in genetic molecules relating to this information with the
existing genetic code.

Transition from Invertebrates to Vertebrates

One of the biggest problems is the lack of explanation about the
transition from invertebrates to vertebrates, since invertebrate and
vertebrate animals are totallv different from each other in their
body structures and organs. This difference is so big that it is essen-
tially impossible to fill the gap between them with intermediate
forms that "improve" gradually. Most invertebrates, like arthro-
pods, echinoderms and some mollusks, have an outer skeleton sur-
rounding the body, like a kind of coat made of chitin or calcium
carbonate. Some of them, like a1melids and coelenterates, and most
of the small phyla are soft animals without a skeleton. Vertebrates
have an interior skeleton made of bones or cartilage. Due to the
differences in skeletal structures, the muscles are created with such
a design that they wrap the outer skeleton from inside in inverte-
brates, and they wrap the interior skeleron from outside in verte-
brates. For rl1is reason, the proposed transformation from an inver-
tebrate to a vertebrate would necessitate an inversion process that
would fundamentally turn the animal inside out, so to speak.
Besides, a gradual transition between the central nervous sys-
tem of vertebrates and the rope-ladder-like or diffuse nervous sys-
tems in invertebrates cannot even be imagined. Similarly, there are
very many differences requiring big changes in all other major sys-
tems. There are indeed so many differences in their organs, of
which the following are only a limited set of examples: inverte-
brates have open circulation, while vertebrates have closed circula-
tion; invertebrates rely on nephridial organs like tubules for excre-
tion, while vertebrates require kidneys; invertebrates have a one-
layered body cover, while vertebrates have a two-layered skin;
 Evidence for 1he Theory ofEvolulion, or Preconceived Opinions? 159

invertebrates have a trachea and ectodermal gills and use the

extended surfaces of their bodies for respiration, while vertebrates
have lungs or endodermic gills. All in all, even these few compari-
sons make it impossible to conceive of transitional fossils between
vertebrates and invertebrates which would have their organs
"improved" through random mutations. Furthermore, such fossils
have never been found in practice.

From Reptiles to Birds

Nowhere else are the shortcomings of evolutionary theory more
pronounced than in the case of birds. One of the most prominent
experts of the subject, William Elgin Swinton, was forced to accept
that, once again, "There is no fossil evidence of the stages through
which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."58
Nevertheless, after straining their imaginations, paleontologists
considered a potential candidate which could be thought of as an
intermediate form. The news about the finding of an intermediate
form called Archaeopteryx (a bird which is said to resemble a reptile)
was greeted with joy and cheers. Even though it was definitely a
bird, with all of the requisite characteristics-such as wings, feath-
ers and flight-by taking such features into account as its teeth, the
vertebrae along the tail, the dense bones, and tiny claw-like append-
ages running along the edges of the wings-a resemblance to rep-
riles was ascribed to this species.
First, however, it should clearly be pointed out that the reptil-
ian-like features found in Archaeopteryx were more cosmetic than
structural. For instance, the presence of teeth in Archaeopteryx's
mouth, considered to be a similarity with reptiles, is actually not
one of its main features but rather a kind of"detail." This is because
there are toothless species among toothed fish, and there are tooth-
less species among amphibians (for example, among some land
frogs, like Bufonidae), as weU as among reptiles, like turtles. Even
some mammalian groups, like Edentata, are toothless. Therefore,
even though modern birds are generally toothless, toothed species
160 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

could have lived in the past. Thus, being toothed, or not, is not
expressly considered to be an essential characteristic of a class of
animals; rather, it is the kind of feature which shows differences
within the same class. Besides, living birds with claw-like append-
ages (such as Opisthocomus hoazin) have been found since the dis-
covery of Archaeopteryx, thus casting doubt over the inflated impor-
tance attached to this single creature. All other considerations
related to Archaeopteryx, which were once thought to be significant,
arc no longer seen as being important because the case of
A•-chaeopteryx was finally put to rest in 1977, when Scimce Nnvs
Magazine reported the discovery of a new bird fossil in rock forma-
tions belonging to the same geological period, demonstrating that
the so-called "missing link" lived and flew side by side wirh other
birds, thus precluding the possibility of its being an ancient anccs-
tor.59 Indeed, Archaeopteryx, thought to be 150 million years old,
was just another bird-not the most attractive representari,·e of
birds, perhaps, bur still functionally very much a bird.
Even though many paleontologists have dismissed the claim
that it is an intermediate form, A1·chaeopte•yx is found gracing biol-
ogy textbooks with its toothy smile. Another discovery, which
further reduces the potential "evolutionary value" ofArchaeopte~yx,
is the fossil belonging to a bird dared to 225 MYA, Protoavis texensis,
which was relatively recendy found by Chatterjee, in Texas, in
1991. Protoavis represents a flying bird complete with feathers and
hollow bones, just like birds living today-and yet ir is 75 million
years older than Archaeopteryx. Therefore, it can be concluded deci-
sively that Archaeopteryx can neid1er be an ancestor nor an interme-
diate form for birds. In addition, this bird could not have evolved
from dinosaurs either, since it was older than dinosaurs. Furthermore,
Archaeopteryx, which was said to have derived from bipedal car-
nivorous dinosaurs (theropods) and which was then placed in the
"ancestral seat" of birds by means of pragmatic evolutionary ratio-
nale, was actually nor just different from either species in terms of
"derails," but also in terms of substance. Even though there were
 Evidence for the Theory of Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? 161

holes in the thigh areas of both groups and in the lower pans of the
bones, making the skeleton lighter, Archaeopteryx did not have
those holes. In addition to that, the respiratory systems of birds and
dinosaurs did not have any similarities whatsoever. 60 In China, the
discovery of fossils belonging to birds known as Confociusornis sanc-
tus, in 1995, and of Liaoningornis longidigitris, in 1996, deadlocked
the evolutionists entirely. Confuciusomis was toothless, like today's
birds, and it was said ro have lived 140 MYA, in the Cetacean period.
In addition, it was not substantially different from today's birds
with respect to the last pan of the venebrae, having a distinctive
bone stmcrure called a "pygosryle" and feathers. As explained in
Disc()Very Magazine by the famed ornithologist, Alan Feduccia,
trom Nonh Carolina University, Liaoningornis was estimated to be
137-142 million vears old. In addition, its breastbone, to which irs
flight muscles were connected, was similar ro that of today's birds-
though it had teeth. The imponance of the Liaoningornis fossil is
that it makes a clear case that dinosaurs were not ancestors of birds,
as Feduccia argues in detail. Even the bird fossil known as Eoalulavis,
estimated to be 180 million years old, was older than Archaeopteryx-
yet its flying was masterly, as could be clearly understood from its
body stmcrure. 61 • 62
All of these points apdy demonstrate that Archaeopteryx is not an
intermediate form; rather, it is a bird species, which lived during the
same period as roday's birds, along with some other extinct forms
with specific srrucrurcs. Ultimately, then, the common presence of
cenain characteristics in species belonging ro various genera does not
prove that those species derive from each other. The extinction of a
number of birds (toothed ones); the evidence of different srrucrures;
and the sun~ val of other birds (toothless ones) until today-all these
do nor combine indicate that one had come from the other. Rather,
they li\·ed together during the same period of rime.
As a maner offact,Archaeoptc1)'X was an excellent flyer-which
is, after all, the most characteristic fcarure of birds. To ensure its
successful flight mechanism, there are feathers on irs wings which
162 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

are as developed as any modern bird's feathers, and research has

shown that these feathers were even capable of performing propul-
sive flight.
Of course, dinosaurs are not alive todav. We could never even
have imagined such huge animals, weighing 120 tons, and measur-
ing up to 7 meters between the heart and brain, if we had not found
their fossils. And yet, we somehow expect all bird that existed in the
past to be exactly the same as the ones living todav. However, birds
like Archaeopteryx did live in the past, and they became extinct, just
like the dinosaurs. The Creator does not have to obev the bird
model present in our minds in order to create birds. Bv creating
hugely diverse types of birds instead, He manifests the reality that
He is the Most Powerful, and that it is easy for Him to create so
many varieties.
As the brain is a soft tissue, when fossils are examined, predic-
tions about some of the features of organisms are made only by
using the volume and the morphology of the skull. In order to do
that, an endocast of the inner cavity of the skull, showing the
approximate shape and circumference of the brain, is prepared.
According to the endocast of the inner cavity of the skull of
Archaeopteryx, its brain essentially looked like brain of a bird, with
respect to all of the major sections. The brain hemispheres and cer-
ebellum (related to balance and critical movement coordination)
were like those which are typically present in the brains of birds.
Note that with respect to the size of the entire body, the cerebellum
is bigger in birds than in all other vertebrate classes, and it is con-
sidered to be a necessary center that plays a critical role in the con-
trol of very complex motor movements. In fact, the presence of a
big cerebellum in a bird's central nervous system adds new evidence
for the hypothesis that Archaeopteryx was able to execute active
flight, just like toda}>s birds. As a matter of fact, this hypothesis is
also confirmed by similarities in its wings and parallels to the firm
wing feathers in today's birds. If Archaeopteryx had such an ability,
then by the same token, would it not also have had the reguired,
 Evidence for lhe Theory of Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? 163

nervous, respiratory and circulatory systems, which could supply

enough oxygen for the increasing need of active flight? In other
words, could it not have been as much of a bird as any other bird
with respect to all of its major anatomical and physiological charac-
. . )
tensncs.
The reptiles and birds living today show major differences in
their anatomical and physiological features, especially their nervous
and respiratory systems. Since it is not possible to obtain informa-
tion about the physiology of the soft body parts when starting from
the skeletal remains of a fossil form, knowing how much of a bird
Archaeopteryx actually was with respect to its main physiological
S\"stems will never go beyond the level of guesswork.
Some experts have defined the estimated parents of the closest
ancestors of three big flying vertebrate classes, namely Pterosaurs
(now extinct flying reptiles), birds and bats; however, there is a big
gap between each of the first representatives of those three flying
classes and so-called similar types.
David B. Kitts, Professor of Geology at the University of
Oklahoma, summarizes the e\~dence against evolutionary theory
when he observes that evolution requires intermediate forms between
species and paleontology does not provide them. 63

From Reptiles to Mammals

Misleading results will also arise due to rash decisions made just by
looking at some reptile fossils, apparent "bridging forms," and
declaring them to have skull and chin morphologies close to those
of mammals. The possibility that those reptiles, which are claimed
to resemble mammals, were actually fully reptiles in terms of their
anatomy and physiologv can never be dismissed. The only hint
about the physiology of their soft body parts which is in our hands
is the endocasts of their internal skulls, and those endocasts lead
many to think of them as being fully reptile in terms of their central
nervous systems. For instance, regarding their purportedly "mam-
malian" reptile brains Jerison, who is an expert in investigating the
164 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

endocasts of this type of fossil species, reports that these animals

had brains of typical lower vertebrate size; since their endocasts
were all very near the volume of these expected brain sizes and since
the endocasts present maximum limits on their brain sizes, the
mammal-like reptiles, were reptilian and not mammalian. 64 In
short, mammal-like reptiles are reptilian and not mammalian in
terms of the shape and size of their brains. As a marter of fact,
Jcrison also fails to say am-thing convincing about how complex
centers, such as those for smell and vision in mammalian brains,
could have ever differentiated in such an orderly way by means of
random tnutations.
If we briefly explain some of the structures required to transi-
tion from reptiles to mammals, it will be better understood how
impossible it is for such a process to occur. First of all, reptiles,
whose bodies are covered with firm, shiny, keratin flakes and scales
would have to lose these features through the transformation of
those flakes into hair or fur. But surely, this process alone is not
sufficient to do the entire job. Essential features of the skin-such
as glands for perspiration, fat tissues, and milk glands and ducts-
would also have to be developed. Perspiration (sweat) glands arc
required to help in heat regulation, water stability, and the excre-
tory system of the body. In turn, milk glands and ducts arc essential
for providing a food supply for the offspring. Can we even fathom
the absolute unlikelihood of the profound improvements which
would be required to engender such spectacular structures on a
reptile-each of them belonging only to the skin--occurring simply
by chance?
Furthermore, there is only one bone in the jaw of mammals, and
the teeth arc placed into the hollows of the bone. Being diverse (het-
erodontic) in shape and length, mammalian teeth include incisors,
canines and molars (including both premolars and molars). However,
there are at least three or more different bones present in the lower
jaw of each different group of reptiles (turtles, lizards, snakes, and
crocodiles). Except for crocodiles, the teeth do nor reside in the hoi-
 Evidence for the Theory of Evolution, or Preconceived Opiniom? 165

lows of the jaw in reptiles; rather, they are just stacked loosely on the
jaw. In contrast, turtles do not have any teeth. Except for adders (a
type of snake), most toothed reptiles have teeth which are all of the
same type ( homodontic).
Consider, too, that there are no temporal fossae (cavities) in the
check region of the skull of some of the different reptilian classes, such
like turtles; some of them, like extinct dinosaurs from the Synapsids
have only one temporal fossa; and the others, such as snakes, croco-
diles and lizards, which arc placed in the Diapsids, have two temporal
fossae. On the other hand, the temporal fossae of mammals arc wide
and large, and suppon the strong jaw muscles. In addition, the middle
car of all reptiles has only one bone called a "stapes." Contrary to this,
there are three tiny bones called ossicles (the malleus, incus, stapes),
providing the connection between the ear dnun and the inner car,
present in the middle ears of mammals. Keep in mind that it is viral
for those ossicles to be joined and connected next to each other with-
our touching, at panicular angles, in order for the hearing process to
occur in the best way. Is it possible for a reptile on irs own, lacking
conscious control over irs structures, to develop those three bones in
such a perfect way1 Could "nature" really generate such a well-mea-
sured and perfectly arranged mmarion by itself?
While the skull is joined to the cervical venebrae only by one
bulge, called the occipital condyle, in reptiles, it is joined to the
cervical venebra by two occipital condyles in mammals. Both the
male and female urogenital systems of reptiles are also very different
from those of mammals, since reptiles reproduce by laying eggs. A
common channel in the male reptile carries both sperm and urine,
bur sperm and urine channels in mammals are separate from each
other. All the necessary conditions for the embryo to develop and
grow are prepared in the uteri of mammals. A specialized organ
called the "placenta" develops in the uteri of placental mammals
during pregnancy. It is connected to the baby via an umbilical cord
and supplies all the nmrition the babv in the urems needs. On the
other hand, reptiles reproduce by laying eggs omsidc their bodies,
166 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

leaving them to rest somewhere else, in or on the ground, in nests,

and so on. Being given particularly only to mammals, doesn't such
a perfect organ as the placenta reveal a manifestation of divine
mercy and grace?
The fundamental difference between the metabolisms of animals
in these two classes is also a big problem bv itself. Mammals, in that
they are warm-blooded, have every aspect of their lifestvle pro-
grammed accordingll•. The body heat of mammals is kept constant
by means of activating the heat-regulating S\'stems in the hypothala-
mus region of their brains so that they can .adjust to temperature
variations. In contrast, reptiles are cold-blooded and their acti,ities
and metabolisms change with respect to the ambient temperature of
their environment. We are unable to calculate how manv well-direct-
ed mutations would be necessary in order for either tvpe of metabo-
lism to transfonn into the other. Beyond this, since reptiles cannot
lly, how the wings of bat, a !lying mammal, could ever have devel-
oped from the arm of a lizard is a complete puzzle.
As a matter of fact, even though he is an evolutionist, paleon-
tologist Roger Lewin, who himself could not bear these troubles
with evolutionary theory, confesses his feelings in the following
words: "The transition ro the first mammal, which probably hap-
pened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma. "65 The
neo-Darwinist evolution theoretician, George Gaylord Simpson,
similarly expresses his displeasure about these quandaries in evolu-
tiona'}' rhea'}' as follows: "The most puzzling event in the histo'}'
of life on Earth is the change from the Mesoroic, the age of reptiles,
to the age of mammals. It is as if the curtain were rung down sud-
denly on the stage where all the leading roles were taken bv reptiles,
especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering variety, and
rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely
new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other
reptiles are supernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by
mammals of sorts barely hinted at in preceding acts.'""' The noted
zoologist, Mark Ridley, of Oxford University, also points to the
 Evidence/or the Theo1y of Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? 167

dead end to which so many unresolved questions bring evolutionary

theory: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or
punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the
theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.''"7

The Horse Story

Almost every introductory biology textbook contains popular pic-
tures of the purported evolution of the horse: images show the tiny
&hippus prancing through the glades; then getting larger, more
sure-footed, and faster, as shown through another series of"arrists'
renderings"; and finally, looking like the thoroughbred of today.
On a television show on PBS entitled, "Did Danvin Get It Wrong?"
Norman Macbeth, a Darwinian scholar, finally exposed the great
horse caper that had gone unchallenged for close to eighty years,
when he stated that they are not a family tree referring to the
exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History; they are just
a collection of sizes. For him there arc no phylogenies. 68
The drawings and models thought to be representing the evo-
lution of the horses have been frequent evidence for evolution, and
these are shown to smdenrs in evolution classes everywhere. Yet
even though he was an evolutionist, Boyce Rensberger expressed
the fact that there is no such foundation for the evolution scenario
in the fossil records-and discussion of the "process of the sup-
posed gradual enlargement of horses," whereby they are theorized
to have thus reached the size of today's horse, has never even
occurred at any meeting where the problems of evolution have been
discussed. A:; he stated at the Field Museum of Natural History in
Chicago, in 1980:

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a

gradual sequence of changes from four-toed, or fox-like crca-
mres, living nearly 50 million years ago, to todar's much larger
one-toe horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of
gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully
69
distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct.
168 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

The well-known paleontologist Colin Patterson, a director of

the Nan1ral History Museum in London, where the "evolution of
the horse" diagrams were on public display at that time, said the
following about the exhibition:

There ha\"c been an a'"fullot of stories, some more imaginari\"c

than others, about wh<lt the nature of that history of life really
is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the
exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifry years ago.
That has been prcscnrcd as the literal truth in textbook after
textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the
people who propose those kind'i of stories may rhcmsch·es be
aware of the speculati\'c narure of some of that stuff. 70

In sum, this scenario was founded on deceitful diagrams and

models devised to present the sequential arrangement of fossils of
distinct species-which lived during vastly different periods in
India, South Mrica, North America, and Europe-solely in accor-
dance with the rich power of the evolutionists' imaginations. More
than twenty such charts have been proposed by various studies,
each presuming to depict the evolution of the horse, though each is
totallv. different from the other. Therefore, it is obvious that evolu-
.
tionists have been unable to reach common agreement on these
so-called "family trees." The only common feamre in these arrange-
ments is the belief that a dog-sized creature called Eohippus
(Hyracotherium), which lived during the Eocene period, 55 MYA,
was the ancestor of the horse. However, the fact is that Eohippus,
which became extinct millions of years ago, is almost identical to
the Hyrax, a small rabbit-like animal which still lives in Africa and
has nothing whatsoever to do with the horse. Indeed, the inconsis-
tency of the theory of the evolution of the horse becomes increas-
ingly apparent as more fossil findings are gathered. Remnants of
modern horse species (such as Equus nt:l>adcnsi< and Equus occiden-
tali<) have been discovered in the same fossil layer as Eohippus. This
is an indication that the modern horse and its so-called "ancestor"
 Evidence for the Theory of Evolution. or Preconceived Opinions? 169

actually lived at the same time, and the evolution of the horse has
never occurred at all.
The evolutionist science writer, Gordon R. Taylor, who died
in 1981, explains this little-acknowledged truth in his book, The
Great Evolution Myrtery, which was published posthumously:
Bur perhaps the most seriou.~ weakness of Darwinism is the fail-
ure of paleomologisrs to find comincing phylogenies or .sequenc-
es of organisms demonsnating major evolutionary change ... The
horse is often cited a.~ the only fully worked-our example. Bm the
fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is
alleged to show a continual increase in size, bm the tnl[h is that
some variants were smaller than Eohippus, nor larger. Specimens
from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-
looking sequence, bm there is no evidence that rhey were actu-
ally arranged in this order in time? 1

In fact, American paleontologists, Charles Marsh and Thomas

Huxley, were the ones who designed the series which is now gener-
ally thought to demonstrate a se'luence of horse fossils as evidence
for evolution. Thev arranged the sequence of horses-Eohippus,
Orohippus, Miobippus, and Hipparion-wirh respect to the number
of roes on both the front and back feet, and the dental structures of
the fossils which were claimed ro have hooves. They added the
modern horse (Equus) to their series and announced to the general
public that the diagram they had made up depicted the evolution of
the horse. According to his scenario, Marsh deliberately put rhe
fossils in such an order that the size would reach that of the modern
horse. However, he dismissed many inconsistencies and logical fal-
lacies while contriving the series. According to Professor Garret
Hardin, as more fossils were uncovered, rhe chain splayed out like
a branched tree opposing the previously sequenced series. For
sometimes short horses, and sometimes tall horses, indeed had
appeared diversely.
Most importantly, even though he had found many horse fossils,
evolutionary paleontologist, George Simpson, complained about the
nonexistence of mounted skeletons of horse fossils in his book, Horses,
170 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

saying the following: "As far as I know, there are no mounted skele-
tons anyv/here of Epihippus,Archaeohippus,Megahippus, Stylohippari<m,
Nannippus, Calippus, Onohippidium or Parahippari<m, and none in the
United States ofAnchitherium or Hippari<m." 72 The following obser-
vations by David Raup are also enlightening:

The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically,

we have even fewer examples of evolurionary transition than we
had in Darwin's rime. By this I mean that some of the classic
cases of Danvinian change in the fossil record, such as the e\·o-
lution of the horse in North America, han had to be discarded
or modified as a result of more derailed information-what
appeared co be a nice simple progression when relatively few
dara were available now appears to be much more complex and
much less gradualistic. 73

Numerous fossils have been examined up to this point, in

terms of either the number of teeth, or toes, or vertebrae; as a
result, it has been shown that the imaginarY horse evolution sce-
nario consisted of a great many inconsistencies. Further, such a
scenario is always certain to be rejected if the different animals that
were living in the past and are now extinct are sequenced simply
with regard to a specific ideological orientation or prejudgment.
(Note that the answer to the specific claim that horse toes somehow
"became dull" to create hooves will be given later in the question
related to vestigial organs.)

CLIMBING UP THE STAIRS OR TAKING THE ELEVATOR?

Since the "phyletic gradualism" model, or evolution by increments,

so to speak, requires separate evidence at each step, it has terribly
burdened evolutionists; thus, the invalidity of such gradual improve-
ments has eventually been understood. An alternative scenario of
"punctuated equilibrium," having many dilemmas and deficiencies
of its own, has simply been put in its place. Indeed, in terms of
some of its aspects, it is more difficult to accept.
 Evidence for Ihe Theory of Evolulion, or Preconceived Opinions? 171

According to the concept of "punctuated equilibrium," new

organism types appear suddenly. This is actually an evident escape
from the present problem of lack of fossil evidence for successive
changes-<>r a kind of bypass, in effect. The more insistently the
presence of important punctuations during evolution is claimed,
the less need there will be for intermediate forms. For his part,
Darwin dedicated himself to clarifying the mysterious absence of
the innumerable intermediate forms, which are necessitated by
gradual evolution, since he was categorically and unhesitatingly
against the idea of punctuated evolution. Right before the publica-
tion of The Oligin of Species, in fact, Thomas Henry Huxley
(1825-1895) wrote the following in his letter to Darwin, dated
November 23, 1859: "You have loaded yourself with an unneces-
sarv difficulty in adopting Natura non facit sa/tum [Nature docs not
make leaps] so unreservedly." 74
The inclination to see evolution from a punctuated point of view
is founded on the "punctuated speciation" model articulated by
American paleontologists, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould.
They accepted the gaps as natural phenomena; in fact, they consid-
ered them to be the result of the evolutionary mechanism, rather than
assigning them to the shortfalls in the fossil records. According to the
model of ptrnctuated evolution which they offered, the development
of living being was a process which occurred in stages by means of
certain long, discontinuous, static periods. New species within a
group around small isolated populations, for instance, appear very
rapidly. The changes leading to a new species do not usually occur in
the main population of an organism, where changes would not
endure because of much interbreecling among like creatures. Rather,
speciation is more likely to happen at the edge of a population, where
a small group can easily become separated geographically from the
main body and w1dergo very rapid morphological changes that can
create a survival advantage and thus produce a new, but non-inter-
breeding species due to mutations. Having breeding capacity, that
small number of species was then understood to be transforming into
172 Evolulion: Science or Ideology?

a new species. Yet since the non-interbreeding species were not able
to spread widely, their fossils could nor be found. So how about the
preswned-to-be thousands, and even millions, of intermediate spe-
cies? Were all of those species assumed to be "non-interbreeding
small populations" within their isolated regions? Is such an asswnp-
tion even tenable?
The hypothesis of "punctuated equilibrium" has substantialh·
been a staged media event. It was specifically developed to m· to
account for the nonexistence of intermediate varieties bcnvccn
species-but as a kind of ironic twist, its main influence was ro take
public attention right to the gaps in the fossil records. As a major
result of rhe appearance of the theory of Eldredge and Gould and
the media campaign, for the very first time, the community of
biologists clearly and consciouslv realized the absolute nonexistence
of transitional forms. After the unfolding of "the trade secret of
paleontology," in Gould's words, the old comforting belief that fos-
sils would someday provide evidence of evolution through gradual
changes weakened so much that it made backtracking impossible.
In fact, paleontological evidence does not offer am· convincing
proof that could make us believe the evolutionary model-which
argues for continuous change in life forms and leaves the gaps
between forms completely unexplained. A couple of species or
groups which seem to be intermediate forms, at least to some
extent, like Archaeopte1yx or Rhipidiftian fishes, might be brought
to mind. Yet even though these fishes do have certain properties
with regard to some distinct aspects, there is no corroboration that
they carry characteristics of intermediate forms any more than some
of the groups living today, like dipnoi (lungfish) or monotremes
(single-cloaca mammals). However, those living groups which are
characterized as being "intermediate forms" are certainly and obvi-
ously isolated from the groups that are claimed to be their closest
relatives, and they do not embody transitional organ systems.
Furthermore, it is very hard to even imagine a transition in any
organ-for example, one simply cannot envisage the shift in respi-
 Evidence .fOr the Theory qf Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? 173

ratory organs between lunged and gilled fish; and there is not a
single shred of e'·idence in existence about how the transition from
a monotreme's distinct excretion and urinogenital system to that of
mammals would h<ln~ occurred.
Let us start with an analogy and let us imagine the vertebrate
classes as private apartments in a five-storev building. Fish dwell on
the first floor; amphibians arc on the second floor; and reptiles,
birds and mammals are on the third, fourth and fifth floors, respec-
tively. Now, let us search for the possibility of the emergence of
amphibians from the second floor to the level of reptiles on the
third floor. There are acmally two ways to go from one floor to
another: you either take an elevator and ascend swiftly without get-
ting tired, or you climb up the stairs one by one gradually. Now, if
we move from analogy to reality, the idea of climbing up the stairs
gradually represents "gradual evolution," while taking an elevator
and going up swiftlv represents "puncmated equilibrium." Further,
let us consider that an amphibian on the very first step of the second
floor stairs has 90% of amphibian properties and acquires 10% of
reptilian properties, by means of a few random mutations. On the
next step, it will effectively embody 80% of amphibian properties
and 20% of reptilian properties, since its amphibian characteristics
will be reduced and its reptilian characteristics will increase as it
goes up the stairs, so to speak. Then, at the last step of the second-
floor stairs, it will essentially display 10% of amphibian properties
and 90% of reptilian properties, after which it will evenmally reach
the third floor and become a reptile.
The practical equivalent of such a hypothetical scenario is the
existence of intermediate living forms belonging to each step, but
that has never been the case; that is, the fossil record of even a
single linking species has never been found. Further, the notion of
such gradual changes has always faced serious difficulties due to the
expectation of small, well-directed mutations, one followed by the
other, in virtually every single organ and body system, while the
animal "moves up" each one of the steps to the next. Seeing the
174 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

impossibility of gradual improvement in rhe face of rhe dead-end of

"no linking fossils," and of rhe absolute implausibilirv of such syn-
chronous and "well-directed mutations," evolutionists have pro-
posed rhe alternative, punctuated equilibrium, simply to allow
themselves to claim rhat it is possible to jump from one step to
another, or by taking an elevator, even to jump from one floor to
rhe orher.
However, rhis alternative is not as problem-free as it is claimed
robe; rather, it is, in many ways, a worse dead-end than the previ-
ous model. This is because in such a case, in order for a fish to go
rhrough hundreds of changes and become an amphibian, we will
have to overcome rhe impossibility of random occurrences of larg-
er, well-directed mutations on the same individual, at rhe same
time. Even if we assume rhe possible co-incidence of a couple of
specific mutations, rhe changes that those mutations cause will
result in defective body parts, that is, tissues and organs wirh defi-
ciencies. We are unable, in fact, to calculate how many mutarions,
and how many millions of years, would be required in order for a
fish's skin, covered wirh bony scales, to transform into a frog's bare
skin, covered with poison glands. Besides, if we included in rhat
calculation rhe transformation of fins to lungs, or the change in the
heart from two chambers to rhree, we would not be able to reach
any conclusion orher rhan anributing infinite power and knowl-
edge to rhose supposedly "random" mutations.
Classically, cladism is an evolutionist method of classification.
Based strictly on the distinction of primitive characteristics and
derived characteristics, it establishes a schema which presumes evo-
lutionary relatedness among various groups of species. For example,
since it is accepted that a lizard and Eurasian goat have common
characteristics (of course, such a claim is necessarily initiated by
such a presumption), rheir relationship is assumed robe close wirh
respect to a common carp. Presuming a connection between these
two species in the past, the presence of common ancestral links
between rhcm, termed phylogenies, is claimed. However, accord-
 Evidence for the TheOI)' ofEvolurion. or Preconceh:ed Opinions? 175

ing to the advocates of evolutionary theory, this common ancestor

berween the lizard and goat is actually younger than the common
ancestor of all three-the lizard, goat, and carp--and this seems like
a complex technical problem at first glance; nevertheless it has to do
with the fact that the cbdistic approach is actually closely related
with Marxism. Since it also means the denial of the gradual evolu-
tion of organisms over time, tOr some evolutionists, this approach
has not only lost its acceptabiliry scientifically, but it is also consid-
ered ideologically dangerous. That is why cladism, which is found-
ed on discontinuous evolutionary thinking, is deemed to be incom-
patible with the teachings of Darwin and other theoretical pioneers
in this area, like Ernst Mayr.
On this point, Popper expressed a determined view that
Darwinian theory was not reliable enough-rather, it amounted to
arbitrary speculation. As he saw it, so many issues about it were
unresolved and another theory would be able to explain the same
phenomena more comprehensively and persuasively: "I have come
to the conclusion that the concept of evolution by natural selection
is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research pro-
gramme-a possible framework for testable theories." 75
Dr. Beverly Halstead ( 1933-1991 ), from Universit:y of Reading
in the United Kingdom, thought that human history could be ana-
lyzed in rwo ways: it could be explained according to either schema,
which were based on a "gradualism" principle (whereby changes
were gradual and not sudden) or a "revolutionary" principle (where-
by changes were swift and there were "jumps" and discontinuities).
Believing in gradual evolution himself, Halstead argued that the
second type of evolution was Marxist in style, and this is something
that was actually proposed by both Engels and Stalin. Accordingly,
it is fundamental to admit that changes in acquired characteristics
are not gradual, but there arc swift and sudden jumps from one state
to the other. 76 What he was obviously claiming was that if the occur-
rence of jumps could be admitted in the biological sciences in a way
that would explain evolution, Marxist ideology would gain strength.
176 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

Unfortunately, preswning that thev were learning sc1ence objec-

tively, the British public were being misguided. According to
Halstead, those who were in charge of the British Museum, for
instance, introduced dinosaurs and human fossils with exaggerated
respect for the classification method called "cladism" and misused
their authority.
Nonetheless, this call was not very effective in convincing
everyone. Harry Rothman pointed out that Marxists were not the
only people who believed in discontinuities, and he asked the fol-
lowing question: "Will it be necessary to reject all scientific theories
and explanations that apply to sudden changes from now on?" In
this regard, for example, some might request the abandonment of
the "Big Bang" theory. Was all this backlash against the notion of
"sudden change" really essential?
Funhermore, was it even true that cladism included an inter-
pretation of "intermittent'' evolution? A great many biologists
rejected this point. Cladism deals with systematics (taxonomy), but
it docs not offer any explanation of the rhythm or speed of evolu-
tion. To paleontologist Colin Patterson, from the British Museum,
Halstead was confusing the existing problems with another. For
Patterson classifying species is different from offering an explana-
tion on how those species evolved. Besides, not onlv advocates of
cladism supponed a punctuated equilibrium. T. H. Huxley, who
was among the ardent supponers of transmutation in the nine-
teenth century, was also an advocate of discontinuity, and he regret-
fully opposed Darwin's prejudgment that "nature does not jump."
This was because the long and significant gaps in the history of life
had showed themselves.
Being accepted as a way of classifying living beings, cladism
does not give any reason for the speed or mechanisms of evolution,
\Vhile its structure is contrary to the evolutionists' notion of a "com-
mon ancestor,'' and the in:tplication that there is a "common ances-
tor" at the branching points of "cladograms" emphasizes the ideo-
logical extent of the problem. The most imponant evidence for this
 Evidence for the Theory of Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? 177

is that none of those drawings, which are made by returning mil-

lions of years back in time, can be either observed or tested.
Since the idea of cladism goes against gradual evolution, it was
accepted that sudden changes must be possible in order to explain
the existence of any species. Beyond cladism, a key remark on
another theory, called the "sudden emergence of species," by S. J.
Gould and N. Eldredge, was as follows: "The most important part
of evolution does not occur in a local area, but it occurs in isolated
small populations at distant regions as a rapid speciation. " 77
There was no doubt that such a theory was the perfect compro-
mise with the idea of "discontinuities." While supporters of gradu-
alism could claim that local micro-mutations were deposited gradu-
ally over time, advocates of "the sudden emergence of species"
could claim that periods where no evolution happened were inter-
rupted by "the emergence of new species." On the other hand,
Gould was not able to explain how the new species would have
arisen suddenly or swiftly, nor could he propose how such a mech-
anism could be interpreted scientifically. Instead, he proposed this
explanation: "The chance of finding evidence for sudden emergence
of the species is very weak since the change occurs in a very small
population very rapidly."
Of course, these statements were not those expected from a
scientist, for no one has ever observed in narure what he claimed,
so ir was merely an assumption. Yet weren't those who believe in
creation also accepting the possibility of the occurrence of the very
same thing-that is, that God suddenly created the species? Besides,
the rime span of God's .creation is unknown to humankind. There-
fore, wasn't the difference between the two views simply a matter
of belief? Thus, shouldn't both views be given the same status in the
conte}.:t of subject matter where the chance of finding proof is
weak? Put another way: is it really fair to accuse only those who
believe in creation of being unscientific?
Although what they express is different from Darwin's view,
Darwin used a similar method when mentioning the time duration
178 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

of natural selection: "As narural selection acts solely by accumulating

slight, successive, favorable variations, it can produce no great or sud-
den modification; it can act only by ven' short and slow steps."
In other words, whether it is gradual or sudden, evolurion
occurs in such small details that ir cannot be seen by the human eye
on fossil remains-and specifically how these changes could occur
over a long period of time, during the entire life of an individual
belonging to any species, is indeed a mysterious phenomenon that
apparently never leaves a footprint behind. Because of this, there is
no point in even rejecting such a "scientific'' interpretation. In fact,
it has been shown again and again that this is a problem which can-
not be solved by the methods of science. As a matter of fact, the
particular point which some do not like to understand is that a
"theory" is nothing more than a model which is advanced in order
to explain some phenomena, and it is always open to being dis-
proved. In this case, it would be more accurate to call these opin-
ions about evolution "hypotheses" rather than to consider them
collectively as a "theory.,
The British magazine, The Guardian Week(y, commented on
Eldredge's interview with a group of science journalists as follows:
If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of crearures little
by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find
fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went
before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet
found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity
has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record, which gradual-
ists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been
found. In the lase decade, however, geologists have fow1d rock
lavers of all divisions of the last 500 million vcars, but not a
si~glc transitional form was contained in them?8

As a matter offact, the aim behind proposing this theory over

those who explain the sudden emergence of new species on Earth
with the idea of"creation" was not only to "claim" to be scientific,
but also to try to explain processes which were neither obsen,ed nor
pointed out by the "gradualism" of Darwin's evolutionary theory.
 Eridence }Or the TheOI)' of E-..·olution, or Preconceived Opinions? 179

According to the theory of the sudden emergence of species, any

type of species could be divided into a new subgroup, causing a new
species to emerge within a relatively shan period of time. Later on,
following a more or less lengthy "balancing" or "stabilizing" period,
a new subgroup would stan to operate-and such a process was
presumed to be continuously going on. So, where did this theory
stand with respect to cladism and Darwinism? Is it really close to
cladism?
According to Halstead, the answer was, "Yes." There was a
cenain relationship berween the cladistic approach and the theory
of "sudden emergence of species." In particular, Eldredge and
Gould made use of this theorv in a manner similar to that of Han-
nig, who was considered to be the father of cladism. Nonetheless,
so many scientists fow1d such assenions insufficient and baseless.
S.J. Gould sent a letter to Nature magazine stating that he was
not a cladist. Funher, in his letter, he explained that the theory of
"sudden emergence of species" was itself dealing with the rhythm
of evolution whereas cladism did not propose any explanations
concerning this.

Link with Marxism

According to Halstead, the concept of "punctuated equilibrium"
and Marxist ideology were based on the same philosophy; in other
words, changes occurred by jumps in both. Gould has related how
he learned about Marxism in his very early childhood. Although
one of the fow1ders of the theory of sudden emergence of species,
Eldredge was nonetheless not a Marxist. Engel's book, Dialectic of
Nature, along with many other books on the subject, w1doubtedly
contained interesting information. However, it was not easy to
produce a complete and determined proposal which could define
scientific thought as "dialectic." According to Halstead's interpreta-
tion, the pivotal concept was the notion of"jumping," and that was
the contradiction berween Darwinism and Marxism.
180 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

In trying to explain the classical evolution scenario that is based

on gradual evolution and the concepts of Marxism, a geneticist
from Cambridge, Gabriel Dover, pointed to an example provided
by Engels: "If water is continuously heated, the~·e will be a gmdual
increase in its te>nperature; upon reaching the w1:ain threshold value, it
will start boiling." In other words, there was a "jump" which could
not be considered separate from gradual evolution. In biology,
Darwin's theory also proposed the same scheme: "Smallquantita·
tive changes accumulate and this process unavoidably causes a change in
the true nature. In such a case, classical Darwinism is most compatible
with Marxist theory•. " 79
Considering these claims, accusing cladisrs of being Marxist
was at least controversial. According to Halstead, however, ideo-
logical factors also played a role. Indeed, there were influences
between certain ideological concepts and scientific interpretations
which were happening "undercover," so to speak. For instance, in
their article where they proposed the theory of the "sudden emer·
gence of species," in 1977, Gould and Eldredge clearly stated that
gradualism was politically manipulated to accommodate the socio·
culrural tradition of Britain in Queen Victoria's rime (1837-1901).
This meant that Darwin considered evolution as a continuous pro-
cess because of a certain philosophical and social conditioning.
Because of that, he looked at nature from the point of '~ew of a
particular ideology; there was a continuous change, but it was in
harmony and unity with the prevalent values of Victorian England.
At this point, it is clearly seen how Gould and Eldredge expound a
Marxist explanation. Indeed, in spite of its gradualist aspect, Marx
too found Darwin's theory attractive because of "the presence of
struggle among li,~ng beings in nature." This he found both
appealing and dangerous because it evoked the social and econom-
ic competition in Britain much more.
On the other hand, according to Gould and Eldredge, the idea
of a certain biological discontinuity seemed close to the dialectical
ideas of Hegel, Marx and Engel. Referring to a work published
 E~·idence fOr the Theory of Evolution. or Preconceived Opinions? 181

during the Marxist-Leninist era of the Soviet Union, Gould and

Eldredge argued that it was not surprising for Russian paleontolo-
gists like Ruzhentse,· and Ovcharenko to propose an interpretation
of the "partial formation of species." According to Gould, however,
this similaritY between theory and ideology should not be under-
stood as the cause of their theory; in other words, it was unfair to
criticize the theory of the "sudden emergence of species" just by
referring to Marxist sources. On the other hand, it is impossible to
deny the presence of the above-mentioned philosophical and polit-
ical background considering the mutual interference between sci-
ence and ideology. Could the observable "phenomena" not simply
be tested, instead of dealing with the notions of Marx or Darwin?
Moreover, M.J. Hughes-Games of Bristol University stated
that the evidence for gradualism was much weaker than Halstead
thought-and Phillippe Janvier even concluded that the so-called
evidence was the product of illusion. Unforrunately, the contradic-
tion between ideas rooted in culrure and ideology caused the matter
to erupt into a battle which seemed to be "religious"-for while no
criticism was made, the process of"excommunication'' was allowed
to operate. The excessive level of chaos raised the question: Since
Nco-Darwinian theory is so fragile and open to debate, does it even
deserve to be evaluated as a scientific theory?
Indeed, this matter was boldly expressed to the public by those
in charge of the British Museum. Colin Patterson gave the title "Is
Evolutionary TheOI)' Science?" to one of the chapters in his book
about evolution. For Patterson evolutionary theory is neither com-
pletely scientific like physics nor completely far from scientific
aspects. According to Halstead, this judgment was nothing short of
scandalous. He started to mount a heavy opposition in the journal,
Nnv Scientist. What would be the end of this story, if we were to
believe those who claim that Darwinism is not tntly "scientific"?
Wouldn't such a case be advantageous for creationists? However,
the subject matter of debate became degraded into an effort to sim-
ply get the opponent to back down, rather than a search for truth.
182 £1'0/ution: Science or Ideology?

