16 WHY IS IT WRONG TO THINK THAT EVOLUTION COULD BE CONFIRMED IN THE FUTURE?

WHEN forced into a corner, some people who support the theory of evolution resort to the claim "Even if scientific discoveries do not confirm the theory of evolution today, such developments will take place in the future."

There is no difference between the absurdity of claiming that a jet could form by chance and that a living cell could do so. The design in a living cell is many times superior to that in a jet created by the best engineers and most advanced robots, with the most developed technology, in the most modern plants.

The basic starting point here is evolutionists' admission of defeat in the scientific arena. Reading between the lines, we can translate as follows: "Yes, we defenders of the theory of evolution admit that the discoveries of modern science do not support us. For that reason, we can see no alternative but to refer the matter to the future."

Yet science does not function by such logic. A scientist does not first of all blindly devote himself to a theory, hoping that one day the evidence to prove that theory will emerge. Science examines the available evidence and draws conclusions from it. That is why scientists should accept the "design," or the fact of creation in other words, which scientific discoveries have proved.

Despite this, however, evolutionist incitement and propaganda can still influence people, especially those who are not fully conversant with the theory. For this reason, it will be useful to set out the reply in full:

We can consider the validity of the theory of evolution with three basic questions:

1. How did the first living cell emerge?

2. How can one living species turn into another?

3. Is there any evidence in the fossil record that living things underwent such a process?

A great deal of serious research has been carried out during the twentieth century into these three questions, which the theory simply has to answer. What this research has revealed, however, is that the theory of evolution cannot account for life. This will become apparent when we consider these questions one by one.

1. The question of the "first cell" is the most deadly dilemma for the proponents of evolution. Research on the subject has revealed that it is impossible to explain the emergence of the first cell by means of the concept of "chance." Fred Hoyle puts it this way:

The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.63

Let us use an example to see the contradiction evolutionists are involved in. Remember the famous example of William Paley and imagine someone who has never seen a clock in his life, someone on a desert island for instance, who one day comes across one. This person who sees a wall-clock from 100 metres away will not be able to make out exactly what it is, and may be unable to distinguish it from any natural phenomenon thrown up by the wind, sand, and Earth. Yet as that person draws closer, he will understand just by looking at it that it is the product of design. From even closer up, he will be left in absolutely no doubt. The next stage may be to examine the features of this object, and the art apparent in it. When he opens it up and has a detailed look, he will see that there is a greater accumulation of knowledge inside it than was apparent from the outside, and that is a product of intelligence. Every subsequent examination will just make that analysis even more certain.

The truth about life that emerges as science advances is in a similar situation. Scientific developments have revealed the perfection in life on the system, organ, tissue, cellular, and even molecular levels. Every new detail we grasp enables us to see the wondrous dimension of this design a little more clearly. Nineteenth-century evolutionists, who took the view that the cell was a little lump of carbon, were in the same situation as that person looking at the clock from 100 metres away. Today, however, it is impossible to find even one scientist who does not admit that each individual part of the cell is a magnificent work of art and design on its own. Even the membrane of a tiny cell, which has been described as a "selective filter," contains enormous intelligence and design. It recognizes the atoms, proteins, and molecules around it as if it possessed a consciousness of its own, and only allows into the cell those which are needed. (For further details, see Harun Yahya's Consciousness in the Cell.) Unlike the limited intelligent design in the clock, living organisms are stunning artifacts of intelligence and design. Far from proving evolution, the ever wider-ranging and detailed research that is carried out into living structures, only some of whose make-up and functions have been uncovered so far, allows us to understand the truth of creation even better.

2. Evolutionists maintain that one species can turn into another by means of mutation and natural selection. All the research carried out on the matter has shown that neither mechanism has any evolutionary effect whatsoever. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in London, stresses the fact in these words:

No one has ever produced a species by the mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it, and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question. 64

Research into mutation shows that it has no evolutionary properties. The American geneticist B. G. Ranganathan says:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.65

As we have seen, the mechanisms that the theory of evolution suggests for the formation of species are completely ineffective, and actually harmful. It has been understood that these mechanisms, which were proposed when science and technology had not yet advanced to the level necessary to show that the claim was nothing but the product of fantasy, have no developmental or evolutionary effects.

