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."
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.
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 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."