Is StMlLARlTY IN APPEARANCE SUFFlClE:"T?

While asserting-as if it were proven-that humans evolved from

chimpanzees (or from a common ancestor to chimpanzees and
humans), evolutionary theory does not acruallv rei\' on scientific
evidence, nor does it use the type of language rhat the scientific
method necessitates in trying to ba.<e its thesis on fossil remains in
order to determine that an evolutionary process was experienced.
Furthermore, advocates of evolutionarY theorv have not been able
to find what they have been expecting from the fossil record for one
and a half cenn1ries. As will be laid out in this part, the claim of the
evolution of humans from apes does not have clear, supportive
evidence nor is it methodologically "scientific"; at best, it can only
be deemed an opinion or belief
Summarizing the discussion briefly about the purported chain
of ape-to-human fossils, the following mistakes and biased evalua-
tions may be cited:
1. The fossils of apes which lived in the past and are extinct
today are evaluated by sequencing them arbitrarily as transition
forms between htunans and apes. In addition to the big apes, like
gorillas, which are still living today, there were smaller apes and
hundreds of other primate species, such as lemurs, living in the
past. Those ape skulls have been deliberately sequenced in a system
which presumes to show gradual transition according to the sce-
Iurio that evolutionists have imagined, so the impression of an
acnial transition from apes to humans has been created.
2. When d1e above-mentioned point is nor convincing enough,
they simply combine missing and defective bone pieces which are
collected from different places. Then, they complete the missing parts
with plastic material or plaster, again according to their imaginary
scenarios, and mislead the public, as if humans were simply descen-
dants of "one of the missing ancestral chains." Should the occasion
arise, they can even completely fabricate fossils.
 Eridence.fOr the Theory of£...,·o/ution, or Preconceived Opinions? 183

Manv examples of misleading evaluations and fraud can be

found. One of the best known of those false fossil constructions,
known as "Piltdown man" (Eoanthropus da~vsoni), pre-occupied the
public for many years. This "fossil" was "found" by Charles Daw-
son near Piltdown, in England, in 1912, and it was determined to
be 500,000 years old. Ir consisted of parts of a human-looking skull
associated with an ape-like lower jaw. Many srudies and projects
revolved around it for more than forty years. In addition, 500 doc-
toral dissertations were wrinen about Piltdown man. During his
visit to the British Narural History Museum in 1935, the paleoan-
thropologist, H. F. Osborn, said: "Narure is full of surprises; this
is one of the most important discoveries about the prehistoric times
of humanity."
It wasn't until 1949, when the fossils were dated using the
fluorine absorption technique, that the authenticity of the "discov-
ery" was called into question. Kenneth Oakley, from the paleontol-
ogy department of the British Museum, tested his new radioactive
fluorine technique on the Piltdown man fossil in 1949 and proved
that the jaw bone did not contain any fluorine. This result clearly
demonstrated that the jaw had been underground for not more
than a couple of years. Later, from other srudics performed with
this method, it was established that the age of the skull was only a
couple of thousand years. Further, in 1953, Joseph Weiner, an
Oxford professor of physical anthropology, discovered that the jaw
had been deliberately given a unique wear panern and purposely
changed to fit the "Piltdown Man." A group of scientists, including
Weiner and Oakley, then undertook new chemical analyses, includ-
ing an improved fluorine test, and found that the jaw and teeth
were not the same age as the skull and jaw-and that, in fact, they
were not even fossils. The skull belonged to a 500-year-old human
being, and the jawbone was that of a recently deceased orangutan!
The joints were rasped and the teeth were added and arranged later
on specifically to make it look human. All of the bone fragments
had simply been artificiallv stained with potassium dichromate in
184 Emlution: Science or Ideology?

order to make them look ancient. When the bones were dipped into
acid, all the stains on the bones disappeared. Weiner, Oaklev, and
Oxford anthropologist, Wilfrid Le Gros Clark, were now certain
that the Piltdown fossil collection was a fake-a hoax, in fact. Being
one of the discoverers of the infamous hoax, Le Gros Clark
expressed his wonder as follows: "The evidence of artificial abrasion
immediately sprang ro the eye, indeed so obvious did thev [the
scratches] seem it may well be asked-ho\\" was it that they had
escaped notice before?"80 It is an understatement to say that the
revelation of the forgery of the Piltdown man fossil gave evolution·
ists a headache for a very long time.
An extensive scientific debate then began surrounding the
reconstruction of another fossil from a pig tooth-"Nebraska man."
Some interpreted this tooth as belonging to Pithecanthropus e~·ectus,
while others thought of it as belonging to Hesperopithecus haroldcooki.
The reconstruction of such a fossil solely from a pig tooth actually
became quite comical. This was because the evolutionists who fab-
ricated a primitive evolutionary ape-man fossil from one single tooth
could not stop themselves-instead, they even placed his wife right
next to him. The problem starred in 1922, when Henry Fairfield
Osborn, the director of the American Museum of Natural History,
declared that he had found a fossil molar tooth from the Pliocene
epoch in western Nebraska. This tooth allegedly bore common char-
acteristics of both man and ape. Great scientific arguments revolved
around it, and reconstructions of Nebraska man's head and body
were drawn based on this single tooth. Moreover, Nebraska man
was even pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole fam-
ily in a natural setting. Evolutionist circles placed so much faith in
this "nonexistent man" that when a researcher, William Bryan,
opposed such biased conclusions for relying on a single tooth, he
was almost lynched academically. Nonetheless, other parts of the
skeleton were also discovered in 1927, and it was then realized that
the tooth actually belonged to an extinct species of wild American
 EvidencejOr the TheOI)' of Evolmion, or Preconceived Opinions? 185

pig. Suddenly, all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and his

"family" were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literarure. 81
Even in the best-case scenarios, skulls of "transitional forms"
were completed based only on a couple of skull fragments, which
were simply inwnred with prolific imaginations and then made to
look verY distinct and "realistic" in the hands of different artists.
Different people. for instance, were able to construct fossils with
different brain volumes from the very same skull material. Then,
they simply engaged in extensive discussions about which of those
fabricated fossils were more legitimate as evidence. fu; a result, the
elusive basis on which emlurionary theory was constructed was
shaken once again, and the picrure became even more confusing
and complicated.
In addition to fossil forgeries and the fossils of extinct apes,
some fossils that evolutionists introduce unquestionably belong to
real people. Fossils of humans who lived in different regions and
various weather conditions include Homo erectus, Hr»no ergaster,
Homo heidelbCJ;gensis, and Homo sapiens neandCJ-thalensis. In the past,
some human races which lived in the same period of time together
might have crossbred, producing different "strains". The differ-
ences between these fossils, which are deemed to be subspecies
(races) of the human species in terms of the taxonomic system, in
fact are not any greater than the differences between Inuit people,
Caucasians, African-Americans, Asians, or Australian Aborigines,
for example-all of whom are currently living. However, evolution-
ists are determined to make such an effort to accept the idea of
ancestral human races, like H. sapims neandmhalensis-who was a
rather stocky, extinct human strain-along with other human fos-
sils as transitional forms. In another similar case, a skull and some
bones of a purportedly human fossil named Homo habilis was even-
rually found to be, and reclassified as, an extinct ape.
One of the most significant difficulties in this field has been that
once geologically dated fossils would not fit the evolutionary sce-
nario after some time it was necessary to do changes on them.
186 Evolution: Scie11ce or Ideology?

Anatomical characteristics that were supposed to be seen only in

modern man according to evolutionarv schema, were observed in
fossils from much earlier periods. Further, judgments were not made
after analyzing a completely prcsen•cd skeleton of a certain living
specie•. Rather, conclusions were exaggerated interpretations of
srudies of single bones-not even a complete bone would be taken
into account, as only a fragment of it would be considered-from
which they extrapolated deductions about the definitions of species.
In fact, the subject of how one can distinguish anv tvpe of spe-
cies from another species by relying on such criteria as those now
used is still open to discussion. Anv human limb, or any part of a
limb, could resemble an anatomically similar living being's equiva-
lent limb, or a part of that limb. in some aspects. How "scientific"
is it to take this similarity as a fundamental criterion, thus suppos-
ing that it gives an accurate result for determining species-and
even for determining classes-rather than properly using it only as
a base for scientific predictions or thoughts, and as a tool to open
doors to new srudies?
It is not satisfactory to "insert" into the scheme a living being
which lived in the past and whose entire skeleton has not been found,
only by relying on one criterion within any type of class. According
to evolutionists, the samples of older specimens seemed more evolved
than those of the more recent ones-for example, even though the
teeth looked like hominid teeth, the jaw was totally an ape jaw.
Besides, living organisms do not evolve in every aspect over time, as
evolutionists idealize. Some of the organs remain unchanged, like
those of the very old species, a.nd some of them look like those of the
most recent. So, in that case, which organ should be used in estab-
lishing the evolutionary relationship among species? Fundamentally,
evolmior.ists get confused because of their elaborate and constraining
preconceptions. Therefore, the same question should be asked here
again: "Does evolution, which has never been proven, have to
occur?" Why is it that they run away from explaining all these by
reference to the ease and reasoning of creation?
 Evidence for the Theory C?f Evolwion. or Preconceil'ed Opinions? 187

The biggest error of those who do nor accept a materialistic

evolurionarv perception has come from using the expressions of
undemanding that predominate in public opinion through the
mass media. The main goal underlying the use of phrases derived
from the dassiticarion and naming of animals according to the
principles of s1·sremaric zoology for describing humans is to imply
that humans arc included in the same category as animals in evolu-
tionary ideology. The notion of primates is such a powerful expres-
sion that it generates a completely anificial background, like other
systematic categories, \\'ith the aim of examining about 600 ape-like
species as an order beJring some common characteristics. On the
other hand, one of the basic feamres of any animal taxonomic sys-
tem is that it continuously changes with new discoveries. Included
in rodents now, for example, an animal might later be included in
a totally different group after a few years due to a recently found
and distinctive fearure it may have. Accepting that all the lemurs,
tarsiers, lorises, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans are primates
does nor indicate rhar they came from a common ancestor-it only
makes the researcher's smdies easier. When the general characteris-
tics of orders and families are known, it is possible to obtain rypical
information about the group without examining all the species
included in the group one by one. However, evolutionists expel
systematic zoology from irs true orbit and put it into the service of
the materialist point of view. In this respect, incorporating humans
into the Hominidae family, with the name Homo sapiens, they placed
the belief which belongs to their imaginary worlds into all of the
zoology books, as if it were a realiry.
Even though systematic zoology is a very important field
which makes srudying animal life easier and allows us to contem-
plate the beauties of creation, rhe ideological views of evolutionists
have made many systematicians feel estranged. Since they have not
been able to find any other way our, they have had to incline
towards general acceptance and admit the imposition of consider-
ing human beings in the systematic categories of animals. However,
188 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

humans are not living beings which can be evaluated onlv with
regard to physiological or anatomical characteristics; rather, having
intellect, consciousness and conscience, they are creatures which are
completely distinct from animals in their essential narure. Thus,
they should not be considered in these categories. Just as we divide
vegetation, animals and bacteria from each other into separate king-
doms due to the differences in their natures, it has long been under-
stood that humankind should be considered to belong to a distinct
kingdom.
The answer to everyone's question about the distinctive char-
acteristics of a hominid as opposed to other primates has never
been provided. The three species examined within the family of
Hominidae are the gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan. The fourth
species that the advocates of evolutionary theory include in this
family is the human being. The distinctive characteristics of the
other ape species included in the Primate order and those three spe-
cies do not differ in their tme nan1re. However, each species has
unique fearures in terms of its morphology and anatomy, in addi-
tion to each having specific characteristics belonging only to itself.
So should the human being not be distinguished from those spe-
cies, in terms of both irs true nantrc, and irs "rank" or degree?
Contrarily, the subject matter is discussed in the domain of
public opinion as if all of the problems had been overcome and an
accurate result had been obtained. Even we were to look at things
from the evolutionary point of view, and we were to accept such a
taxonomic system, we would have to acknowledge that there is not
a single bipedal primate alive today other than the human rhat per-
manently stands erect. Further, there is no other living primate
with such a large brain to body mass ratio other than Homo sapiens,
as the <Ich-ocatc' of evolutionary theorv call humans. If we look at
the closest animals to us which are currently living-that is, to
apes-we will see that they are as distinct from each other as they
are from human beings. Similarly, none of the hominid fossils actu-
ally looks like a relative to humans. So, based on which criteria are
 Evidence for the Theory of Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? 189

those fossils "inserted" in this or that species, and then generally

accepted by the public'
Most difficulties in paleoanthropology arise with the discovery
of new, different and unpredictable fossils. The first of these "prob-
lem types" deals with the borderline between being ape and being
human. However, the following reasonable evaluation could be
achieved with a way of thinking that is sound and free of prejudg-
ment: a human being is a "whole, and can only survive as a whole
with a human identity. As a case in point, increased brain size and
full bipedalism are given only to human beings, so that this whole-
ness is evidenced as being solely, and specially, for them.
The second problem faced while searching for the origin of
humankind is the unwillingness of most paleontologists ro learn
about the variations in the fossil records--or even more basically,
the inadequacy of their efforts. This indicates the apathy of many
paleontologists, who opt ro ignore this "scientific" problem, there-
by using an approach which is inconsistent with the ethics of sci-
ence-despite clear existence of variations in the fossil samples
which have been put in the "human" category. The critical relevance
of the question, "According to which criteria is it being considered
human?", along with difficulty of solving of the problem with cer-
tain!:)', is simply ignored. The general estimation that something is
"neither totally ape, nor totally human" arises from the attempt ro
represent populations belonging ro a certain species with an insuf-
ficient and disorganized selection of fossils, in addition ro the anxi-
ety which results when attempting ro define "humans" by referring
to the science of biology alone.
The harmony of the human body, with its soul and essence,
and the demonstration of the artistry of such wholeness on the face
of the Earth, should make us think about the following points. The
anatomy and physiology of our body, as given to us, is ideal for the
purpose of the existence of our spirit, soul, mind, intelligence and
senses; rhus, we cannot call a living being, which partially has the
features of humans but never displays those other characteristics
190 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

which make it human, a "human being," because the resemblance

is only partial. In other words, when a living being is said to be
"human," it must typically have all of the characteristics which are
present in humans altogether at the same time-not just a couple
of features. Thus, it is only a human being if it possesses the follow-
ing, and many more, characteristics at the same titne: a greater
brain to body mass ratio than the other primates; full bipedalism; a
straight backbone and legs; compatibilitY of the length of the arms
with the body and with the particular living conditions of man; a
forehead projecting toward the front more than other primates; the
ability to speak; intellect, conscience and reasoning; ethics, thus
allowing it to be the interlocutor of revelation and religion, prompt-
ing it to bury the deceased, and permitting it to engineer complex
devices, and so on; as well as many other characteristics which may
or may not be reflected in fossils.
Yet, in terms of '~representative types,,, evolutionists took only
a single jaw fossil into account, and then they described the species
by considering only this fossil. However, in the field of systematic
zoology, a species is ideally described by a representative (holotype),
which represents the species at its best, that is, the mature phase of
ontological development. The question is, though, what is a suffi-
cient characteristic to define humans? For example, since a human
is not a creature that lives on trees, it is normal for the big toe to be
adjacent to the other toes. Is this enough of a criteria for differen-
tiation? At this point, the importance of gathering all the character-
istics which make humans "human," and form an integral whole,
becomes prominent once more as being the most critical require-
ment for describing humans. This is because humankind is such a
complex creature, and we understand, again, that we have to evalu-
ate it with all its characteristics-not by taking each minor feature,
one by one, and comparing it to other creatures.
Are we human beings differentiated from apes or ape-like ani-
mals by our teeth? If so, then is it the shape of the teeth, or the
enamel on the teeth, which is more important? Or is the clue about
 El'idence for the Theory of Evolution. or Preconceh·ed Opinions? 191

being a hominid present in the skull? Or is the joining of the back-

bone with the base of the skull the distinctive factor? Or is it the
shape of the elbow joints? Or the position of the big toe? Or all of
these characteristics? Or, does the answer lie in another fearure that
is not considered above? Paleoanthropologists have tried to find the
answer to the question, u.what does being a 'hominid' mean?"
Comparative anatomy experts, who have approached the subject
matter ideologically, have discovered fossils that were claimed to be
relatives of humans after determining the properties of human
beings which apparently made them distinct from animals. Then,
they evaluated these as if hominid fossils had evolutionary continu-
ity from ape-like crearures to human-like ones. Furthermore, when
the age and especially morphology of a fossil was nor adequate for
validating their anticipated results, they simply and abruptly
changed their way of interpreting the fossils, and then continued to
assert that tl1ey were hominids.
Ultimately, it is obvious that fossils do not provide an oppor-
runity for evolutionists to talk about the starus of human beings in
the past. This incapacity is already present in the very narure of
paleontology. Even so, upon finding a small bone fragment, a pale-
ontologist or paleoanthropologist who has already espoused evolu-
tionary thought assumes a right to base a very significant judgment
on that very minor piece of bone.
Different human races have various skull shapes, forehead pro-
jections, nasal cavities, cheekbones, pelvis and knee joints, shoulder
widths, different ratios of the length of arm and leg to the body, and
so on-all of which are special to themselves and which are reflected
in their fossils, even though these are admittedly missing and disor-
ganized. For in terms of taxonomic systems, distinct human races
are only different subspecies or varieties; pur another way, according
to Mayr's definition of species today, all human beings are from the
san1e "species." That's because all human races can intermarry to
produce fertile generations. As a matter of fact, differences can be
observed in the shapes of the skull (and other morphological char-
192 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

acteristics) even within indi,~dual societies in any region of the

world. Therefore, this indicates that different geography, latitude,
climates, eating habits, choices, and so on, can cause certain differ-
entiations (as pan of the genetic potential given to htUnankind dur-
ing its first creation, and pan of the natural range and limits of the
"human" species). Indeed, in his book entitled, Mankind Evolving,
the well-known geneticist, Theodosius Dobzhansky, reduced the
case that taxonomists define as variation onlv to the level of ,·ariation
among individuals of the same species (just like the formation of
human races). 82 A~ a believer in evolution, Dobzhansky accepted
that new arrangements occurring naturally on chromosome pieces
allowed the idea of the emergence of new species, but after his
experiments on fruit flies, he did not accept that human beings could
have arisen as a result of such changes, like other organisms.
What makes evolutionists confused and always keeps them
bewildered in human-ape debate is a problem caused by the namre
of paleoanthropology itself, as news about the discovery of ne\\'
fossil remains may come from any pan of the world. Mter the age
dating and morphological description of such a new fossil is com-
pleted, there is an attempt to place it somewhere in the current
taxonomic systems. However, that usually shakes the arguments
accepted thus far and necessitates "retouching" those theses.
Examining related publications, the reader can observe that the
date, place and form of the purported "split" between humans and
apes and their supposeclly common ancestors (according to evolu-
tionary theory) changes from month to month, and year to year.
Therefore, as we read above, evolutionisrs necessarily keep discuss-
ing what "portion of the criteria" described in their "theory" should
be applied to the recently found fossil.
Nonetheless, the "movie" scenario described by paleontology
and paleoanthropology has never been rewound to be ~ewed again.
Stud)~ng in the face of so many obstacles, it should become ob,~ous
how clifficult a job it is-and how much responsibility is required-
to make judgments about the true history of human lineage.
 Evidence for the Theory of Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? 193

In addition to that, hwnans are a presently living species.

Therefore, comparisons between fossils and living forms give us a
chance to make sound adjustments and establish standardization. Y er,
if the hwnan species were extinct, would we still gather the people of
different races under the same species (as different subspecies), or
under differenr species (that is, including them in different classes),
just by looking at their fossils? Clearly, it is nor even merhodologi·
cally possible to say that there is an evolutionary relationship involv·
ing a transition from species to species between morphologically
similar groups of living beings which lived in the past, and are distin-
guished from other species, only by examining their fossils today.
For instance, with a preconception that humans and apes are
definitely related, Bernard Wood and Alison Brooks, of the
Department of Anthropology at George Washington University,
mention in their anicle published in Nature magazine that they are
now almost cenain that modern humans and chimpanzees diverged
from a common ancestor which was chimp-like, predominantly
arboreal, and fruit-eating, between 5 and 8 MYA. Nonetheless, there
is a huge three-million-year gap between five and eight MYA, and
there is absolutely no evidence about how they diverged during this
big rime interval. Yet the authors do nor consider this big gap to be
a significant methodological issue while arriving at interpretations,
since they already have cenain preconceptions in their minds. They
continue: "Although we would expect human fossils to be consider-
ably more bipedal than (and, rhus, readily distinguishable from) the
ancestors of chimps, this may nor be so. Instead we may have to
rely on the size and shape of the canines, as well as relatively subtle
indicators in the deciduous and permanent post-canine teeth, to
son the first humans from the earliest chimps.'"' 3
This is actually a confession that there is no objection to mak-
ing essential judgments despite missing information, even though
the evidence presented is clearly insufficienr. Nor a single bit of fos-
sil evidence, providing any information whatsoever about bipedal-
ism, is present among the fossils belonging to this time gap.
194 Evo/Uiion: Science or Ideology?

Accordingly, the authors discuss the human-chimpanzee relation-

ship based solely on some canine teeth. Indeed, not only 5 MYA, but
even going back only 130,000 years, the possibility of fUlding
human fossils, and especially of discovering fully-protected skeletal
remains, is reduced by degrees. Even within the understanding, or
assumption, of evolution, it becomes pretty hard to say anything
certain about the characteristics of only one species, aside from try-
ing to establish a possible relation of affinity or derivation between
the species.
It could be said that evolution is merely a manifestation of
prejudice. When the entire ideology is based on lowering humans to
the level of animals, the understanding of some similarities that are
given to challenge, or test, our understanding oflife on Earth-or as
a simple necessity for living in the physical and chemical conditions
on Earth--<an easily be distorted. The imaginary pictures of apes
that seem gradually to become human beings, drawn one after the
other, arc only generalizations arising from prejudgments. It is being
proven by new studies every day that presenting fabricated hominid
fossils-by starting out with the partial similarity of a couple of bone
remains-is unscientific and not relevant to science at all.

WHAT Do MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND GENETICS SAY?

Should one ask the question, "What is the greatest obstacle which
faces the evolutionary hypothesis today?" -the answer will be
"molecular biology." The first reason for this is that as a necessity
of its field of interest, molecular biology deals with molecules-
which are at the micro- and nano-scale, at the "borderlines of life,"
so to speak. The reality of "irreducible complexity" precludes the
possibility of coincidence operating at the molecular basis of bio-
chemical processes and operations to yield the amazing order, har-
mony, system and plan, which are obviously observed at the micro-
level. We have learned that life is much more complex than we
could ever have imagined even thirty years ago. For instance, con-
 Evidence for the Theory ofEvolwion, or Preconceived Opinions? 195

sidered as the simplest living beings in most evolutionary taxono-

mies, bacteria have been observed to have delicate structures con-
sisting of hundreds of organelles at the micro-level, essentially pre-
cursors of bio-chemical motors-tiny bur incredibly complex and
perfect structures-within their flagellum, in order to help them
with movement.
All the evolutionist interpretations, which are based on super-
ficial similarities shown as proof of evolution, as organs are seen
simply ~from the outside,» became meaningless in a moment, when
new discoveries brought researchers face to face with the perfect
operation of dazzling complexity at the molecular level. The artistic
construction and organization of the cell organelles themselves,
each being like a bio-chemical factory, clearly reveals infinite knowl-
edge and power. If we were able to understand the refinement of
even one perfect stmcrure, such as a chloroplast on a single green
leaf-the chlorophyll-rich organelle which synthesizes sugar as food
for the plant-there would no longer be a starvation problem in the
world. Surely, no rational person could claim that such "intelligent
machinery," which produces sugar from carbon dioxide and water
using sunlight, could ever have arisen by chance. Further, the emer-
gence of respiratory enzymes and coenzymes on the membranes of
the mitochondria, which work "-' energy stations, cannot be imag-
ined to have happened by themselves. In addition, no one could
honestly assign the arrangement of two specific sub-units of RNA
molecules to achieve protein synthesis in a ribosome as transfer
RNA and messenger RNA-and the unique synthesis of all the
proteins in a certain living being-to a mechanism with a mindless
and unconscious narure. No one could reasonably claim that ATP
and creatine phosphate, which are placed at the foundation of the
muscular systems of all living beings and in the message mechanism
of nerves-a chemical which is necessary for the motion of the
actin-myosin filaments in muscles-had arisen by chance.
Beyond this, the claim, when they were first discovered, that
cells were covered with a simple membrane, and that such a mem-
196 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

brane had arisen by itself, was challenged by the cliscovery by molec-

ular biologists of an incredibly fine membrane structure. Rather than
being primitive, the structure of the cell membrane, named the fluid
membrane model, was made up of three molecular layers. Today, no
one is able to categorize such a sophisticated structure as being
"primitive," or as having "arisen by itself'-for it still bears so many
mysteries, and it is highly organized, with many functional units. In
fact, key aspects of cellular functioning are still not perfectly under-
stood, such as the succession of glycolipids, phospholipids and glyco-
protein molecules, through a mechanism whereby they leave open
channels at certain points; how this regulates the system to tranSport
matter in and out of the cellular or subcellular domain; how the
unknown molecules are recognized by the special receptors on the
cell membrane; and the mechanism of canceration.
We can partially understand the structure of the golgi device-
which functions in many cellular regulation processes, like the secre-
tion of enzymes and hormones-just by looking through an electron
microscope. In turn, each of the other structures-such as centrioles,
which become active during cell division, microtubules, constituting
the microtubular spinclle fibers which are necessary for chromosome
separation, and many more cytoplasmic structures-exclaim in its
own tongue that such exquisite artistry can only be made by the
Creator, Who can achieve everything in such a perfect way.
Besides, being a "kingdom" all on its own inside the nucleus, the
DNA molecule, composed of two helical strands wherein the entire
life program of the cell is programmed by four simple proteins
(known as A,T,G,C), in such units called genes, opens the brand-new
horiron of molecular genetic as a distinct miracle. For the creation of
unique features in all li\~ng beings is a result of the characteristics of
DNA, which can be coded in infinitely many varieties in all li,~ng
beings, as a common language from worms to fishes, from mice to
eagles, or from flies to whales. In brief, DNA, a universal molecule,
is obvious evidence for infinite knowledge and power.
 Evidence for the Theory of Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? 197

Because of all this, we can say that evolutionary thought has

drowned in the sea of molecular biology. When we nonetheless
keep hearing evolutionists claim that "molecular biology proves
evolution," we are simply left speechless. At this point, I recom-
mend that readers take a look at Michael J. Behe's well-known book
Darwin's Black Box for the finest answer to this claim. 84
It is quite normal and reasonable for those genes which code
some basic, vital, biochemical processes to be common in all living
beings, since all beings live on the same Earth. In other words, the
common presence of some molecules in many living beings due to
the necessity of certain critical life functions-like that of the cyto-
chrome or hemoglobin molecules, which are viral for the biochem-
ical mechanism of respiration-does not indicate that they differen-
tiated from each other. Nor only a fly and worm, for example but
also a dog and human need to use m.-ygen to live on this Earth;
thus, the use of similar molecules in biochemical processes related
to respiration is, of course, normal and to be expected. Such an
operation shows a unique Creator Who knows all of the needs of
all creatures and provides these needs in an optimal way.
Contrary to many years of continuous propaganda in which
humans were claimed to be 98.7% similar to chimpanzees, the
article entitled, "Chimp Chromosome Creates Puzzles," in Volume
429 of the British journal Nature, explains that human and chimp
genes are actually much les.' alike than had been thought. Impor-
tant variations have been found on the sequences of chimp chromo-
some 22 and its "equivalent," human chromosome 21 85 A general
commentary on this in the article simply states, "The first detailed
comparison study done reveals surprising differences between
human and chimpanzee genes." In the same article, the following
words of Dr. Jean Weissenbach, from France, also appear: "Chro-
mosome 22 makes up onlv I% of the genome, so in total there
could be thousands of genes that significantly differ between humans
and chimps. " 86 Therefore, this result brings Darwin's theory to a
major dead-end in terms of the origin of the human being.
198 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

Being an expert in the domain of the Prehistoric and Quater-

nary periods, paleoecologist Jean Chaline points out the inability of
molecular biology to explain the "past": "Some biologists assume
that humans and chimpanzees differentiated from a common ances-
tor based on the similariry between the two species' biochemistry
and number of chromosomes. This hypothesis is founded on the
following assumption: molecular and biochemical evolurion is
regulated by neutral murations systematically. However, in 1979,
M. Goodman, who examined the analysis of amino acid sequences,
proved that molecular evolurion certainly occurred randomly and
was not systematic at all. Therefore, the falsity of the above state-
ment has unfolded." 87 The critical question abour humans and
chimpanzees, which were placed on the same branches of the "evo-
lutionary tree" as an a priori judgment -"When did they separate
and differentiate?"-is defined merely as a "challenging question"
by classical evolutionists. Paleontologist, Pierre Darlu, states the
following on this particular subject: "A factor called mutation rate
(the number of mutations in unit time) has been studied in order
to be able to give an answer to this question. This ratio, which is
very hard to calculate, requires a calibration based on paleontologi-
cal data, carrying gaps and uncertainties. However, the rate itself
might change from one gene to the other, and even from one nucle-
otide sequence to the other within one gene, and it might speed up
or slow down over time. Even though the statistical models account
t(Jr all these parameters, the results carry the risk of going into a
major uncertainty."88
A< has been seen from the explanations above, ir is essentially
impossible for the advocates of evolutionary theory to find a field like
molecular biology or genetics, and embrace it as a "life preserver
from the past," so to speak-after wimessing the insufficiency of
paleontology-in order to support their argument for evolutionary
theory, which is claimed to extend throughout all geological periods.
The studies which can be performed in these fields, and which
experts conduct on specific historical periods of rime, are limited to
 Eridence for the Theory of Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? 199

analyzing the DNA samples of skin tissue of well-protected pharaoh

corpses, for instance, to uncover the relationship among individuals
in that lineage based on a number of mummies. Researchers cannot
go further than determining the relationship within that generic line
through the analysis of mitochondrial DNA (i.e. the establishment of
matemallineage through the transmission of "DNA" in the eggs of
successive generations) in samples taken from non petrified human
and animal bones dated in ten-thousand-year increments, from
10,000 to 50,000 years ago.
Consequently, a member of the French Academy of Sciences,
the famed zoologist, Jean Dorst, concludes that "One chromosome
difference between humans and chimpanzees, which seem to be the
closest to each other in terms of biochemistry and chromosome
number, is not sufficient to explain the difference in the human
being's establishment of civilization on Earth and the chimpanzee's
continuous stay in the trees. " 89
The srudies on human evolution have been well established on
traditional Darwinian dogmas. The first one of those dogmas is
that change by evolution indicates itself by means of imperceptible,
infinitely small modifications. Obviously, such beliefs, which have
been taken as the fundamental base for research about ancestral and
intermediate forms and dominated paleanthopological srudies up to
now, are still predominant. But what if that is not really the way
things happened at all? In fact, the necessity for an extremely long
time period for changes to occur is one of the reasons why Darwin's
ideas fell from favor.
In every subsequent edition of his book, The Origin of Species,
Darwin required a longer period of time for the evolutionary process
to be observed. However, the Earth was not old enough to allow this
evolutionary scheme to occur. While trying to explain how a species
presumably underwent transformations over time, this special evolu-
rional")' model could not propose any explanation for how life had
become so richlv varied. Indeed, Darwin was aware of this problem.
Yet his only illustration, or admission, about this was one which he
200 Evolulion: Science or Ideology?

gave in his book, The Origin of Species, showing "doned lines" to

demonsnate how ancestors changed over time and branched into
many species. Unfornmately, even though he named his book, The
Origin ofSpecies, Darwin was quite unable to explain how one species
might have "split" into nvo or more species.
As extreme numbers were established through sophisticated
calculations, in order to model the time needed for amino acids and
proteins to come into existence strictly "by chance" in the first
atmosphere, the degree to which the idea of evolurion through suc-
cessive, random changes was becoming ridiculous started to be
understood. Compared to the length of time needed for molecules
to be ordered as cell organelles, then cells, then tissues, then organs,
by means of the programming of DNA and RNA codes by chance
in a chaotic medium, the age of our Earth was calculated to be only
as long as the time it takes to blink.
Considering only the so-called "split" of apes and humans from
each other, and in terms only of the differentiation of the cortex-
which is the apparent sear of the functions of thinking, reasoning
and understanding-probability calculations proved that the time
needed for the number of random mutations which would neces-
sarily have to occur at the right time and place is vastly longer than
the actual age of the Earth. In addition, human beings are human
beings not only by virtue of their brains, bur also by all their seen
and "unseen" organs, senses, feelings and thoughts, being complex
from head to roe. When similar calculations are done for the devel-
opment of other anatomical and physiological characteristics, there
is simply insufficient rime according to the age of the Earth to allow
the required, necessary random mutations to take place, even just
for the differentiation of our thumb in terms of irs capacity for
movement. The only logical solution ro this mathematical quan-
dary would be to shorten the required rime span-in other words,
to assume that all of the millions of transitional living beings are
somehow ('ready,, and that thousands of tnutations somehow
occur continuously on each of those living mechanisms. However,
 Evidence for the Theory of Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? 201

this would contradict evolutionists' previous claims, since they have

long insisted that a fully functional protein, for example, might
randomly arise somewhere among the trillions of molecules. Yet, at
issue is not merely the improbability of the emergence of a single
protein molecule, but the improbability of the emergence of an
entirely new faculty on a human organ, perfect in all aspects.
Simply, the age of the Earth does nor actuallv allow for the possibil-
ity of such random changes.
As a similar claim to that of non-functional organs, advocates
of evolutionary theory argue that most DNA sequences which are
dysfunctional or useless, even though they were of value in the past,
have "become junk" during the evolutionary process, over a long
period of time. But as the Human Genome Project nears comple-
tion, the many hidden riches of so-called "junk DNA" have begun
to be explained. For Evan Eichler, an evolutionist scientist of the
Depanment of Genome Sciences at University of Washington the
term "junk DNA" is nothing but a reflection of our ignorance. 90
It is well known by now that information about protein syn-
thesis, which is vital for our cells, is coded in the DNA in our genes.
While the presence of 100,000 genes had been previously estimated
for the human genome, researchers from the Human Genome Proj-
ect have announced a new estimate of only about 30,000. The
number continues to fluctuate, and it is now expected that it will
take many years to agree on a precise value for the number of genes
in the human genome. Only a very small portion of our DNA is
coded as genes, and because of the fact that the rest of DNA does
not contain instructions or codes for proteins, it is considered to be
"non-coding DNA."
Some ponions of non-coding DNA are accumulated between
the genes, and they are referred to as "introns." Some of these non-
coding DNA pieces form long chains in a way which repeats the
same nucleotide sequence. Any highly complex and sequenced DNA
piece ( d1ereby resembling a gene) which has been found among
those pans rhat we call "repeating DNA" has become known as a
202 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

''pseudogene," and evolutionists have argued that these are nonfunc-

tional gene segments which are left over from the evolutionary pro-
cess. Since advocates of evolutionary theory are used to making such
ascriptions, they eagerly name this genetic material "pseudo," "atro-
phied," or "junk"-without actually proving the nonfunctionality of
these biological mechanisms. However, the fact that these "pseudo-
genes" are not being used in protein coding does nor prove that they
have no function whatsoever in any biological processes. In fact, the
progress made in related studies in the past decade have proven such
contentions to be empty illusions. As a result, these DNA segments
are no longer described as junk-rather, they are characterized as
"genome treasures."
As a matter of fact, even the observation that repeating DNA
segments, which are in the heterochromatin regions of chromo-
somes, have no visible role in protein synthesis, should not earn
them the designation of"junk" DNA. Yet since the subject matter
is approached with prejudgment, such nomenclature is hurriedly
given, and minds become confused. Renauld and Gasser, of the
Swiss Institute for Experimental Cancer Research, state the follow-
ing: "Despite irs significant representation in the genome, (up to
15% in human cells and -30% in flies), heterochromatin has often
been considered as 'junk' DNA-that is, DNA without utili!:)' to
the cell." However, they have found out that those DNA segments
actually play a collective role in meiosis-cell division during repro-
ducrion.91 Indeed, recent studies have proven that heterochromatin
could play important functional roles. Individually, nonfunctional
nucleotides become functional when they are gathered, or work,
together. So, as Emile Zuckerkandl expressed it, "Despite all argu-
ments made in the past in favor of considering heterochromatin as
junk, many people active in the field no longer doubt that it plays
functional roles .... Just as, quire some rime ago, populational think-
ing became a necessil:)• in generics, we need now to get used to
populational thinking in regard to the function of nucleorides. They
may individually be junk, and collectively, gold."92
 Evidence for 1he Theory of Evo/Uiion, or Preconceived Opinions? 203

In 1994, a molerular biologist, Michael Simons, at Harvard

Medical School, in Boston, as well as a physicist, Rosario N. Mantegna,
of Boston University, and some colleagues, applied two "linguistics"
(sequencing) tests to genetic material from a variety of organisms that
they assumed to be either simple or complex. That material was com-
prised of 37 Dl'\A sequences, containing at least 50,000 base pairs
each, as well as rwo shoner sequences and one with 2.2 million base
pairs. Both coding and non-coding regions were represented in this
material. In the end, they found structured "language properties," just
like human languages, in this "non-coding" DNA, that is, in the 90%
of the DNA which had long been ignored as "junk in the cell." As seen
in all other dialects, the "language" was coded in such a complex and
miraculous way that it could not possibly be explained as having hap-
pened, or been formed, by chance. 93
It was discovered in another studv that non-coding DNA in
eukarvotic
. cells is actuallv. a functional unit in the nucleus. 94
Researchers have observed a cenain proportional relationship between
the amount of non-coding DNA and the size of the nucleus, and they
concluded that this is an indicator of the necessity of such DNA for a
bigger nucleus structure. It was then shown in subsequent studies that
these DNA segments are vital for the structure and fi.mctionality of
the chromosome,95 for they pia\' a role in such mechanisms as regulat-
ing the appearance of genes during embryological development 96
especially fi.mctioning in the development of photoreceptor cells97 and
the central nervous system 98 All in all, these studies have proven that
non-coding DNA plays a viral role in the regulation of embryological
development.
In conclusion, it is no longer accepted that introns are "junk."
Just as introns have been admitted to have vital functions in the cell,
an imponanr study has been performed on mice, indicating that
pseudogenes are also functional. That study defined the pscudogene
as a gene copy that does not produce a fi.mctional, full-length protein,
and it pointed out that the biological roles of pscudogenes are still
not well tmderstood, despite determined etfons. Ir was described
204 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

how the hwnan genome contains up to 20,000 pseudogenes. Later

on, the role of pseudogenes in the regulation of messenger-RNA
stability was also reported. In fact, as a result of changing these genes
genetically via a trans-gene insertion, polycystic kidneys and bone
deformities were exhibited in the resulting mutant mice. All these
findings demonstrate that pseudogenes are neither nonfunctional
nor useless; rather, they are very crucial DNA segments which have
integral functions in specific regulaton• process<-,. 99 A srudy termed,
"Nor Junk After All," by Wojciech Makalowski, of Pennsylvania
Stare University, describes how repeating DNA elements, called "Aiu
sequences" constirure more than 10% of the human genome. While
they have nor been observed to code for proteins directly, the srudy
demonstrated how Alu sequences become inserted into the coding
regions of genes, resulting in the formation of new proteins, and
their important role was further esrablished. 100
Similarly, in their srudies on zebrafish, Shannon Fisher and her
colleagues at McKusick-Nathans Insrirure of Generic Medicine, at
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, have provided
similar explanations of why the notion of"junk" DNA should lose
its validity since such DNA plays various roles in regulatory mech-
anisms in the gene. 101
First of all, rhe similarities between different living beings do
not answer the basic question of biology, the question of how those
unique and profoundly complex organs and systems of various liv-
ing beings have arisen, and Danvinism cannot give an answer to
this question. On the other hand, so many similarities among even
very distant organisms, starting from the common point of their all
being alive, can be considered. For instance, you can say that there
is a resemblance between humans and bacteria in terms of the fact
that they are both alive. Both of them ha\'e a specific shape, are able
to reproduce, and use energy. You can also associate fish with bugs
and humans as all three usc ox-ygen, cat food with their mouths,
and expel refuse via an anus-and such similarities can go on, and
on. Yct, does seeing the similarity between living beings demon-
 Evidence for the Theory ~{Em/Uiion, or Preconceived Opinions? 205

strate that they have become differentiated from a common ances-

tor by chance? Or, rather, docs it show that they are the work of art
of a Power with infinite knowledge? A useful analogy is that we use
the same construction materials-such as wood, sand, cement and
glass-to build either a small hut or a huge house, a villa or a sky-
scraper. Bur just considering this similarity, no one would ever dare
to claim that a skyscraper evolved from a hut by chance; if someone
did, that person would dearly be the target of ridicule. Instead,
everyone would agree that both the hut and a skyscraper were the
work of art of an architect, or builder. Analogously, then, living
beings which are made out of the same materials and which may
even live in common conditions-in other words, which have some
similarities-do not demonstrate by virtue of such similarities that
they originate from a common ancestor. Extending the example
above, if one constructs a dwelling for shelter, it will have a founda-
tion and a roof- but the soundness of the house may vary depend-
ing on the quality of the foundation and the roof. Further, as beings
live on Earth, it is naturally to be expected that they will have some
basic metabolic processes and structures which are favorable to the
particular living conditions on Earth. Moreover, we know that
designers and engineers use many comparable pieces in different
rypes of technical systems and products. For example, bolts, pins,
screws, or cables are used in a variery of devices because they are
ideal for a particular purpose-and yet, a machine which has the
same or a similar cable as another, for example, cannot be said to
have arisen by evolving from it.
Consequently, the main question is this: Can these rypes of
similarities be associated with Darwin's theory? In fact, they cannot
be associated with his theory because living beings which are sup-
posed to be close relatives according to evolutionary theory are
sometimes observed to be genetically very different, while those
which are supposed to be relatively unrelated may have very similar
organs or genes. For instance, the human eye and the octopus eye
are almost identical in terms of their appearance from the outside.
206 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

But this does not mean that we are relatives of octopi, and as we
descend deeper into the delicate strucrure of each eve, some very
important distinctions draw our attention. While the photoreceptor
cells on the retina of the eye of the octopus are placed in a position
that is the nearest side by which direct light comes to the eye, the
photoreceptor cells in the human eye are placed in a totally different
position, so that they are distant from the incoming light, and they
are covered with nerve cells and blood veins. Is it not more reason-
able to accept that these two eyes are the manifestation of the infi-
nite knowledge of One Creator, rather than considering them to
have originated from a "common ancestor"? Does acknowledging
this restrict development, research, or invention?