3. Fossils also show that life did not emerge as the result of any evolutionary process, but that it came about suddenly, the product of perfect "design." All the fossils that have ever been found confirm this. Niles Eldredge, the well-known paleontologist from Harvard University and curator of the American Museum of Natural History, explains that there is no possibility that any fossils that might be found in the future could change the situation:

The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history-not the artifact of a poor fossil record. 66

Another American scholar, Robert Wesson, states in his 1991 book Beyond Natural Selection, that "the gaps in the fossil record are real and phenomenal." He elaborates this claim in this way:

The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt. 67

In conclusion, some 150 years have gone by since the theory of evolution was first put forward, and all subsequent scientific developments have worked against it. The more science has examined the details of life, the more evidence for the perfection of creation has been found, and the more it has been understood that the emergence of life and its subsequent variation by chance is quite impossible. Every piece of research reveals new evidence of the design in living things, and makes the fact of creation ever clearer. Every decade that has passed since Darwin's time has just revealed the invalidity of the theory of evolution even more.

In short, scientific advances do not favour the theory of evolution. For that reason, further developments in the future will not do so either, but will demonstrate its invalidity even further.

It remains to say that the claims of evolution are not something that science has not yet solved or explained, but will be able to explain in the future. On the contrary, modern science has disproved the theory of evolution in all areas and demonstrated that it is impossible from all points of view for such an imaginary process ever to have taken place. To claim that such an untenable belief will be proven in the future is nothing but the product of the imaginative and utopian mindsets of those Marxist and materialist circles that see evolution as underpinning their ideologies. They are merely trying to console themselves in their terrible despair.

For this reason, the idea that "science will prove evolution in the future" is no different from believing that "science will one day show that the Earth rests on the back of an elephant."

17 WHY IS METAMORPHOSIS NOT EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION?

SOME creatures undergo physical changes to allow them to survive and adapt to different natural conditions at different times. This process is known as metamorphosis. People with insufficient knowledge of biology and evolutionist claims also sometimes try to portray the process as evidence for the theory of evolution. Those sources which cite metamorphosis as "an example of evolution" are superficial, narrow-based works of propaganda which seek to mislead those who do not possess sufficient information on the subject, juvenile evolutionists, or a few ignorant Darwinist biology teachers. Scientists who are considered experts on evolution, and who thus know more about the dilemmas and contradictions inherent in the theory, hesitate to even refer to this ridiculous claim. That is because they know how senseless it is…

Some creatures that undergo metamorphosis: the frog, the butterfly, the bee, the mosquito.

Butterflies, flies, and bees are some of the best-known creatures that undergo metamorphosis. Frogs, which start life in water and then live on land, are another example. This has nothing to do with evolution, because the theory tries to account for the differentiation between living things in terms of chance mutations. Metamorphosis, however, bears no similarity at all to that claim, being a pre-planned process which has nothing to do with mutation or chance. It is not chance that brings metamorphosis about, but genetic data which are built-in in the creature from the moment it is born. The frog, for example, possesses the genetic information to allow it to live on land while it is still living underwater. Even while still a larva, the mosquito possesses the genetic information regarding its pupa and adult states. The same thing applies to all creatures that undergo metamorphosis.

Metamorphosis is evidence for creation

People who try to portray metamorphosis as "evidence of evolution" know nothing about biology and the theory of evolution. Metamorphosis is a "planned change" encoded inside genetic information, and bears no similarity to evolution, which means "coincidental change." Metamorphosis is an example of "irreducible complexity," and is evidence that disproves evolution.

Recent scientific research into metamorphosis has shown that it is a complex process controlled by different genes. As regards the metamorphosis of the frog, for instance, the relevant processes in the tail alone are controlled by more than a dozen genes. This means that this process comes about thanks to several components working together. This is a biological process that bears the feature of "irreducible complexity," which shows that metamorphosis is proof of creation.