EMBRYOLOGY

After paleontology, comparative anatomy, physiology and molecu-

lar biology, the field of embryology has been the most appealing for
those who like to suppon, and try to prove, evolutionary theory.
Jeremy Rifkin approaches the subject matter by saying: "Many of
the classic arguments that have been used to suppon evolutionary
theory are like malicious gossip. Once in circulation, they feed on
themselves. They multiply and expand until they are so pervasive
that any attempt to challenge their veracity seems all but futile.
Nowhere is this more in evidence than when we examine the field
of evolutionary embryology." 102
"Ontogeny" is a biological term used for the development of a
living being from the embryo phase to marurity. "Phylogen)~' (the
development of lineage), which is used to try to explain evolutionary
development (by the advocates of evolutionary theory), is consid-
ered to chronicle the evolution of species and their transformation
into new species. Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), a German biologist
and philosopher, combined these two words and proclaimed to the
world that "ontogeny recapirulates phylogeny," in his book,
Generalle Morphologie der Organimzen ("General Strucrures of Living
 Evidence fOr rile Tlleory ofEvo/wion. or Preconceived Opinions? 207

Mechanisms"), way back in 1866, and in his oilier text, Natiirliche

Schopfimgsgcschichte ("The !>:amra! History of Creation"), in 1867. 103
Haeckel asserted that, "During the development of the embryo, it
passes r:hrough all of th<· various stages of me evolutionary develop-
ment of its ancestors. The embryo represents a moving picture of
the entire evolutionary. historY. of life on Earth. If one were to watch
a human embryo develop, what would pass before me observer's
eyes is every single transformation in me long evolutionary sojourn
of life, from the emergence of the very first living cell onward." This
idea, me opinion about me entire process of human evolution dis-
playing itself in me different phases of embryonic life, was very
appealing, and it caught me public imagination.
Haeckel's "r:heory'' quickly became popularized, and it even
came to be seen as evidence for evolutionary r:heory. Thus, while
talking about evolutionary r:heory, people often mentioned Haeckel's
version of events enthusiastically. In fact, the idea mat "ontogeny
recapitulates phywgeny" is still present in many books which function
as an "Introduction to Biology." Although it was abandoned by its
architects a long time ago, many instructors still teach me same
fictitious story to !:heir srudents as though it were true.
Now known as "biogenetic law," Haeckel's idea finds abso-
lutely no supporters among dedicated biologists. Yet, after having
been imposed for more man 130 years on the scientific community,
and having been me object of derision for more than fifty years,
such an idea is somehow still present in biology books as a result of
varied ideowgical reasons. According ro many researchers, "Biogenetic
Law (i.e., Recapirulation Theory) is as dead as a doornail. In fact,
even though it became outdated as a subject matter of scientific
discussion in the 1920s, it was not taken out from textbooks until
the 1950s." 10-> Yet some still insist on keeping it in biology text-
books-even though it has been often expressed outright by spe-
cialists at scientific meetings mat such a theory is "absolute non-
sense."105 According to Walter J. Bock, from the Department of
Biological Sciences at Colombia University, "Biogenetic law has
208 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be

rooted out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by
numerous subsequent scholars." 106
As a matter of fact, biogenetic "law'' does not have sufficient
merit to be called a "law," scientifically speaking. As to Haeckel's
assenion, similar to the embryo of mammalian animals, birds and
reptiles, a human embryo also has "gill slits" during a certain period
of its embryological life. But these purported "gill slits" are pre-
sented by evolutionists as though they were evidence for an
embryo's passage through fish, bird, and reptile stages, on its way
to becoming a mammal. It is true that a series of small dents called
"pharyngeal clefts" are observed during a certain stage of embryo-
logical development, and they do look little bit like the panicular
openings around the neck of a fish which function as gills. But this
resemblance is merely external-affecting only their superficial
appearance. We now know that pharyngeal clefts do not open to
the throat and never have a breathing function in Earth's verte-
brates. Instead of transforming into dents or gills, the upper fold
eventually develops into the bottom part of the chin and the middle
ear canals; the middle fold changes into the parathyroid glands; and
the bottom fold becomes the thymus and endocrine glands.
Yet advocates of biogenetic "law'' always display drawings of
these "gill slits" to support their arguments-even though this line
of thinking is respected by the pioneers of embryology. Gavin de
Beer, the former director of the British Museum, and one of the
world's distinguished embryologists, notes that the theory of reca-
pitulation had its ardent supporters until recently. He remarks
concisely on the tenacity with which people cling to such an obvi-
ous fallacy by saying, "The idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylog-
eny has the characteristics of a slogan in that it tends to be accepted
uncritically and die hard." 107
In turn, in one of his anicles in Nw Scientist magazine, Roy
Danson contends that the widespread and persistent acceptance of
such a ridiculous concept says as much about the entire field of evo-
 EvidencejOr the Theory of Evolution, or Pr-econceived Opinions? 209

lutionary biology as ir does about Haeckel's panicular contribution,

and it brings the following question into the spotlight: "Can there
be any other area of science in which a concept as intellectually bar-
ren as embryonic recapitulation could be used as evidence for a
tl1eory?" 108 In other words, claiming that it is impossible to distin-
guish between vertebrate embryos-such as those of a fish, a chick-
en, a rabbit and an ape-in the early stages of embryonic devclop-
mem actually demonstrates nothing except one's ignorance of
embryology. That is why Darwin, who was not an embryologist,
"took advantage of the ideas of Von Baer, who was a famous
embryologist at that time, by distoning them. "Not believing in evo-
lution, Von Bear criticiud this distortU>n until he passed away in
1876. " 109
Ernst Haeckel vigorously expounded this idea of "embryonic
recapitulation" at the beginning of the twemieth century. Then,
lacking any evidence to support evolution, Haeckel expressly set
out to manufacture data. He fraudulently changed the drawings
made by other sciemists, of human, chicken and fish embryos, in
order to increase the resemblance between these and to hide the
dissimilarities. Eventually, as memioned, it was discovered that the
structure displayed as the "gill" by Haeckel was essentially the
developmemal substrate of the upper fold of the middle ear canals,
the parathyroid glands, and the thymus glands, in reality. So the
figmem of Haeckcl's imagination began to unravel. Today, the
emire sciemific community admits this as one of the worst cases of
sciemific fraud. The folds argued to be "gill slits" in this evolution-
ary "story" disappear in progressive srages as viral srructures for the
animal's life from rhis part of the embryo. Further, the purported
human "rail"-which was so named by Haeckel and his followers
because ir appeared earlier in embryonic developmem than the
legs-was found to be rhe human backbone.
George Gaylord Simpson, one of the firsr supporters of evolu-
tionary thoughr, described how unrealistic Haeckel's "theory" was
in the following words: "Haeckel missrated the evolutionary prin-
210 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

ciple involved. Ir is now firmly established that ontogeny does nor

recapirulate phylogeny." 110 Among Simpson's other statements, the
following also calls our attention: "Haeckel called this the bioge-
netic law, and the idea became popular!\' known as recapirularion.
In fact Haeckel's strict law was soon shown to be incorrect. For
instance, the early human embryo never has functioning gills like a
fish, and never passes through stages that look like an adult reptile
or ape. " 111
Another interesting aspect of Haeckel's forgeries was that in the
drawings which purported to show that fish and human embryos
resembled one another, he deliberately removed some organs from
his drawings, or else added imaginary ones. Indeed, he has been
criticized widely since his time because of his actions and assertions,
but those approaching the subject matter strictly ideologically have
chosen nor to pay attention to these criticisms. Michael Richardson,
an embryologist at Sr. George's Hospital Medical School, in London,
pointed our Haeckel's misleading ideas in his srudies by stating, "We
are not the first to question the drawings. Haeckel's past accusers
included W. His of Leipzig University, L. Riitimeyer of Basel
University, and A. Brass, leader of the Keplerbund group of
Protestant scientists. However, these critics did nor give persuasive
evidence in support of their argumenrs." 112 In turn, subsequent,
derailed studies conducted by Richardson in 1997, 1998, 2001 and
2002 113 • 114• 115 revealed how grievously Haeckel had distorted his
drawings. 116 Thus, Richardson clearly established Haeckel's forgeries,
using the serious criticisms of W. His, which had been ignored in the
past, 117 as well as the ideas of Brass (106), the fmdings ofRiitimeyer, 118
and modem knowledge of embryology. 119
The September 5, 1997 issue of Science magazine formerly
armounced recapitulation theory to be nothing more than a supersti-
tion, in an article tirled, "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered."
After explaining all the contradictions pertaining to Haeckel's draw-
ings, the article stated the following:
 Evidence for the Theory of Evolution, or Preconceh·ed Opinions? 211

The impression they [Haeckel's drawings] give, that the embry-

os are exacdy alike, is wrong, says Michael Richardson ... So he
and his colleagues did their own comparative srudy, reexamining
and phorographing embryos roughly matched by species and
age with those Haeckel drew. Lo and behold, che embryos
"often looked surprisingly different," Richardson reporrs in the
August issue of Anatomy and Embryology. Not only did
Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his colleagues
report, but he also fudged the scale ro exaggerate similarities
among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size.
Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the
species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an
entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues
note, "'even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary
quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway. It
(Haeckel's concepc) looks like ic's ruming out co be one of the
most famous fakes in biology," Richardson condudes. 120

Jane Oppenheimer, an embryologist and science historian,

touches the subject as well: "It was a failing ofHaeckel as a would-
be scientist that his hand as an artist altered what he saw with what
should have been the eye of a more accurate beholder. He was
more than once, often justifiably, accused of scientific falsification,
by Wilhelm His and by many others." 121
The most striking aspect of"recapitulation" was Ernst Haeckel
himself, a faker who falsified his drawings while he was alive in
order to support the "theory'' he advanced. When he was caught,
the only defense he offered was that other evolutionists had com-
mitted similar offences:
"Aftcc this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be
obliged co consider myself condemned and annihilaccd if I had
not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the pris-
oner's dock hundreds of fellow-culprits, among them man)' of
the most nusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The
great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological text·
books, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the
charge of 'forgery,' for all of them are inexact, and are more or
less docrored, schematized and constrUcted. " 122
212 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

After all the conclusions reached based on the references

above, let us return to the domain of our modern knowledge of
embryology. Considering the embryological developments of ver-
tebrate classes in stages, each class has a very specific type of egg.
Based on the panicularities of the egg, the zygote acquires differ-
ent types of blastula and gastrula stages in embryonic development
by dividing d.istincd\· in each group. As a result, each class has a
very unique development period and developing organ, whose for-
mation originates during the gastrulation (digestive) and neurula-
tion (neural) development periods of a fetus. While lungs and legs
are developing on a land venebrate, gills and fins develop on a
fish. Gills are formed ectodermally, while lungs are formed endo-
dermally. There is not even the most minor indication of a gill ever
developing in the pharynx regions of reptiles, birds or mammal
embryos. As mentioned above, the ectodermal foldings in this
region are the beginnings of some endocrine organs, the middle
car channel, the chin and some laryngeal canilage-and the related
organs are formed according to the genetic code for each.
Besides, the protective covering (vitellin membrane, gelatin
cuver, amnilm, chorion, vitellus sac, al/antvis and placenta) of the egg
and embryo of each class of living beings has a unique shape and
characteristic which is specific to it. All these forms, which develop
outside of the embryo itself, are obvious stamps of the miracle of
creation in that they cannot be explained in any other way than by
acknowledging the conscious preference of the One Who has infi-
nite knowledge and power, and Who knows the panicular difficul-
ties and conditions that the embryo will experience.

Vestigial Organs?
The other famous tale closely related to biogenetic "law" is the idea
of "vestigial organs." As the argument goes, animals sometimes have
organs which appear not to be fully developed, or even nonfunc-
tional; these are then surmised to be "leftovers"-vestigial remnants
of inactive (unused) organs, or "relics" of organs or bodily campo-
 E1•idence for the Theory of Evo/UiiotJ, or Preconceived Opinions? 213

nents which are found in some purported ancestors-from the evo-

lutionarY process. Tills opinion has unfortunately become wide-
spread. Once upon a time, biologists made up a list of 180 so-called
vestigial organs in the hwnan anatomy. However, nwnerous experi-
ments done since then have proven that those so-called "vestigial"
organs have crucial functions in the human body-they are not use-
less after all. For instance, it is very well known today that the appen-
dix plays a very important role in fighting infections.
Perhaps the most important part of the human body which has
been claimed to be a vestigial organ in humans is the coccyx. In
fact, while this part of the human anatomy is scientifically not a
"tailbone," as it is commonly called, supporters of evolution claim
that it is a vestigial tail which was previously present in humans.
However, R.L. Wysong points out that this organ is not vestigial
in the least: "Far from being vestigial, these vertebrae serve as an
important attachment site for the levator, ani and coccygeus mus-
cles to the pelvic floor. These muscles have manv functions, among
which is the ability to support the pelvic organs. Without these
muscles (and their sites of attachment} pelvic organs would pro-
lapse, that is, drop out. " 123
A detailed examination of the coccyx unfolds the truly won-
drous aspects of this bone. Let's take a look at the detailed explana-
tions given by a contributing writer for Stztntl Magazine, Dr. Asian
Mayda:
The coccyx, commonly referred to as the tailbone, is the tina)
segment of the human vertebral column, of 4-5 fused vertebrae
(the coccygeal vertebrae) below the sacnun in a triangular
shape. It is attached to the sacrum in a fibrocarrilaginous joint,
which permits limited movement between them. The anterior
surface is slightly concave, and marked with three transverse
grooves indicating the junctions of the different segments. It
gives attachment to the anterior sacrococcygeal ligament and
the levator ani, and it supports part of the rectum. The poste-
rior surface is convex, marked by transverse grooves similar to
those on the anterior surface, and it presents on either side a
214 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

linear row of ruberdcs, the rudimenrary articular processes of

the coccygeal Yertebrac. According m those who belicYe in
cYolutionary theory, the coccyx has reached us today as a \"Csti-
gial structure, a relic from our ape-like ancestors, and it has no
function. Yct, should one analyze this bone in derail in terms of
its anammr and physiology, one will readily see how important
a function this bone actually has.
furthermore, the coccyx has two bulges. These bone bulges
prcYenc sliding to the right or left during sitting. Reminding us
of a work of art, complete with a geometric aesthetic in its ana-
tomical appearance, four ligament.~ render stability when a
person sirs down on a firm surface while, together with the
sacrum, these prm·ide integrity and firmness.

We should also consider that the coccyx has a coccygeal artery

for nourishing iLI)elf, a coccygeal vein for collecting \'enous
blood, and a coccygeal nerve-all of which are favorable w its
strucrure. In addition, it has a coccygeal bursa, coccygeal sub-
stance, glomus coccygeum, and Luschka glands that secrete a
fluid which provides lubrication. Yet such a special anatomical
strucrurc does nor form in the embryological '\·estigial tail-
bone"; rather it rakes shape in relation to the anatomical srruc-
rure of its environment. For example, some people have an
extra rib as a bulge from the seventh cervical bone, as an anom-
aly from birth, which is called the "cervical rib." This is seen in
some people even though the rib is not normally present on the
cervical bone. Since this extra bone does not ha\·e any arteries,
veins or intercostal nerves, it is supplied by the main vascular
systems and nerves of other anatomical stnlCrures around it. If
the coccyx were acrually vestigial, it would have no need for the
sophisticated an:eries, veins, nen·cs and glands which are unique
to its anatomical structure. Another characteristic of anomalous
bones is that they cause illnesses that can only be treated by
operations (i.e., by removing the bone from the body). For
instance, those with the anomaly of a cen•ical costa (congenital
fusion) on their neck, mentioned above, experience arm pain,
numbness of the arms, and lack of energy-and the complaints
end upon the removal of this bone. However, the remm·al of
coccyx causes serious problems with both birthing and defeca-
tion. Moreover, the coccyx has particular muscles and liga-
ments, called the coccygeus muscle, the sacrospinal muscle, the
 Evidence for the Theory of Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? 215

sacra] tubercle, and the anococcygeal ligament. Together with

these ligaments, a unique muscle, which is called the sphincter
ani extcrnus muscle, attaches co the edge of coccyx. This muscle
holds the anus closed by encircling the anal canal, and it
becomes opened in response to a person's effort during defeca-
tion. In turn, it takes supportive strength from the coccyx for its
continuous contraction by means of the anococcygealligament.
When a person sirs down, in order to make the load lighter, the
coccyx assumes a position inclined coward the front-thus, the
heavy load of the body is suspended by the action of ligaments
and muscles. Due to the particular attachment of its muscles,
the coccyx also has a potential range of movement, especially
during defecation. There is pressure at the back of the coccyx
when a person is sitting down, but the coccyx reduces this pres-
sure by mO\ing the only hinge joint toward the front. Those
muscles which arc attached to the coccyx also support the base
of the pelvic bone, and rhus of the birth canal; further, they
support the base of the large intestine, and other Yeins and
nerves, as a protective cover.
So, the questions which must be asked is, "If the coccyx is
considered ,-estigial-that is, if it were not deemed to have been
created with a specific plan in mind-then where would these
muc;cles and ligaments attach?"
In order for the muscles to be able to function, they have to be
attached to the bones. If there is nowhere to attach to, so that it
is just hanging in space, a muscle cannot get sufficient strength
and thus cannot fully function; it will become contracted and
weakcnc.:d. For example, the anus muscle which functions to hold
the anus closed is connected to the anococcygeal ligament. If the
coccyx did not exist, these muscles would nor fum.Lion; therefore,
the anus would be weakened by the pull of the muscle on the
opposite side. Those patients whose coccyx has been removed
complain about the weakening of anal contractions and the feel-
ing that some kind of hard mass is stinging their anus. Should the
coccyx be designated as being vestigial, then the attached muscles
and ligaments should necessarily also be considered to be vestigial.
Yet then one would have to ask, "\Vhile purportedly forming itself
through evolution, could the "vestigial" coccyx bone have orga-
nized and brought along the other necessary "vestigial" stmc-
rures-like its vein, nerve, gland, ligaments, muscles and joints?"
216 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

Anorher important aspect is that the joint between the coccyx

and the rump bone is expandable. This joinr's flexibility allows
the opening to widen by 2-2.5 em during the birthing process.
If this were not so, either the baby would die due to waiting too
long in such a narrow passage, or there would be grie\·ous rips
and tears caused in the womb and anus.
As a matter of fact, the anatomical structure of this joint is
created with such delicate refinement that it does not easily
allow any position for the baby during birth other than the
typical presentation, whereby the head comes om first. The
most important part of this mechanism is the coccy-x. The soft
tissues do nor conrract much, due to the mmi.ng of the joim
bern.'een the coccyx and the rump bone to the rear. For this
reason, the normal presentation (crown first), which precipi-
tates the mo,·ement of the baby head first down the birth canal,
is compelled.
In addition to all these, the concave shape of the coccyx also
assists birthing by supporting the baby's presentation of the
head first, in the crowning labor position. If this bone were not
in this particular shape, the head would not be able to rotate
back, so this position would not be possible; further, the head's
circumference at its largest part would cause major complica-
tions and injury to the baby during childbirth, namely fracrures,
nerve injuries, and anoxia (lack of oxygen), which would dam-
age the baby's brain and the other organs, causing essential
malfunctions which would impact on its entire life. Therefore,
calling the multi-functional coccyx an "extra" bone, or an
"unnecessary, non-functional, bone, is nor a reasonable conclu-
sion for a rational mind. In effect, arguments making such
claims arc merely ideas proposed with prejudice, without exam-
ining the anatomy, physiology, pathology, bi()(hemisrry or
.
b1omec . o f any organ. 124
hames

Similarly, even though some organs-like the tonsils, appendix,

epiphysis tissue, parathyroid, th}mus, body hair, and wisdom teeth-
have all been mentioned as "vestigial structures" in the past, evolu-
tionists now seem to be exhausted and do not have much to say to
prove their arguments based on the idea of vestigialit:y. Contrary to
what they have claimed about the supposed "nonfunctional," "use-
less," or "vestigial" narure of these structures in hwnans or animals,
 EvidencefOr the Theory ofEvolution. or Preconcei\·ed Opinions? 217

new research methods and technology show that all organs are cre-
ated in a particular form for a parricular purpose. Pages of informa-
tion, from hundreds of sources, could be added here about the excel-
lent hannony and cooperation between the fi.mctions of these organs
and miscellaneous bodv activities. However, it is sufficient to rerum
to our consideration of the appendix, which was long assumed to be
vestigial, and note the new findings about this complex organ:
"Goblet cells in ghnds in the appendix secrete a mucous lubricant
into the intestines "·hich aids the movement of material through
them. After the appendix is removed, the patient suffers constipation
and the risk of getting imestinal cancer increases." 125 Other recent
findings about the appendix reach the same conclusion: "It is rich in
lymphoid tissue, meaning that it acts as a filter and removes bacteria
and protects the intestines from infection. A srudy done on hundreds
of patient.< with leukemia, Hodgkin's lymphoma, Burkitt's lympho-
ma, cancer of the colon, and cancer of the ovaries showed that 84%
of these patients had their appendix removed, while in a healthy con-
trol group only 25% had it removed." 126
It has also been shown through modern immunological tech-
niques that tonsils and adenoids are very crucial lymphoid organs
for the immune system which not only produce antibodies bur also
fi.mction in cell-mediated immunity. 127 Likewise, it has been found
that Hodgkin's lymphoma is observed three rimes more frequently
in those whose tonsils have been removedY 8 The importance for
the immune system ofT-lymphocytes, which the thymus produces,
has also been shown in recent smdies. Furtl1er, being secretions of
the epiphysis, which is sensitive to light, both melatonin and dim-
ethyltryptamine (DMT) have been found to play a role in the regli-
lation of sleep and the biological clock, and these have been shown
to have other effects on the immune system and some endocrine
glands, thereby affecting the reproductive season of animals, includ-
ing patterns like hibernation-all of which emphasizes the impor-
tance of these "vestigial" strucmres for bodily health.
218 £~,.·ol!llion: Science or Ideology?

HOMOLOGY OR A CoMMON PLAN IN CREATION

Another claim which is proposed as evidence for evolution is

related to the interpretation of similarities. Certain n-pes of mor-
phological parallels are very common in namre: for example, the
resemblance of the bony structure of the fins of the "·hales and the
ichthyosaur; the resemblance of the e\·e stmcmre of\·ertebrates and
cephalopods; and that of the inner ear stmcmres of birds and mam-
mals. Even though all these similarities are very striking, there is
not even the slightest biological affinity among those species in
terms of their genetic program.
Based on a complete lack of evidence, therefore, homolo~· is a
superficial, imaginative notion which is proposed as a result of sur-
veying the external appearance of things. To date, this h)-pothesis has
never been verified through observation or experimentation. Fur-
thermore, it is now well understood that stmcmrcs which may be
similar in appearance can be determined by totally distinct genes in
different species. Thus, the genetic program being fundamentalh· dif-
ferent, it is a virrual certainty that the fundamental processes which
follow from that genetic program, such as the stages of embryologi-
cal development, will be very dissimilar, too. It has been proven that
the embryological processes which produce similar-looking organs
display many distinct aspects in each living being.
There are also huge molecular difierences benveen living beings
which appear to be related or analogous. For this reason, it is not
even possible to talk about "molecular homology." Michael Denton's
findings about this support what has been presented previously
about molecular biology:

Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of ai!Ji,·ing

~~-~;:ems on Earrh have exceedingly complex srrucrurcs quite
unique to t~Kn1 .... In terms of their basic biochemical design,
therefOre no living system can be thought of as being "'primi-
tive" or "ancestral"' with respect to any ocher system, nor is
there the slightest empirical him of an c\'olurionary sequence
among all the incredibly diverse cells on Earth. For those who
 Evidence for rhe Theory Q(Evolution, or Preconceived Opinions? 219

hoped th:.u molecular biology might bridge the gulf between

chemistry and biochemistry, the rc,·elation was profoundly dis-
appointing .... Should this C\'idence in molecular biology have
been discon~red a ccnrury ago, organic evolutionary thought
might ha\·e never been accepted at all. When there is no resem-
blance in molecular strucrures, embryological processes are
different from each other, but different la\'ers of srrucrurcs can
be substiruted in the srrucrures of similar ~rgans. 129

An important example is the astonishing resemblance of the

eyes of various living beings and the observed parallels between the
eye stmcrures of ven· different animals. As a case in point, cephalo-
pod vertebrates, like octopi and squid, and vertebrate animals and
human beings, have no evolutionary connection between them-in
other words, they arc extremely different living beings. Further,
there is no candidate with a similar eye to that of the human being
and octopus which evolutionists could propose as a common ances-
tor between them because these two types ofliving beings are so far
removed from one another biologically. Thus situated on the "evo-
lutionary tree," these animals are said by advocates of evolutionary
theory to have organs which are not "homologous" (similar and
coming from a common ancestor), but rather, "analogous" (similar
despite there being no evolutionary proximity). In other words,
according to the supporters of evolution, the human eye and the
octopus eye are analogous organs. Nevertheless, the organs that
they simply consider as "analogous" are each resoundingly perfect,
unique stmctures of such complexity. Although they resemble one
another considerably in terms of their "camera technique," their
retinas arc very distinct. While the photoreceptor layer faces "the
dark room," so to speak, on the octopus eye, it faces a totally oppo-
site direction in the mammalian eye. Thus, it is completely unrea-
sonable to claim that the similarity in these "camera techniques" of
the octopus and mammalian eye occurred by random mutation. If
the eye of the octopus tmly had arisen by chance, as evolutionists
say, then the vertebrate eye should have emerged via the exact same
genetic incidents-the very same mutations, in other words. On the
220 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

other hand, one must also remember that in order for the position-
ing of the retinas to be unique to each species, as they are, the
occurrence of distinct mutations would ha\·e been required.
The evolutionist Frank Salisbun· admits that even thinking
about the question proves to be a major headache: "Even some-
thing as complex as the eye has appeared several rimes, for example,
in the squid, the venebrates, and the arthropods. It is bad enough
accounting for the origin of such things once, but the thought of
producing them several times according to the modern synthetic
theory makes my head swim." 130 According to the evolutionist
point of view, however, totally independent, random mutations are
supposed to strike identically and repeatedly at different times in
various living groups.
Another interesting example is the similarin· between placental
mammals and marsupial mammals, so that marsupial ("pouched")
wolves, mice, squirrels, and moles all have placental counterpans
which exhibit similar morphologies. Evolutionan• biologist> believe
that two species in panicular, namely the North American wolf and
the Tasmanian wolf, have completely separate evolutionary histories.
This belief is based on the t:Kt that since the continent of Australia
and the islands around it split off from Gondwanaland (the supercon-
tinent that is supposed ro have become Africa, Antarctica, Australia,
and South America), rhe link between placental and marsupial mam-
mals is considered to have been broken-and prior to that time, there
were no wolves. However, the interesting thing is that the skeletal
structure of the Tasmanian wolf is nearly identical to that of the North
American wolf. Most notably, their skulls are witness to such an
extraordinary degree of resemblance that even specialists can barely
distinguish bcm·een the two creatures. Nevertheless, they belong to
diffcrcnr organizational groups entirely, as the former belongs to the
marsupial clas.> and the laner to the placental class.
Accounting for the remarkable similarity of the Tasmanian and
North American wolf gives evolutionists problems, as the points of
resemblance between the m•o species have to be explained as being
 Evidence for the Theory of Evolution. or Preconceived Opinions? 221

a function of their derivation from a common ancestor, according

to their "thesis." However, the truth is that marsupial and placental
wolves are limited to entirely different continents and completely
dissimilar environments. For this reason, these mammals, which
have such parallel skeletal structures, should be claimed by evolu-
tionist to have evolved separately via distinct processes-but then
this itself would contradict their other claim that these similarities
must have been transferred from a common ancestor through
heredity. The end result of such convoluted evolutionary thinking
has been a newly manufactured story whereby placental wolves and
marsupial wolves are claimed to have been exposed to "similar evo-
lucionary forces'' due to "similar environmental conditions," where-
by they independently developed "similar structures convergent
with each other." Thus, in view of these rypes of "pairs" between
placental and marsupial animals, wherein "parallel" animals have
nearly the same morphologies, we can conclude that advocates of
evolutionary thought uphold a model of so-called "convergent
evolution," which claims the following: "The exact same mutations
completely independent of each other must have produced these
creatures "by chance" twice in different continents! Even if they
were in different continents, they were developed by similar muta-
tions which occurred at exactly same place, just like two people in
separate continents, being quite unaware of each other, throwing a
pair of dice millions of times in such a way that they both get
exactly the same numbers, in exactly the same sequences."
Another important obstacle in the path of evolutionary theory is
that both flying vertebrates and fl)~ng invertebrates possess wings.
Actually if we ignore the feathers and finger bones of birds when
considering that the bat's wing and the bird's wing are homologous,
it can be admitted that there is a partial anatomical and embryologi-
cal resemblance between them. However, the wings of flying insects
and birds are completely different beyond the shared attribute of
flight. Therefore, evolutionists call these wings "analogous," rather
than "homologous," since they cannot make cormections between
222 Evolution: Science or ideology?

them. How is it, then, that these strikingly similar strucrures which
we call "wings," and which are used with remarkable effectiveness bv
creatures as varied as invertebrate flies and vertebrate birds (and
whose principles are applied to human flight) could have emerged
first? Consider that flies have no inner skeleton, but vertebrate wings
have an itmer skeleton. In both cases, nonetheless, the main goal is
to succeed in the act of flight. The Creator, Who gave the lifting force
to air, to permit fl)~ng in the first place, also gave wings to permit
whatever creatures He so willed to fly out of their bodies. Just like
we need knowledge and the study of aircraft engineering to build an
aircraft, we need the One Who has control over both the air-to let
birds, bats and tlies fill the skies-and the embryological lavers of
each creature, with His Infinite Power and Knowledge. Otherwise,
we would have to accept a truly irrational statistical event, one as
unlikely to occur as the example mentioned above-that of millions
of dice being thrown in different continents and yielding the very
same numbers every time. Furthermore, the chance of such statisrical
concordance becomes even more reduced if one also considers the
different types of flight. For every type of flying crearure-tlies, fly-
ing reptiles, flying frogs, flying fishes, fl)~ng mammals, birds, and
others-has a particular mode of movement in the air, so that the
dice in the example would have to deliver completely implausible
alignments of numbers in succession in order to model the joint
action of both natural selection and random mutations in the «evolu-
tion" of such variations in the act of flight.
 6

From the Beginning of the Universe

to the Chosen Earth
 FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE
UNIVERSE TO THE CHOSEN EARTH

T
he basic reason why evolutionary theory is based on
chance, nature and causes-and why it is sometimes ren-
dered as a worldview-is that it arises from both material-
istic and atheistic philosophies. The idea that the emergence of liv-
ing beings occurred only by means of evolution is suited to materi-
alistic philosophy. Yet, if life "evolved" on Eanh, the living condi-
tions on this Earth needed to be favorable to allow living beings to
survive on it. In that case, there must again be a Creator Who has
infinite power and knowledge, so that an ecosystem which is ide-
ally equipped with the necessary resources-like the air, water, sun
and moon--<ould provide the best living environment for all kinds
of organisms to exist on Eanh in harmony.
The idea that the creation of life is solely based on material
components and occurred by itself, as those components gathered
together by chance, necessitates a huge assumption which forces us
to include not only the world of li\~ng beings, but also the entire
universe in our considerations. That is because for even the sim-
plest-looking organic molecules to be synthesized, the necessary
living conditions have to be prepared. Yet the issue is not just about
simple organic molecules; rather, it is about complex living beings
which exhibit the manifestations of infinite knowledge and power
in each and every molecule, and which are perfect in all aspects. For
such living beings to survive, very particular circumstances wherein
226 Evolution: Science or Ideo/ow·?

all the necessary conditions are very precisely determined have to be

pre-established. Therefore, in order for Earth to have developed in
such as way that all the conditions are ideal for allowing living
beings to inhabit it-and in order for the universe to have devel-
oped as it has, with such diversity and specificity, every moment
since the Big Bang-then either nature (mindless, unconscious, and
with unknown limitations), or an Infinite Power (Who rules over
everything at every moment, at every point in the universe) has to
render the service.
Despite the fact that atheists and materialists do nor accept belief
in God, they are nonetheless aware of the fact that they have to start
by explaining the operation of evolution from the first moment of
the universe. That is, they have to explain how the highly ordered
universe evolved from a system where only random, chaotic, astro-
physical processes were functioning prior to the organic evolution
process from which they think living beings emerged.
There is a great relationship between the idea of evolution and
the model of the universe as observed in the field of astrophysics.
Critically, accepting that the universe has a beginning means simul-
taneously admitting that it was created-and a created universe is
foreordained to be destroyed. Yet materialists, who essentially believe
that the universe is eternal and everlasting, do nor believe in either
creation or destruction as necessities of their arguments. Further;
according to atheists, if the w1iverse does not have beginning or end,
all kinds of emergences, originations, developments, and changes are
ro be automatically associated with the purported powers that are
thought to reside in the universe itself, including natural forces and
causes. According to their scenario, then, there is no need for a Cre-
ator with infinite knowledge and power. For this reason, real atheists
do not accept the beginning or end of the material universe.
However, opposing this, advances in me fields of astrophysics,
theoretical physics and quantum physics all point to the presence of
a "creation moment for the universe." The Big Bang theory as it is
defined today, the half-life processes of radioactive materials, and
 From the Beginning of the Universe to the Chosen Earth 227

findings of cosmic background radiation collectively indicate a cre-

ation process for the universe and matter. Thus, materialists are
forced to limit their focus to organic evolution, concentrating on
how lifeless matter came to life-that is, advancing ideas about the
process whereby creatures supposedly arose from dead matter.
Advances in astrophysics in the twentieth century brought
forth two basic models of the universe. One of them was the
us£atic universe" model and the other was £he "expansion of the
universe" model. According to the static universe model, there was
no beginning to the uni\·crse; that is, creation could not be dis-
cussed as applving to the universe, and the universe was presumed
to be eternal and everlasting. Needless to say, this idea was compat-
ible with the fundamental beliefs which both materialists and athe-
ists espoused.
On the other hand, the beginnings of the Big Bang Theory can
be traced to the 1920s. In order for many aspects of the universe
which Newton's "static and infinite" model could not explain to be
elucidated through Einstein's "Theory of Relativity," the "Expand-
ing Universe" model was developed separately by Georges Lemaitre
and Aleksander Friedrnann. 131 · 132 1l1en, after Edwin Hubble's dis-
covery that the light trom stars was shifting to red-meaning that
all the stars, with their galaxies, were getting farther away from each
other-the expanding universe model was deemed to be both more
plausible and reliable. 133 On the other hand, the materialist, Sir
Arthur Eddington (1882-1944), rejected the Big Bang Theory
totally because of his ideological point of view and atheistic beliefs,
rather than because of any scientific opposition, by saying, "I find
the idea that the universe has a begi1ming disgusting philosophical-
ly ..."134 In fact, the Big Bang Theory explained where the hydrogen
that was required for the formation of stars (and which was not pro-
duced inside stars) can1e from. From this point of view, it addressed
the criticisms of Hoyle, who had opposed the Big Bang Theory when
it was first proposed, based on the problem of the formation of ele-
ments. According to the view of atomic particles prevailing in con-
228 Evolution: Science or Jdeo/og:~'?

temporary theoretical physics, very high temperarures were required

to produce hydrogen. The Big Bang Theory accepts the existence of
particular conditions-namely, exceedingly high temperatures and
densiry-at the beginning of the universe. Fred Hoyle ( 1915-2001),
however, proposed finding an alternative to the Big Bang Theory, as
the Big Bang Theory necessitated the existence of a Creator. Hoyle,
who was not willing to admit that life could not occur by chance,
spent many years opposing the Big Bang Theory by saying things
like, "Should the universe have begun with a hot Big Bang, then this
explosion must have a remnant. Why don't you find a fossil of this
Big Bang?" 135 Later, in 1964, upon the discovery by two radioas-
tronomers, Arno Penzias and Raben Wilson, of weak electromag-
netic radiation (cosmic microwave background radiation) coming
from everywhere in space, the static uni\·erse model fell completely
out of favor. 136 For this background radiation which was observed in
the band of radio waves within the electromagnetic spectrum was
nothing other than the waves that George Gamow had predicted
based on the Big Bang Theory in 1948.
In 1964, Penzias and Wilson were working on the antenna of
Bell Phone Laboratory to ensure communication with a satellite.
While they were trying to measure the strength of the radio waves
radiated by the Milky Way Galaxy at high-galaxy latirudes (beyond
the plane of the galaxy), they discovered the temperarure of the radio
waves received to be a value equivalent to 3 "K (- 270 °C). Winners
of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1978 for this srudy, Penzias and
Wilson had essentially made a discovery which was as imponant as
that of the redshift in the electromagnetic spectrum was for astrono-
my (the notion of the expansion of the universe). Meanwhile, Big
Bang theoreticians rediscovered the calculations of Gamow and his
colleagues, who had predicted the existence of such background
radiation as necessary remains from the initial creation moments of
the universe, and whose temperarure, caused by the expansion, was
predicted in the late 1940s to be equivalent to 3 °K.
 From the Beginning of the Universe to the Chosen Earth 229

The existence of radiation of a very high temperature and very

short wavelength in the first moments of the universe was essential
in allowing Big Bang theoreticians to explain the abundance of
hydrogen. This is because, having sufficient energy, this radiation
would cause an increase in the amount of hydrogen by virtue of
decomposing the heavier nuclei formed over time; then, while it
would continue to be present following the initial expansion of the
universe, the temperature would keep decreasing inversely, propor-
tional to the size of the universe over time.
In shon, the discovery of Penzias and Wilson was crucial, since
it verified a phenomenon that had been predicted theoretically.
Certainly, this discovery is the strongest finding which suppom the
Big Bang Theory, and it also shows that the universe, which ini-
tially had most of its energy in the form of radiation, acquired mat-
ter, in that most energy is found in the mass of nuclear panicles.
At this point, it might be beneficial to discuss the Big Bang
Theory in more detail-as it can even explain current ratios of
chemical elements in the universe-in order to understand the
phases by which the solar system, and our world, was created.
Current observations suggest that the creation of the universe
began with a cosmic explosion which occurred at "time zero,n some
15 BYA. This "Big Bang" is the creation moment of all measurable
things-like time, space and matter. Under these supernatural con-
ditions, four fundamental forces-namely, gravity, electromagne-
tism, and weak and strong nuclear forces-were possibly combined,
and their strengths were the same. (Note that being one of the four
fundamental forces, so-called "weak nuclear forces" are now under-
stood to be pan of electromagnetic forces as a result of the srudies
of both the Pakistani physicist, Abdus Salam, who won the Nobel
Prize in Physics in 1979, and the Italian physicist, Carlo Rubbia,
who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1984. Recently, "strong
nuclear forces" have also been included with electromagnetic forces.
Today, it is generally accepted that electromagnetic forces and grav-
ity represent the onlv two fundamental forces. Thus, the long-time
230 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

dream of physicists to express the active forces present in the uni-

verse by reducing them to only one-to create a "grand unified
theot)''-might finally be coming to an end.).
According to the most common models of the universe, the uni-
verse was marked homogeneously and isotopically with an extremely
high energy density, and incredibly high temperatures and pressures.
Then, approximately 10- 35 seconds into the expansion, the universe
began C<X>ling rapidlv (its temperamre decreasing billions of degrees
in a period of time as brief as one billionth of a second)-and it was
then subject to a sudden expansion during which it grew exponen-
tially. It has been predicted that the universe grew in volume at an
incredible factor of 10 150 within a very short period of time, which is
estimated to have happened between 10"35 second and 10"32 seconds
into the expansion phase. Nonetheless, its size was not bigger than an
apple yet. This phenomenon, named "inflation" by the astrophysicist,
Alan Guth, is understood more clearly when compared to a kind of
phase transition where all proportions are conserYed, for example,
when a drop of water suddenly evaporates and fills a larger space.
The universe possibly reached an average rhythm of expamion
while passing froml0. 32 second to 10" 12 second. Temperatures were
so high that the random motion of parricles occurred at relativistic
speeds, and particle-antiparticle pairs of all kinds were continuously
created and then broken to pieces through collisions, to form light
pmticles and photons within their little world. Then, the photons
quickly became particles and antiparricles again. According to the
calculations, first the "strong nuclear forces" were separated from the
other fundamental forces during the expansion; then, the electro-
magnetic force and the "weak nuclear forces" were separated at the
10" 12 second mark. So then, there were four tvpes of forces which
came into play, as the universe entered a new energy phase. At this
point, fundamental particles known a• "quarks" started moving in
this "energy sea," and electrons, neutrons and their antiparticles con-
verted into matter (i.e., tra11sitioned from encrg~· to matter).
 From the Beginning of the Universe to the Cho.-.en Earth 231

The size of the universe was possibly about the size ofrhe solar
system ar 10"6 second after the initial expansion, and it continued
cooling until its temperature reached a couple of billion degrees.
Panicles became more mixed and tended ro be more stable. Under
such conditions, quarks were able to gather together, antiquaries
were able to regroup, and new types of panicles, like baryons and
anti baryons, were formed b)' the action of the strong nuclear forces.
Funher, the small excess of quarks over antiquaries led to a small
excess of baryons over anti baryons.
Approximately 10""' seconds (ten thousandths of a second) after
the Big Bang, the universe was probably fiUed with photons and light
particles, or light antiparticles-chat is, electrons and positrons (anti
particles of the electron), and neutrinos and antineurrinos-as the
temperature was no longer high enough to create new proton-anti·
proton pairs (similarly for neutron-antineutron pairs). As a result, a
mass annihilation immediately foUowed, leaving just one in 10 10 of
the original protons and neutrons, and none of their anti panicles. A
similar process happened at about l second, chis time affecting elec-
trons and positrons. After these annihilations, the remaining protons,
neutrons and electrons no longer moved relativistically, and the
energy density of the universe came to be dominated by photons
(with a minor contribution from neutrinos).
Presumably, ar the moment when rhe universe was one second
old, irs temperature was l 0 billion degrees and it no longer con-
rained antimatter. Matter was composed of protons and electrons,
which balanced each other-that is, the universe was electrically
neutral-and neutrons were ren rimes fewer in number. Everything
else was light. There were approximately one billion photons pres-
em for every panicle of matter. Frequent collisions between the
fundamental panicles occurred; repeatedly a proton and a neutron
combined to form a deuteron (a heavy hydrogen nucleus), the sim-
plest of nuclear systems. In n1rn, the deuteron was sometimes bro-
ken up by a photon. The universe, being full of radiation, was
opaque in appearance (resembling a dark, adhesive fluid), a.• pho-
232 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

tons were confined by matter particles. Then, one second after the
birth of the universe, the flow patterns of events started to change.
The temperature dropped to a billion degrees; the heat energy fell
below the level of weak forces; and deuterons were no longer able
to break up, so their numbers started to increase. Then, those deu-
terons combined with protons and neutrons to form helium nuclei.
This was the first nucleosynthesis, and it took a couple of seconds.
The universe, at that moment, is thought to have been composed
of helium nuclei (4 He) and some other light nuclei (deuterium, 2H;
helium, 3 He; and lithium, 7 Li).
After that, the first "expansion crisis" started. The temperature
dropped 100 million times below the temperature of the center of
the Sun. The huge energy which resulted ensured the creation of
more particles and antiparticles, following each other in close suc-
cession, over very short intervals of time. By expanding about
1,000 times more, the universe began to fill a space as big as the
size of today's solar system. Free quarks were held within the neu-
trons and protons. Then, after this thousand-fold expansion, pro-
tons and neutrons combined to form atomic nuclei, which comprise
the largest portion of toda)~S helium and deuterium. All these
events are estimated to have happened in the first minute of the
expansion. Meanwhile, as the universe filled with energy, it warmed
temporarily, and this caused the expansion to stop.
Nevertheless, since the temperature was still very high, the con-
ditions required for atomic nuclei to capture electrons were not pres-
ent yet. After the expansion continued for about 300,000 years,
neutral atoms-which balanced the positive protons by capturing
electrons-emerged in wide distribution; yet the size of the universe
at that point was still considered to have been about 1,000 times
smaller than it is today. Later on, neutral atoms started to gather
inside gas clouds in order to form stars. The universe expanded up to
one-fifth of its current size; stars became clustered as groups, which
could be deemed young galaxies.
 From the Beginning of the Universe to the Chosen Earth 233

Then, when the universe reached about half of its present size, a
significant portion of heavy elements, which typically form planets
like Earth by means of nuclear reactions within stars, were produced.
If prevalent calculations are true, the Sun took shape six billion years
ago and the solar system formed five billion years ago, when the
universe reached two thirds of its current size. Indeed, the number
that can be given through these findings regarding the Earth's age is
closely related to the model of Earth's creation. Should the Earth
have been created as a result of the accumulation over time of some
larger pieces which were formed earlier-a process called "accretion"-
both the age of each piece, and the timing of their combining to
compose the present globe, could also be discussed. However, it is
not easy to determine whether or not the fusions that occurred dur·
ing the accumulation (accretion) process completely wiped out any
footprints related to the age of origination of the first pieces. Even if
there are places where the footprints were not erased, and even if
these can be discovered (they arc expected in the crust---<Jr rather,
inside the earth), then the age of the samples taken from those areas
might possibly point not to their initial time of creation, but rather
to the time of accretion. Therefore, the large number obtained may
not actually indicate the age when the world took its ultimate shape;
this age might finally turn out to be even bigger.
In the meantime, the creation of stars within a certain period of
time caused the gas reserves in galaxies to become exhausted. So, the
number of newly formed stars began decreasing. Then, "~thin the
next two or three minutes, the temperature decrea.•ed to a billion
degrees. The fusion tendencies between protons and neutrons, under
the influence of strong nuclear forces, began to occur. The first atom
nuclei created in this way had very short lives; a proton and a neutron
were promptly combined in those nuclei, resulting in formation of a
deuteron, which was then easily scattered by photons.
In order for the temperature to drop from a couple of billion
degrees to a couple of thousand degrees-and for the heat energy to
get close to that required for the action of the electromagnetic
234 Evolulion: Science or ideology?

force-a million-year period was probably required. (Note that the

electromagnetic force is a million times weaker than weak nuclear
forces) At this stage, a hydrogen atom could be created through the
fusion of a proton and an electron; and in the meantime, a photon,
which could break up a newborn atom, would be emitted. The tem-
perature continued to drop.
When the temperature dropped below ten thousand degrees
(300,000 years are assumed to have passed by then since the Big
Bang), photons could no longer obstruct the formation of atoms.
Under the influence of the electromagnetic force, each isolated proton
(a positive charge) captures an electron (a negative charge) to make a
hydrogen atom by bringing electrons and protons near to each other;
and each helium nucleus (two positively charged protons and two
neutrons) c01mects to two electrons to form a helium atom.
Atoms are transparent to most photons. Thus, photons gain
freedom of movement by separating from the matter which confines
them. The universe is suddenly lit with a sparkle of light. Radiation,
sending beams of the same inrensitv in all directions, overruns the
universe ..137
At about 3,000 degrees, it was likely that each proton was sta-
bly surrounded by an electron, and each helium nucleus was sur-
rounded by two electrons. A new stage, the birthing time of atoms
had arrived. However, the bond between the proton and the elec-
tron in the hydrogen atom was not saturated yet; two hydrogen
atoms could combine to form one h\·drogen molecule. In other
words, the birth of the atom and that of the molecule occurred
almost simultaneously. Before the birth of atoms, space was full of
electrons, and this seriously obstructed the scattering of light. But
upon the capture of electrons by atomic nuclei, the universe became
transparent, and light started traveling across the entire universe,
unobstructed by any obstacles. Fossil radiation, at 2.7 •K, quite
possibly started at this moment. The development of the universe
then calmed down over the next couple of million vears due to the
stability of hydrogen and helium as compared to nucleosynrhesis.
 From rhe Beginning of rhe Universe to the Chosen Earth 235

Photons lose their energy more and more over time, and deu-
terons live long enough to capture an extra neutron and a proton;
as a result, fully stable helium nuclei are created. These are then
charged with functioning as the basis for new atomic formations.
In the universe whose volume is continually increasing, matter is
spread in a way that does not provide the opportunity for particles
to gather and combine. There is only a faint electron and photon
mist where helium nuclei and free protons (they are potential
hydrogen atom nuclei) float. This indicates a universe containing
perhaps a dozen hydrogen nuclei to every one helium nucleus; that
is, one fourth of its mass will consist of helium and three fourths
will consist of hydrogen. The observations of astrophysicists verify
these theoretical findings which support the "Big Bang" notion.
This process presumablv continued for tens of thousands of years
(with respect to our time measure). Photons, which have the energy
to obstmct the fusion of atomic nuclei with the electrons in the uni-
verse~ continued to expand and cool dov.rn. However, they were
alwavs confined inside matter-they could not separate from the mass
of particles and become free. Tlms, darkness and opacity still prevailed
in the universe, as though it were covered with a dark veil.
The stage where stars were formed is reached by the development
of gravitational force, the final fundamental force. In other words, as
soon as the universe had attained a stage wherein matter was ready for
a new level of organization, there appeared a new manifestation, the
onlv physical force which was capable of being appointed as such a
servant, to control everything in the range of causes.
Unlimited amount of material started to be combined to form
the first galaxies, and the homogeneous universe started to become
heterogeneous. Possibly differing in mass, the first stars, termed the
"first generation," took shape as a result of the influence of the
forces of attraction on the primary material (hydrogen, helium, and
lithium) within the constitution of those galaxies. Being a hundred
times more massive and a hundred thousand times brighter than
the Sun, some particular stars became extinguished three or four
236 Evolution: Science or Jdeo/ogl'?

million years later; these are called "blue giants." The others were
smaller and had the capacity to live for billions of years. Then, over
time, the consumption of interstellar material gradually reduced the
possibility of the formation of new stars.
A second chance was created for a new nuclear stage in srars
where the material became shrunken and warmed due to the strong
arrraction force which was particular to them. The temperature
increased at the center of the star to reach ten million degrees, and
collisions became so strong that hydrogen nuclei underwent fusion
to form helium nuclei. Here, the stability of helium was seen once
again. But the material was not scattered; instead, it became dense,
and thus, the Sun was created as a result of a nuclear fusion reaction.
At this stage, the system calmed down; helium was produced by
using hydrogen, and its geometry was fixed (to the same radius and
the same brightness). Actually, it almost represented the very condi-
tion of the Sun today. For the Sun has been shrinking for fifteen
million years (the "Kelvin-Helmholtz" or "T Tauri" stage), and if
current age determinations are correct, hydrogen has continuously
been transformed into helitun for 4.6 billion years.
If doomsday does not occur before then, the Sun is predicted
to entirely deplete its reserves in five billion years under normal
conditions, and its center will be transformed into helium. A• a
result, it will return to its initial shrunken form. Being older than
the Sun, and having experienced these stages before, stars serve as
"factories" for producing the heavy elements required for the for·
marion of a planet like the Earth. As a result of this shrinking pro-
cess in the stars billions of years ago, a temperature increase com-
menced due to the effect of attraction, and it reached a hundred
million degrees. This high temperature caused three helium nuclei
12
to undergo fusion to form a carbon nucleus ( C), and here began
the second big stage in the creation of the universe. Gradually, the
shrinking slowed, the atmosphere of the star expanded, and the star
transformed into a giant red mass (a red giant).
 From the B(>ginninK of/he Universe to the Chosen Earth 237

To summarize briefly, matter was organized following the Big

Bang, and it was differentiated through various stages. The "red
giant" phase, where the temperature was in the order of 100 million
degrees, and which followed the "Sun" phase, was the most produc-
tive and richest stage in terms of producing almost all of the chemical
elements which exist within the lifetime of stars. Small molecules
dependent on carbon were created in the interstellar medium that
absorbed the material which supernovas emitted. Therefore, we see
that stars are born, grow and die-just like other living things; that
is, they, too, undergo an energy crisis.
Hydrogen and helium were created in the severe temperatures
of the Big Bang 15 billion years ago (if age determinations are
right). Being the vital elements of living organisms, the more com-
plex atoms, such as carbon, oxygen, calcium and iron, were created
in the very hot depths of stars as a result of nuclear processes-that
is, in the most unfavorable conditions for life.
The elements which were created by massive explosions were
ejected into interstellar space later and transformed into new stars
and planets as a result of the attraction force in that medium, as elec-
tromagnetism was conven:ed into the chemical ingredients of life. In
short, everything from the ink on this page to the air we breathe was
created from this first generation of stars, in the range of causes.

Explosion: Bull 's Eye

What would happen if a bomb were to explode in any locality, or
in the building where we live or work? Everything would break
into pieces; all objects would fall into disorder and become disar-
ranged, and doors and windows would be damaged, and so on. In
short, destruction and disorder would result from the huge amount
of energy released by the explosion. In fact, all types of uncon-
trolled energy discharges cause catastrophes and disorder similar to
what results from the detonation of bombs.
If one were to insist that an explosion on a scale like the Big
Bang, which engendered the orderly creation of the entire universe,
238 Evolulion: Science or Jdeolo[i!·?

occurred without control, supervision, or consciousness, and with-

out an Organizer, one would have to accept incredible and unrea-
sonable impossibilities. There is no room for chance or coincidence
when one executes the countless probabilistic calculations which
would be required to explain the wide range of critical effects: for
example, the cooling of temperatures from trillions of degrees to a
measure of warmth which allows us to live; the creation of funda-
mental particles, atoms and molecules; or the accommodation of
each and every star, among millions of stars, each in orbit with a
certain balance of attraction, within each and everv galaxy, among
billions of galaxies.
The particular arrangements which arose 4.6 billion years ago
and which allowed our lives-namely, the forces of attraction; the
critical rotational velocities of planets in particular orbits, one of
those being our own planet, Earth; and the intensification of gas
and dust clouds required for the creation of the Sun, the most
important star for us among the 10 11 stars present in one specific
region of the Milky Way Galaxy-all demonstrate infinite power
and foresight, and are the most obvious and miraculous evidence of
the art of One God, Who is the owner of infinite power, knowledge
and wisdom.
It is irrational and foolish to claim that so manv critical condi-
tions-such as the Earth's being furnished with the most ideal
attributes so as to be favorable for life; the specific distances of the
Moon and the Sun to the Earth; the unique composition of the
climate, soil, air, and water; and the particular presence and action
of carbon atoms, as well as elements such as nitrogen, hydrogen,
and oxygen which bond with carbon to become the foundation of
organic life and, hence, the basis of all living organisms-were
somehow assembled by chance and accidentally resulted in the birth
of the universe. Accepting that this universe and everyrhing in it
emerged from the random consequences and brutal force of a
colossal explosion, and interpreting all scientific groundwork in the
name of evolution-simply for the sake of not associating this
 From lire Beginning oflhe Universe ro the Chosen Earlh 239

whole perfect system with a Creator whose power and knowledge

is infinite-is an absurd stance which an intact mind, reason, con-
science .md heart could never approve nor accept.

THE CHOSEN PLANET

According to our knowledge today, we do not think that there is

biological life in a form we know of on any planet or star other than
the Earth. However, it is surely possible for God to create specially
equipped crearures suitable to the characteristic conditions of other
planets or stars, with His infinite power and knowledge. The
preparation of innumerable factors-such as the particular concor-
dance of Earth's distance to the Sun; its rotational velocity; its
orbit; the placement of the Moon as a satellite; the specific amounts
and densities of gases in the atmosphere; the distribution of heat,
climate, rainfall, wind, and mountains; and so on-to achieve the
most suitable and unique substrate for the continuation of life is a
manifestation of the immeasurable knowledge and power that
embraces the entire universe.
The presence of the atmosphere is a crucial precondition for the
created biosphere, while its destruction would bring the extinction of
Ji,~ng organisms. The current state of the atmosphere depends on
two factors: the optimal distance between the Earth and the Sun, and
the chemical densitY balance between carbon dioxide (C0 2), O~)'gen
(0 2 ), and owne (0 3 ).
A regulating, causal role wa.< given to the atmosphere itself dur-
ing the creation process. If the amount of carbondioxide increases,
then the temperarure on Earth also increases (the "greenhouse
effect''). In addition, by absorbing the excess amounts of carbond-
ioxide, oceans become more acidic (C0 2 + H 20 <=> HC03- +
H+); to oYercome this effect, the rates of decomposition of rock.<
(chemical change) and vegetation growth both increa.<e. In this way,
the atmosphere has continued to function as a system in a state of
theoretical equilibrium for at least 300 million years (note that there
240 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

is no practical equilibriwn simply because of relatively minor "ebb

and flow'' flucruations around the theoretical equilibriwn).
Consequently, the atmosphere is the finest, most delicate and
most imponant attribute which plays a role in the development and
perperuation of the biosphere. Yet its establishment was almost
"instantaneous" in terms of the geological time scale, as it was made
out of gases--essentially, out of continuous activity and changes
over very shon intervals of time. While it was of an acidic and
reductive character initially, it became an oxidizer as a result of the
establishment of photosynthesis. This oxidizing quality of the
atmosphere initiated an external geochemical effect which encircled
the Eanh. Being present as a barrier, or shield, between the Eanh
and the vastly different conditions which exist beyond it (consider,
for example, that there is a density of 103 molecules/cm 3 in space,
compared to a density of 10 18 molecules/cm 3 on Eanh), our atmo-
sphere has a critical causal role in protecting us from the lethal
radiations of the Sun. At this point, the imponance of the arrange-
ment of the "atmosphere-hydrosphere-geosphere-biosphere" sys-
tem for life to have emerged and to continue with such perfection
in the long run-as compared to the disorder which prevailed at the
beginning-becomes extremely clear.
 7

From an Inorganic to an Organic World:

Dice Turning Up Double Six Each Time
 FROM AN INORGANIC TO AN
ORGANIC WORLD: DICE TURNING UP
DOUBLE SIX EACH TIME

T
he reason why evolutionary theory and creation touch on
the same points from time to time as a necessity of the
field, and why they reach different interpretations of the
same evidence, is based on how two vital concepts-('intention''
and "perspective"-shape worldviews and belief systems. A person
who starts rl1e journey of discovery with the intention or precon-
ception that the universe does not have a creator or owner, and
looks at each event with that worldview, can produce very different
scenarios according to his or her own belief in the intention and
appearance of things, by referring selectively to all kinds of observa-
tions and information.
Furthermore, even though the initial conditions on Earth-and
all sorts of claims about the origin of life under such conditions-
necessitate proof, no interpretation can acrually go beyond being a
scenario which is unproven scientifically. Given this, and as a fun-
damental requirement of objectiviry and ethics in science, all rypes
of claims should be examined, no matter how far these may seem
to be from scientific criteria. Some of the conditions or factors
which are mentioned in those scenarios are even likely to have
played a role in the chain of causes as "veils" over the divine names
of God during the miracle of creation-in other words, as veils of
material causation which originate in the will of the Creator. The
244 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

existence of a chain of such material causes and effects neirher keeps

creation from being a miracle, nor obstructs ir. Rarher, such a chain
of astounding evenrs in the material world makes it e\·en easier for
us to grasp how miraculous creation really is. We are living in rhe
world of causes, and our Creator may ha\•e used all rhese material
causes (elements, heat, light, charges), which belong to this world,
to cloak His glory and greamess. Yet, since the manifestation of His
power and knowledge are essential in rhe act of creation, rhe idea
of material causes being a "veil" should not be emphasized. The real
miracle is that those causes were predestined and chosen expressly
to yield favorable conditions, in appropriate amounts, and at the
right time, to become a "life soup"-and later on, all living beings
were created.
Thus, rather rhan debating or denying the possibility rhat par·
rial trurh might be present in rhe scenarios "montaged" to account
for rhe intention and appearance of rhe first atmosphere, first
oceans, and first land conditions, such trurh can simply be used to
prove the existence of the Creator, Who has infinite power and
knowledge-rather rhan to deny rhe Creator.
The most important indicator that creation is a miracle is that
borh appraisal (of requirements) and selectiveness (of best condi-
tions) are exhibited in the ordering of all causes in particular
amounts, and in their arrangement in specific, consecutive sequenc-
es. On rhe orher hand, some might argue that rhe material infra·
strucrure of rhe act of creation might have been prepared by simply
applying or combining all of rhe environmental conditions and fac·
tors (all the causes togerher), and rhus have somehow "arisen" in
rhe first days of our planet. However, what we should keep in mind
here is rhat merely rhe special preparation of rhis material infra·
strucrure over a certain period of time is not sufficient for rhe act of
creation to occur. Life does not emerge without a special "life impe·
rus" ours ide of matter itself-that is, life does not occur wirhout the
manifestation of the Name of God, "The Life-Giver."
 From an inorganic to an Organic World 245

Afrer all these considerations, we may take a look at some of

the information which has been discussed in various fields of sci-
ence relating to the possible causes for the emergence of the uni-
verse--even though we see these as shadows compared to the real
truth-in order not to be the object of blame, nor to be accused of
being unscientific or of being an enemy of science.
Our planet is estimated to have had no free oxygen initially,
and so, no protective ozone layer in the upper atmosphere. The
energy that was necessary for the biological synthesis of this layer,
as an ordinary cause in the process of creation, might have come
from the ultraviolet radiation of the young Sun, or from electrical
discharges in the first atmosphere-and it might have come from
an unknown source that we cannot imagine. Nonetheless, the
important thing is that the presence of this energy was in "the ideal
dose," and of((usable quality." Since this energy \vas without con-
science or reasoning, and the boundaries of its strength were uncer-
tain, it would not have been useful for anything other than destruc-
tion and eradication-in other words, it is impossible for the
energy required for biosynthesis to emerge autonomously, or by
chance-without conscious knowledge. Even today, the mysteries
of the strucn~res of cell organelles-such as the mitochondria,
which are vital for the energy metabolism of living beings-is not
properly understood. One must be ignorant of probabilistic calcula-
tions to think that respiratory enzymes and coenzymes, mitochon-
drial DNA and other enzymes required for biosynthesis, somehow
evolved by themselves.
Having infinite power, it is possible that our Lord could have
prepared the environment and conditions for living beings before
He created them. According to our time measurements, we esti-
mate that the improvement of the Earth's conditions prior to the
creation of living beings probably took approximately four billion
years. In the meantime, He might well have started life in the
oceans simply to provide the first organisms with protection from
lethal ultraviolet radiation. The creation of life on land, on Earth,
246 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

perhaps occurred at the end of the Devonian period (about

400-530 MYA), since this arrival of land animals may also have coin-
cided with the beginning of the ozone la\·er.

fROM iNANIMATE TO ANIMATE

The biggest problem for evolutionary theory is the origin of life.

The difficulty of explaining how a creature that could be called the
"first animate being" emerged from a mixture of inanimate cle-
ments remains an obstacle which is impossible to overcome. All of
the claims about how the transition from the inanimate (inorganic)
world to the animate (organic, sentient, growing, and behaving)
world occurred cannot go beyond being merely hypothetical.
The cell, being the fundamental structural unit of all living
beings, is a complex machine made up of about one trillion atoms.
How the transition from atoms and molecules to the first cells took
place is still not known at all. Furthermore, we do not acrually
know whether "a gradual transition from inanimate to animate" life
happened in the first place. The claim of such a "gradual transi-
tion," of molecules being organized into a living cell, developing
step by step, seems to be a scenario montaged for the benefit of the
evolutionary hypothesis. Since we cannot credit millions of mole-
cules with gathering and thinking together, and deciding collec-
tively to get organized as a cell, and since atoms lack mind, con-
sciousness, reasoning and knowledge, then if we do not accept the
existence of a Creator, we are forced to admit that all of the amaz-
ing elements and functions of the cell are simply caused by chemical
reactions-of unlimited power, and in unrestricted amounts-
which somehow yield convenient, random results.
In fact, not much of the information obtained from research
performed on fossils of bacteria sheds light on the origin of life. It
had been generally understood for some time that they had cell
walls covering them as the presence of a cell membrane is the only
solution which can account for the protection of the cell's internal
 From an Inorganic roan Organic World 247

regulatory processes and the passage of maner in and out without

upsetting essential systems which are intrinsic to conditions on
Earth. Since the fundamental structural units of living beings are
amino acids, which compose huge organic molecules-proteins-
then the initial conditions on Earth and the atmosphere must have
been suitable for forming these molecules. Unfortunately, the big-
gest mistake made here is supposing that by knowing what kind of
material is used in some amvork, we can instantly know how such
material was processed, and how the amvork was made. The same
mistakes are made about the first creation. Discovering the organ-
elles in living cells, knowing some of the macromolecules which are
placed inside their structures, apprehending some of their chemical
properties, and discovering the specific elements and the amounts
of those elements in their structures-even all these together do not
indicate in the least how cells became animate in the first place, that
is, what kind of creation processes they underwent.
In 1932, J.B.S. Haldane (1892-1964) and the Russian biolo-
gist, A.!. Oparin (1894-1980), attempted to perform experiments to
determine whether or not carbon-based organic compounds in the
first atmosphere-which they accepted as having no oxygen--eould
be produced. Oparin argued that, as simple inorganic compounds
mixed together over time, they formed more complex organic com-
pounds. Then, over longer periods of time, they formed the first
living organisms, which were claimed to be heterotrophs, that fed on
the organic compounds deposited in oceans; thus, according to this
framework, d1e first plants did not use photosynthesis to produce
their food. However, questions about how the first cellular-type sys-
tems formed and reproduced, and how the complex proteins and
enzymes on which they depended arose, remained unanswered. The
idea that clays-attractive three-dimensional structures-might have
played a role as "models" or "molds" in the first development and
polymerization stages of organic molecules could not pass beyond
being merely a claim, remaining completely elusive. As the originator
of those ideas, Oparin stated that lipid polymers (fat molecules) had
248 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

the abilitv to be folded and formed into hollow spheres (coacervates),

and thus they might have formed an "inner medium" which pro-
vided an oppommity for the first metabolism-yet he could not
show how those fat molecules arose on their own and formed a
membrane with proteins.
According to Oparin's argument, amino acids were combined in
a certain order and system, depending on differences in their shapes
and electrical charge distributions, and thus they formed complex
molecules. Those molecules later caused the formation of "buds" on
microscopic water drops, all on their own. To verify his claim, he did
experiments on microscopic units composed of glue and gelatin, fol-
lowing his own line of thinking, from the first cellular model that
he accepted, one which was presumed to be of a gelatinous composi-
tion. 138 Yet even though he added enzymes externally (of course), he
wa.• not able to obtain anything to verify his idea that it was possible
to step across the huge gap between being inanimate and animate, to
"create" a living being; that is, he could not show how, or for what
type of purpose, mindless and unconscious molecules could have got-
ten together to create perfect, vital, complex sm!Ctures.
Inspired by this idea, chemist Harold Urey (1893-1981)
thought that the first earthly atmosphere could have been similar to
Jupiter's atmosphere, which is composed of a mixture of ammonia,
methane and hydrogen. In 1952, by adding water, which is vital for
life, to a set-up that had the ingredients of the first atmospheric
conditions, Harold Urey and his student from Chicago Universitv,
Stanley L. Miller ( 1930-2007), attempted to see if organic mole-
cules could be formed by chance occurrence. The two scientists
stimulated a chemical medium through a glass loop containing
ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water vapor, using electrical
sparks, ultraviolet radiation and electric current (to simulate light-
ning in the atmosphere), in order to obsen•e whether or not amino
acids would be produced. 139 • 140 Twenty-four hours later, they dis-
covered that along with many other compounds, glycine, aspartic
acid, glutamic acid and the alanine amino acids were formed. The
 From an Inorganic to an Organic World 249

synthesis of those organic molecules was announced to the world as

if life had been created from nonlife, giving the clear impression
that all questions were answered and all problems were solved, as
the purported "solution to the chemical evolution problem" was
served up to the public. Jeremy Rifkin, epigrammatizes this as fol-
lows:
\"lith great t:uUare, the world was informed that scientists had
finally succeeded in forming life from nonlife, the dream of magi-
cians, sorcerers, and alchemists from time inunemorial. Since that
historic occasion, ,·irrually e\'ery biology srudcnt has been made
pri\'"_\' to the wondrous .':lecret Miller and Urey had uncm·cred, a
secret that had elmh:d humanity's grasp over the ages. Great
comforr is taken in knowing finally where life originated. In fact,
so intent was the need to resolve this question of origins that
little effort was extended to probe some of the basic asswnptions
underlying the Miller,Vrey experiment. Had the scientific frater-
nity bothered to exhibit even a bit of healthy skepticism, they
would have seen, at the rime, that the Miller/Urcy experiment
was as much a fictional accoum of genesis as the long-held myth
of spontaneous generation by which scientists of an earlier age
had claimed that life arose from dead matter by observing mag-
141
got<; mysteriously appear our of garbage.

In fact, Miller's experiment contains many critical inconsisten-

cies. First, he thought that he was imitating primordial Earth-like
condition,, but he used a mechanism called a "cold trap" for the
experiment done in Urey's laboratory. Without a doubt, such a
cooling, protective isolation mechanism did not exist in the primi-
tive Earth's atmosphere. Second, Miller preserved the amino acids
by isolating them from the environment as soon as they were
formed. Since there was no such isolation mechanism in the pri-
mordial Earth's atmosphere, very severe and difficult conditions in
the environment in which the amino acids were formed would
immediately have destroyed these emerging molecules. In sum, the
cold trap mechanism requires intelligent design, and it is not rea-
sonable to presume the presence of such isolating, cooling, and
protective fi.mctions, intended to shield nascent forms, in a primi-
250 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

rive envirorunent where ultraviolet radiation, lightning, high OX)'-

gen ratios and various roxie chemicals are considered to have
existed. The chemist Richard Bliss expresses this contradiction by
observing, "Being the crucial pan of Miller's set up, the cold trap
was used to isolate the products formed by chemical reactions.
Actually, without this trap, the chemical products would have been
destroyed by the energy source." 142
Another weakness of this experimcnr was the neglect of the fact
that hydrocyanic acid, formic acid and, especially, nitric acid would
quickly and easily be formed in the same medium. further, when
accounring for the sulphuric acid formed by hydrogen sulfite-
which was mixed into the atmosphere by volcanic explosions that
were thought to function as srorage unirs for solar energy bv emit-
ting ultraviolet radiation reaching 240 nanometers in wavelength-
in addition ro the presence of all of these acids, each with a destmc-
tive and disruptive narure, what would have been formed was
nothing bur a burning mixture which would nor have been favor-
able to life at all.
Besides, another real-life danger for the amino acids which
were artilicially obtained in the experimenr was hydrolysis. Indeed,
amino acids which arc simply put inro a test rube with similar con-
ditions simply disintegrate into smaller molecules, such as cyclic
anhydride, glutamate, aspartate and pyrrolidone, in water.
Debates about the early nature of the atmosphere have brought
the subject matter of chemical evolution to a deadlock. The ideas
about this are a serious subject of discussion between evolutionisr
biochemists and geologists. The presence of limestone (CaC0 3 ),
which was deposited billions of years ago, is held by geologists as
evidence for ammonium not being present in the same medium,
since the p!-1 values of ammonium and CaC0 3 compromise each
orher. Had methane acrually existed in the earlv Eanh's atmosphere
in great amounts, we should have determined this through geo-
logical observations. In addition, if such an atmosphere had existed
earlier, hydrophobic organic molecules, protected by sedimentary
 From an Inorganic to an Organic World 251

clay layers, should have been found. Yet while abnormal amounts
of carbon and organic molecules have been identified in old rocks,
such hydrophobic organic molecules have never been noted.
Further, the earh· atmosphere hypothesis, which presumes a com-
position of methane and ammonia gases, can also be understood as
baseless and unsound from the fact that methane and ammoma
have nor been observed to come our of volcanoes.
Biochemist Peter Mora, of the National Cancer Institute, in the
US, savs the follo\\'ing in regard to the experiment: "There is a great
deal of controversv on this score: in fact, so much controversy that
in the final analysis, am· experiment• designed to duplicate the pri-
meval environment arc no more than exercises in organic chemis-
try."'" Therefore, even though Miller and Urey's exercises in
organic chemistry seemed convincing in the beginning, after careful
analysis, they turned out to be of absolutely no scientific value in
terms of addressing the question of the origin of life.
Yet speculations pertaining to Miller and Urey's experiment are
numerous, indeed. The Belgian biochemist, Marcel Florkin, says,
"The idea of a primitive reductive atmosphere has been aban-
doned"; and "It is considered to be insufficient in terms of geo-
logical evidence. " 144 In any event, geochemists have now come to
an agreement that Miller's experiment pertaining to the early atmo-
sphere of the Earth was not prepared realistically. Furthermore,
many scientists think that the primitive Earth's atmosphere con-
sisted of volcanic gas explosions which included water vapor, car-
bon dioxide, nitrogen and little bits of hydrogen. 145· 146 Indeed,
pioneers of origin of life studies, Sidney Fox and Klaus Dose, agree
that Miller, "used the wrong mixture of gases in his experiment"
Scientists also agree that the free hydrogen in the early atmosphere
would have diffused easily out of the atmosphere, and the remain-
ing methane and ammonia would have been oxidized. 147 In his
recent smdy, Holland explains that there are two basic opinions
concerning the composition of the early atmosphere. According to
the first one, which he agrees with, there was either no, or only very
252 Evolutio11: Science or Ideology?

little, oxygen in the early atmosphere. Conversely, according to the

second one, which the majority of the scientists agree with, there
was a great deal of oxygen. 148
Therefore, the srudies which consider the Miller and U rev
experiment to be particularly invalid from the stan are those which
relate to the presence of oxygen in the early atmosphere and pho·
tolytic reactions. Evolutionist biochemists accept as preconceiwd
dogma that the early atmosphere did not contain m;ygen, for if
there had been m:ygen, oxidation would have occurred and amino
acid synthesis would thereby ha\·e been obstructed. Nonetheless,
according to a significant percentage of geologists, the early atmo·
sphere did consist of a high amount of m:ygen (at least 200 billion
tons). Brinkman, a geologist, argues that rhere was so much oxygen
in the early atmosphere that ir would not have permitted biochem-
ical evolution to happen. 149 It is also possible that the Eanh's atmo-
sphere might not have changed much over time, since rock forma-
tions contain oxidized iron. That indicates the presence of an m;y-
genic atmosphere for the primitive Earth. Also evidence of «the
Eanh having an oxygenic atmosphere since the time of the oldest
rocks, 3.7 billion vears ago" has been foundi;o
While Miller and Ure~>s idea of an oxygen-free (reductive)
atmosphere was struggling to overcome this important barrier, it
ran across a second barrier which was impossible for it to pass. For
if there had been no oxygen, there would have been no owne (0 3 )
layer either; thus, the amino acids would have immediately been
destroyed, since they would have been exposed to the most intense
ultra,·iolrt rays, without the protection of the ozone layer. These
rays, coming lrolil rhe sun or other sources, cause chemical decom-
position (photolysis and photodissociation). Therefore, life could
not have emerged, even in the most primitive form, under such
eanhly conditions-that is, in the absence of oxygen.
 From an Inorganic to an Organic World 253

a) OH• + H•
I H 20 ----~-;di~-~i~~-~···->
' I
b) : H• + H• -··--·-·-------- > ': H2
'

c) ~oH· + OH• ·--·--------> H 20 +0 (atomic oxygen)

i
d) !0 + 0 ------------------> 02 (molecular oxygen)

The possible process of the formation ofoxygen in Earth's early atmosphere

In shan, both the existence and nonexistence of oxygen is a

handicap for evolutionists. R. L. Wysong explains their quandary
as follows: "If oxygen were in the primitive atmosphere, life could
not have arisen because the chemical precursors would have been
destroyed through oxidation; if oxygen were not in the primitive
atmosphere, then neither would have been owne, and if orone
were not present to shield the chemical precursors of life from ultra-
violet light, life could not have arisen." 151
In order to eliminate this problem, the idea that life initially
developed under water-so that ir was thus protected from the kill-
ing ultraviolet rays hitting the Eanh-was proposed. Bur, ar that
point, a third barrier (which was acrually much larger than the first
rwo) arose, since there would be no possible energy catalyzer. This is
vital for the Miller and Urey experiment, as they used electrical dis-
charges to activate chemicals and argued that lightning would have
done the same job in the real world-yet lightning would not have
been able to penetrate the water which covered the Eanh, and their
experiment included both ammonia and methane. For even in the
event that lightning were able to penetrate through the water (which
it acrually cannot), the chance of any biological formation occurring
automatically as a result of this would have been zero. That is
because, in order for life to have begun in this way, water vapor,
ammonia, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and methane would have had to
produce amino acids under water, and then these amino acids would
have had to combine to form polypeptides, also under water-but
254 Evolution: Science or/deo/ofD'?

that is where the problem becomes completelY unresolvable since

polypeptides cannot undergo synthesis when there is an excess of
water in their environment.
Ammonia is also very sensitive to photolysis and decomposes
into its components, nitrogen and hydrogen, when it is subjected
to ultraviolet radiation. Water molecules decompose into hvdroxyl
and oxygen under the influence of ultraviolet rays, too. The released
oxygen molecules combine with methane to produce carbon diox-
ide and water, and they also combine with ammonia to \"ield nitro-
gen and water. As a result, the initial strucrure of the early atmo-
sphere would have been transformed into a mixn1re of C0 2 , hydro-
gen, nitrogen, and water vapor.
The existence of ammonia in the primitive atmosphere is evi-
dently very crucial in order for organic molecules to have formed,
as nothing could be obtained from the experiments done later with-
out the use of ammonia. Yet even if there had been ammonia gas,
many srudies of its decomposition due to ultraviolet radiation-
given that it is very sensitive to photolysis-have revealed that all of
the ammonia would have decomposed into hydrogen and nitrogen
within 30,000 years, according to Abelson, or perhaps as long as
500,000 years, according to Ferris and Nicodem. 152 • 153
When the non-presence of ammonia in the early atmosphere
came to be strongly supported and generally accepted, experiments
started to be done without using ammonia. However, the results
were consistently negative: neit!1er amino acids, nor even their sub-
group molecules, aldehydes, could be obtained from those experi-
ments. Then, in 1975, two American scientists, Ferris and Chen,
repeated Miller's experiment many times using an atmospheric
environment that contained only carbon dioxide, hydrogen, nitro-
gen gas, and water vapor, and they were unable to obtain even a
single amino acid molecule. 154 They were only able to get some
alcohols, acetone, ethanol and formaldehyde. Yet in the end, Mill-
er's experiment continued to gain a lot of attention through the
efforts of certain groups, while Ferris and Chen's findings were
 From an Inorganic to an Organic World 255

hardly mentioned at all. Interestingly, in 1985, at the "Molecular

Evolution of Life" symposium, Miller himself confessed that his
experiments concerning the early atmosphere could not be accepted
as being realistic due to the fact that ammonia would have dissolved
in the oceans, so that a surplus of ammonia could not have been
present in the early atmosphere. 155 He also said that there was no
scientific reason for choosing methane and ammonia gases-that it
had just been his personal preference because he would not have
been able to obtain any amino acids without ammonia. In addition,
another of his confessions can be mentioned here: "There is not any
consensus concerning the composition of the early atmosphere.
Since rocks older than 3.8 billion years old are not known, there is
not any evidence about the conditions on Earth between 4.6 and
3.8 billion years ago." 156
Even though A. Katchalsky's experiment with aminoacyl ade-
nylates was reported to have been successful in producing sixty or
more units of polypeptides using nickel and zinc, along with mont-
morillonite, a common clay mineral, 157 those polypeptides could
not possibly have escaped destruction in the early conditions on
Earth and in the atmosphere-that is, under the lethal effects of
ultraviolet rays with wavelengths of 250-300 nm and 300,000
joules of energy. Moreover, it is also inevitable that nickel and zinc
would form other compounds with nitrogen, nitric acid, and duo-
ric acid in the extremely high temperatures of primitive Earth. We
should also keep in mind that the chance of the existence of the
exact and particular lab conditions which were artificially applied to
the actual, early atmosphere-as well as the presence of elements
like nickel and zinc in the precise, specified amounts which were
used-is nil. Thus, critical questions are left unanswered, like why
the reaction would ever be started with such a molecule as amino-
acyl adenylate, in an environment where there was neither technol-
ogy nor a natural system; how the obtained matter would ever have
been protected from thermal entropy in reality; and how the regu-
lar energy necessary for the formation of high-energy bonds
256 Evolution: Science or ideology?

between the atoms of organic molecules could have occurred dur-

ing a time which predated photosynthetic reactions.
In conclusion, McMullen's statements about the weaknesses of
the Miller and Urey experiment should sound very reasonable to
most people:
The last and most formidable weakne..'is of the Miller experiment
is Miller himself. He designed the experiment, hoping to produce
amino acids, bur the first run did not generate anr. It was back
to the drawing board. He changed cerrain experimental param·
eters and the second run did provide the desired results. ~ow a
supposed strength of the experiment is that it is a possible natu-
ralistic explanation of the origin of life. The methane, ammonia,
water, and hydrogen in the Miller expe1i.ment, even though of an
artificially high purity, could be the Earth's early atmosphere.
1l1e electric spark could be analogous to lighming, and rl1e liquid
water, the oceans. If so, then what is the analogy for Miller, the
designer and modifier of the experiment? The answer is an
intelligence-a designer; God, if you will, is needed for life to
occur. If one thought the earlier inferences from the Miller
experiment were sciemi fie, d1en one has co concede that this
inference of a supernatural being is also scientific. 158

In order to prepare a backgrmmd in which life can be gener-

ated, particular forms of amino acids first have to be obtained.
Amino acids are divided into two groups: levorotary (left-handed)
and dextrorotary (right-handed). These two amino acids are com-
plete mirror images of each other, much as one's left and right
hands are the same but opposite, and this feature is called chirality.
Dextrorotary forms are incapable of supporting life-in fact, they
are often lethal. Thus, the amino acids of all living forms are levoro-
tary, that is, left-handed. Right-handed molecular forms are only
found in DNA and RNA; all the other components ofliving beings
are built from left-handed amino acids, other than a couple of
exceptions, such as the exoskeleton of insects. Applying this infor-
mation, Wilder-Smith points to another failure of the Miller and
Urey experiment, as the special amino acids which Miller and Urey
claimed to produce in their experiment were not suitable for the
 From an Inorganic to an Organic World 257

formation of life. Wilder-Smith makes the poin£S as follows: "For

biogenesis to take place, all building blocks (amino acids) of living
protoplasm must be levorotary .... If even very small amoun£S of
amino acid molecules of the dextrorotary rype are present, the pro-
teins of a different three-dimensional stmcrure are formed, which
are unsuitable for life's metabolism." 159
The deadlock which materialis£S face here is that in all of the
experimen£S in which they expected to produce the "life soup," as ir
were, they obtained 50% levorotary and 50% dextrorotary acids,
which then formed molecules called "racemares," or a racemic mix-
ture. In fact, racemares are incapable of synthesizing life, bur the
Miller and Urey experiments produced only racemares. In fact, every
experiment of a similar kind has produced only racemares; and as
Wilder-Smith poin£S our, a racemate is nor, under any circumstances
wha£Soever, capable of forming living proteins or life-supporting
protoplasm of any type. We should emphasize that until this time, it
has proven absolutely impossible to form anything other than race-
mates by stimulating nonliving chemicals with electrical discharges.
Harold Urey was asked at a conference, "If you could, explain how
life could have been lormed by the chance combination of chemicals,
when all living things require pure levorotary amino acids, whereas
in laboratory experimen£S such as yours, only racemates are produced
by spontaneous processes?" His reply is worth repeating: "Well, I
have worried abour that a great deal and it is a very important ques-
tion ... and I don't know rhe answer to it."
Some other experiments have been done which argue that
amino acids, formed by chance, came to be deposited; and then the
favorable ones gathered in orderly sequences, and this process pro-
duced proteins. Those experimen£S have a significant role relating
to organic evolution. As the primary building blocks of all living
beings, proteins have been targeted by evolurionis£S, who seek to
prove that they would have formed-and did-by chance, on their
own. Bur this has also turned our to be an essential problem for
advocates of evolutionary theory to overcome.
258 El:o/ution: Science or Ideology?