Prof. Michael Behe

"Irreducible complexity" is a concept that has been given its place in the scientific literature by Professor Michael Behe, a biochemist who is known for his research proving the invalidity of the theory of evolution. What it means is that complex organs and systems function by the working together of all the component parts that make them up, and that if even the smallest part ceases to function, so will the whole organ or system. It is impossible for such complex structures to have emerged by chance, with tiny changes over time, as the theory of evolution maintains. That is what happens in metamorphosis. The process of metamorphosis happens through exceedingly sensitive balances and timings in hormones which are in turn affected by different genes. The creature will pay for even the tiniest error with its life. It is impossible to believe that such a complex process could have come about by chance and by stages. Since even a tiny error will cost the animal its life, it is impossible to speak in terms of a "trial and error mechanism," or natural selection, as evolutionists maintain. No creature can hang around for millions of years waiting for its missing components to come about by chance.

Bearing this fact in mind, it is also apparent that the subject constitutes no evidence at all for evolution, as some people who are ill-informed about metamorphosis assume it to do. On the contrary, when the complexity of the process and the systems that control it are taken into consideration, animals which undergo metamorphosis can be seen to be clear evidence for creation.

18 WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCOUNT FOR DNA BY "CHANCE"?

THE level of scientific knowledge we have arrived at today shows that the evident design and complex systems in living things make it impossible for them to have emerged by chance. For instance, thanks to the recent "Human Genome Project," the marvelous design and the enormous information content in human genes have been revealed for all to see.

In the framework of that project, scientists from many countries, from the United States to China, worked for 10 years to decipher one by one the 3 billion chemical codes in DNA. As a result, nearly all the information in human genes has been set out in its correct order.

Although this is a very exciting and important development, as Dr. Francis Collins, who leads the Human Genome Project states, so far only the first step has been taken in the decoding of the information in DNA.

In order to understand why it took 10 years and the work of hundreds of scientists to uncover the codes that make up this information, we have to understand the magnitude of the information contained within DNA.

DNA reveals the existence of an infinite source of knowledge

There is enough information in the DNA of a single human cell to fill an encyclopedia of one million pages. It would be impossible to read it all in one lifetime. If one person set out to read one DNA code per second, non-stop, all day every day, it would take him 100 years. That is because the encyclopedia in question possesses nearly three billion different codes. If we wrote down all the information in DNA on paper, it would stretch from the North Pole to the Equator. That means some 1,000 large volumes-more than enough to fill a big library.

If the information in DNA were written out on a piece of paper, it would stretch from the North Pole to the Equator.

Even more important, all this information is contained in the nucleus of each and every cell, which means that as each individual consists of some 100 trillion cells, there are 100 trillion versions of the same library.

If we wish to compare this treasury of information with the level of knowledge so far reached by man, it is impossible to provide any example of the same magnitude. An unbelievable picture presents itself: 100 trillion x 1,000 books! That is more than the number of grains of sand in the world. Furthermore, if we multiply that number by the six billion people currently living on the Earth, and the billions more who have ever lived, then the number is beyond our capacity to grasp, and the amount of information stretches to infinity.

These examples are an indication of what imposing information we are living cheek by jowl with. We possess advanced computers that can store great amounts of information. However, when we compare DNA to these computers, we are amazed to see that the most modern technology-the product of the cumulative human labour and knowledge over the centuries-does not even possess the storage capacity of a single cell.

Gene Myers is one of the most prominent experts of Celera Genomics, the company that carried out the Human Genome project. His words regarding the outcome of the project are a statement of the great knowledge and design in DNA: "What really astounds me is the architecture of life…The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed… There's a huge intelligence there." 68

Another interesting aspect is that all life on the planet has been produced according to the coded descriptions written in this same language. No bacterium, plant, or animal is formed without its DNA. It is quite evident that all of life emerges as the result of descriptions that employ the same language and stemming from the same source of knowledge.

This leads us to an obvious conclusion. All living things in the world live and multiply according to information created by one single intelligence.

This makes the theory of evolution utterly meaningless. That is because the foundation of evolution is "chance," but chance cannot create information. If one day the formula of a medicine that can cure cancer were found on a piece of paper, all of mankind would join forces to discover the scientist concerned and even give him an award. Nobody would think, "I wonder if the formula appeared when some ink was spilt onto the page." Everybody who possesses reason and clear thinking will think that that the formula was written by someone who had made a deep study of chemistry, human physiology, cancer, and pharmacology.

The evolutionist claim that the information in DNA came about by chance is completely irrational, and is equivalent to saying that the formula on the paper also came about by chance. DNA contains the detailed molecular formulae of 100,000 types of proteins and enzymes, together with the delicate order governing how these will be used during production. Alongside these, it contains the production plans for the message-carrier hormones and the inter-cellular communications protocols they are used in, and all kinds of other complex and specified information.