The process of bonding hundreds and thousands of mono-

mers, as a result of one molecule of water being released from a
carboxyl group of amino acids, to allow amino groups to form
longer chains of peptide bonds, is called "polymerization." In turn,
proteins are complex molecules which are built up through the
bonding of hundreds or thousands (depending on their sizes) of
amino acid molecules as a chain (polymerization). In general, a
chain which is made of about 100 amino acids is called a "polypep-
tide," while polypeptides which are composed of more than 100
amino acids are called "proteins." Further, in order for a molecule
consisting of a huge chain to be considered to be a protein, it has
to play a role in the living cell, taking an active pan in cenain struc-
tures, like enzymes, hormones, or nucleoproteins. In this respect,
proteins are also fundamental molecules of the cell-building
blocks ofliving mechanisms. There are proteins as big as one thou-
sand, ten thousand, and even a hundred thousand molecules.
The most widely known experiment concerning proteins was
that conducted by Sidney Fox (1912-1998). He wanted to check if
proteins could have been formed near volcanoes in early Earth con-
ditions. By heating dry amino acids in a test tube for 4-6 hours at
150-160 °C, he obtained a simple molecule "pile," similar to a
protein, that he called a "proteinoid." On the other hand, the fun-
damental neglect of some critical points-like his use of pure, dry
amino acids (they would have broken down had they been wet),
which actually could not possibly have been deposited on the
primitive Earth; and his exposing them to heat only for a very shon
time (they would have been burned and spoiled on the early Eanh
due to exposure to extreme temperarures over a long period of
time) caused Fox's experiment to lose its strength. Another weak-
ness of his experimental procedure was that these molecules, which
he called proteinoids, were like random spots, and quite dissimilar
to the proteins of living organisms; in any event, it would have
been impossible for them to be protected from disintegration in the
Earth's early conditions. Most imponantly, they were deprived of
 From an Inorganic lo an Organic World 259

any generic system that could reproduce them. Yet, against their
opposition-who argued that ultraviolet rays would decompose
such newly-formed proreins-supponers of organic evolution
claimed that those proteins were formed under water, which there-
fore allowed them to be protected. But in that case, Fox's experi-
ment becomes completely meaningless since he expressly used only
dry amino acids. Besides, any reaction which releases water (amino
acids release water when forming proteins) does not seem likely to
occur in water, according to "Le Chatelier's principle." A water-
releasing reaction does not occur in a medium where there is
already water and the reaction itself is a reversible process. There-
fore, rather than forming a protein out of amino acids in an aque-
ous medium, the reverse effect occurs; in other words, if a protein
is pur into an aqueous environment, it will break into amino acids.
In closing this point, we can simply conclude that water obstructs
the formation of proteins.
Even though he is an evolutionist, G. A. Kerkut sums up the
state of science when it comes to speculation over the formation of
the first living being:
There is, hov..·cver, little evidence in favor of biogenesis and as
~'Ct we have no indication that it can be performed. It is there-
fore a matter of faith on the pan of the biologist that biogenesis
did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis
happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did hap·
pen is not availablc. 160

In conclusion, Miller and Urey's much-fussed-over expen-

ments are of absolutely no scientific value in addressing the ques-
tion of the origin of life. Similar to so many other speculative
attempts that have characterized the evolutionary literature, their
study-if it proves anything at all-shows how hard it is to suppon
a theory that is confused at each step of the way by a realiry that
firmly refuses to be adapted to its governing hypothesis.
Another unfonunate misconception is to expect that a poly-
peptide chain formed bv chance might trigger the origin of life.
260 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

Polypeptides are precursory molecules which have nor become pro-

teins yet. Proteins, which are large organic compow1ds, are made
of polypeptides, which fold at certain points and get a particular,
thickened shape. Being composed of about twenry standard amino
acid molecules, proteins play key roles in coW1tless processes which
allow and affect life in all living beings. A protein structure has four
distinct aspects, namely its primary structure, secondary structure,
tertiary structure, and quaternary structure. Cerrain numbers of
amino acids are foW1d in each protein molecule, and mese are
arranged in a sequence which is W1ique to that protein. This amino
acid sequence is me primary structure of me protein, and it defines
born the shape and function of me protein. The angles between me
peptide bonds mat connect me amino acids in me molecule chain
determine the secondary structure; hydrogen bonds generally cause
the molecule to take on a spiral shape. The tertiary structure is
formed by me twisting and folding of me protein chain; it is gener-
ally stabilized by nonlocal interactions. In some proteins which are
formed of more man one polypeptide chain, like hemoglobin, me
forces of me ionic bonds deriving from electric charges, which are
characteristic of me tertiary structure, determine me arrangement
of the polypeptide chains, or me quaternary structure.
It is worth expanding on mis point in detail: one can imagine
taking a long chain in hand and first folcling it into two, then twist-
ing it, and then twisting it again from another region W1til it
became untwistable. The result in one's hand would be a particular-
ly-shaped iron form. Just like me twist of mis iron chain, men,
proteins also twist at certain regions and fold on top of each twist-
ing, resulting in some very uniquely shaped structures, such as
hemoglobin.
Proteins can be classified into two groups as "proteins which take
part in structures," and "proteim which play a role in biological or physi-
ological activities." However, some proteins are born structural and
functional. Most structural proteins are composed of long fibrous
chains. For example, collagen, which is found in bones, tendons,
 From an Inorganic to an Organic World 261

canilage and connective tissues, and keratins, which are found in

various parts of the body, like the skin, hair and nails, are strucrural
proteins. Conversely, those proteins which function in biological or
physiological activities are mostly spherical in shape; these include,
for example, diverse enzymes which catalyze chemical reactions; hor-
mones, which serve as messengers between various parts of living
mechanisms; carrier proteins; and antibodies.
Even the most minor error during any of the numerous folds
mentioned above renders a nonftmctioning protein molecule. The
position and order of amino acid chains in all proteins is deter-
mined by the sequence of DNA nucleotides. When the synthesis of
a certain protein is required, the unique code, which is present in
the DNA for that protein, is transmirted to the nucleotides on the
RNA molecule. Each of the three nucleotide groups determines a
distinctive amino acid; and in any case where the string of amino
acids, which is sequenced with respect to the order in the RNA
code, gets out of order somehow, various disorders and defects
appear. There are, on average, berween 400 and 3,000 amino acids
in protein molecules, and the molecular weight of proteins gener-
ally varies from 100,000 Da (one "dalton" equals lg/mol) to
500,000 Da, and may even reach one million Da.
A change in the location of a single amino acid in the polypep-
tide chain, or an absence or excess of only one amino acid in the
chain, makes the entire chain nonfunctional, resulting in many dis-
eases and bodily malfunctions. For instance, in the hemoglobin A
molecule, which is made up of 574 amino acids, and has a molecu-
lar weight of 68,000 g/mol, the replacement of only one amino
acid-valine with glutamine-changes the fundamental characteris-
tic of the entire molecule and causes a very serious disease called
sickle-cell anemia. Or, there might be a mistake in the synthesis of
the enzyme responsible for folding, due to a ruprure in the DNA or
a missing gene in the DNA. However, when living beings do not
exist yet, and when DNA and RNA are not present yet, protein
folding to obtain a particular conformation is not possible, as the
262 Evolulion: Science or Ideology?

very enzymes which take part in folding-and the DNA encoding

them-do not exist yet. If that were the case, both the proteins and
the enzymes-as well as the DNA and R...'IA molecules them-
selves-would have to be assumed to have formed simultaneously,
strictly by chance. But no mathematician would ever accept such a
probability.
The problem of how to close the gap between inorganic, non-
living things and the first "living" creature is the most difficult
problem both for evolutionary theory and for the philosophy of
biology. In spire of the innumerable probability calculations prov-
ing that proteins and nucleic acids cannot simply come into being
by chance, some will never give up and they make statements like
"Even if the possibility seems to be zero as to probability calcula-
tions, that does not mean that it is impossible ... "
Now, for an instant, let us just assume that a protein has come
into being by chance, and then let us sec if the first living being
could have arisen by chance from this, or nor. First of all, in order
for this being ro be called the "first li,~ng being," it would have to
possess at least some of rhe basic characteristics of life. Such a crea-
ture, even it were only single-celled, would require a sufficiently
complex system displaying the fundamental characteristics which
distinguish living beings from nonliving, such as alimentation,
growth, a specific shape and size, internal organization, being open
to stimulation, and engaging in metabolic activities, including
reproduction. Carrying our many functions as essential require-
ments of being alive necessitates special structures in the cell called
"organelles," which each represent the finest artwork. Each organ-
elle is designed to execute a particular duty: for example, mitochon-
dria are centers for energy production; golgi apparatuses produce
necessary secretions; ribosomes synthesize proteins; lysosomes per-
form cellular digestion; centrosomes and micrombules carry out
cellular division; chloroplasts are the center for food production in
plant cells; chromatin carries nucleic acids where the genetic code,
which has the position of central control mechanism in each cell, is
 From an Inorganic to an Organic World 263

encoded and packed. The most important characteristic of all of

these structures is not only that they incorporate, or use, many
enzymes in the activities they perform, but also that they can pro-
duce those very enzymes. Furthermore, each rype of organelle is
built in a very precise and unique form.
Enzymes are biocatalyric molecules which enable biochemical
activities to be carried out more quickly, efficiently, and smoothly,
and in ideal conditions. For example, a chemical reaction which
occurs at 700-800 "C in a laboratory environment can occur at 37
"C in the presence of a catalytic enzyme. As a case in point, car-
bonic anhydrase-an enzyme which decomposes carbonic acid dur-
ing respiration into water and carbon dioxide----<:an break down, or
decompose, 500,000 molecules in one second. In turn, proteins
constitute the foundation of enzymes, which then render a service
in all sons of biological activities, from digestion to respiration, and
from circulation to sensory processing. Moreover, certain coen-
zymes (unique molecule groups which are in key positions) work
with some enzymes in order to allow them to function optimally.
The structure of coenzymes generally consists of some vitamin
derivatives and nucleotide units.
Since enzymes are basically made of proteins and synthesized
from proteins, a program or a code is vital for their synthesis, and
that code exists in nucleic acids, both DNA and RNA, which are in
the position of controlling the cell. Except for in some viruses, a
DNA molecule functions as a "chief control center," so to speak, and
an RNA molecule functions as an "execution center"-where the
translation of the instructions is achieved, so that synthesis is per-
formed with respect to the commands given by the DNA. However,
this fact raises an important problem, which is that both DNA and
RNA also need enzymes for their own synthesis and reproduction.
Thus, we are faced with two processes which necessitate each other:
nucleic acids arc needed for the syntl1esis of enzymes, but enzymes
are needed for the svnthesis of nucleic acids. Now, we not only have
the problem of trying to account for the synthesis of enzymes, by
264 Evolution: Science or Ideo/ow?

chance, or for the further synthesis of complex organic molecules, by

chance, or for the further preparation of the entire program of a liv-
ing being from nucleic acids, also by chance-but we are critically
confronted by a scenario which is impossible even to imagine, which
is that of the simultaneous co-occurrence of two such utrerh- unlike-
ly coincidences.
Just to avoid or eliminate this difficult problem, theoreticians of
evolution, who had already become aware of the impossibility of the
sudden emergence of a cell by chance, started to argue that being the
frontier of the cell, coacervates and microspheres formed first, and
then they somehow "transformed" into cells. According to them,
proteinoids-assumed to have formed by chance-constituted a sys-
tem over time by diffi1sing into a water drop whose exterior wall
somehow started to function as a cell membrane. However, the selec-
tive permeation characteristics of the cell membrane, its extremely
perfect strucmre, and the behavior of many special receptor mole-
cules within it, is still not fully understood even today; the special
stmcture of transit regions is employed as a very sensitive doorkeep-
er, and the three-layered membrane model proves that the cell mem-
brane is a microcosmos in itself. Those who claim that glicolipids and
special integral proteins in the fluid mosaic membrane model-
which is itself made of special prorein molecules placed between two-
layered phospholipid molecules- formed by chance simply testify to
their own ignorance of molecular biology.
Yet according to the advocates of evolutionary theory, enzymes,
which are themselves supposed to have formed by chance, some-
how passed through this excellent membrane, which is also sup-
posed to have formed by chance, and thus located themselves inside
of those drops. Then, as soon as the DNA chain, which is also sup-
posed to have arisen by chance, started to function inside that water
drop, a living creature emerged. Even though critical questions
remain unanswered-By which kind of mechanism did this water
drop, this coacervate, start to reproduce? How were its energy
needs supplied? How was its DNA and RNA coded? and so on.-
 From an Inorganic to an Organic World 265

such a miraculous living being can seemingly still arise "by chance"
according to evolutionary thought.
The fact is that in spite of the presence of the very significant
technological advances which are available today, the possibility of
ensuring so many varied experimental conditions in the laboratory,
and the supply of all sorts of organic molecules, even from other liv-
ing beings, scientists have failed to make a cell, in all of its aspects.
Some evolutionists argue that RNA molecules, in the fashion
of "naked genes," might have been the first precursors of life. Since
the DNA molecule chain consists of two strands and has a more
unique structure than RNA, it becomes more feasible to start with
the idea that the RNA molecule chain, which contains only one
strand, formed on its own. On the other hand, questions about
how the first RNA molecule would ever have started "making its
own copy," and how programs and enzymes for complex activi-
ties-such as reproduction, metabolism and growth-were formed
simultaneously, by chance, again fail to be answered.
Another typical "way out" which serves the evolutionists' pre-
judgment about the origin oflife is viruses. Since they do not have
a metabolism nor the characteristic of being stimulated on their
own, viruses n1ay seem to be "nonliving.,, Upon entering a living
cell, they function and reproduce as parasites, using the enzymes of
the host cell. Thus, in order for vimses to function as Jiving beings,
they need a fully functional living cell which they can enter. So, we
are right back where we started. Furthermore, consider that these
"simple-looking" organisms, these viruses, also have a genetic sys-
tem which is composed of nucleic acids and proteins; and consider,
too, the weakness of human beings against the many diseases they
cause. Reflecting in this way, it becomes possible to understand
that viruses also have a very complex structure, even as single-celled
living organisms--one that cannot have formed by chance.
Concluding on this point, even though it has been repeatedly
stated that various organic molecules, such as viruses, proteins and
nucleic acids, cam1ot be formed on their own by chance, the claim
266 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

that "coincidence" and "chance" could form a living being has

always been brought to the table. However, there is another way of
proving that any kind of useful organic molecule cannot be formed
on its own by performing probabilistic calculations in which all
sorts of circumstances are accounted for. So, let us go ahead and
explain the impossibility of forming a living being by chance with
answers to the following questions.
Each living cell has the logic of an amazing program-a fearure
which is referred to as "irreducible complexit:v." Each of the organ-
elles of the cell is made up of particular molecules, in very precise
amounts, having a perfect arrangement and function. Let us trv to
understand the trouble which evolutionarY theory has with irreduc-
ible complexity by supposing, for an instant, that those molecules
were formed bv chance. If we look at the advances made in biochem-
istry, microbiology and cytology over the past fiftv years, the articles
and books written relating to the cell would be too numerous to fit
into most modem libraries. Every day, our knowledge about the cell
deepens and intensifies, and we are faced with increasingly interest-
ing results; however, when we rurn back and look behind, to see how
much progress we have made, we sometimes get the feeling that we
have "barely moved an inch." This is the same effect, in fact, that we
experience when we feel as small as a pebble as we get close to a
mountain that once looked so small from a distance-for the deeper
we go into the intricate functioning of cell, the dizzier we become.
We are astonished before the infinite knowledge and power that
manifests itself in this magnificent artwork, which demonstrates both
a conscious plan and exemplary outcomes.
Volumes of books could be written only to show how the idea
of cellular evolution contradicts basic reason and intelligence. When
we consider the biochemical processes of a human organism, in
which trillions of cells serve critical objectives in a consistently har-
monious way, we begin to witness and appreciate the spectacular
systems inside the cell.
 From an Inorganic 10 an Organic World 267

Focusing specifically on only one point, the well-known

American biochemist, Michael J. Behe, in his book, Danvin's Black
Box-which relates the impossibility of evolution with respect to
biochemistry and microbiology-clearly shows the molecular and
chemical dead-ends of evolutionists in detail. As a matter of fact,
every scientist who believes in the Creator could write many books
simply based on the valuable information he or she can gain from
that book, in which are featured many tvpical examples of irreduc-
ible complexity in common biochemical and microbiological events
which occur in our bodies and surroundings every single day. For
instance, consider the human eye; against the proven "irreducible
complexitv" of the eye, in terms of its molecular and biochemical
processes-which are "cloaks" of causes which describe the miracle
of sight through anatomical, histologic, physiological and embryo-
logical data-not a single advocate of evolution can offer a reason-
able or convincing explanation.
Claiming rhat amazing biochemical and microbiological pro-
cesses might have evolved gradually, in order-or that the "pack-
age" of such metabolic processes could have evolved in big jumps
somehow, based on what was needed-may seem like a pleasant
idea, but it is supported by neither the molecular structure of life
nor the principles of biology. While clearly explaining that delicate
parts, such as the fine structure of the flagellum or cilium, the per-
fect tail-like "motor" organelle which ensures that a unicellular
organism can be in motion-which includes considerations of the
complex fibers in the stmcture of these tail-like organelles, the
annuli, the hook-like projections, the mechanism for converting a
sliding motion to a bending motion, and sophisticated microtu-
bules-could be designed and composed only by vim1e of infinite
knowledge, Behe states that ciliates and flagellates, which carry
more than 200 proteins just on their tail-like organelles, obviously
disprove evolutionary theorv. Such a molecular machine simply
does not work unless all of the constituent parts are present; that is,
ciliary motion docs not occur if the microrubulcs, connectors and
268 Evolution: Science or Ideo/ow?

motors do not exist. Thus, we can cite the example of the tail-like
organelle of flagellum or cilium as something which is too complex
to have evolved from simpler predecessors and is at the same time
too complex to have arisen through chance mutations. 161
Another piece of evidence which Behe presents to explain and
substantiate the idea of irreducible complexity is the vital phenom-
enon of blood clotting, which can only be considered the artwork
of a Power with consciousness and infinite knowledge, and which
exhibits the importance of turning to biochemistry and molecular
biology for a correct understanding of the degree of refinement in
evidence in the type of processes which the blood goes through
before clotting, and the specific enzymes and factors which are
secreted at each phase, at precisely the right time, in exact amounts,
by particular cells-as if the cells and organelles themselves were
aware of how to behave when bleeding occurs. 162
Behe explains many other wonderful phenomena relating to
the cell in a very striking fashion, such as the movement of matter
in and out of the cell through particular channels in the cell mem·
brane; the functions of each organelle in the cytoplasm occurring as
part of a marvelous program; the motions of micron1bules and
fibers; the immune system's development of immunity against
microorganisms entering our bodies; and the impossibility of RNA
and DNA forming by chance.
All this information obtained from the microscopic world, then,
effectively voids the input of those who offer apparent and superficial
similarities-purportedly attained as "evidence" of evolution from
the fields of comparative anatomy and embryology.
 8

Probability Calculations
 PROBABILITY CALCULATIONS

T
he delicate regulation required for life to emerge and con-
tinue on Earth, the regulation which exists in the Milky
Way, and which includes not just the Earth but the Sun
and Moon, as well, has been the subject of much research. Accord-
ing to those studies, in order for any type of life to exist on a
planet, satellite, star or galaxy, the environment has to have cenain
attributes which are determined within very narrow parameters.
Let us mention them briefly. First, an insufficiency or excess of
any attribute can cause many life-threatening problems. A few
examples point to the critical importance of factors such as the type
of galaxy; the relative distance of supernova explosions, and their
frequency of occurrence; the other planets which comprise the
remainder of the system; the distance or closeness of stars to the
center of the galaxy; the number of stars in the planetary system
which give birth to planets, and their relative age, size, color, and
brightness; the surface gravity; the inclination of the orbital plane,
the relative eccentricity of the orbit; the inclination of the rota-
tional orbit, and the time needed for it to rotate on its own axis; the
age of the planet; the thickness of its crust; its magnetic field, the
rate of light reflected as a function of total light; the rate of inci-
dence of meteorite and comet impacts; the ratio of oxygen and
nitrogen in the atmosphere; the levels of carbon dioxide and water
vapor; the ratio of electrical discharges; the level of ozone; the
amount of oxygen; seismic activity; the ratio of oceans to conti-
nents; the distribution of continents on the sphere; the specific
272 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

minerals in the soil; and the forces of murual amaction between the
moon and planet. All these conditions had to be set to the most
ideal standard in order for the Earth to have become a suitable place
for living mechanisms.
Since everyone accepts that celestial bodies lack the willpower,
intelligence and consciousness to ensure this arrangement on their
own, there is no other possibility than to believe that they either
obtained their present position and composition by chance, or they
were created by the will of a Creator with infinite knowledge and
power. For this reason, evolutionists refer to the concepts of prob-
abiliry and coincidence, and they make these notions the basis of
their worldviews.
The fact that astonishing numbers which the mind cannot even
grasp are regularly presented by countless researchers in various
subjects-using mathematical theories and calculations related to the
srudy of probabilities-is ignored by the advocates of evolutionary
theory; in this way, events which are claimed be the outcomes of
probability and chance are often falsely pomayed as phenomena
which can occur very easily. However, the fact is that the probability
of the emergence of even the smallest artribute of any biological
being based on chance has a probability of zero, and this is clearly
seen if one just takes a brief look at a couple of examples of the sorts
of probability calculations which have been performed by research-
ers, some of whom believe in evolution, and some not.
Here, it is worth mentioning some of the many probability
srudies performed by Hoyle, Crick, Guye, Morowitz, Salisbury
and, most importantly, Coppedge, in order to examine the subject
matter in derail. Emerson Thomas Mo.\1ullen summarizes some of
the calculations arrived at by those scientists as follows:

I once entered the SpOJ-rs Illusrrated magazine sweepstakes. If I

had won, they would have paid me one million dollars, tax-free,
in twenty-five installments of $40,000. In the fine print, the
magazine said the odds of winning that year were one in 1.2 x
108 . This means, on the average, I would win once every 120
 Probability Calculations 273

million years. Let's say I happen w live for the nex-r 120 million
years and the con[cst is conducted each year. Nonnally I would
expect [O win just once. \\'hat do you think the chances are for
me to win the grand prize each and every year for the ne).t 120
million years? Sounds impossible? According to Sir Fred Hoyle
and others, I have a fan[astically better chance of winning the
Spm-rs Rlustrated Sweeps[akcs 120 million years in a row, than of
life forming on earrh by naturalistic means. Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe calcula[e an exttemelv low probability for the
formation of an enzyme: one in 1040·o6o- that's 10 with 40,000
zeros behind it Winning the Sports /Uustrated contest 120 million
years in a row has a probability of only 1.44 in 10 16 . 163 • 164

Thus, even if the entire Eanh were nothing but an "amino acid
soup," the occurrence of such an event would be vinually impos-
sible. Hoyle also gives the example of the Rubik's Cube: in order
for this "toy" to properly align itself on its own (so that each face
would be of only one color), even if it made a random move every
second, would take 1.35 trillion years-meaning that using chance
alone to execute this relatively simple task would require a duration
which is 300 times longer than the actual age of the Eanh. 165 So,
the real question is no longer whether or not evolution is possible-
bur whether or not it is probable. Even when taking into account
the fact that the universe is estimated to be 10 billion years old, Sir
Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), in his book, The Nature of the Universe,
declares that this still does not allow enough time for the chance
evolution of the nucleic codes for each of the 2,000 genes that
regulate the life processes of the more advanced mammals. He
points out that believing that chance occurrences of random muta-
tions, over a long period of time, accidentally created the complex
and orderly relationships which are expressed in genetic codes is
akin to believing in the probabiliry that "a tornado sweeping
through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materi-
als therein." In fact, Hoyle believed in the idea that life came from
space, from beyond Eanh ("panspermia"), and that evolution was
governed by "intelligent design"-and he vehemently opposed
Darwinism and the idea of biochemical evolution on Eanh. In turn,
274 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

Francis Crick ( 1916--2004), one of the discoverers of the double

helical structure of DNA-a man who did not believe in Creation-
also arrived at an extremely low probability for life to have origi-
nated naturally. 166
Based on the oversimplification of two kinds of atoms which are
ordered in proteins, Charles Eugene Guye ( 1866--1942), a well-
known Swiss physicist, found a probability for their arrangement of
2.2x10- 320 He also established that the probability of obtaining a
simple protein molecule from 40,000 atoms of five elements-like
carbon (C), hydrogen (H), oxygen (0), nitrogen (N), and sulfur
(S)-was 10 160 • 167 This was reported by Pierre Lecompte du Notiy
in Human Destiny (1947) as meaning that 10243 years would be
re<Juired for one single protein molecule to be formed by chance. 168
Yet, since the longest proposed ages for the universe and the Earth are
10 11 years and 5 billion years, respectively, and life re<Juires more than
one protein, what we face is nothing other than an impossibility.
The genetic programs of higher-order complex organisms con-
tain information e<Juivalent to a billion birs, or the letter se'luences of
a small library consisting of a thousand books. (Note that the infor-
mation in the genome of higher-order complex organisms is still not
fully known, though recent studies have shown that the human
genome contains more than a billion bits of information; however,
even if only one tenth of all DNA is messenger DNA, the problem
remains.) These genetic programs contain commands which trigger
the growth and development of billions of cells to form a complex
organism, and they also contain thousands of algorithms, as coded
forms, that specify and regulate specific commands with respect to
particular tissues and organs. According to Denton, even for a skep-
tic, in terms of reason alone, it is shameful to believe that those pro-
grams came into existence only by means of a chance process.
The advocates of chance evolution apply simple probabilistic
calculations, like tossing a coin or die, to the cell, organelles and
other organic molecules, starring from the formation of the sim-
plest protein-but they fall back on "time" when they are faced
 Probabi/il)' Calculations 275

with completely improbable numbers at the molecular level. How-

ever, the calculations which account for the ages of both the Earth
and the universe obviously preclude the use of "time" as a solution
to the problem of"evolution by chance," and thus show the failure
of arguments for evolution based on probabilistic calculations.
To demonstrate, let us consider the probability of the chance
occurrence of a protein, enzyme molecule, organelle, or cell, which
is small in the beginning. Further, let us suppose that it did happen
once that a living cell emerged by chance, like a "one-time lottery."
However, the subject matter is not limited to this, for advocates of
evolutionary theory argue that it is necessary to base the evolution
of all living beings-all of their tissues, organs, metabolic processes,
anatomical systems, and the entire being, in fact, perfect in all
aspects and started from a cell-upon the same concepts. Further,
according to them, the role of coincidence and chance is not limited
just to this-for all living ecosystems, every living-nonliving rela-
tionship, the entire Earth, the solar system, and the whole universe,
are presumed to have formed through such sequential chains of
chances. In short, they assume that all of life-from the human
brain, and its consequent humanity and civilization, to the uni-
verse--everything, in fact, is the "arr of chance.'' In such a world,
where everything is founded on chances and coincidences, would
there be any need for God, religion, the inner heart, or ethics?
In the event that the bottommost levels of hierarchical systems,
from atoms to galaxies, depend on chance, there is no doubt that
the uppermost levels would consequently be given up to nothing-
ness and dereliction. Thus, since the builcling stone of living organ-
isms is the cell, and the building block of the cell is protein mole-
cules, it is important to emphasize the probabilistic calculations of
whether or not a very simple protein molecule could ever really
form by chance.
Should the possibility of coincidence and chance forming
structures favorable to a particular purpose, according to a certain
plan, be analyzed with respect to the simplest molecular level, then
276 Evolulion: Science or Ideology?

making a decision about the relative chance of the "upper levels"

emerging, or not, would become easier. If we separate all the car-
bon, mcrgen, hydrogen and nitrogen atoms on Earth into appropri-
ate ratios in the most useful way we obtain 1041 groups. Admitting
that 30 quadrillion reactions would occur in each group, and work-
ing with a rapidity rate that would form 1024 distinct chains in one
year, then a total of 1065 chains would form in all amino acid
groups in one year. Now, assuming that this process had been
going on for 5 billion years, which is generally accepted as the age
of Earth, this would mean that 10 75 different chains would have
formed since the origins of the Earth. This number, at first glance,
might seem very big, so some might think that it would be possible
for one protein to form within this probability range. However, if
we dig into the structure of proteins in more detail, it will quickly
be seen that the calculation is actually not that simple.
In order to determine how manv different chains could form
from 20 amino acids on a protein molecule, each consisting of 400
amino acids on average, we would need to calculate the 400"' power
of20-that is, 10520 , with 520 zeroes following the number 10. That
is to say, a very large number of possible combinations would need
to be considered. Thus, the occurrence of only one useful protein
arising from these randomly sequenced chains would be one in 10240
(which is also the probability of writing a meaningful word of 400
letters using a 20-character alphabet). Now, assuming that all the
atoms on Earth make amino acids, the occurrence of 1075 distinct
chains having arisen since the beginning of the Earth has already
mentioned above. So, in order to find out how many useful protein
molecules would form among these many chains, we need to divide
the last two numbers, which gives us a result of 10" 165 .
Thus, there is no further need to perform the probability cal-
culations for a protein with 574 amino acids, as about 3 trillion
hemoglobins-which blind chance can clearly not make-are
formed in our bodies every second.
 Probability Calculations 277

Dr. Harold J. Morowitz, of Yale University, calculated that in

order for even the simplest living being to survive, it would need
239 different types of proteins. However, a living being so simple
is not known to exist today. Mycoplasma hominis (H 39}, known as
one of the smallest bacteria, has 600 kinds of proteins. So, could the
simplest living being, embodying such huge, complex molecules,
tmly be formed as a result of coincidence?
Earlier, the chance of even one useful protein being formed
using all of the appropriate atoms on Earth was calculated to be one
in 10 16s Similarly, when we think about the chance occurrence of
239 proteins forming separately, and then combining by chance to
form a complete living being, the probability reaches incomprehen-
sible levels. Without further drawing out this point, it can be stated
that the probability of a complete living being forming by chance is
the number arrived at by expressing one quadrillion to the power
of 9,975, that is, 10 119·701 . Morowitz, in his book, Enn;g:; Flow in
Biology, calculated the probability of chance fluctuations generating
sufficient energy for the bond formation that molecules need in a
living cell. Even with an ocean of the correct molecules, which are
necessary to make the simplest cell, rhe chance of their bonding
properly would be one in 10399•999 •86"- 169
Let us continue thinking of much simpler cases. Let us imagine
cutting 10 identical circles the size of a metal coin, on average, out
of cardboard; writing numbers from 1 to 10 on each coin, and then
putting all of them in a small bag. After mixing them properly, the
probability of pulling out on the first trial the circle on which the
number 1 was marked is 1/10, as all circles are identical and chosen
randomly. 1f one puts each circle back into the bag after it is pulled
out, the probability of drawing the numbers 1 and 2 successively is
1/100. Thus, if one intended to pull out all the numbers from 1 to
10 successively, and one were to assume that the simple process of
pulling out each circle takes only 1 second, then in order to succeed
with a 100% guarantee, this person would have to be ready to work
on this activity for 317 years, day and night without stopping-
278 El•ollllion: Science or Ideology?

clearly an unreasonable timeframe for completion. That is because

the probability of randomly pulling out the numbers from I to 10,
one after another, is as small as l in lx10 10 • Yet if it is so difficult
to obtain a sequence consisting of only ten clements, then forming
protein chains composed of thousands of amino acids in the same
manner, by chance, would surely be much more difficult- impos-
sible, indeed.
Let's leave the probability of the formation of such a protein
molecule by chance aside for a moment. If we examine the proba-
bility of typing a two-word phrase, "fossil records," consisting of
14 characters (13 letters and I space character), b,· chance, a very
different picture will appear. The probability of randomly typing
the phrase, "fossil records," using a 27-letter alphabet (26 letters
and a space character), is about l in 109 trillion. Analogous to the
calculation of a physics professor at Yale University, William R.
Bennett, if a person were to type one random character per second
using an alphabet of 27 characters, it would take approximatclv
48.5 billion years for him to type "fossil records" only once.
Now, let us go further and suppose that all of the carbon, nitro-
gen, mcygen, hydrogen and sulphur atoms-which are found on the
Earth's crust, in water, in the air, and in the structure of amino
acids-have already formed the amino acids completely. That is, tak-
ing the number of all of the atoms of these elements into account,
1041 possible amino acid units, each containing sufficient amounts of
20 different amino acid types, would be available for reactions to
make protein. In living cells, if we accept the duration of protein
synthesis in each unit to be 5 seconds, on average, then each unit
could make 6,372,000, which would then ,-ield 6.3xl047 amino acid
chains in a year, from those 1041 units. Also, suppose that the entire
Earth-essentially, a huge laboratory-started to function right after
the world was created, and that it had been fully operational lor 5
billion years. In this case, based on the calculations just mentioned, a
total of 3.15xl0; 7 amino acid polymers would have been synthesized
as a result of 5 billion years of hard work.
 Probabiliry Calculations 279

Now, let us consider, too, that the two basic characteristics

which determine the specific kinds of proteins which result from
synthesis are the types of amino acids they contain, and the order
of amino acids on the chain (even if they are of the same sort).
Thus, if Xn represents each amino acid, then a protein consisting of
the amino acid chain, X1-X,-X,-X., ... X10," is said to carry distinctive
features compared to a protein which is made up of the chain,
X2-X 1-X,-X., .... X100 , and so on. Earlier, when first defining the con-
cept of a «protein," it was stated that a molecule consisting of at
least l 00 amino acids, which functions as a structural element,
enzyme, hormone, or nucleoprotein, could be considered to be a
protein; but amino acid chains which do not play a role in the
structure of any cell or contribute tO any kind of regulatory process,
no matter how long they are, cannot be counted as proteins. So,
how many of the 3.15xl057 amino acid chains generated by our
calculations actually have those characteristics?
In a srudy performed at «The Research Center for Probabilistic
Calculations in Biology," in the US, words consisting of an increas-
ing number of lctters-2, 3, 4, 5, ... ,one after another- were writ-
ten by randomly choosing letters from the alphabet. Then, the
meaningful words which resulted were counted, one by one, and
their sum was compared with the total number of outcomes-both
meaningful and nonsense words-to reach a statistical conclusion:
the probability of a meaningful word occurring as the result of
random draws from a 20-letter «amino acid alphabet"-that is, the
odds of obtaining a protein that could actually take part in a struc-
ture or function-wasP= (l/4)", where Pis the probability of the
chance occurrence of the protein, and n is the number of amino
acids in a gi,·cn protein.
Thus, the probability of a protein chain containing a small
number of amino acids-for example, 100--forming by chance
would be defined by the equation, P = (l/4) 100, yielding one in
6.22xl061 • Then, to calculate how many such protein molecules
would have formed over 5 billion years, the number 3.2xl057 would
280 Evollllion: Science or Ideology?

have to be divided bv 6.22x1061 The result ts approximately

0.00005-meaning that the chance formation of even only one pro-
tein molemle which would be morphological]\- or functionally use-
ful is impossible (it has a zero probability), and this can be stated
with mathematical cenainty.
Alexander G. Cairns-Smith, of Glasgow University, describes
this zero probability in the following comment: "If the entire world
was full of amino acids 5 billion vears back, and there was nothing
else present, and even if those amino acids made 10 bonds every
second, the probability of occurrence of only one protein molecule,
for instance, the probability of only one insulin molecule, forming
by chance would be as small as zero." 170 The following example, by
George Gamow, clarifies the subject even more: Get a glass of
water and put it on vour table. Have you ever thought about how
this refreshing water could be a source of danger at all? The H 20
molecules composing water are always in motion, just like all other
fluid molecules. Each molecule may tend to move in any direction
in a disorderly manner (indeed this disorder is such an order that
we have not been able successful in measuring it). For those mol-
ecules (x), each moving in various directions, it is probable as
P= 1/10x for all of them to stan going in the same direction. For
instance, if all of the water molecules in this glass move upward by
chance, the water will become faster than a missile, while it's stand-
ing still on our table, and it will jump up toward the ceiling like a
bullet. Mathematically, even the occurrence of this is more probable
than the formation of only one protein molecule by chance; so far,
no one has ever happened to observe such a case that our reason-
ing denies, and as long as the world exists, no one will ever see
it.l71

A similar calculation could be done for a small protein consist-

ing of 100 amino acids. Those 100 amino acids could be sequenced
by chance in 10 158 different ways, with only one of those ways
yielding the required protein molecule. If all 1080 atoms in the uni-
verse could be used to form a protein molecule having 100 amino
 Probability Ca/culmions 281

acids, then 1078 groups of 100 units could emerge at any rime. Each
time, if the combination we obtained were nor the desired one,
then we would simply put all 100 amino acids we drew "back into
rhe bag," as ir were, and rhen draw 100 successive amino acids once
again. Supposing rhar we made one billion ( 10 9 ) draws in a single
second, and taking rhe age of the universe ro be 30 billion years
(10 18 seconds), the number of these types of combinations would
reach 10 105 ( 10 78 x I 0 9 x 1078 ). This means that the chance of one
of those proteins being rhe desired one is a minuscule number-!
in 1053 (10 158(10 105 ). However, most proteins present in living
organisms actually consist of more than 400 amino acids, reducing
the odds even further. 172
James F. Coppedge, in his book, Evolution: Possible or Impossible?,
gives the broadest infonnation about probabilistic calculations. 173
Critical information, given as quotations by researchers, such as Har-
old J. Morowitz, in Chapters 1, 4 and 6 of that book, under the
subtitle, "Molecular Bwlogy and the Laws of Chance in Nontechnical
Language,n attributes the notions of chance, coincidence, and "acci-
dents" to a completely invalid hisrorical argument. Coppedge also
did several probabilistic calculations, all showing the extreme improb-
ability of life occurring by chance. According ro him, in order for
protein formation to occur in primordial Earth's conditions, where
such formation was exrremelv unlikely to happen in the first place-
even if we suppose that all the conditions were suitable, such as the
rate of reactions forming amino acid chains being one-third of a ten-
million-billionth of a second (note that this concession means that
150 thousand trillion amino acids could actually be made in a single
second at a normal speed), we arrive at a probability value of I in
I 0287 for one protein forming from a chance sequence of amino
acids. For the minimum set of 239 protein molecules to have even
the smallest theoretical life, the probability of chance formation is 1
in 10 119·879 Surely, this defines the impossible.
In turn, according to Frank B. Salisbury's calculation, the
probability of the chance formation of a protein composed of 1,500
282 Emlution: Science or Ideology?

amino acids is 1 in 10450 . If a trial were performed in a billionth of

a second, and if 1080 (the number of atoms in the universe) amino
acids were entered into this trial; and third, if we assumed this pro-
cess to be going on for 30 billion years (10 18 seconds)-then the
total number of successful trials over time would be 10 107• That is
clearly a much smaller result than 10450174
Salisbury also clearly poinrs out that genes appear to be too
unique to have occurred by chance. In his opinion, even if genes
had managed to come into existence by chance, a certain enzyme
would have been needed at some point. The evolutionists claim that
this early enzyme appeared as a result of chance mutations in exist-
ing genes. Yet performing a calculation for genes to form by
chance, Salisbury arrives at a conclusion that will make the reader
smile: if we generously assume the number of planets to be 1020 ,
and we further assume that each is replete with oceans consisting of
small DNA genes of 1,000 nucleotides in length, which replicate a
million times a second, with a mutation occurring each time, the
odds of getting the desired result is 1 in 10415 . According to him,
then, it is simply too improbable that natural selection and chance
could have formed life if the Earth is only 4 billion (4 x 106 ) years
old, and he deems that this poses a real dilemma since natural selec-
tion and chance need something to operate on.
On the probabilistic calculation of the occurrence of life by
chance, Yocke\' states that a small polypeptide molecule containing
49 amino acids could emerge from among the amino acids that
have biological activity in pure water in 109 years. 175 However,
even the single cell, which could be a model for the simplest hypo-
thetical living being has 256 proteins.
Insulin protein, one of the smallest protein molecules, is com-
posed of; I amino acids and has a molecular weight of about 6,000
Da. It is a very unportant hormone for the regulation of glucose
utilization in the body. To calculate the chance occurrence of such
an orderly chain, arranged by links between amino acids at particu-
lar points, arising to form the insulin protein, we need to calculate
 Probability Calculations 283

the huge number of 20 51 • The number obtained would be so big

that it could not tit into billions of multiples of the lifetime of the
universe. In turn, the proinsulin molecule, which actually forms
insulin and is more complex than insulin, is composed of varying
numbers of amino acids, from 8I to 86, in various groups of ani-
mals. Supposing that a particular proinsulin molecule had 84 amino
acids on average. the probability of the chance occurrence of one
proinsulin molecule being made from 20 types of amino acids
would be I in 20" or I 0 109 . Thus, though reading this nwnbcr,
with I09 zeroes, is not C<IS)', it is even harder to claim that proinsu-
lin can be formed bv chance.
As innumerable experiments performed so far indicate, life
does not occur spontaneously anywhere. The mathematical
approach, which uses probabilistic calculations, also eliminates the
possibilirv of life having arisen by chance, either terrestrially or
extraterrestrially. This leaves only the one option: the Creator. In
other words, life had to be created by a One Who has infinite
knowledge and power to design and organize everything for every
single creature, from atoms and cells to galaxies. Unfortunately,
even with the slightest probabilities of chance occurrences, there
will always be those who say that such improbable events still have
a chance of occurring, no matter how slim the odds.
Darwin believed that given enough time, small changes accwnu-
lating over time could account for the transformation of one species
into another. However, since all of those changes in living mecha-
nisms would be chance occurrences, without a purpose or goal, could
one reasonably expect that they could be charged with the formation
of all of the highly complex, well-ordered, precisely functioning
organisms that make up the plant and animal kingdoms? Darwin
staked his professional reputation on this very expectation. He pro-
claimed that it was all a matter of probability. Accoriling to evolu-
tionaf)' thinking, the principles of probabilistic calculations c:umot
preclude a possibility from occurring. Even for the most reasonable
evolutionists, then, the chance occurrence of a thing always exists,
284 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

despite the fact that it has never happened in the past, and that the
probability of it occurring in the furure is statisticalh· improbable.
Yet, according to probability theory, although the chance of getting
"heads', every time in one million tin1es a coin is tossed up is exrreme-
ly tiny, it is deemed possible, statistically speaking.
Furthermore, Darwinists continue to argue that time is on
their side. They point to the age of the Earth, five billion years, and
claim that it is surely a sufficient length of time for chance muta-
tions to have added up to significant changes. No one would deny
that 5 billion years is a long stretch of time, but is it long enough
to account for the chance evolution of the whole complex of life, in
all its myriad forms? Mathematicians would answer this question
with an unequivocal, "No!" Some of the \\'orld's greatest mathema-
ticians, in fact, have deliberated on and pla\'Cd with evolutionary
claims, attempting to match time spans to mutation frequencies
and the formation of organized living S\'Stems; but in the end, they
always end such endeavors bv throwing up their hands in complete
disbelief of evolution. According to all their calculations, the statis-
tical probability that ordered life emerged from chance occurrence
and accidental arrangements of mutations is virrually zero. In the
world of statistics, events whose probability lies within the range of
l/10 30 to 1/1050 arc deemed impossible.
Let us examine a simple single-celled organism and take it as a
gauge. A living cell is an astonishinglv complex mechanism consist-
ing of thousands of organelles and myriads of diverse chemicals, all
finely organized and functioning in a murually beneficial and
orderly fashion.
Even the staunch advocate of evolution, Carl Sagan, points out
that in terms of information alone, it is estimated that a one-cell
bacterium of Escherichia coli contains one trillion byres of informa-
tion. About 100 molecules are synthesized by enzymes every sec-
ond, and they become divisible in 10 minutes. It has been esti-
mated that this amount could be compared to 100 million pages of
Encyclopedia Britannica. 176
 Probability Calculations 285

Jeremy Rifkin mentions that even a tiny, one-cell organism is

certainly something to contend with, and after explaining Simp-
son's opinion in a way which makes the portion of the evolutionary
trip leading up to the simplest one-cell living mechanism seem as
impressive as the rest of the evolutionary journey combined 1, he
reports that above the level of the virus, the simplest fully living
unit is almost incredibly complex. It has become commonplace to
speak of evolution from amoeba to man, as if the amoeba were the
simple beginning of the process. On the contrary, if, as must almost
necessarily be true, life arose as a simple molecular system, the pro-
gression from this state to that of the amoeba is at least as great as
from amoeba to man. 177
Let's follow Rifkin's observations a little further:
Apparently, the mathematical odds more than agree with
Simpson's analyses. In fact, according to the odds, the one-cell
organism is so complex that the likelihood of its coming togeth-
er by sheer accident and chance is compmed to be
around1/1078436 . Remember, nonpossibiliry, according to the
scatisticians, is found in the range of 1/1030 to 1/10 50 . Needless
to say, the odds of a single-cell organism ever occurring by
chance mutations are so far out of the ball park as to be unwor-
thy of even being considered on a statistical basis. \Vhen one
moves from the single-cell organism to higher, even more com-
plex forms of life, the statistical probability shifts from ridicu-
lous m preposterous. Huxley, for example, computed the prob-
ability of the emergence of the horse as one in 10 3•000·000 .
Albert Szem-Gyorgyi, a Nobel prizewinning biochemist, says
he can no longer buy the Darwinian interpretation of evolution.
Regarding the supposition that random mmations over time do
indeed account for the accidental formation of all living things,
Szcnr-Gyorgyi says that he simply cannot accept, "the usual
answer ... that there was plenty of time to try everything." This
eminent scientist admits: "I could never accept this answer.
Random shuttling of bricks will never build a castle or Greek
temple, however long the available time."
A conference was convened at the Wister Institute of
Anatomy and Biology in Philadelphia to address the question of
the mathematical probability of evolutionary theory. In atten-
286 Emlution: Science or Ideology?

dance were some of the world's prominent mathematicians and

biologists. The latter group was not pleased with what the for-
mer group had to say. After making all their computations, the
mathematicians concluded that there was not enough time in
the entire universe to account for the srarisrical probability of
life forming spontaneously by chance mutation.
As to whether chance mutations, working through narural
selection, can, over a sufficienc period of time, produce complex
living systems, computer scientist Dr. Marcel Schutzenbcrgcr,
of the University of Paris, concludes: "We belie,·e that it is not
conceivable. In fact if we try to simulate such a situation by
making changes randomly at the [)J>Ographic level ... on com-
puter forograms we find that we have no chance (i.e. less than
1/10 1• 00 ) even to sec what rl1e modified program would com-
pute; it ju<>t jams. It is our contention that if "random,. is given
a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of
view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and thar
an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the dis·
covery and elucidation of new natural laws.,.
The findings of the madtematicians were upsetting. After all,
evolutionary doctrine owes its very existence to probability thea·
ry. For nearly a ccnrury, biologists have been preaching that
random mutations can accowu for meaningful strucrural organi·
zation and reorganization over a long period of time; and they
have used the notion of statistical probability to make their case.
Now some of the world's leading mathematicians say there just
isn't enough time, statistically speaking, to accoum for complex
sophisticated living systems by the accidental shifting and rear-
rangement of genetic mutations. Their conclusion serves well as
both a summation of, and a final epitaph to, the neo·Darwinian
synthesis: "lbus, to conclude, we believe that there is a consider·
able gap in the nco· Darwinian theory of evolution, and we
believe this gap to be of such a narure that it cannot be bridged
WI'th'm th e current concepnon. o f b'10Iogy. "178
 9

Toward a Model of Creation

 TOWARD A MODEL OF CREATION

hether conditional or open to different alternatives,

W our opinion-arrived at by taking all of the ideas in the

field of study imo consideration, and depending on the
present information or dara---<loes nor need to harm our connec-
tion with our Creator. The poinrs on which the present positive
sciences shed light might actually describe the creation process of
the universe, the Milky Way and the Earth very closely----<>r they
might not exactly. The importanr thing is to comprehend that those
processes are indeed a "cloak" for our Creator's knowledge and
power, in that refinement, perfection and greatness are all abun-
dantly evident in the creation mechanism.
According to modern knowledge and scientific advances, if the
phenomenon we call "life" is indeed only present on Earth, then we
could say char the last to be created of all the dynamic pieces (sub-
systems) of our planer is the biosphere. The preparation of Earth in
this way, to make it suitable for life, moving step by step through
all the stages mentioned above, starting from the Big Bang-just
like completing an elaborate piece of art very slowly from hundreds
of building blocks-is judged possible only as the manifestation of
infinite knowledge and power. Our estimations-which use some
information, ro obtain some clues, for some of the processes-are
merely our attempts ro shed light on the chain of causes which veil
the divine creation process. In this way, thinking about the various
possible ways by which creation might have happened, using some
of the presently available evidence-without exceeding our limits of
290 Evolurion: Science or Jdeolog\·?

understanding before God's inestimable act of creation-should

only cause a believer to strengthen his or her faith in God. However,
saying that the creation certainly happened in this way would defi-
nitely be both incorrect and presumptuous. It is not difficult for our
Lord, in His infinite knowledge and power, to exhibit different
ways of creation that no one could ever have thought of. A human
being, with only limited knowledge and curiosity for research, is
able to discover but some clues in the reflections of reality hidden
behind hundreds of veils. Those discoveries lead humanity nor to a
life phenomenon that is a mere game of chance-but to the Creator,
Who has Infinite Mercy and Compassion.
If God wills, He can create or destroy all of creation in an
instant. Both creation and eradication are just as easy (to the same
degree) for Him; nothing is beyond His knowledge and power. No
believer has a right to object, in any event, as He makes use of His
property according to His will. However, since this world is a place
to test human beings, God uses causes in both processes-<:reation
and destruction-as a veil to His greatness and magnificence. He
has provided some principles and laws for us to use in searching to
uncover the mysteries of creation, thereby allowing us to make con-
nections between the cause and effect relations of certain events. In
addition, God allows us and wills for us to look into the universe,
so that we may think about creation and find Him through the
benefit of our talents, which He has given us, such as intelligence
and curiosity.
If He had willed, He could have destroyed everything in a
period of time as shan as the blink of an eye-and He could have
recreated everything in the exactly same way again. Also, He could
have written His name in the stars, and He could have clearly
stamped His name on the faces of everyone. However, in that case,
everyone would have to believe in God-as the truth of the test of
this life reveals-and such faith would not be as worthy, since the
human being's limited willpower would have no bearing, and we
would simply be forced to believe.
 Toward a Model of Creation 291

However, what is most worthy before God is for human

beings to perceive the stamp of creation which is hidden behind
material causes by observing the perfection, harmony and beauty of
creatures--<>rnamented with such fine peculiarities and talents-
using the intelligence and the limited willpower given to them.
In other words, the cause and eftecr chain which connects the
creation process, as we try to discover its mysteries through various
fields of study, was only placed there for the benefit of our will-
power and choice-not to deny ir.
Therefore, when we consider the aspects of the subject matter
which are commonly accepted today-starting from the Big Bang
and mming through the phases which were explained briefly above-
we should keep in mind that each of the astrophysical and physico-
chemical processes which we have been able to determine relating to
the creation processes of atoms, tnolerules, galaxies, supernovas,
suns, stars, the Milky Way galaxy, the solar system, and the Earth all
veil the divine act of creation. Attributing the creation process com-
pletely to cause and effect relationships (i.e., absolute determinism)
is totally different from seeing the Ever-Able Artist Who applies His
unlimited willpower to generate causes as veils over His splendor and
magnificence. Instead of accepting the laws which are present in the
universe from a strictly deterministic point of view, one should keep
in mind that opening a door to the human intellect-and so not
rejecting completely the phenomena which are linked to causal rela-
tionships-is a necessity of our being tested in this life. In other
words, it is sometimes possible for humans slightly and partially to
lifr this veil of causes, with our limited mind and curiosity, to see a
determinism which is dependent on conditions. We may even make
circumscribed interventions in some key processes from time to time,
as a necessary concomitant of the vicegerency position given to
humankind (sometimes ha,~ng to endure the results of our own
interventions, as in cloning and playing with the genes of living
organisms without having reflected sufficiently deeply first).
292 Evolution: Science or Jdeolo[!J-'?

Certain phases in the earth's being made a suitable place for life
may have had similarities with evolutionist arguments; for "great
minds think alike." Nevertheless, a process that has been set forth
with a detailed plan and delicate calculations in accordance with the
preferences of the Creator's infinite knowledge and willpower
rejects chance completely. The creation of human beings and ani-
mals had to be preceded by the creation of the atmosphere and
water. The creation of such a magnificent and marvelous molecule
as chlorophyll can be estimated, as can the presence of free oxygen
in the atmosphere. While the creation of the chlorophyll molecule
itself required a very significant source of energy, the Sun, to be
present in order to serve life, there was no opportunity for the Sun's
radiation to be used in any synthesis reaction before the creation of
chlorophyll. Nonetheless, infinite knowledge and power is essential
in order for the chlorophyll molecule to be given in the service of
life as an amazing energy transformer. This is because no other kind
of power, possibiliry, chance, or nature could have formed chloro-
phyll as such a perfect and unique structure.
Metabolic processes might have been changed by the creation of
aerobic respiration which released sixteen times more energy than
fermentation (for example, the "Pasteur effect" might have started
with l% oxygen compared to the present ratio). Two different direc-
tions for creation could have been anticipated as a result of the initia-
tion of respiration as either a heterotroph (a "consumer" of carbona-
ceous organic compounds) from the animal kingdom, or as an
autotroph (a "producer" of carbonaceous organic compounds which
uses sunlight and consumes minerals) from the plant kingdom. On
the other hand, when it is logically considered, the creation of plants,
which are given the ability to synthesize their own food in advance
(by means of the presence of chlorophyll) should come first, and then
the creation of animals that are in need of plants because they cannot
synthesize their own food should follow.
From this point of view alone, molecular oxygen could be con-
sidered to be the basis of life. And yet, it is not. Molecular oxygen is
 Toward a Model ofCrealion 293

only useful to a metabolism that uses a great amount of oxygen (like

the oxidation of pyruvate, which is a product of the breakdown of
glucose). Conversely, however, molecular oxygen is also a poison for
all organisms, which do not have the protective enzymes required to
reduce the effects of the damaging waste products. This means that
organisms which are described as '~primitive)) by some scientists acru-
allv represent amazing and very complex biochemical laboratories.
For this reason, we can conclude that the essential considerations of
many stages (including the random synthesis of the first molecules,
the formation of coacervates, and then of the first molecules), which
are supposed to come one after the other according to evolutionary
theory, remain clouded and hypothetical.

IF THERE Is A WoRK OF ART,

THEN THERE Is AN ARTIST
Some scientists believe that the explanation of the universe and life
should be based solely on natural factors. However, the foundation
of this belief is a preconception of the universe and life as being the
production of merely physical powers. But what if this was not
actually the case? Even when we see a pair of eyeglasses, we can
make a judgment that they are not the product of physical powers
only; rather, they are made by an intelligent and skillful optician.
Nonetheless, life is thousands of times more complex than a pair of
eyeglasses. Thus, we come to the conclusion that life has to be cre-
ated by an intelligent and talented Power. Here, the crucial require-
ment is to succeed in evaluating the scientific evidence without
prejudgments, as far as possible. However, Darwinists argue that
science cannot acknowledge a supernatural power-though the
majority of scientists, in fact, accepted a creating power, God, until
the middle of the nineteenth century. It seems that the claim that
science has to be materialistic arose after Darwin, but this claim is
increasingly contradicted by scientific evidence. Undoubtedly, the
reason why a field of science like biology has been distorted and
294 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

made an instrument of materialism is that it arrives at a common

point with Marxist and atheistic views, since evolutionists, Marxists
and atheists all look at the subject matter (biology) through ideo-
logical eyeglasses, and that ideology-which reflects both the fun-
damental thinking of certain interest groups and their own world-
view-is made to appear strong through intense propaganda in the
mass media which supports them.
One of the most important reasons whv evolution spread so
rapidly as an idea for 150 years is that evolutionisLs were able to sav
whatever they wanted, in the absence of rivals, until about fifry years
ago; strong voices opposed to evolutionary scenarios did not emerge
for almost a hundred years. In particular, ideas like "social Darwinism"
provided opportunities for applying evolutionary notions to society,
and scientists who believed in the Creator were psychologically
oppressed or effectively silenced so that they would not, and could
not, speak out against findings reported in science magazines. In
some countries, like Turkey, they were directlv suppressed through
harsh policies-all of which prepared an ideal environment for evo-
lutionary theory to spread easily. Another important factor which
made the evolutionists' job easier, and allowed evolutionary theory to
gain wide acceptance, was that in the long-standing struggle of con-
tradictions between science and religion in the West, Christianity had
not been sufficiently able to withstand cliscoveries and debate, and
thus scientists had been forced to keep their distance from the
Church, essentially since the Middle Ages.
On the other hand, the very firm tenets of Islam concerning the
sciences do not give the opportunity for controversy, or conflict,
between science and religion. However, as a result of those studying
religion simply abandoning the sciences, and those studying the sci-
ences being deprived of religious education, there did occur an arti-
ficial separation between science and religion, even in Islam, and
enmity arose as a result. This situation was utilized expertly by atheist
and materialist special interest groups who sought to dominate the
education system. There was even intense propaganda sponsored by
 Toward a Model of Creation 295

individuals of a certain mentality which aimed to get people to asso-

ciate completely negative and inverted images-such as consider-
ations of superstition, bigotry, fanaticism, and reactionism-with
religion. In the absence of scientists who were knowledgeable both
in the sciences and religion-and given that those who were knowl-
edgeable in both fields were often overwhelmed by the mass media's
promotion of evolutionist propaganda-the stage was set for advo-
cates to present evolution as if it were a proven science. Ultimately,
science should not have been used to render this materialistic inter-
pretation of life, but rather, to provide a true explanation of it. Some
people's philosophical persuasions were disturbed, but only abso-
lutely true e\~dence should be followed, and the information coming
from religious sources should never be approached in such a way as
to reject it with prejudice.
Today, if you meet with ordinary people and discuss their ideas
about evolution, you will see that the majority of them do not
believe in it. However, many of them do not have real knowledge
about science, and they rely on traditional cultural and religious
teachings for their worldview. Conversely, the majority of evolu-
tionists have acquired their worldview after a certain level of educa-
tion caused a big rupture in their belief systems. However, it should
actually be totally the opposite, for science education should bring
people to faith-not away from it-and it should teach us to read
the book of the universe correctly. Yet, reversing this picture will
only be possible through the efforts of a new generation of young
people, who will give their utmost efforts to making science and
religion embrace each other, and who will, with the best of inten-
tions, succeed in uniting their minds and souls.
In many ways, this emerging point of view, regarding the need
to unite science and faith, which has been brought about by both
the subject of evolution and general conditions around the world-
and which is parallel to a similar revival in the west-is permeating
Muslim countries like Turkey at this time in history. Those who
unfairly blame Muslims for being unprogressive and "enemies of
296 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

science, are now themselves beginning to seem "unprogressive and

bigoted." In fact, except for some strict atheists, many scientists in
the west are now actively questioning Darwinism and the general
foundations of evolutionary theory. Thev might not be able to
bring out supportive scientific evidence from the Bible, but the\'
shake evolutionary theory at its roots by means of verv strong sci-
entific and mathematical evidence, and we can say that they have at
least partially defeated evolutionary dogma. The biggest advantage
which Muslims have in this regard is that the divine revelation
which Muslims follow, the Holy Qur'an, is uncorrupted. Should
scientists who currently keep themselves awav from this amazing
resource, the Qur'an-the interpreter of the book of universe-
actually approach its verses concerning creation with reason, and
without prejudice, they would indeed arrive at ever more critical
conclusions, and even wider-reaching opinions.
As a matter of fact, the struggle between belief and disbelief has
been going on since the first human being emerged, and it will
continue until doomsday. Therefore, no matter what one proposes
as evidence, or what type of logical explanations one offers, or how
many exemplary phenomena one shows to those who take to the
road in the name of denying God- the choice of belief versus
unbelief being the essence of our test here in this world-some will
always find a way to embrace disbelief. We cannot avoid this, and
we also cannot ignore the reality that the subject matter of evolu-
tion has a dimension which connects with predestiny, so that our
desire to search for Truth in this field of discovery is itself only
inspired by God. Thus, even though we can clearly prove a divine
origin for life, with countless forms of evidence, God's letting
people perceive Him in their hearts only occurs as He ordains. Our
duty, then, is only to put out for everyone to see clearly the distor-
tions of science introduced to the public in the name of unbelief in
God. In democratic systems, everyone has the freedom to stand up
for all kinds of thoughts, to take these up serioush·, and to explain
them to others. So we also have a right, the most narural right, to
 Toward a Model of Creation 297

mention our belief in God upon finding an opponunity to do so.

We showed in various ways above how impositions in the name of
science became instruments of distortion, forgery, and misinterpre·
ration. Today, evolutionists have reached a point where they have
started hardening the debate, as they see that their place on center·
stage is.disappearing, and the numbers of adherents to their ideo!·
ogy is gradually decreasing. In some countries, like Turkey, to
extend the example of my own background experience, evolution·
ists have adopted a particular stance, in vinually every scientific
subject, which effectively obstructs the rights of their opponents.
However, in the wake of recent technological advances in many
countries, particularly in the US, and the effect of the Internet,
which distributes without boundaries all kinds of information to
anyone who cares to find it, all indicators are that the evolutionist
position will slowly weaken.
This docs not mean, however, that evolution as a concept will
entirely vanish or that it will become completely irrelevant. There
will always be adherents and believers in evolution as dogma, as a
belief system, because if they are as atheists or materialists, all
humans need to respond to the search inside themselves, and to
connect to some kind of faith in something. Thus, even if it is not
fully satisfying, many people will choose to believe in evolution,
and so to experience the freedom of deception in lieu of the duty to
worship God.
Of course, the notables and followers of evolution will con-
tinue to evaluate all types of discoveries and new findings in biol-
ogy from their own perspective. They will feel obliged to find some
rationalization in each new discovery, such as the Human Genome
Project, stem cell treatment methods, and generic improvement and
treatment techniques. Actually, they should not be blamed for
upholding a worldvicw in which every event is witnessed as a basic
reflection of their beliefs. For just as those who believe in God see
the manifestations of the names of God on the wing of an insect
and in the eye of a burterllv, evolutionists look for evolutionary
298 EvoJulion: Science or Jdeologr?

mechanisms in the very same entities, and make their interpreta-

tions accordingly.
The important thing is not to distort science and not to lie. The
right of interpretation is surely a necessity, and privilege, of democ-
racy and independence. Up to now, the advocates of evolutionary
theory have used this freedom in all ways, while they have accused
those who believe in creation of being unscientific and reactionary.
They are not even able to tolerate the teaching of both systems of
thought together in schools, for they insist that evolution is "scien-
tific," and they demand that the teaching of creation be cancelled
entirely so that evolution can be taught exclusively.
Of course, in order for their demands to be satisfied, they would
obviously first have to clarify the definition of"scientific;" then, they
would have to answer the questions raised above, one by one.
In fact, the biggest problem with Darwinism is that it sees a
perfect universe and wonderful ecosystems, and the entire world of
living beings, as the work of blind chance. Yet a belief system con-
ditioned by a lack of supervision, purpose, and use, which is essen-
tially a wild, brutal struggle, as opposed to a place of wisdom,
meaning, planning, and beauty upon all creatures, should be ready
to state outright what, exactly, it offers humanity.
Proponents should also explain in terms of biology how an
organ (like a fin, wing, heart, kidney, and so on), never seen before
and without a protorype, somehow emerged in a group of animals
at the exact right place and in the most ideal way; where were their
plans and projects drawn; who wished it to be formed in such a
fashion. They would also have to answer the question about which
biochemist's instructions these perfect cells, each operating like a
factory, would be following in their functioning.
It is important to note that Darwinism may address the issue
of how biological structures already existing might have undergone
some small changes; for example, it can propose an explanation for
how the small differences in the beaks of finches on the Galapagos
Islands first appeared. But questions about how those birds came
 Toward a Model of Creation 299

into existence in the first place; or about how sophisticated features,

such as the feathers and the wings of these birds, have assumed
their present forms; or about how really intricate, delicate organs
and systems, where countless components work harmoniously, like
in the operation of the brain and eye, and in blood clotting, came
to existence-none of these can be answered by Darwinism, as each
of these entails such complexity that the organ, feature, or system
as a whole can only function when even• component is fully opera-
tional and free of defects. The most logical way of explaining the
origin of those organs and functions is to acknowledge the inter-
vention of a supernatural Creator Who is conscious and Who has
infinite knowledge and power, and evolutionists will never be able
to "get rid of this trouble."
In the past, prior to many scientific developments and revolu-
tions, certain fanatics insistently supported outdated theories in a
similar fashion. But, after some time, their mistaken notions col-
lapsed in the face of the increasingly undeniable evidence which was
proposed by more objective scientists. In a similar manner, the
evolutionary idea is bound to capitulate before the overwhelming
and convincing discoveries of scientists whose objectivity is rooted
in the fact that their hearts and minds are united, individuals who
can read the book of universe externally, through meticulous obser-
vation, and internally, through sincere contemplation and whose
intentions and actions are therefore clear and unobstructed.
On the other hand, the growing number of individuals who
successfully combine science and faith in God will not mean that we
will see an end to the conflict between belief and disbelief. Having
started with the first human being, this struggle will go on until
doomsday. Even if Darwinism were fully abandoned today, we
should expect another ideology, philosophical school or world-
view-wrapped up as a "scientific taboo"-to be introduced to the
public in the name of denial and unbelief.
Our efforts to disproye evolution are not rooted in a rejection
of the materialistic and atheistic worldview that the evolurionan·
300 Evolution: Science or Ideology"

idea aims to bring about; rather, it is because of the fact that evolu-
tion has been argued to be "a proven law," and "a truth that has to
be believed." Yet in highlighting their own beliefs and yaJues, those
who believe in God have been labeled "outdated" and "reaction-
ary." Furthermore, we should point our that there is actually no
obligation or necessity ro introduce a "creation model," for creation
is a miracle hidden behind veils of causality, and explaining miracles
within the limits of the normal laws of nature is nor something
which is possible. In fact, when we look at things from this perspec-
tive, many of us make the mistake of expecting miracles to happen
in an obvious way. We expect only events of a certain magnirude,
such as a child surYiving a fall from a I 00-storey skyscraper, or a
tree stepping our of the Earth and moving on its own. Yet these are
such transparent and obvious events that the mind would simply be
dazzled, and the intellect rendered helpless.
However, innumerable, astonishing, perfect processes occur
constantly in our bodies and in other living beings-the formation
of an image on the retina of the eve; the perception of sensation in
our brain; blood being filtered in our kidneys; transmissions along
our neural pathways; the contractions of our muscles and the
movement of our intricate joints-each is created and executed
with wisdom, each is an artistic srrucn1re, and each is a miracle.
However, if a particular event occurs frequently, after some time
the human mind starts seeing it as being common and normal.
Thus, even the most amazing phenomena come to be taken for
granted. There are millions of births happening routinely, for
example, and we consider these to be very simple events. However,
when we carefully and objectively examine the 280-day process
which passes, on average, from the meeting of the sperm and egg
to the birth of a human baby, and we further analyze the develop-
ment of fetal tissues and organs, day by day, then we will be com-
pelled to assert the miracle of every single birth. If we could imag-
ine this nine-month process being fast-forwarded to a single half-
hour period (so that a babv would be born half an hour after fertil-
 ](m·ard a Model o.fCrealion 301

ization), then perhaps we would better comprehend this miracle.

But we are not able to see the miraculous aspects of phenomena
hidden behind the veils of apparent causes (such as DNA, genes,
and molecular, biochemical, physical, and metabolic events) that
are put before us as parr of our test of belief, and which occur in
subtle or repetiti,·c wa,·s over a wide span of time.
On the other hand, in order for us to propose, in detail, any
kind of system or mechanism as a possible "creation model," we
would require as much knowledge and power as our Creator has.
This is because succeeding in petforming an incomparable action,
such as giving or creating life, necessitates being matchless and
unique-but the attributes of infinite knowledge and power are
only associated with God. As human beings, we have neither wit-
nessed creation, nor do we have the ability to apprehend such a
miracle. Our created brains and hearts are not supposed to see or
perceive the Creator in person, using the senses given to us. Rather,
we believe in God solely after accepting the reality that "creation
must have an Originator,'' as the mind, heart, and conscience work
in harmony with the senses. Those who are created can neither
intetfere with the work of the Creator, nor ever understand how
such amvork is actually executed. We can only try to comprehend
some aspects, to a certain extent, using as much evidence as our
mind can grasp-and try to strengthen our faith.
We may ascertain this point better with the following example.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument that hundreds of complex
computers in a huge computer laboratory are talking to each other
within the limits of the software and hardware installed and search-
ing for answers to questions about how they came to this facility in
the first place, and how they were built. What those computers
"say" to one another, what they claim or discover, and all their bril-
liant ideas-none of these can ever go beyond what their programs
allow them to achieve. They may discuss their hard disks, RA.t\1,
processing systems, keyboards, drives, and video cards. However,
they will never be able to know the kind of person who made
302 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

them-the computer engineer-as to which attributes this person

possessed, or this person's real character.
Just like this example, as computers cannot get to know the
engineer who designed them, we cannot apprehend the Essence of
our Creator nor can we totally understand how He created us, nor
can we ever propose a comprehensive model which displays one-to-
one correspondence with reality. Simply put, we can neither conceive
nor say more than what God has taught us and allows us to sav.

IN BETWEEN RELIGION AND SciENCE

In the recent past, many people used to propose objections against

Darwinism based solely on religious grounds. For their part, advo-
cates of evolutionary theory used to claim that science was only on
their side. However, scientific findings which have been obtained
since the last quarter of the twentieth century have reversed the
picture. Today, our objections are not because of the things we do
not know, but rather because of the things we do know. Now,
those who seem dogmatic are the Darwinists, for the world of sci-
ence provides them with ample evidence that life has been created
with a plan and program, but they deny this evidence out of hand
because of their philosophical and ideological worldviews.
In any event, why would it hurt if an idea, doctrine or thought
system were inspired by religious sensitivities? The important point
is whether or not the things one says contradict the intellect, reason
and real scientific findings. Religion is vital for hwna.n beings, and
humans cannot live comfortably within a duality: we cannot be
content in a world where the natural need for faith which is in our
hearts and souls is split from the efforts and determination of our
minds and our science. Believers cannot, and should not, compro-
mise their faith in God, His names, and His attributes, nor associate
these names and attributes with mere causes, chance and rambling
atoms. Those who believe in God cannot accept the notion of a
deity which does not control everything, or which only exerts par-
 Tou·ard a A/ode/ of Creation 303

rial command over the created world, from atoms to galaxies, or

which would be uninformed in regard to the finest details of the
wing of insect, or which would be unaware of what has already
come to pass. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, tries to
embody all the characteristics of God, essentially while failing to
fulfill any of the deeper spiritual needs of believers. This is a com-
plete contradiction which must be seen for what it is-our aim here
is not, as mentioned earlier many times, to oppose science.
Yet the fact that we are not able to say anything about the first
creation should not cause us to abandon the causal aspects of cre-
ation. On the contrary, each new piece of information that scien-
tists uncover, each new beauty which is exposed, should increase
the believer's astonishment and admiration. Even though it is not
possible for us to display the initial creation with all of its details,
the perfectly functioning processes that we witness by the millions
every day in the births of plants, animals and humans, and in the
organs and physiological processes of living things, are all waiting
to be discovered as evidence in favor of belief in God.
Too many scientists have spent too much time, energy, and
effort in vain, for one and a half centuries, denying God on the basis
of Darwin's evolution hypothesis. However, if the efforts of scien-
tists had been directed instead to the countless genetic diseases, or
to cancer research, or to the environmental problems which are
now in humanity's hands, remedies for most of those problems
would have already been found, and countless improvements to the
human condition would have been achieved by now. What kind of
benefit does the scientific community obtain by talking out of place
concerning the first creation, and continuously interpreting it with
the aim of denying divinity? Furthermore, since the negativity of
chance, meaninglessness, deficiency and failure will be seen when
looking at nature from the evolutionists' point of view, the result-
ing perspective will have an obstructive influence on scientific
improvements. In contrast, objective scientists, who uphold a
worldview wherein science and faith are compatible, would never
304 Evo/U1i011: Science or ldeolog)·?

see deficiencies, defects or ugliness in creation-rather, they would

simply search for the wisdom behind every event, and all scientific
studies would only increase their faith.
In the Holy Qur'an, after pointing our evidence from the book
of nature and mentioning various events, many verses encourage
people to think and search with questions like, "Don't they think?";
"Don't they contemplate?"; "Don't they reflect?"; or "How can you
deny?" Thus, as seen above, faith in One God calls us to search, to
work, and to benefit humanity. However, a great many efforts have
been directed to "uncovering" the essentials of the first creation-
engendering ventures which have not profited anyone-as if
humanity did not have any other problems to attend to. What
would happen if, without any veils whatsoever and without con-
necting them with causes, God had actually shown us how He had
created the first living beings, the first ancestors of each species, and
the first humans? Those who believe in God would already believe
in God, even with the veils of causality-and when there were no
longer any veils, the value of believing in the unseen, the value of
the test of this life, would simply diminish. Furthermore, while
more people would believe, there would, no doubt, still be unbe-
lievers. However, we were created, we are being tested, and we
have not determined any of the conditions of this test ourselves.
God does everything in the way He wishes to do it; He creates
everything whenever He wishes, and He destroys things whenever
He wills to do so. Rather than preventing anyone from researching
or srudying, the refinement and beauty in the artwork of God's
creation directs us to see beyond the artifice on the horiwn of
bewilderment and thus, to increase our faith.
Regarding how religious beliefs deal with the debate on evolu-
tion, we should first point out some of the differences in the per-
spectives of Christianity and Islam. In the holy books, revealed
through various prophets at different periods in human history,
God informed people about Himself according to their level of
comprehension, their knowledge, and their cultural accumulations,
 Toward a Model of Creation 305

and according to their needs ar the rime rhey were living; in shorr,
God guided people with examples that minds could grasp at that
point in historv. Some of the information given was rather obvious,
some was made easier to understand with symbols and analogies,
and some things could only be understood based on the explana-
tions and clarifications provided by the prophets. For this reason, a
special way of commenting or interpreting the Qur'an, called
tafiir--exegesis-was developed to relate the Divine will in the best
possible way so that the information given would fit the under-
standing of the time.
The failure of the church in interpreting the Bible as it was
supposed to be played an important role in the discord between the
church and science during the Middle Ages. For example, debates
around the revolution of the Earth, the creation of the universe in
six days, and the idea that one of Eve's ribs was missing, originated
in misinterpretations of the relevant verses in the Bible.
Along with the weakening of the Roman Catholic Church's
authority, the scientists' readings of the book of the universe were
increasingly deemed to conrradict the deductions made out of the
word of the Bible. In fact, if we look at even one example through
the evolutionist lens, we can easily grasp how conflicts arose. For
instance, with regard to the belief that the universe was created in six
days, Bible literalists insisted that "six days" referred to six 24-hour,
worlclly davs. Yet advances made in geological and paleontological
research indicated that the Earth had been formed over very long
periods of time, measured in thousands or billions of years, which
could not be equated with the worldly sense of a "day." As a result,
scientists found themselves forced to choose between believing in
field obsen·ations or Biblical interpreters. Thus, one discovery at a
time, the fight between science and religion took shape.
The subject of creation taking place in "six days" is found in the
Qur'an. However, the six days in the Qur'an are not defined as
24-hour days, such as those we have on Earth. References in other
verses of different chapters, regarding the possible length of those
306 Evolution: Science or ldeolog;·?

"days," point to a "da~>' being perhaps as long as l ,000, or even

50,000 years. Of course, the time span which we call "one da\·"
signals one full revolution of our Earth upon its axis. Yct when we
define time from another reference point, the length of one dav,
which depends on the rotational movement of a given astral bodv-
for example, Jupiter, or a meteor, or a planet in verv distant galaxy-
will be very different. Further, if we take the motions of meteors as
a case in point, we could also think about the various lengths of rime
required in terms of the velocities of angels or other spiritual crea-
tures. The fact that such matters remain undefined certainlv makes
it easier to interpret the Holy Qur'an, since those six davs may not
even necessarily be equal to each other. Most importantly, we rna\·
think of those six days being six different "phases" of creation-for
instance, the creation of atoms, molerules, gala.xies, the solar system,
the Earth, and the biosphere. On the other hand, from the geologi-
cal point of view, we may consider them as six geological periods
like the Precambrian, Cambrian, Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic.
In terms of biology, we may imagine yet another scheme of "six
days" in the creation of the Earth, oceans, atmosphere, green plants,
animals, and human beings, in that order. In effect, such Qur'anic
verses with allegorical references arc rich with multiple meanings
and are always open to interpretation. The allegorical verses of the
Qur'an have been open to interpretation for the past fourteen cen-
turies, and they will remain open to future generations. The Qur'an
is a source of countless meanings due to such allegorical expressions;
for this reason, the interpretation of the Qur'an in each cenmry will
give a sufficient explanation to people according to their level of
understanding, and remain parallel to scientific discoveries, without
contradictions arising.