To claim that DNA and all the information within it came about by chance events and natural causes reflects either total ignorance of the subject or materialist dogmatism. The idea that a molecule such as DNA, with all the magnificent information and complex structure it contains, could be the product of chance is not even worth taking seriously. Unsurprisingly, evolutionists try to gloss over the subject of the source of life, as with so many other subjects, by describing it as an "unsolved secret."

19 WHY IS IT THAT BACTERIAL RESISTANCE TO ANTIBIOTICS IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF EVOLUTION?

ONE of the biological concepts that evolutionists try to present as evidence for their theory is the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. Many evolutionist sources mention antibiotic resistance as an example of the development of living things by advantageous mutations. A similar claim is also made for the insects which build immunity to insecticides such as DDT.

However, evolutionists are mistaken on this subject too.

Antibiotics are "killer molecules" that are produced by microorganisms to fight other microorganisms. The first antibiotic was penicillin, discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming realised that mould produced a molecule that killed the Staphylococcus bacterium, and this discovery marked a turning point in the world of medicine. Antibiotics derived from microorganisms were used against bacteria and the results were successful.

Soon, something new was discovered. Bacteria build immunity to antibiotics over time. The mechanism works like this: A large proportion of the bacteria that are subjected to antibiotics die, but some others, which are not affected by that antibiotic, replicate rapidly and soon make up the whole population. Thus, the entire population becomes immune to antibiotics.

Evolutionists try to present this as "the evolution of bacteria by adapting to conditions."

The truth, however, is very different from this superficial interpretation. One of the scientists who has done the most detailed research into this subject is the Israeli biophysicist Lee Spetner, who is also known for his book Not by Chance published in 1997. Spetner maintains that the immunity of bacteria comes about by two different mechanisms, but neither of them constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution. These two mechanisms are:

1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria.

2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation.

Professor Spetner explains the first mechanism in an article published in 2001:

Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... [T]he organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics. 69

Spetner then goes on to say that this is not "evidence for evolution":

The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species. 70

So, we cannot talk of any evolution here, because no new genetic information is produced: genetic information that already exists is simply transferred between bacteria.

The second type of immunity, which comes about as a result of mutation, is not an example of evolution either. Spetner writes:

... [A] microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT [Neo-Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule. 71

In his book Not by Chance, Spetner likens this situation to the disturbance of the key-lock relationship. Streptomycin, just like a key that perfectly fits in a lock, clutches on to the ribosome of a bacterium and inactivates it. Mutation, on the other hand, decomposes the ribosome, thus preventing streptomycin from holding on to the ribosome. Although this is interpreted as "bacteria developing immunity against streptomycin," this is not a benefit for the bacteria but rather a loss for it. Spetner writes:

This change in the surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution… cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity. 72

To sum up, a mutation impinging on a bacterium's ribosome makes that bacterium resistant to streptomycin. The reason for this is the "decomposition" of the ribosome by mutation. That is, no new genetic information is added to the bacterium. On the contrary, the structure of the ribosome is decomposed, that is to say, the bacterium becomes "disabled." (Also, it has been discovered that the ribosome of the mutated bacterium is less functional than that of a normal bacterium.) Since this "disability" prevents the antibiotic from attaching onto the ribosome, "antibiotic resistance" develops.

Finally, there is no example of mutation that "develops the genetic information." Evolutionists, who want to present antibiotic resistance as evidence for evolution, treat the issue in a very superficial way and are thus mistaken.

The same situation holds true for the immunity that insects develop to DDT and similar insecticides. In most of these instances, immunity genes that already exist are used. The evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala admits this fact, saying, "The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds."73 Some other examples explained by mutation, just as with the ribosome mutation mentioned above, are phenomena that cause "genetic information deficit" in insects.