THE FuruRE oF DARWINISM

We cannot think of the core of any superstitious claim as being
totally empty and harmful. For if this were the case, a lot of people
would not have pursued the most baseless schools of thoughts for
 Ton·ard a Model of Creal ion 307

so manv years. The dumping ground of the history of thought is

full of ideologies and philosophical movements that busied human-
ity with some crumbs of truth after which people chased for a time
until they were abandoned, one by one. Some truths were distorted
and misinterpreted, resulting in profound confusion and loss of
belief among those who drifted, following after these movements.
For instance, there was truth behind the notion of labor that
Marxism put forward, but it was not everything. Meanwhile, as
capitalism exalted capital, it stumbled into a different error by
ignoring labor. For his part, Freud mistakenly attributed the
thoughts of certain sick souls to all of humanity and credited the
essence of the human being to the libido.
The fact that Darwinism, or in a broader sense, the evolution-
ary hypothesis, survived frictions with the church and became the
dominant paradigm in a short time was mainly due to its snuming
discovery of how some biological principles that exist among living
beings operate. For example, it pointed out the existence of living
beings as part of an integral whole, of a hierarchical system, and it
drew attention to biological variation. Yet it could not provide the
necessary explanations, and the interpretations which followed
from it proceeded in a completely contrary direction.
Today, the doctrines of materialist and positivist philosophies
have reached a bottleneck, and they cannot solve humanity's unease
and global problems like terror. It is more frequently observed than at
any other time that people are sincerely pursuing metaphysics, mysti-
cal beliefs, and religious thought. Many doctrines like Darwinism and
its progeny "Social Darwinism" that serve in a way as an inrroduction
to atheism have proved to lead humanity toward a dead end.
Special attention must be paid to prevent such metaphysical
inclinations from assuming an ami-science character, which is as
wrong as its opposite. We simply cannot ignore what the science of
biology offers to us, nor can we allow it to be interpreted entirely
within the evolutionist paradigm and thus abused as an instrument
to promote atheism.
308 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

There are notewonhy efforts in the Christian as well as the

Muslim worlds by means of establishing dialogue between religious
thought and science. There is an increasing amount of sound research
and a more constntctive approach, as manifested in such publications
as Exp/Qre Evolution 179 by organizations like the Templeton Foundation
and Free Press. I would like to stress my conviction that a compre-
hensive interpretation of the Qur'anic verses concerning creation can
reveal a perfect synthesis of religious thought and scientific research
in a balance similar to the one Islam stipulates humans should
observe between this world and the next. Approaching science and
religion without separating them, as two sides of the same mirror,
and regarding the cosmos in a holistic way, will make it possible to
better understand the hierarchy in the creation, to benefit more from
the horiwns science will expand to, and to avoid erroneous thinking
like "chance" that leads to atheism. I expect new developments in the
Islamic world, and my hopes are supported extensively bv the sincere
research of God-believing scientists with common sense in the
United States. Michael Behe, Michael Demon, Richard Milton, and
Phillip Johnson are some of the authors who have produced notable
works and have generated really significant breakthroughs in the
West. Jeremy Rifkin is one of those authors too, and his book,
Ai!feny: A New Word, A New World, points to the signs that reveal an
increase in opposition to Darwinism. It will be more beneficial to
refer to his words directly:

Dr. Colin Patterson is a senior paleontologist ar the British

Narural History Museum, in London. Dr. Patterson is the author
of the book, Evolution, and is recognized as the world's leading
paleoichthyologist. On November 5, 1981, Dr. Patterson deliv-
ered a speech before a group of expcns on evolutionary theory at
the American Museum of Natural History. Dr. Patterson dared
to suggest to his colleagues that the scientific theory that he and
they had devoted a lifetime to was mere speculation, without any
significant evidence to back it up. Here's how Dr. Patterson
explained his change of mind concerning the theory of evolution:
"Last rear I had a sudden realization. For over twemy years I had
thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning
 Toward a Model ofCrealion 309

I woke up and something had happened in the night; and it

struck me that I had been working on this sruff for rwenty years
and there was nor one thing I knew aOOm it. That's quite a shock,
to learn that one can be so misled for so long .... So for the last
few weeks I've oied putting a simple question to various people
and groups of people .... Can you tell me anything you know
abom e\·olution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? ... All
I got ... was silence ... the absence of answers seems to suggest
rhar . . . evolution docs nor convey any knowledge, or, if so, I
haven't yer heard it ... I think many people in this room would
acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought
abom it ar all, you have experienced a shift from evolution as
knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that it is nuc of me and
I think it is nue of a good many of you here .... Evolution nor
only conveys no knowledge bm seems somehow to convey anri·
knowledge."
Psychiatrist Karl Stern, of the University of Montreal, asks us
all to detach ourselves from our preconceived biases and con-
sider the merits of the Darwinian argument. The theOI)', says
Stern, goes something like this: "At a certain point of time, the
temperature of the Earth was such that it became most favor-
able for the aggregation of carbon atoms and oxygen with the
nitrogen-hydrogen combination, and that from random occur-
rences of large clusters, molecules occurred which were most
favorably snucrured for the coming about of life, and from that
point, it went on through vast suetches of time until, through
processes of natural selection, a being finally occurred which is
capable of choosing love over hate, and justice over injustice, of
writing poetry, like that of Dante, composing music, like that
of Mozart, and making drawings, like those of Leonardo."
Stern's opinion of the evolutionary theory is not likely to win
many friends within the scientific community. Speaking strictly
from the point of view of a psychiatrist, he argues: "Such a view
of cosmogencsis is crazy. And I do not at all mean "crazy'' in
the sense of slangy invective, but rather in the technical mean-
ing of ps)•chotic. Indeed, such a view has much in common
with certain aspects of schiwphrenic thinking."
Stem and Patterson are nor alone. While biology teachers con-
tinue to teach the most up-to-date textbook version of Darwin's
theory of evolution to the children of the 1980s, some of the high
priests of biology have all bur abandoned their own sacred texts.
310 Evolution: Science or JdeoloiD·?

AJthough unwiUing ro claim that evolution per se is a crazy idea,

man~· of them are more than prepared to commit Darwin's ver-
sion of it to the historical archives. Remarkably little has been
written in the popular pres..'i about this rebellion in the making.
The coup d'e[3t has unfolded rather quietly within the semi-
sequestered domain of official academic conferences and schol-
arly journals. The first inkling that things were not \'l.·eU with
Darwinism came, interestingly enough, during the centennial
celebration of Darwin's theory, held at the Universi[)• of Chicago
in 1959. One of the speakers, paleonrologisr, Everett Claire
Olson, of the University of California, let it be known that:
'"There exists as well, a gencral.Jy silent group of students engaged
in biological pursuits who tend to disagree with much of the cur-
rent thought, but say and write little because they are not par-
ticularly interested, do not see that controversy over evolution is
of any particular importance, or arc so strongly in disagreement
that it seems futile to undertake the monumental task of contro-
verting the immense body of information and theory that exists
in the formulation of modern thinking."
As to how many had acrually deserted the ranks, Olson con-
tended that it was difficult to judge the size and composition of
this silent segment, but there is no doubt that the numbers arc not
inconsiderable. Overall, the present picture was that two hundred
years of positivist and materialistic denial movements had found a
new instrument for themselves to play around with. 180

In effect, most scientists had begun ro feel, in their minds and

hearts, rhar evolution was a grand deception disguised as a "scien-
tific" case. They would no longer comply wirh ir willingly. Even rhe
public began ro enunciate a silent and giant "No!" in irs stance and
posture.
This is shown by the fact rhar most people in rhe world still
turn towards religion, and people choose "cooperation" ro solve the
biggest global problems, although evolutionary theory has obvi-
ously been denying rhe Creator for decades; has produced a
description of the universe as a dark, cold place, devoid of overrid-
ing control; and has encouraged hwnans ro be enemies ro each
other, under the umbrella of"social Darwinism." In fact, the silence
was shattered in 1959, and the dissenters then began ro surface, one
 Toward a Model of Creation 311

by one. Thus, once but a faint murmur, the opposition has now
swollen into a chorus of discontent.
Right now an intense struggle is going on within the profession,
pitting the dyed-in-the-wool Darwinists against a new generation
of theoreticians who are anxiously casting around for a more
satisfactory explanation of the origin and development of species.
The battle recently e:~:tended directly into London's Narural
History Museum, long considered a bulwark of Darwinian think-
ing. At issue was a pamphlet published by the muo;eum which
qualified Darwin.ism by saying, "If the theory of Evolurion is
trUe ... " '"If" indeed! Much of the scientific community was
aghast. To even suggest such a possibility- and coming from the
British Narural History Museum - was enough to steam the
bifocals of many a don at Cambridge, Oxford, Sussex, and other
esteemed institutions throughout the kingdom. An editorial
appearing in "Nature," the Wlofficial voice of the scientific estab-
lishment, rebuked mlL'>eum officials in no uncertain terms.
Noting that "most scientisc. would rather lose their right hand
than begin a sentence with "if the theory of Evolution is true,"
the editorial asked rhetorically, "what purpose except confusion
can be served by these \veasel words?"
Other establishment bastions have been caught up in the
debate. For example, many years ago, G. A. Kerkut, a professor
ofPhysiology and Biochemistry at the University ofSouthampton,
England, published a book critical of Darwin's theory cntided,
Implications ofEvolution. Dr. Kerkut concluded: "The attempt to
explain all li\ing forms in terms of an evolution from a unique
source, though a brave and valid anempt, is one that is prernarure
and not satisfactorily supported by present-day evidence."
An WlUsually candid review of the book, appearing in "The
American Scientist," the official publication of the prestigious
Sigma Xi scientific fraternity, acknowledged what many had
long suspected but were afraid of to entertain, especially in
print. Speaking to the book as well as to DarwinJs theory, the
review stated: "This is a book with a disturbing message; it
points to some unseemingly cracks in the foundations. One is
disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling that
we knew it for a long time deep down but were never willing
to admit this even to ourselves .... The particular truth is simply
that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary
312 Evolulion: Science or Ideology?

sequence ... one can find qualified, professional arguments for

any group being the descendant of almost any other .... We have
all been telling our students for years not to accept any state-
ment on its face value hue to examine the evidence, and, there-
fore, it is rather a shock to discover we ha,·e failed ro follow our
own sound advice." 181

In fact, those who speak against Darwinism are sufficienth·

populous to fill a book. Interestingly, some were against evolution-
ary theory from the beginning, and they confessed their conclusions
after a cenain period of time, when the path was evidently viewed
as a dead end. Dr. Pierre P. Grasse, ex-president of the French
Academy of Sciences, and the editor of twenty-eight volumes of the
popular Trait& de Zoologic, did nor hesitate to attribute the designa-
tion of "pseudoscience" to evolution. 182 This declaration that evo-
lutionary theory is a "pseudoscience" is now being heard with
increasing frequency. The British wologist, Leonard Matthews,
expressed the concern of many of his colleagues in the introduction
to a 1971 edition of Darwin's book, The Origin ofSpecies as follows:
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is
thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an
unproved theory - is ir then a science or faith?" 183 Writing in rhe
introduction to the 1956 publication of the same book by Darwin,
the entomologist, W. R. Thompson, reproached rhe "defenders of
the faith" for their unscientific conduct: "This situation, where men
rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifi-
cally, much less demonstrate wirh scientific rigor, attempting to
maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism
and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in
science. , 184
Another criticism came from Biology Professor, Edwin G.
Conklin, of Princeton University, who realized the pervasive sense
of religiosiry that permeated the thinking of his colleagues: "The
concept of organic evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for
 TOl"mTi a Model ofCrealion 313

many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion,

because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle." 185
Many scientists, encouraged by the lead of the "intelligent
design movement," initiated especially by believing Christians in
the US, are now able to express their ideas about evolution freely.
The prominent individuals in this movement neither seem to rep-
resent any particular religious school of thought, nor do they
appear necessarily to oppose secularity. They simply stare that this
universe has been designed by an intelligent agent. Yet it is nor easy
to entirely wipe our a taboo that has ossified and solidified in pub-
lic mindser, so any start should be considered beneficial to prepar-
ing a peaceful atmosphere for discourse and study. It seems inevi-
table that many scientists will share this idea in the future. Thus, we
can see that the means by which to withdraw evolutionary theory
from the stage has already been set; for eventually, all will see that
it is impossible for life to be explained by this theory, and they will
surely abandon it. We may at least expect, in the near future, that
evolutionary thought will become such a marginal movement that
it will be left entirely aside. The process leading to such conse-
quences has already begun, and the reason behind this is nor solely
the opposition of brave scientists. It is simply the case that the more
we learn about life, the better we understand how complex it really
is. Therefore, scientists are compelled to realize that that the count-
less intricate structures about which we learn more every day can-
not be the products of purposeless, random mechanisms, as Darwin
presumed.
Certainly, there is variation which emerges due to biological
changes and which is refreshed by instant creations in the world of
living beings. However, this variation does nor happen in such a
way as to allow rransirioning from one species to another; rather, it
occurs to increase the richness within a species, and rhus, ro exhib-
it the infinite power of God by providing thousands of reflections
of His beautiful names. The generic recombination mechanisms
which cause diversity within species (subspecies and varieties) to
314 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

occur, and biological principles such as narural selection and adap-

tation, do not prove evolution-rather, the truth is the other way
around, for these all demonstrate the excellence of divine creation.
Natural selection, in fact, is a solution ordained by divine law
to solve a sustainabilit:y problem, the food cycle or food pyramid,
which is vital for the survival of living beings. In turn, adaptation
mechanisms exhibit the potential for genetic change which was
placed in the genetic program of living beings at the point of their
creation and provided to ensure the continuation of the species
under varying conditions.
As far as mutations are concerned, it must first be remembered
that none of the useful changes in a living being's genomes occurs
randomly; some of these mechanisms are provided to strengthen
the immune systetn of the species; some serve to increase \·ariation
within the species (like meiosis and crossovers); and some are given
to offer a veil of biological causes, which are appointed for li,·ing
beings, such as ageing and death.
While scientists analyze the anatomical and physiological charac-
teristics of organisms on one side, on the other side, they search for
harmony between all these properties and look for ways in which
those features serve the purpose of not just the species in question,
but also of the population and the entire ecosystem. Nonetheless, the
reason, heart and consciousness of a scientist will still incline him or
her to behave "theologically," in a way, when interpreting data. lhis
is because, even if modem science tries to separate philosophy from
its study methods, a human being is a whole. Thus, sharing wisdom,
or at least reflecting, is not just a necessity of being scientific, but also
a most imponant aspect of being human (which is also vital for
remaining alive). For this reason, scientists have to try to explain the
divine wisdom of the organs, and the reason behind their shape,
structure and functional features, and they have to see not only the
design or plan in these structures and functions, but also the theology
which can account for their optimization; in other words, a scientist
has to see a particular creation as being favorable to its purpose.
 Toward a Model of Creal ion 315

Critically, a construction which is ideally suited to its purpose pre-

cludes origination by chance occurrence.
In musing on how a theory as scientifically bankrupt as
Darwin's could ever have become the prevailing orthodo:.)', Ludwig
von Bertalanffy, who is acknowledged as one of the founders of the
philosophy of biology, concluded as follows: "I think the fact that
a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable and so far from the
criteria otherwise applied in "hard" science, has become a dogma,
can only be explained on sociological grounds. Society and science
have been so steeped in the ideas of mechanism, utilitarianism and
the economic concept of free competition, that instead of God,
Selection was enthroned as ultimate realit')''
Nowadays, it is almost impossible to find a place in popular sci-
ence where evolutionary theory-which is a direct interest of the sci-
entific world, and an indirect concern of the general public-is not
being discussed. Both at the time that the theory was first put togeth-
er, and throughout the process by which it has continually been
reworked, it has certainly turned out to be something other than
merely a biological idea. Everything that it touched was contaminated
in the name of den)~ng the Creator, by both direct and indirect efforts.
Popular jokes about "how many scientists it takes to change a light
bulb" are insufficient to describe the chaos and carnage which the
contamination of this theory caused. Minds-and thus, hearts-were
swayed into believing that the universe has no Creator, that it is own-
erless. So, even though the universe is evidently a great work of art
which follows from the Creator's unlimited knowledge, power, will
and wisdom-as amply demonstrated through so many examples of
intricate, orderly, and harmonious functions-humans have tried to
solve the "mystery of creation" using only their own intelligence and
accumulated knowledge, evaluating everything as though this marvel-
ous, expressive universe had arisen by chance, and so betra~ng \vith
their ingratitude their relationship with the Owner of the universe.
Thus, the struggle to cover immeasurable truth with the veil of science
has occurred, and continues. The response to those who are engaged
316 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

in this struggle must be given within democratic means and in a toler-

ant way, not in the same way as evolutionists stand against creation.
It is impossible to accept a statement like, "It's just picking a
quarrel, so let us not teach it," in regard to a matter which has been
keeping the science world busy for 150 years, and which is still so
widely discussed. If we said that ourselves, we would somehow be
supporting a kind of ideological bigotry, or scientific dictatorship,
and that would be wrong.
At this moment, however, the total reverse of such a siruation
is being experienced. In many cities and countries, e\-olution is
taught exclusively in virtually all instirutions, without giving an
opportunity for those with dissenting views to articulate their opin-
ions. Since evolutionary theory is discussed in all aspects, frequent-
ly crossing curriculum boundaries, faculty members at a number of
universities, for instance, have had to endure the complaints of their
colleagues, and the influence of a generally negative atmosphere in
many countries, which has even made them the subject of aca-
demic investigations at times, such as has been the case in Turkey.
Recently, as a case in point, a professor of biology at a promi-
nent university in Turkey was dismissed from his post simply
because he held opinions opposed to evolutionary theory. A faculty
member at another instirution could not get his professorship for
nine years due to his views about evolution; instead, his appoint-
ment was obstructed at two different universities because of the
oppression that evolutionary ideology instilled in the academic
community-even though his research was deemed sufficient for
the position by the majority of members on the appointment com-
mittee. Unfortunately, the artificially tense environment which has
developed in Turkey, in addition to pressure from the Turkish
Higher Education Instirution (YOK), was applied to prevent him
from securing from the Council of State what should have right-
fully been his.
Other examples include siruations where applications for asso-
ciate professorships and professorships in biology, by candidates
 Tou-·ard a ,\lode/ of Creation 317

who question or even discuss evolution, have been obstructed with

backstage acti,·ities and phone calls (and, if needed, fueled bv
rumors and exaggerations). Review committees have been warned
not to make wav filr those who discuss or question evolution, while
scientists ha\·e been oppressed openly or secretly due to the enforced
dominance of evolutionan• theory all around the world. In Ger-
manv, which is considered to be a democratic and highly developed
state, excessive burdens can be imposed upon scientists. Prof. Dr.
Wolf-Ekkehard Liinning, of the Max Planck Institute, was put
under a ban after connecting his results, relating to aquatic plants,
to the Creator, in his thousand-page report. In Turkey, some pro-
fessors resort to using a pen name in order to be protected from
academic harassment and intimidation when they write articles
against Darwinism for popular magazines.
Voices which express the slightest reservation about evolution
have been repeatedly threatened with academic obscurity, in reports
by atheistic or materialistic stakeholders which raise complaints and
accusations against them for being "religious fundamentalists," or
"reactionaries"-even though some of those whose voice.• express
such views are not in fact religious. I believe there are only a very
small number of people in Turkey who lead this movement of
oppression, in a completely militant atmosphere-and thus use the
idea of evolution to cover up their own irreligious namre. How-
ever, since most of faculty members who are currently employed
have been influenced by the stifling pressure of the atmosphere
which has been established for many years, they do not dare to raise
their voices if even they do nor agree wirh evolutionary theory.
Conversely, rhere are some colleagues who do believe in evolution,
but still respect the rights of others to articulate their dissenting
opmwns.
Further, in Turkey, in spite of such a frustrating level of oppres-
sion, evolutionists, who see that the number of scientists who do not
believe in evolution and are turning away from this theory is gradu-
ally increasing, have attempted to force the Ministry of Education
318 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

(MEB) by collecting signarures, specifically to augment the tension.

Thus, oppressed by the Higher Education lnstirution, many academ·
ics cannot speak om and are being subjugated into silence. In fact,
one faculty union made an attempt independently ro collect signa-
rures against evolutionists, bur the facult\· members of rhe biologv
department in particular apologized and held off due to the fear of
incurring the Higher Education lnstirution's wrath and that they too
could be forced to undergo the same diffiLl.dt process that their col·
leagues were being subjected to.
Thus, in such an undemocratic instinnional climate, evolution-
ists are able to do whatever thcv want without taking the rights of
others into account. In addition to that, the\· have expended much
effort on making the whole young generation atheistic in orienta·
tion, starting right from the level of elementary education, by trying
to influence the Ministry of Education even more, though the sub·
ject of evolution is already given prominence in the course books of
the Ministry of Education. However, such powerful evolutionary
propaganda is still not sufficient for evolutionists, it seems, for they
are militant in inclination and unyielding in Turkey, and there is
doubt that such harshness exists in any other pan of the world.
Their goal is to drive evolution into all aspects of life as part of a
total ideological program, as was once the case in the Soviet Union.
They are not merely satisfied with their own disbelief, but rather,
wish for everybody to disbelieve right along with them.
So, in the case of Turkey, my own country, which typifies the
stmggle against evolutionary dogma, what can be done? First, our
universities have to become academically independent. Our scientists
should be able to speak out about what they believe, and to believe in
what the\' say. When the name of a course is "Evolution," it can be
expected tbot c'.·nlution will be taught as if it were a definite law; so,
first and foremost, the name of such courses should be changed. The
most reasonable name for a course about subjects which cannot be
scientifically tested, obsen•ed, or subjected to experimentation is "The
Philosophy of Biology," which is offered at universities in many coun·
 Toward a Model C?.f Creation 319

aies around the world. The faru!ty members reaching such a course
should be neither obsessive nor fanatical. Rather, they should be demo-
cratic in orientation, tolerant, and respectful towards human righrs.
Beside presenting findings which support evolution, instruc-
tors for such courses should also introduce rotallv contrary publica-
tions, or at least let the sntdents bring such studies to class for the
benefit of discussion. The f.1culry member could criticize whether a
given publication agrees with scientific standards or nor, bur should
nor reprimand or stop students who bring arricles which espouse
views opposed to cmlurion, and which are routinely published in
the most distinguished scientific magazines of the world.
The most powerful roo! against evolutionary theory is probably
the Internet. No matter where one is located in the world, all types
of information-both favorable and unfavorable-<:an be had in
just a few seconds. Therefore, the tense psychological atmosphere,
created by the evolutionists' pressure tactics, has been diffused-
and anyone who knows even a slight amount of a foreign language
can step into the middle of debates relating to evolution which arc
happening all around the world, and thus become informed about
many kinds of developments.
Also, if necessary, one lecturer could teach the course from
evolutionary point of view, and later, another lecturer could teach
the subject with reference to arguments which are contrary to evo-
lution. Thus, one course would be taught from two different per-
spectives. If we do not consider students to be fools, then such a
way of reaching would be very helpful, for students could listen to
both reachers and come to their own determination on the matter
by virtue of independent thinking.
Another important point is that debates should be performed
frequently in open fontms and panels, in a completely scientific
fashion. In Turkey, we have unfortunately witnessed some rather
tragic examples of poorly managed "scientific" debates. An atheist
evolutionist announced during a television program, one day, that
"Anyone who believes in God cannot be a scientist; such a person
320 Emlulion: Science or Ideology?

does not have a place in a university, and should be dismissed."

How well scientific advances can still be accomplished in a country
where such firm bigotry is experienced, and even· subject is dis-
cussed in terms of ideologies, will determine the course by which
our universities will grow, and thrive, in the furure.
 CLOSING REMARKS

e have seen that evolution-with all of its relevant argu-

W ments, deadlocks, and impossibilities-is nothing but a

hypothesis. Though it is not possible ro prove evolu-
tion, it has been enforced as an ideology and insisted upon in a
desperate struggle by cenain stakeholders to keep it alive. So, how
can we come to a convincing conclusion concerning how the first
living beings and the first human being were created without reject-
ing the information that the science of biology proposes? First of all,
witnessing all the improbabilities which have been discussed, we
have to admit that creation is a miracle. However, we can also say
that even though it is a miracle, God, Who has infinite knowledge
and power, used cenain causes in the act of creation to veil His acts
and operations. In addition, upon analyzing the verses of the Holy
Qur'an related to creation taking "six days," and other similar verses
about the duration and meaning of time, we may consider that our
Lord first created the universe from nothing in phases within those
days, and that only He knows the true duration of the process; and
somewhere in that initial phase, we can say that He created the
Milky Way somewhere in the universe, and then He created our
solar system and our Eanh at the most suitable places in the uni-
verse, to permit the most favorable conditions for life. We may say
that in the consecutive "days," He created the atmosphere, the eanh,
mountains, seas, water and soil. After the Eanh became favorable
for life, He then created beings living in water, followed by living
things on land, in a cenain sequence. He created plants first, and
322 Evolution: Science or/deologv?

then, He created herbivores, which would eat the plants, followed

by carnivores, who would cat the herbivores. Finally, after the
preparation of the Earth was completed, the first humans (omni-
vores), who could eat both plants and animals, were created.
In this way, we, too, can "order" creation according to a certain
schema, bur there could easily have been changes in the time span of
each of these sequences, and the order of these sequences-and there
could also have been many other events of which we cannot know.
Since none of us witnessed the first creation, anything that can be
said about this event and process cannot go beyond being simply an
argument, or an alternative idea. Sa)ing more pretentious things
about this would amount to impertinence towards God. We can only
make predictions that will not be contrary to our beliefs about this-
and we must ensure that we neither contradict the essential data of
science (like the fact that the Earth is round and rotates), nor articu-
late opinions which are disrespectful toward the Divine will.
In fact, the origins of life might have arisen as the result of a
totally different creation process. It is even possible for the sequence
of the creation process to be partially related to what evolutionists
claim. Beyond this, however, the most important thing at the foun-
dation of any understanding is that the conditions and materials of
this world were used. If we call all of these things "causes" (i.e., the
climate, soil, elements, heat, light, gravity, and so on), then we can
successfully conclude that God effected the miracle of creation by
making these causes veil His power at the precise time He com-
manded, through the outcomes of certain processes, in the specific
amounts He ordered. While creation seems to have taken millions
of years in our estimation-in terms of divine measure, everything
might actually have occurred in a time span as brief as an instant.
Yet however long that span was, and however we measure it, mind-
less and non-conscious causes could never have produced the act of
creation on their own, to reach an agreement to form a living
organism through their random efforts.
 Closing Remarks 323

Whether the act of creation is a process (to us) or an instant (to

God)--<Jr even a phenomenon that can only ever be understood in a
different dimension beyond our limited comprehension-it did hap-
pen through God's knowledge, power and will. In that we are famil-
iar with the process of trial and error, we admit that it is impossible
for idle changes, caused by natural forces, whose limits are not
known, and by the movements of atoms, to convert one species to
another, and thus to form a penect new species by chance.
We believe in our Lord, Who has created the entire w1iverse
without any defects or faults, in the best and most excellent form, and
Who made us-humankind-<aliphs on this Earth, the most honor-
able of creatures, in order that we might be tested. We believe that He
has thousands of names, and each of His names has 70,000 "degrees"
(an allegory of multitude), and that those names, which can form
infinite combinations, are manifested in an intricate fashion in every
species. For instance, while the name, Al-Razzaq (Provider offood),
appears in various degrees in plants, lions, mice and flies, the name
AI-]ami/ (He Who creates everything in beauty), is also manifested in
different degrees in the very same living beings. Also, the name Al-
Ha_vy (Lifegiver), is manifested in distinct levels in bacteria, viruses,
plants, mushrooms, animals and humans. In addition, other names-
such as Al-Mudabbir (He Who creates cautiously, trains and con-
trols),AI-Q#/dus (He Who creates purely and penectly, and keeps the
tmiverse clean), Al-Musawwir (He Who gives the appearance and
form to His creatures, according to His will)-are also combined in
different levels in each creature and cause everything, living or nonliv-
ing, to have various "degrees" of His names. In another example, His
name, Al-Sa1ni' (He Who hears everything), is recognized more
prominently in an elephant, whale, mouse and shark, while His name,
Al-Basir (He Who sees and watches everything), is manifested more
in an eagle than in a rhinoceros; and so on.
The combination of thousands of beautiful names of God, in
thousands of degrees, gives an opportunity for billions of different
species to be created (for example, calculating it theoretically, to
324 Evolulion: Science or Ideology·?

make it closer to reason, will yield 1,00070•000 possible names and

degrees). In human beings, God's names are manifested in such a
way as to make us suited to the highest position among all crea-
tures. We cannot hear like a shark, nor can we see like an eagle-bur
the manifestations of all the names of God are characterized in our
spiritual sensations and in our senses, which are unique to us, and
in the innumerable bounties which any one of us may recognize
and contemplate for ourselves-namelv the human mind, reason,
heart, perception, and intuition.
 NOTES

jeremy Rifkin, AI!Jeny: A New Wm·d, A New Wm·ld. (Penguin: 1984).

1 Julian Huxley, "At Random- A Television Preview," E1•olution After Dar-
win, (University of Chicago Press 1960) ed. Sol Tax, Vol. I, p. 42.
3 Karl Raimund Popper, Unended QJ<ert: A11 llltel/ecrua/Autobiography. (IIIi·
nois: Open Court, 1976) The Library of Living Philosophers, Vol. I, p.
133.
4 Phillippe Janvier, "Phylogenetic classifications of living and fossil vcrrc-
brates." Bulletin de Ia Societe Zoowgique de France, 1997, Vol. 122, pp.
341-354.
5 Aleksandr lvanovich Oparin, Life: Its Nature, Origin and Dt:~•elopment. (Lon-
don: Oliver&Boyd 1961), p. 33. Translated from Russian by Ann Synge.
6 francis Darwin (cd.), "Letter to Asa Gray." The Lift and Letters of Charles
Darwin, (New York: Appleton, 1887), Vol. II, p. 67.
7 joel Achenbach, "Life beyond Earth." National Geogmphic 2000, january,
Washington.
8 Beditiz1.aman Said Nursi, (1976). Lem'alar. Risale-i Nur Kiilliyatmdan,
(Istanbul: Sozler Yaymevi, 1976) pp.l66-183.
9 Herbert Spencer, Firrt Pri11ciples of a New Syrten1 of Philosophy (New York,
Appleton, 1872). Two volumes.
10 Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darn•in and the Danvinian Rc!•olution (New York:
W. W. Norton & Company, 1959.)
II Norman Macbeth, Dm11•in &tried: An Appeal to Reasun (Boston: Gambit,

1971 ), pp. 99-100.

12 R. L. \Vysong, The Creation-EJ>Oiution Controversy. (East Lansing, MI:
Inquiry Press, 1976 ), p. 422.
13 Francis Darwin (ed.), "Letter to Asa Gray." The Lifo a11d Letters ofChm·/es
DnrJVill (London: john Murray, 1888), Vol. 2, p. 273.
14 Lester}. McCann, Blowing the U!histle on Darwinism, 1986, p. 49.

15 Himmelfarb 1959.
16 Conrad Hal Waddington, T7Je Stmtegy of the Genes (London: Allen-
Unwin, 1957), pp. 64-65.
326 Evolulion: Science or Ideology?

17 Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic

Press, 1977), p. 202.
IS Rifkin 1984.
19 John Arthur Thomson, Patrick Geddes, Lift: Outlines of General Biology
(London: Williams & Norgate 1931), Vol. II, p. 1317.
20 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. (London: Burnett Books,
1985).
21 ibid.
22 ibid.
23 ibid.
24 Richard Milton, Shattn-ing the Myths ofDanvinism (Vermont: Park Street
Press, 1997). Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: W'lJerc Dm1Pi11
Went Wrong (New York: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), p. 204.
25 Luke Harding, «History of modern man unravels as German scholar is
exposed as fraud," The Guardian, February 19, 2005.
26 Matthias Schulz, "Die Regeln Mache lch," Der Spiegel, August 16, 2004.
27 "On Campus," Alleged skullduggery, Random Samples. Science, Vol305,
Issue 5688, p. 1237, August 27, 2004.
28 Tony Paterson, "Neanderthal Man nc\'er walked in northern Europe."
www. telegraph. co. uk/ news/ rna in. jh tm I? xm I = f news/2004/0 8/2 2/
wnean22.xml. August 22, 2004.
29 Harding 2005.
30 Milton 1997; Hitching 1982.
31 Richard E. Lingenfelter, "Prodm:tion of C-14 by Cosmic 8 Ray

Neutrons." Rn>iews ofGeopbysics, I :51, l'ebruary, 1963.

32 Hans E. Suess, "Secular Variations in the Cosmic-Ray produced Carbon-14
in the Aunosphcre and Their Interpretations." Jaumal of Geophysical
&searcb, 70:5947, December I, 1965.
33 V. R. Switzer, "'Radioactive Dating and Low-Jc,·cl Counting," Scimcc,
157:726, August 11, 1967.
34 Melvin A. Cook, "Where is the Earth's Radiogenic Helium," Nattn·e,
179:213, january 26, 1957.
35 I' rank Hole and Robert Heizer, PrebistoncArchaeology: A BriefIntroduction.
Harcourt College Publishers, 3rd ed. 1977.
36 R. W. Fairbridgc, "Holocene." [n Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1984.
37 Jacques Evin, "Lc temps et Ia chronomCtrie en archc!ologie." Histoi1·c ct
Mcmre. Vol. IX · N• 3/4, Archeologie II, 1994.
38 Peter \Vard and Donald Brownlee, R.J:Jre Ea1"th (New York: Copernicus,
2000).
 Notes 327

39 Stephen Jay Gould, Wunderful Life: The BUilJeSS Shale and the Nature of
History, (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1989).
40 Denton 1985.
41 :Eric Buffetaut, Grandes Extinctions et Crises Biologiques (Milan: Mentha,
1992), p. 53.
42 ibid.
43 J. ]. Jaeger, "'Les Catastrophes Geologiques," in LR Mtnwire de Ia Ten-e,
(Scuil, 1992), pp. 139-148.
44 ibid.
45 Douglas Erwin, "The Mother of Mass Extinctions." Scientific American.
July 1996, pp. 56-{;2.
46 Vincent Courtillot, "'Une Cruption volcanique?" Dossiers pour Ia Science,
Hors Serie, Septembre-Novembre, 1990, pp. 84-92.
47 Charles. B. Officer and Charles L. Drake, "The Cretaceous-Tertiary Tran-
sition," Scienee 1983,219: 1383-1390.
48 Louis de Bonis, EPolution et exti'tzctian dans le r'egne animal, (Paris: Masson,
1991).
49 David Raup and Jack Scpkoski, "Periodicity of Extinctions in the Geo-
logic Past." Proceedings uf the National Academy •f Science, 1984, 81:
801-805.
50 Steven M. Stanley, "Mass Extinctions in the Ocean." Scientific American,
No: 6 (June 1984), pp. 64-72.
51 Buffcraut 1992.
52 Thomas Kuhn, The Sn-uctu,·e of Scientific Rrvolutions (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1962).
53 B. J. Stahl, Venebrata History. Problems in Evolution. (New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1985), p. 146.
54 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Modern Library Paperback Edition,
1993. p. 167; Random House, Inc. 1998, USA.
S::i John Scpkoski, Jr., "Rates of speciation in the fossil record." Philosophical
Tmnsactions uf the Ruyal Society ofLondon B: Biological Sciences, 353 ( 1366).
315-326.
56 David Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology,'' Field Muse-
um of Natural Histury Bulletin, vol. 50. No. I, 1979, pp. 22-29.
57 George Gaylord Simpson, T11e Major Features of Evolution. (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1961) pp. 359-360.
58 W. E. Swinton, "The Origin of Birds" in BWiogy and Comparative Physiol-
ogy of Birds, A. J. Marshall (edited by) (New York: Academic Press, vol. I,
p. 1-14.
328 Evo/Uiion: Science or Ideology?

59 Bone Bonanza, "Early Bird and Mastodon," Scimce NeJVs, 112 (September
2, 1977), p. 198.
60 M.S. Germain, "Qui est 1\rncCtrc des oiseaux?" Scienceer Vie, Paris: 1999,
No: 977.
61 "Old Bird," Discover, (March 1997), p. 21.
62 A. Fcduccia, L. Martin, Z. Zhou, and L. Hou, ""Birds of a Feather," Sci·
mtific America11 (June 1998), 8.
63 D. B. Kitts, "Paleontology and E\'olution Reconsidered," Paleobiology,
1977, 3, p. liS.
64 H.]. Jerison, E1•olutian of the Brain and Imelligmcc (New York and Lon·
don: Academic Press, 1973).
65 R. Levin, "Bones of Mammals, Ancestors Fleshed Out." Science, Vol.
212,26 June 1981, p. 1492.
66 George Gaylord Simpson, Lifo BeforeMnll, (New York: Time-Life Books,
1972), p. 42.
67 Mark Ridley, "Who doubts evolution?" Nn1• Scientist, 25 June 1981, Vol.
90, pp. 830-832.
68 "Did Darwin Get it \Vrong?" PBS Tele,·ision Show, November l, 1981.
WGBH Transcripts, 125.
69 Boyce Rensberger, Houstun Chronicle, November 5, 1980, Pan 4, p. 15.
70 C. Patterson, HaJpn·'s, February 1984. p. 60.
71 G. R. Taylor, The Grear Evolurion Mysre~y (New York: Harper & Row,
1983), p. 230.
72 George Gaylord Simpson, Hones, (Oxford Uni,·ersity Press, 1961).
73 Raup 1979.
74 Leonard Huxley, Lifo a11d Lerrm of Thomas Hmry Ht<~/ey (London:
MacMillan, 1900).
75 Karl Raimund Popper, "Dan.vinism as a metaphysical research pro-
gramme" MerbodJJiogy and Scimce, 1976, 9, 103-119.
76 Lambert Be\·crly Halstead, "Museum of Errors," Natu1·e, November 20,
1980, p. 208.
77 S. J. Gould, N. Eldredge, "Puncruated Equilibra: The Tempo and the
Mode of Evolution Reconsiderated," Paleobiology, 1977,3: p. 115-151.
78 "Missing, Bclie\·ed Nonexistent," The Guardian \Ncek.ly, November 26,
1978, vol. ll9, no 22, p.l, in Denton, 1988.
79 Gabriel Dover, "Molecular drive: a cohcsi\·e mode of species evolution,"
Narure, 1982, 229, lll-ll7.
 Noles 329

80 W. S. Vi'cincr, K. P. Oakley, W. E. LeGros Clark, "The Solution of the

Piltdown Problem," Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural Histo•J)
Geology Set-ics, 1953, Vol. 2, No.3.
81 \tVilliam K. Gregory, "'Hcspcropithecu." Apparently Not an Ape nor A
Man," Seimce, 1927, Vol. 66, December, p. 579.
82 Theodosius Dobzhansky, Mankind Evolving. The Evolution of the Human
Species, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1969).
83 B. \Vood and A. Brooks, "We arc what \Ve ate," Natut·e, 1999, Vol. 400,
no: 6741, IS july 1999.
84 Michael J. Behe, Dm11"£1l S Black Box: T11c Biochemical C!Jallenge to El'olu-
tion, Free Press, 1996, p. 307.
85 H. 'Watanabe and E. fujiyama, ct. al. "DNA sequence and comparative
analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22," Nature, 2004, 429, 382-388.
so Laura Nelson, "'first chimp chromosome creares puzzles," Nature Scimce
Update, May 27, 2004.
87 Jean Chalinc, "'L'Evolmion Biologique Humaine," Q}le Sais-Je?, (Paris:
Presses Universitaircs de France, 1982).
88 P. Darlu, "A quelle distance sommes-nous de nos voisins singes?" Scicuce
& Vie, Hors Serie, Trimesrricl, no. 200, Scptembre. Paris, 1997.
89 Jean Sraune, "L'c!volurion condamne Darwin." Excerpt from the interview
with jean Dlmt. Figaro Magazine. October 26, 1991, p. 15.
90 Gretchen Vogel, "Objection 2: Why Sequence the Junk?" Science, Febru-
ary 16, 2001.
91 H. Renauld, S. M. Gasser, "Heterochromatin: a meiotic matchmaker,"
Tmuis in Cell Biology 7 May 1997, pp. 201-205.
92 E. Zuckerkandl, ""Neutral and Nonneutral Mutations: The Creative Mix-
Evolution of Complexity in Gene Interaction Systems," Journal ofMolecu-
lar E11olution, 1997, 44, p. 2-8.
93 Elizabeth Pennisi, Science Ne~vs, December 10, 1994.
94 M. J. Beaton and T. Cavalier-Smith, "'Eukaryotic non-coding DNA is
functional: evidence from the differential scaling of crypromonal genom-
cs," Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 1999, 266: 2053-2059.
95 L. L. Sandell and V. A. Zakian, "Loss of a yeast telomere: arrest, recovery,
and chromosome loss" Ce/11993, 75 (4) 729-739.
96 S. J. Ting, "'A binary model of repetitive DNA sequence in Caenorhabdi-
tis clegans." DNA Cell Bioi. 1995, 14: 83-85.
97 E. R. V andendrics, D. Johnson, R. Reinke, "Orthodenticle is required for
photoreceptor cell development in the Drosophila eye." Dev Bioi 1996,
173: 243-255.
330 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

98 J.
Kohler, S. Schafer-Preuss, D. Buttgereir, "Related enhancers in the
intron of the beta! rubulin gene of Drosophila melanogasrcr are essential
for maternal and CNS-spccific expression during embryogenesis." Nucleic
Acids Res 1996, 24: 2543-2550.
99 S. Hirotsunc, N. Yoshida, A. Chen, L. Garrett, F. Sugiyama, S. Taka-
hashi, K. Yagami, A. Wynshaw-Boris, A. Yoshiki, "An expressed pseudo-
gene regulates the messenger-RNA stability of its homologous coding
gene." Nature 2003, 423: 91-96.
100 W. Makalowski, "Not Junk After All" Scimcc, 23 Ma\' 2003, Vol. 300. no.

5623,pp. 1246-1247.
101 S. Fisher, E. A. Grice, M. Ryan, R. M. Vimon, L. Seneca, S. L. Bessling,
S. Andrew, A. S. Mccallion, "Conser\'ation of RET Regulatory Function
from Human to Zebrafish \'Virhouc Sequence Similarity" Scimcc Exp1·ess
March 23, 2006 (Online). This work first appe.,ed in the press as "Junk
DNA may nor be so junky after all."
102 Rifkin 1984.
103 Keith Srewan Thomson, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapirulatcd,"
American Scientist, Vol. 776, May-June 1988, p. 273.
104 Hannington Enoch, EJ•O!Jition or Creatitm, (London: Evangelical Press,

1968), pp. 57-58.

105 l11omas Stanley \Nesroll. Proceedings from the British As.mciation
Meeting at Edinburgh, August 10, 1951.
106 W. J. Bock, "F.volmion by Orderly Law," Science, Vol. 164, May 9, 1969,
pp. 684-685.
107 Gavin Rylands de Beer, Embry•os and A11cestors (New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1954).
108 R. Danson, "Evolmion" NnT' Scieutist, 1971, No. 49.
109 Jonathan Wells, [com o[El'olution; Scimce or M.;vth? J..Vhy Much ofl+'hat We
Teach about E••oluti<m Is Wmng (Washingron DC: Regnery Press, 2000).
110 George Gaylord Simpson, \V. Beck, A11 b1troduction ro Biology, Harcourt
Brace and World, New York, 1965, p. 241.
Ill Ken McNamara, "Embryo.~ and Evolution," New Scientin, Ocwber 16,
1999.
II:: ~~;(h;to:! K. Richardson ct al., "Haeckel, Embryos, and Evolution," Science,
May b, 199~ 230:983-985.
I 13 Michael K. Richardson, J. Hanken, M. L. Gooncrarne et al., "There is no
highly conserved embryonic stage in the venebrares, implications for cur-
rent theories of evolution and development," Anatomy and Embryology,
1997, 196,91-106.
 Noles 331

114 Michael K. Richardson, "Haeckel's Embryos~ Continued," Science, 1998,

281, 1289.
115 .Michael K. Ril"hardson and Gerhard Keuck, "A question of intent: when
is a 'schematic' illustration a fraud?" Nature 2001,410:144.
116 .Michael K. Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, "Hacckcl's ABC of e\·olution
and de1•clopmem," Biowgical Reviews of the Cambridge Phiwsophical Society
2002, 77,pp. 495-528.
117 '\Vilhclm His, Die Anatomie menschlicher Embryonen, (Leipzig: Vogel,
1880).
118 Ludwig Rutimcycr, "Rezension zu Haeckel, Ernst, Naturlichc
Schopfungsgeschichrc," (Berlin: 1868),An:hiv for Anrhropowgie 3, 301-302.
119 Richardson and Keuck 2002.

120 Elizabeth Pennisi, ''Hacckcl's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," Science Vol.

277, No. 5331, p. 1435. September 5, 1997.

121 J. M. Oppenheimer, "Hacckel's variations on Darwin," BWlogicalMetaphor
anti Cladistic Classification: A11 Interdisciplinary Perspective, p. 123-135.
Edited by H. M. Hoenigswald and L. F. Wiener (Philadelphia: Univcrsiry
of Pennsylvania Press, 1987).
122 Hitching 1982.
123 Wysong 1976.
124 Arslan Mayda, "iie yaramaz zannedilcn kuyruk sokumu." S1zmn, 1997,
No. 227, Izmir.
125 Jerry Bergman and George Howe, Vestigial Orga,IS are Fully Functional
(Terre Haute: Creation Research Sociery Books, 1990).
126 ibid.
127 S. Maeda and G. Mogi, "Functional Morphology of Tonsillar Crypts in
Recurrent Tonsillitis," Acta Otolaryngo (Stockh) Suppl, 1984, 416:7-19.
128 Bergman and Howe 1990.
129 Denton 1985.
130 Frank B. Salisbury, "Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene,"

Natrtre, 1969, 224: 342.

131 Georges Lemairre, "Un univers homogC:ne de masse consranre et de rayon
croissant, rendant compte de Ia vitesse radiale des nCbuleuscs cxtragalac-
tiqucs," Annates de Ia Societe scientifique tk BruxeUes 1927, 47: 49-59.
132 Alexander Friedman, "0bcr die Kri.immung des Raumcs," Zeitscbrift for
Phyfik 1922, 10: 377-86.
133 Edwin Hubble, "A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among

Extra-galactic Nebulae," Proceedings of tbe National Academy of Sciences

1929, 15: 168-73.
332 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

I:U Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe, (New York: Macmillan, 1933),
p. 124.
135 Fred Hoyle, F'vntiers it~ Astronomy, (London: \Villiam Heinemann Ltd,
1955).
136 A. A., Penzias and R. W. Wilson, "A Measurement of Excess Antenna
Tempcrarurc at 4080 Mc/s," Astrophysics Jou171al 1965, 142, p. 419.
137 J. M. Caron, A. Gauchicr, A. Schaaf, J. Ulyssc, and J. \Vozniak, La P/ani:te
Tem (Paris: Editions Ophrys, 1992), p. 271.
138 Oparin 1961.
139 Stanley L. Miller, "A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primi-
tive Earth Conditions," Science, Vol. 117, May 15, 1953. No: 3046, p.
528-529.
140 Stanley L Miller and H. C. Urey, "Organic Compound Synthesis on the
Primitive Earth," Scieuce, 1959, 130,245.
HI Rifkin 1984.
142 R. B. Bliss and G. E. Parker, Origiu ofLift: EPolutiou-Crention, (California:
Creation Life Publishers, 1979), p. 14.
143 P. T. Mora, <~The Folly of Probability" in Tbc ()Jigin.s of PrebioWgical Sys-
tems and Thei1· Molecula1· Man-ices, edited by Sidney W. Fox (New York:
Academic Press, 1965), p. 41.
144 Marcel Florkin, "Ideas and Experiments in the Field of Prebiological
Chemical Evolution," Comprehmsil'e Biochemistry, 1975, 29B, 231-260,
pp. 241-242.
145 Heinrich D. Holland, ".Model tOr the Evolution of the Earth's Atmosphere"
in Petrologic Studies: A Volume iu Homn· ofA. F. Buddi11!Jton, edited by A.
E. J. Engel, Harold L. James and B. F. Leonard, (New York: Geological
Society of America, 1962), pp. 448-449.
146 Philip H. Abelson, ... Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth." Proceedings
of National Academy ofScimce, 1966, Vol. 55, pp. 1365-1372.
147 Sidney W. Fox and Klausc Dose, Molecular Evolution and the Origin ofLift,
Re,ised Edition, (New York: Marcel Dekker, 1977), pp. 43, 74-76.
H8 Heinrich D. Holland, "\\'hen did the Earth's atmosphere become oxic? A
Reply," Gcoelmllicnl News, 1999, 100, pp. 20-22.
14<J R. T. Brinkman, "Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of O>.:ygcn
in the Tcrn.:5tri:~l Annosphere," Joumal ofGeopbysical Resean:IJ, 1969, Vol.
74: 23, pp. 53-66.
150 Harry Clemmey and Nick Badham, "Oxygen in the Precambrian Armo·
sphere: An evaluation of the geological evidence," Geology 1982, 10, pp.
141-146.
 Notes 333

151 \Vysong 1976.

152 Abelson 1966.
153 J. P. Ferris and D. E. Nicodem, "Ammonia Photolysis and the Role of
Ammonia in Chemical Revaluation," Nature, 1972, Vol. 238, p. 269.
154 J. P. Ferris and C. T. Chen, «Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen and
Water Mixture as a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primitive Ean:h,"
Journal ofAmerican Cbcnzicai !Wciety, 1975, Vol. 97: II, pp. 2962-2967.
155 Stanley L. Miller, '"'Current Starus of the Prebiotic Synthesis of Small
Molecules," Molecular E1•olution ofLift, 1986, p. 7.
156 ibid.
157 A. Katchalsky, «Prebiotic synthesis of biopolymers on inorganic tem-
plates," Natunvirs, 1973, 60: 215-220.
158 T. E. Mc.Mullen, "Problems with chemical origins of life theories,"
Excerpts from his lectures between April 16, 1993 and April3, 1995 at
South Carolina University. (hrrp:/fwww2.gasou.eduffacsralf/etmcmull/
CHEM.hrm).
159 A. E. \Vilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of EPolutWn,
(California: Master Books, 1981), pp. 9-89.
160 G. A. Kerkut, T7u Implications of Evolution, (London: Pergamon Press,
1960).
161 Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, 1961.
162 ibid.
163 Mdvlullen 1998.
164 Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, (London:
). M. Denr and Sons, 1981), p. 24.
165 Fred Hoyle. The Intelligent Uni1•erse, (London: Michael Joseph Ltd,
1982), 256 pp.
166 Francis Crick, Lift Itself Irs Origin and Nature, (New York: W.W. Norton,
1982), 192 pp.
167 V. H. Mottran, "In the Organ Corporation," Liner, Apri122, 1948.
168 Pierre Lecompte du Nouy, Human Dertiny, (London: Longmans Grcn
and Co., 1947), First Ed. pp. 33-34.
169 Harold). Morowirz, Energy Flow in Bwlogy, (New York: Academic Press,
1968), p. 179.
170 A. G. Cairns-Smith, I7Je Lift Puzzle, (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1971).
171 George Gamow, The Creation of the Universe, revised edition, (New York:
Viking 1961).
172 james F. Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible? (Northridge, Califor-
nia: Probability Research in Molecular Biology, 1993), 107, 114, 115.
334 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

173 ibid.
174 Salisbury 1969
175 Hubert P. Yockey, "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Bio-
genesis by Information Theory," ]oumal of Theoretical Bwlogy, 1977, 67:
377-398. This work has later de1·eloped into a book: lnfonnation Theory
and Molecular Bwlogy, (Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 408.
176 Carl Sagan. "Life," Encyclopedia Brirannica. (New York: Encyclopedia
Britannica, 1997), 22: 967.
177 George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution. Revised Edition.
(New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1967).
178 Rifkin 1984.
179 Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Jonathan Moneymaker, Paul A. :N'el-
son, and Ralph Seelke, Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against
Neo-Darwinism, (Melbourne: Hill House Publishers, cjo O'Brien & Parr-
ners, 2007).
ISO Rifkin 1984.
181 ibid.
182 Grasse 1977.
183 L. Harrison Matthews, from the "Introduction" to The Origin rif Species by
Charles Darwin, 1971 edition. (London: j. M. Dcnr and Sons, 1971), p. xi.
184 W. R. Thompson, from the "Introduction'' to The Origin of Species by
Charles Darwin, 1956 edition. (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1956).
185 Edwin Grant Conklin, Man Real and Ideal, (New York: Scripner's, 1943),
p. 147.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abelson, Philip H. "'Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth." Proceedings of
National Academy of Science, 1966, Vol. 55.
Achenbach, Joel. "Life beyond Eanh." National Geographic January 2000,
Washington.
Beaton M. ]., and T. Cavalier-Smith. "Eukaryotic non-coding DNA is func-
tional: evidence from the differential scaling of cryptomonal genomes,"
P.-oc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 1999, 266.
Beer, Gavin Rylands de. Embryos and Ancestors. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1954.
Behe, Michael J. Danvin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution,
Free Press, 1996.
Bergman, Jerry, and George Howe, Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional. Terre
Hauce: Creation Research Society Books, 1990.
Bliss, R. B., and G. E. Parker, Origin of Life: Evolution-Creation. California:
Creation Life Publishers, 1979.
Bock, W.]. "Evolution by Orderly Law," Science, Vol. 164, May 9, 1969.
Bonanza, Bone. '"Early Bird and Mastodon." Science Ne~vs, 112. September 2,
1977.
Brinkman, R. T. "Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen in
the Terrestrial Atmosphere," Journal ofGeophysical &search, 1969, Vol.
74:23.
Bonis, Louis de. Evolution et extinction dans k rigne animal. Paris: Masson, 1991.
Butfetaut, Eric. Granda Extinctions et Crises Biologiques. Milan: Mentha, 1992.
Cairns-Smith, A. G. The Lift Puzzle. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1971.
Caron, J. M., A. Gauthier, A. Schaaf, J. Ulysse, and J. Wozniak, La Planere
Ter-re. Paris: Editions Ophrys, 1992.
Chaline, Jean. "UEvolution Biologique Humainc." Que Sais-Je? Paris: Presses
Universiraires de France, 1982.
Clemmey, Harry, and Nick Badham. "Oxygen in the Precambrian Atmo-
sphere: An evaluation of the geological evidence," Geology 1982, 10.
Conklin, Edwin Grant. Man &al and Ideal. New York: Scripner's, 1943.
336 Evolution: Scien,·e or Ideology?

Cook, Melvin A. ~ere is the Earth's Radiogenic Helium,"' Natm·e, 179:213,

January 26, 1957.
Coppedge, James F. Evolution: Possible m· Impossible? Northridge, California:
Probability Research in Molecular Biology, 1993.
Courtillot, Vincent. "Une eruption ''okaniquc?" Dossiers pour Ia Science, Hors
Scrie, Septembre-Novembre, 1990.
Crick, Francis. Lift Itself Its Origin and Nature, New York: W.W. Norton, 1982.
Danson, R. "Evolution" New Scientist, 1971, No. 49.
Darlu, P. "A queUe distance sommes-nous de nos voisins singes?" Science &
Vie, Hors Sc!rie, Trimestriel, no. 200, September. Paris, 1997.
Darwin, Charles. The 0.-igin ofSpecies, Modem Library Paperback Edition, 1993.
- - - . The Origin of Species, Random House, Inc. 1998, USA.
Darwin, Francis (cd.). "Letter to Asa Gray." T7Je Life and Letters ofChm·/es
Danvin. New York: Appleton, 1887. Vol. II.
---."Letter to Ao;a Gray." The Lift and Letters of Charles Dan11in. London:
John Murrav, 1888. Vol. 2, p. 273.
Denton, Michael. EPolutibn: A Theory in Crisis. London: Burnett Book.<>, 1985.
"Did Darwin Get it Wrong?" PBS Television Show, Nm•embcr 1, 1981.
WGBH Transcripts, 125.
Dobzhansky, Thcodosius. Mankind E11olving. The Evolution of the Huma"
Species, New Haven and London: YaJe University Press, 1969.
Dover, Gabriel. "Molecular dri,·e: a cohesive mode of species e\•olution."
Nature, 1982, 229.
Eddington, Arthur. The Expanding Universe, New York: Macmillan, 1933.
Enoch, Hannington. El'Olution or Creation, London: Evangelical Press, l 968.
Erv.rin, Douglas. ''The Mother of Mass Extinctions." Scimtific American. July
1996.
Evin, Jacques. "Le temps ct Ia chronomCrrie en archCologie." Histuire et
Mesure. Vol. IX- N' 3/4, Archeologie II, 1994.
Fairbridgc, R. W. "Holocene." [n Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1984.
Feduccia, A., L. Martin, z. Zhou, and L. Hou. "Birds of a Feather." Scientific
American. June 1998.
Ferris, ]. P., and D. E. Nicodem. "Ammonia Photolysis and the Role of
Ammonia in ChemicaJ RevaJuation," Nature, 1972, VoL 238.
Ferris, ]. P ., and C. T. Chen. "Photochemistry of Methane, Nitrogen and
Water Mixru.re as a Model for the Armosphere of the Primitive Earth,"
Journal ofAmerican Clmnical Society, 1975, Vol. 97: II.
Fisher, S., E. A. Grice, M. Ryan, R. M. Vinton, L. Seneca, S. L. Hessling, S.
Andrew, A. S. Mccallion, "Conservation of RET Regulatory Function
 Bibliography 337

from Human to Zebrafish Without Sequence Similarity" Science Express

March 23, 2006 (Online). This work first appeared in the press as
"junk DNA may not be so junky afrer all."
Florkin, Marcel. "Ideas and Experiments in the Field ofPrebiological Chemical
Evolution," Cf»nprehensil'e Biochemistry, 1975, 29B, 231-260.
Fox, Sidney W., and K.Jause Dose. Molecular EvolutWn and the Origin of Life,
Revised Edition, New York: Marcel Dekker, 1977.
Friedman, Alexander. "Uber die Kriimmung des Raumes," Zeitschrift for Physik
1922, 10.
Gammv, George. The Creation of the Univene, revised cdirion. New York:
Viking, 1961.
Germain, M. S. "Qui est l'ancerre des oiseaux?" Science et Vie, 1999, No: 977.
Paris: 1999, No: 977.
Gould, Stephen jay. WonderfolLife: The Burgess Shale and the Nature oJHirtory,
New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1989.
Gould, Stephen jay, and N. Eldredge, "Punctuated Equilibra: The Tempo and
the Mode of Evolution Rcconsiderated," Paleobiology, 1977,3.
Grasse, Pierre-PauJ. ErolutWn ofLiving Organisms. New York: Academic Press,
1977.
Gregory, William K. "Hesperopithecus Apparently Not an Ape nor A Man,"
Science, 1927, Vol. 66, December.
Halstead, Lambert Beverly. "Museum of Errors," Nature, November 20, 1980.
Harding, Luke. "History of modern man unravels as German scholar is
exposed as fraud," The Guardian, February 19, 2005.
Hirotsune, S., N. Yoshida, A. Chen, L. Garrett, F. Sugiyama, S. Takahashi, K.
Yagami, A. Wynshaw-Boris, A. Yoshiki, "An expressed pseudogene
regulates the messenger-RNA stability of its homologous coding
gene." Nature 2003, 423.
His, Wilhelm. Die Anatomie memcblicher Embryonen, Leipzig: Vogel, 1880.
Holland, Heinrich D. "Model for the Evolution of the Earth's Atmosphere,. in
Petrowgic Stndies: A Volume in Honor ofA. F. Buddington. Edited by A.
E.). Engel, Harold L. james and B. F. Leonard. New York: Geological
Society of America, 1962.
- - . "\Vhen did the Earth's atmosphere become oxic? A Reply," Geochemical
News, 1999, 100.
Himmelfarb, Gertrude. Danvin and the Darwinian FJvolutWn. New York: W.
W. Norton & Company, 1959.
Hitching, Francis. The Neck of the Gimffi: Whm Danvin Went Wrong. New
York: Ticknor and Fields, 1982.
338 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

Hole, Frank, and Heizer, Roben:. Prehi.rturic Archaeology: A Brief Introductifm.

Harcoun: College Publishers, 1977, 3rd ed.
Hoyle, Fred. Frontien in Astronomy, London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1955.
Hoyle, Fred, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space. London: J.
M. Dent and Sons, 1981.
Hoyle, Fred. The Intelligent Universe, London: Michael Joseph Ltd, 1982.
Hubble, Edwin. "A Relation berween Distance and Radial Velocity among
Extra-galactic Nebulae," Proceedings of the NationalAcatkmy of Sciences
1929, IS.
Huxley, Julian. "At Random- A Television Preview," Evolution Afttr Darwin.
University of Chicago Press 1960. Edited by Sol Tax, Vol. I.
Huxley, Leonard. Life and Letters ofThoma.s Henry Huxley. London: MacMillan,
1900.
Jaeger,]. ]. "Les Catastrophes Gc!ologiques," in La Mimoire tk Ia Terre. Seuil,
1992.
Janvier, Phillippe. "Phylogenetic classifications of living and fossil vertebrates."
Bulletin de Ia Societe Zoologique de France, 1997, Vol. 122.
Jerison, H. J. Evolution of the Brain and Intelligence. New York and London:
Academic Press, 1973).
Katchalsky, A. "Prebiotic synthesis of biopolymers on inorganic templates,"
Naturwiss, 1973, 60.
Kerkut, G. A. The Implications of Evolution, London: Pergamon Press, 1960.
Kitts, D. B. "Paleontology and Evolution Reconsidered," Paleobiology, 1977, 3.
Kohler,]., S. Schafer-Preuss, D. Buttgereit, ''Related enhancers in the imron
of the beta! tubulin gene of Drosophila melanogasrer are essential for
maternal and CNS-specific expression during embryogenesis." Nucleic
Acids Res 1996, 24.
Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific R£volutions. Chicago: Universiry of
Chicago Press, 1962.
Lemaitre, Georges. "Un univers homogC:ne de masse constante et de rayon
croissant, rendant compte de Ia viresse radiale des nCbuleuses exrraga-
lacriques," Annales de Ia Sotiiti scientifique de Bruxelles 1927,47.
Levin, R. "Bones of Mammals, Ancestors Fleshed Om." Science, Vol. 212, 26
June 1981.
Lingenfelter, Richard E. "Production of C-14 b)' Cosmic 8 Ray Neutrons."
Reviews of Geophysics, 1:51, February, 1963.
Macbeth, Norman. Darwin &tried: An Appeal to &a.son. Boston: Gambit, 1971.
Makalowski, W. "Not Junk After All" Science, 23 May 2003, Vol. 300. No.
5623.
 Bibliography 339

Matthews, L. Harrison. "Introduction" to The Origin of Species by Charles

Darwin, 1971 edition. London:). M. Dent and Sons, 1971.
Maeda S., and G. Mogi. "Functional Morphology of Tonsillar Crypts in
Recurrent Tonsillitis," Acta Otolaryngo (Stockh) Suppl, 1984,416.
Mayda, Arslan. "i~e yaramaz zannedilen kuyruk sokumu." StzmtJ, 1997, No.
227, Izmir.
McCann, Lester). Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism, Lester). McCann, 1986.
McMullen, T. E. "Problems with chemical origins of life theories," Excerpts from
his lecrures between Apri116, 1993 and April3, 1995 at South Carolina
University. (htrp:!/www2.gasou.edu/facstatfjeoncmuii/CHEM.httn).
McNamara, Ken. "Embryos and Evolution,"' New Scientist, October 16, 1999.
Meyer, Stephen C., Scott Minnich, Jonathan Moneymaker, Paul A. Nelson,
and Ralph Seelke, Explm-e Evolution: The Arguments for and Against
Neo-Danvinism. Melbourne: Hill House Publishers, c/o O'Brien &
Pan:ners, 2007.
Miller, Stanley L. "A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive
Eanh Conditions," Science, Vol. 117, May 15, 1953. No: 3046.
- - . "Current Status of the Prebiotic Synthesis of Small Molecules,"
Molecular Evolution of Lift, 1986.
Miller, Stanley L., and H. C. Urey, "Organic Compound Synthesis on the
Primitive Earth," Science, 1959, 130.
Milton, Richard. Shattering the Myths of Danvinism. Vermont: Park Street
Press, 1997.
"Missing, Believed Nonexistent," Tbe Guardian Weekly, November 26, 1978,
vol. 119, no 22, in Denton 1988.
Mora, P. T. "The Folly of Probability" in The Origins of Prebiowgical Systents
and Their Molecular MJJtrices, edited by Sidney W. Fox. New York:
Academic Press, 1965.
Morowitz., Harold ). Energy F/Qw in Biowgy. New York: Academic Press, 1968.
Moman, V. H. "In the Organ Corporation," Liner, April22, 1948.
Nelson, Laura. "Fi~t chimp chromosome creates puzzles," Nature Science
Update, May 27, 2004.
Nouy, Pierre Lecompte du. Human Destiny. London: Longmans Gren and
Co., 1947. First Ed.
Nursi, Beditizzaman Said. ( 1976 ). Lem'alar. Risale-i Nur Klilliyanndan. Istan-
bul: Sozler Yaymevi, I 976.
Officer, Charles B., and Drake, Charles L. "The Cretaceous-Tertiary Transi·
tion,"' Science 1983, 219.
"Old Bird," Discuver. March 1997.
340 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

"On Campus," Alleged skullduggery, Random Samples. Science, Vol 305,

Issue 5688, August 27, 2004.
Oparin, Alcksandr lvanovich. Lift: In Nature, Origin and Development. Lon-
don: Oliver&Bord 1961. Translated from Russian by Ann Synge.
Oppenheimer,]. M. "'Haeckel's variations on Darwin," BioJogicalMetaphurand
Cladistic Classiftcat:Um: An Interdisciplinary Penpectivc. Edited by H. M.
Hoenigswald and L. F. Wiener. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1987.
Paterson, Ton~r. "Neanderthal Man never walked in northern Europe." www.
telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=fncws/2004/08/22/wnean22.
xml. Augusr 22, 2004.
Patterson, C. Harper's, Fcbruar}' 1984.
Pennisi, Elizabeth. Science News, December 10, 1994.
- - - . "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," Science Vol. 277, No.
5331, September 5, 1997.
Penzias, A. A., and R. W. Wilson, "A Measurement of Excess Antenna
Temperarure at 4080 Mc/s," Astrophysics]()Urna/ 1965, 142.
Popper, Karl Raimund. Uncnded QJ«st: An InteUectualAutobwgraphy. Illinois:
Open Court, 1976. The Library of Living Philosophers, Vol. I.
- - - . "Darwinism as a metaphysical research programme." Metbodo/Qgy and
Science, 1976, 9.
Raup, David. "Conflicts berween Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of
Natura/History BuUetin, vol. 50. No.1, 1979.
Raup, David, and Scpkoski, Jack. "Periodicity of Extinctions in the Geologic
Past." Proceedings of the NatWnal Academy of Science, 1984, 81.
Renauld, H., and S. M. Gasser, "Heterochromatin: a meiotic matchmaker,"
Trends in Cell Bwlogy 7, May 1997.
Rensberger, Boyce. H()USton Chronicle, November 5, 1980.
Richardson, Michael K., J. Hanken, M. L. Goonerame et al. "There is no
highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates, implications for
current theories of evolucion and development," Anatomy and
Embryology, 1997, 196.
Richardson, Michael K. et al. "Haeckel, Embryos, and Evolution," Science,
May 15, 1998, 280.
Richardson, Michael K., and Gerhard Keuck, "A question of intent: when is a
'schematic' illustration a fraud?" Nature 2001,410:144.
Richardson, Michael K., and Gerhard Keuck, "Haeckel's A.BC of evolution
and development," Bwlogical &viell's of the Cambridge Philosophical
Society 2002, 77.
 Bibliography 341

Richardson, Michael K. "Haeckcl's Embryos, Continued," Science, 1998, 281.

R.idlc\', Mark. "Who doubts evolution?" New Scientist, 25 June 1981, Vol. 90.
Rifkin, Jeremy. A!!Teny: A Nnv Word, A New World. Penguin: 1984.
Rutimeyer, Ludwig. "Rezcnsion zu Haeckel, Ernst, Naturlichc
Schopfungsgeschichte." Berlin: !868,Archi1• for Anthropowgie 3.
Sagan, Carl. "Life," EncyciiJpedia Britannica. (New York: Encyclopedia Britan-
nica, 1997), 22.
Salisbury, Frank B. "Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene,"
Nature, 1969, 224.
Sandell, L. L., and V. A. Zakian. "Loss of a yeast telomere: arrest, recovery,
and chromosome loss" Ce/11993, 75 (4).
Schulz, Matthias. "Die Regeln Mache lch," Der Spiegel, August 16, 2004.
Scpkoski, John, Jr., "Rates of speciation in the fossil record." Philos()phical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: BwwgicaJ Sciences, 353
(1366).
Simpson, George Gaylord. Hones. Oxford University Press, 1961.
- - - . The Major Features of El'Oiution. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1961.
- - - . TbeMeaningofEvolzltitm. Revised Edition. New Haven, Connecticut:
Yale University Press, 1967.
--.Life Before Man. New York: Time-Life Books, 1972.
Simpson, George Gaylord, and W. Beck, An IntroductWn to Biology, New York:
Harcou" Brace and \Vorld, 1965.
Spencer, Herberr. Firn Principles of a New System of Phiwsoplry. New York,
Appleton, 1872. Two \'olumcs.
Stahl, B. J. Vertehrata History. Problems in EvolutiiJn. New York: McGraw· Hill,
1985.
Stanley, Steven M. "Ma'iS Extinctions in the Ocean." Scientific American. No:
6, June 1984.
Staune, Jean. "L'Cvolution condamne Darwin." The interview with Jean Dorrt.
Figaro Magazine. October 26, 1991.
Suess, Hans E. "Secular Variations in the Cosmic-Ray produced Carbon-14 in
the Atmosphere and Their Interpretations." ]ounzal of Geophysical
Resea,.ch, 70:5947, December I, 1965.
S\\-'inton, W. E. "The Origin of Birds" in Biology and Comparati1•e Physiology of
Birds, A. J. Marshall (edited by) New York: Academic Press, vol. I.
Switzer, V. R. "Radioactive Dating and Low-level Counting," Science,
157:726, August II, 1967.
342 Evolution: Science or /deolo[Dl?

Taylor, G. R. The Great EJ>Oiution Mystery. New York: Harper & Row, 1983.
Thomson, John Arthur, and Geddes, Patrick. Lift: Outlines of General Biowgy.
London: Williams & Norgare 1931. Vol. II.
Thomson, Keith Stewart. "Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated," American
Scientist, Vol. 776, May-June 1988.
Thompson, W. R. "Introduction" to T11e Origin of Species by Charles Darwin,
1956 edition. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1956.
Ting, S. J. "A binary model of repetitive DNA sequence in Caenorhabditis
elegans." DNA Cell Bioi. 1995, 14.
Vandendtics, E. R., D. Johnson, R. Reinke, "Orrhodenricle is required for pho·
torcccptor cell development in the Drosophila eye'' Dcv Bioi 1996, 173.
Vogel, Gretchen. "Objection 2: Why Sequence rhe Junk?" Science, February
16, 2001.
Waddington, Conrad Hal. T11e Strategy ofthe Genes. London: Allen·Un"in, 1957.
Ward, Peter, and Brownlee, Donald. Ran: Earth. New York: Copcmirus, 2000.
'Watanabe, H., and E. Fujiyama, et. al. "DNA sequence and comparative
analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22," Natzwe, 2004, 429.
Weiner, W. S., K. P. Oak.Jey, W. E. Le Gras Clark, "The Solution of the
Pilrdown Problem," Bulletin of the Btitish Museum (Natural History)
Geowgy Series, 1953, Vol. 2, No. 3.
WeUs, Jonathan. lcotiS ofEvolution: Science or Myth? Wiry Much of What We Teach
about El'lllution Is Wrong. Washington DC: Regnery Press, 2000.
Westoll, Thomas Stanley. Proceedings from the British Association Meeting at
Edinburgh, August 10, 1951.
Wilder-Smith, A. E. The Natural Scimces Knuw Nothing ofEvolution. California:
Master Books, 1981.
Wood, B., and A. Brooks. "\Ve are what we ate,"' Natut·e, 1999, Vol. 400, no:
6741, IS July 1999.
Wysong, R. L. The Creaticn-Erolution Controveny. East Lansing, MI: Inquiry
Press, 1976.
Yockey, Hubert P. "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogen-
esis by Information Theory," Journal ofT7uoretical Biology, 1977, 67.
Yockey, Hubert P. Infonnation T11eory and Mokeular Biowgy. Cambridge Uni-
versiry Press, 1992.
Zuckerkandl, E. ''Neutral and Nonneutral Mutations: The Creative Mix-Evo-
lution of Complexity in Gene Interaction Systems,"' Journal of Molecu-
lar Evolution, 1997, 44.
 INDEX
A belemnites, 136
Big Bang, 10, 176,226,227,228,229,
Abdus Salam, 229
231,234,235,237,289,291
abiogenesis, 18, 19, 20, 23
biogenetic law, the, 207, 210
accretion, 233
Bisron berularia, 50
adaptation, 10, 33, 34, 42, 61, 74,
blastula, 212
75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 85, 86,
Bra,.s, A., 210
97,98,100,314
Bristlecone pine, 124, 125
agnostic, xi, 5, 8
Burgess Shale, 131, 327
Ahrens, Joan, 105, 116
Burkitt's lymphoma, 217
alcohol dehydrogenase, 65, 66
allantois, 212
American Scientist (magazine), 311,330
c
amnion, 212 Cactospiza, 93
amphibian, 134, 153, 154, 173, 174 Calippus, 170
Anaximander, 18 Camarhynchus, 93
Anchitherium, 170 Cambrian explosion, 130
anococcygealligament, 215 Cambrian period, 128, 129
anomaly, 59, 214 canine teeth, 149, 193, 194
anoxia, 216 carnivora, 149
appendix, 213,216,217 catastrophism, 26, l 04
Archaeohippus, 170 central nervous system, 158, 162, 203
Atchaeopteryx, 159, 160, 161, 162, cephalopod, 136, 219
163, 172 Ccrthidea, 93
Aristotle, 18 cervical costa, 214
aspartate, 250 cervical vertebrae, 165
asteroid hypothesis, 137, 138, 139 chemosynthesis, 20
atheism, xiv, 10, 23, 33, 85, 307, 308 Chimp Chromosome Creates Puz-
zles, 197
B chirality, 256
Beagle, the, 8, 96 chlorophyll, 195, 292
Beck, Warren, 126 chondrodystrophic dwarfism, 59
344 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

chorion, 212 determinism, 85, 291

cladism, 174,175, 176,177, 179 deuteron, 231, 233
cladistic approach, 175, 179 Devonian, 134, 246
closed cirrulation, 158 dextrorotary, 256, 257
coacervate, 264 Dialectic of !'\arurc, 179
coccygeal arter\', 214 dimethyltryptamine (DMT), 217
coccygeal vertebrae, 213, 214 dipnoi (lungfish), 172
coccygeus muscle, 214
DNA, 37, 47, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59,
61, 64, 66, 69, 82, 83, 84, 156,
coccyx, 213, 214, 215, 216
157, 196, 199, 200, 201, 202,
codon, 57, 58,59
203, 204, 245, 256, 261, 262,
Coelacamh (Sarcopterygii), 145, 146
263, 264, 265, 268, 274, 282,
coincidence, xiv, 3, 9, 10, 21, 23, 37,
301,329,330
38, 82, 86, 154, 194, 238, 266,
Drosophila melanogaster, 67,330
272,275,277,281
cold trap, 249, 250 E
Confuciusornis sancrus, 161
Edemata, 159
convergent evolution, 221
Ediacaran period, 133
cosmic theory, 19
Eldredge, N., 177
Courrillot, V., 137 Emberizidae, 93, 94
Cretaceous, 116, 117, 128,130, 132, Engels, 175, 180
136, 137, 138, 148,327 Eoalulavis, 161
Creraccous-Tcrtiary boundary, 128, Eohippus, 167, 168, 169
136, 137, 138 Eguus, 168, 169
crossing over, 84 Equus nevadensis, 168
crossopterygians, 154 Equus occidentalis, 168
Escherichia coli, 65, 284
D Eurasian goat, 174
Darwinism,,;;;, 12,169,179,180,181, evening primrose, 68, 69
204, 273, 294, 296, 298, 299, expanding uni\'erse, 227
302, 306, 307, 308, 3 I 0, 311, expansion of the universe, 227, 228,
312,317,325,326,328,334 229
Danvin's Black Box, 197, 267,329
Darwin's finches, 90, 92, 95 F
DDT,98 fermemacion, 292
deist, 8 Field Muscwn of Narural History,
deletion, 58 the, 167
Der Spiegel, 106, 326 fluorine rest, 183
descriptive, 6 formic acid, 250
 Index 345

founder's effect, 82 Hipparion, 169, 170

Frasnian-Famennian, 134 His, W.,210
Fringillidae family, 93 Hodgkin's lymphoma, 217
fruit fly, 65, 67 Holocene epoch, the, 125
holorypc, 190
G hominid, 186, 188, 191, 194
Galapagos Islands, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, Hominidae, 187, 188
96,97,298 Homo crecrus, 185
gastrula, 212 Homo ergasrcr, 185
gencratio spontanca, 18 Homo habilis, 185
genetic drift, 82, 83 Homo hcidclbcrgcnsis, 185
generic isolation, 89 homology, 218
genome, 64, 81, 82, 197, 201, 202, Homo sapiens ncandenhalensis, 185
204,274 Human Genome Project, 201, 297
genotype, 55, 57, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, Huxley, T. H., I 76
83 hydrocyanic acid, 250
geographical isolation, 89 hydrolysis, 250
Geospiza, 93 hypothesis of heterotroph)', 21
glutamate, 250 Hyracotherium, 168
glutamine, 261
Goblet cells, 217 I
gorilla, 188 Ichrhyosrcga, 154
Gould, S. )., 177 Icons of Evolution, 95, 326
gradual evolution, 128, 171, 173, immune system, 62, 64,217,268, 314
175, 177, 180 Implications of Evolution, 3 I I, 333
gradualism, I 47, 170, 175, 177, 178, incw, 165
180, 181 inheritance of acquired characteris-
Great Break, the, 139 tics, 26
greenhouse effect, 239 Insrirute for Creation Research, 38
Guardian Weekly, the, 178 insulin, 280, 282, 283
intercostal nerves, 214
H intrachromosomal recombination, 70
HahnhOfcrsand man, 107 Introduction to Prehistoric Archaeol-
Hallucigenia, 131 ogy, 124,326
hammerhead shark, 78 intron, 330
Hannig, 179 irreducible complexity, 46, 71, 194,
Hegel, 180 266,267,268
Hcsperopithccm haroldcooki, 184, 185 isolation, 10, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91,
heterochromatin, 202 92,249
346 Evolution: Science or Ideology?

J meiosis, 54, 70, 75,202, 314

melatonin, 217
Journal of Geophysical Research,
Mcrtensiella luschani, 89
326,332
messenger RNA, 195
junk DNA, 201
microevolurion, 66
Jurassic, 136
Miohippus, 169
missense (or nonsynonymous) muta-
K
tions, 58
Katchalsk)', A., 255 modification, 155, 178
KBS Tuff (the Kar Behrensmeyer monotreme, 173
Site), 118 Morgan, T. H., 49
Kerkut, G. A., 259, 311 mutation, 10, 27, 42, 48, 57, 58,
Kenlewell, H., 51 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67,
69, 71, 90, 156, 165, 198,219,
L 282,284,286
Lake Rudolph, 118 Mycoplasma hominis, 277
Lake Turkana, 118
Lamarckism, 26, 2 7. 28 N
Latimcria chalumnae, 145 Nannippus, 170
Lc Chatelicr's principle, 259 National Cancer Instirurc, 251
levorotary, 256, 257 narural fission, 111
Liaoningornis longidigirris, 161 naturalistic theory, 19, 20
Life: Outlines of General Biology, natural selection, 8, 10, 14, 22, 28,
72,326 31, 32, 33, 34, 42, 43, 44, 45,
Linncan Society, 97 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 55, 56,
lobe-finned fishes, 154 63, 64, 68, 69, 71, 72, 76, 77,
Lymantria dispar, 69 82, 83, 85, 97, 100, 146, 149,
155, 175, 178, 222, 282, 286,
M 309,314
Macbeth, N ., 46 Nature of the Uni\'crsc, 273
malleus, 165 Nattirliche Schopfungsgeschichte, 207
mammoths, 139 Neanderthal man, 107
Mankind Evolving, 192, 329 Ncbrac;ka man, 184
Manx (cat), 99 nco-Darwinian synthesis, 100,286
marsupials, 137, 144 nco-Darwinian theory, 286
Marsupials, 144 Neolithic, 119
Marxism, 12, 35, 175,179, 180,307 New Scientist (magazine), 181, 208,
materialism, x.iv, 33, 294 328,330
Megahippus, 170 nitric acid, 138, 250, 255
 Index 347

non-coding DNA, 20 I, 203, 329 physiological acclimatization, 76

Norrhern Chile, 95 Piltdown man, 183, 184
Not Junk After All, 204, 330 Plato, 85
nucleosynthesis, 232, 234 pleiotropic effe([, 81
nucleotide, 58, 59, 61, 198, 201, pleiotropy, 84
261,263 Pleistocene epoch, 139
plesiosaurs, 136
0 Pliocene epoch, 184
occipital condyle, 165 point mutation, 58
Oenothcra lamardciana, 68 polymerization, 247, 258
Onohippidium, 170 polymorphism, 84
ontogeny, 206, 207, 208, 209 polypeptide, 258, 259, 260, 261, 282
Opabinia, 131 Precambrian, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133,
open circulation, 158 306,332
Opisthocomus hoazin, 160 prehistoric, 106, 107, 119, 143, 183
Ordm-ician, 132, 134 primates, 187, 188, 190
Orohippus, 169 proinsulin, 283
Osborn, H. F., 183 prokaryotic cell, 63
prorein, 11, 23, 57, 58, 59, 65, 66,
p 81, 195, 201, 202, 203, 258,
259, 260, 261, 262, 264, 274,
Paderborn-Sande, I 06
275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280,
Palcowic Era, 152
281, 282
Pangaea, 135
proteinoid, 258
Parahipparion, 170
Protoavis, 160
parathyroid, 208, 209, 216
prorowa, 68
Pasteur effect, 292
pseudogene, 202, 203, 330
Patagonia, 95
puncruated equilibrium, 170, 171,
peppered moth, 50, 51, 52
172, 173, 174, 176, 179
Permian Period, 128, 134
pygosryle, 161
phenotype, 55, 56, 59, 60, 76, 81
pyruvate, 293
phorodissociarion, 252
photolysis, 252, 254
Q
photon, 231, 234, 235
photoreceptor, 203, 206, 219, 329 Queen Victoria, 9, 180
photosynthesis, 20, 120, 133, 137,
240,247 R
phyletic gradualism, 170 RecapiruJa[ion Theory, 207
phylogenetic evolution, 141 rcduc[ionis[, 83
ph\"logeny, 206, 207. 208, 210 repeating DNA, 201, 202, 204
348 Evolulion: Science or Ideology?

reproductive isolation, 89, 90 Thylacinus, 144

Research Center for the Early Stone thymus, 208, 209, 216, 217
Age, 106 Traite de Zoologic, 312
Rhipidistia, 145, 146 transfer RNA, 195
RNA, 57, 195, 200, 204, 256, 261, transformation, ix, 26, 61, 65, 99,
262,263,264,265,268,330 Ill, ISS, 156, 158, 164, 174,
Rubik's Cube, 273 206, 207, 283
transformation of species, 26, 99
s transformism, 27, 28
sacrum, 213, 214 Triassic, 132, 135, 136
Sahara, the, 80
Science News (magazine), 160, 327 u
second law of rhcnncxlynamics, the, 24
uniformitarian geology, 122, 124
Shattering the Myths of Darwin-
uniformitarianism, 104, 115, 128
ism, 326
sick.lc-cell anemia, 58, 261
Simpson, G. G., !52
v
S1zmt1 (magazine), 213, 331 valine, 261
social Darwinism, 294, 310 ,·ariation, 47, 53, 54, 55, 57~ 70, 82,
South Africa, 142, 145, 168 83, 85, 92, 93, 95, 97, 99, 124,
South America, 90, 96, 220 126, 192,307,313,314
sphincter ani exrernus muscle, 215 Vendian period, 133
Stalin, 175 vesrigialit\', 216
stapes, 165 ''estigial organs, 170,212,213
static universe model, 227, 228 vitellin, 212
Stylohipparion, 170 vitellus sac, 212
supernova, 126, 271 volcanism hypothesis, 138
Swiss Insrirute for Experimental Can-
cer Research, 202 w
Synthetic Philosophy, 25
Waddington, C. H., 50
Wales, 128, 131
T
Wysong, R. L., 47, 253
Tasmanian wolf, 144, 220
tautology, 50 X
temporal fossae, 165
temporal isolation, 89 Xcnophanes, 18
tetrapod, 153, 154
y
Thales, 18
Th;,mpson, W. R., 312 Yucatan, 139