In this case, it cannot be claimed that the immunity mechanisms in bacteria and insects constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. That is because the theory of evolution is based on the assertion that living things develop through mutations. However, Spetner explains that neither antibiotic immunity nor any other biological phenomena indicate such an example of mutation:

The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by Neo-Darwinian Theory that have been examined on the molecular level have added any information. The question I address is: Are the mutations that have been observed the kind the theory needs for support? The answer turns out to be NO!74

20 WHAT KIND OF RELATIONSHIP IS THERE BETWEEN CREATION AND SCIENCE?

As we have shown in all the questions we have considered so far, the theory of evolution is completely at odds with scientific discoveries. This theory, born of the primitive level of science in the nineteenth century, has been completely invalidated by successive scientific discoveries.

Those evolutionists who are blindly devoted to the theory look for a solution in demagogy, since no scientific foundation is left to them. The most frequently resorted to of these is the clichéd slogan that "creation is a faith, so it cannot be considered part of science." The claim goes that evolution is a scientific theory, whereas creation is just a belief. However, this repetition of "evolution is science, creation is a belief" stems from a totally erroneous perspective. Those who keep repeating that are confusing science and materialist philosophy. They believe that science must remain within the borders of materialism, and that those who are not materialist have no right to make any statements at all. However, science itself completely rejects materialism.

Studying matter is not the same as being a materialist

Let us first briefly define materialism in order to examine the matter in more detail. Materialism is a philosophy that has existed since Ancient Greece and is based on the idea that matter is all that exists. According to materialist philosophy, matter has always existed and will continue to do so for all time. Nothing exists apart from matter. This is not a scientific claim, however, because it cannot be subjected to experiment and observation. It is simply a belief, a dogma.

However, this dogma became mixed up with science in the nineteenth century, and even came to be the basic foundation of science. Yet science is not compelled to accept materialism. Science studies nature and the universe, and produces results without being limited by any philosophical classification.

In the face of this, some materialists frequently take refuge in a simple word game. They say, "Matter is the only subject of study for science, so it has to be materialist." Yes, science only studies matter, but "studying matter" is very different from "being a materialist." That is because when we study matter, we realise that matter contains knowledge and design so great that they could never have been produced by matter itself. We can understand that this knowledge and design are the result of an intelligence, even if we cannot see it directly.

For instance, let us imagine a cave. We do not know if anyone has been in it before us. If, when we enter this cave, there is nothing in it but dust, earth, and stones, we can infer that there is nothing but randomly distributed matter there. However, if there are expertly produced pictures in stunning colours on the walls, we may assume that an intelligent entity has been there before us. We may not be able to see that entity directly, but we can infer its existence from what it produces.

Science has refuted materialism

Science studies nature in the same way as shown in that example. If all the design in nature could only be explained by material factors, then science could confirm materialism. However, modern science has revealed that there is design in nature that cannot be explained by material factors, and that all matter contains a design brought into being by a Creator.

For example, all experiments and observation prove that matter could not by itself have given rise to life, for which reason life must stem from a metaphysical creation. All evolutionist experiments in this direction have ended in failure. Life can never have been created from inanimate matter. The evolutionist biologist Andrew Scott makes the following admission on the subject in the well-known journal New Scientist:

Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The "fundamental" forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest... But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment.75

The root of life is based on speculation and debate because materialist dogma insists that life is the product of matter. Yet the scientific facts show that matter has no such power. Professor Fred Hoyle, an astronomer and mathematician who was knighted for his contributions to science, makes the following comment on the subject:

If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You will find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals. 76

Actually, materialism is in an even worse dilemma. Matter cannot even form life when combined with human knowledge and time, let alone form it by itself.

The truth that we have briefly glanced at is the truth that matter cannot form design and knowledge by itself. Yet the universe and the living things in it contain extraordinarily complex design and knowledge. That shows us that this design and knowledge in the universe and living things are the works of a Creator Who possesses infinite power and knowledge, Who existed before matter and rules it.

If we look carefully, this is an entirely scientific conclusion. It is not a "belief," but a truth acquired through observation of the universe and living things in it. That is why the evolutionists' claim that "Evolution is scientific, whereas creation is a belief that cannot enter the domain of science" is a superficial deception. It is true that in the nineteenth century materialism was confused with science, and that science was led off course by materialist dogma. However, subsequent developments in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have completely overthrown that hoary old belief, and the truth of creation, that had been concealed by materialism, has finally emerged. As the banner headline "Science Finds God," used by the famous magazine Newsweek in its historic July 27, 1998, edition makes clear, behind all the materialist deception, science finds God, the Creator of the universe and all that is in it.