Book One: Religion Helps Science to be Rightly Guided
Science is the investigation of the material world we live in through observation and experiment. Accordingly, in conducting such investigation, science will lead to various conclusions based on the information collected through observation and experimentation. In addition, however, every discipline of science also has certain norms that are simply taken for granted, or accepted without further verification. In scientific literature, this set of norms is called a "paradigm".
This initial outlook charts the "course" of all related scientific investigation. As is known, the first step in scientific investigation is the formulation of a "hypothesis". To begin with, for their research topic, scientists must form a hypothesis. Then, this hypothesis is tested through scientific experimentation. If observations and experiments verify the hypothesis, the "hypothesis" is called an "established principle or law". If the hypothesis is disproved, then new hypotheses are tested, and the process continues.
The formulation of the hypothesis, which is the first step of the process, is often dependent on the scientists' basic viewpoint. For instance, scientists, if committed to an erroneous outlook, could base their work on a hypothesis that "matter has a tendency to self-organize without the involvement of a conscious agent". Then, they would conduct years of research to verify that hypothesis. Yet, since matter has no such capability, all these efforts are bound to fail. Furthermore, if scientists are overly obstinate about their hypothesis, the research may well last for years, and even for generations. The end result, though, would be but a huge waste of time and resources.
However, had the point of assumption been the idea that "it is impossible for matter to self-organize without conscious planning", that scientific research would have followed a more expeditious and productive course.
This issue, that is, the issue of establishing a proper hypothesis, requires an entirely different source than mere scientific data. Correct identification of this source is critical, because, as we explained in the above example, an error in the identification of a source may cost the science-world years, decades, or even centuries.
The source sought is God's revelation to mankind. God is the Creator of the universe, the world and of living things, and therefore, the most accurate and indisputable knowledge about these subjects derives from Him. In accordance, God has revealed to us important information about these matters in the Qur'an. The most fundamental of these are as follows:
These are absolute truths communicated to us by God in the Qur'an. An approach to science based on these facts will inevitably lead to remarkable progress and serve humanity in the most beneficial manner. We find numerous examples of this in history. It was only possible with the placement of science on proper a foothold that Muslim scientists, who were then helping to forge the greatest civilizations in the world, contributed to major achievements in the 9th and 10th centuries. In the West, the pioneers in all fields of science, from physics to chemistry, astronomy to biology and paleontology, were great men of science who believed in God, and who conducted research for the sake of exploring what He created.
Einstein also maintained that scientists must rely on religious sources when developing their objectives:
Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion… I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.11
Since the middle of the 19th century, however, the scientific community has divorced itself from this divine source, and come under the influence of a materialist philosophy.
Materialism, an idea that dates back to ancient Greece, maintains the absolute existence of matter and denies God. This materialistic outlook gradually made its way into the scientific community, and, beginning in the middle of the 19th century, a considerable portion of scientific investigation was initiated to support it. To this purpose, many theories were formulated, such as the "infinite universe model" suggesting that the universe exists since infinite time, Darwin's evolutionary theory claiming that life is the work of chance, or Freud's views holding that the human mind consists of the brain alone.
Today, in retrospect, we see that the claims put forth by materialism were but a waste of time for science. For decades, a great number of scientists have expended their best efforts to prove each of these claims, but the results always proved them wrong. Discoveries confirmed the proclamations of the Qur'an – that the universe was created from nothing, that it is tailored to suit human life, and that it is impossible for life to have come into being and evolved by chance.
Now let us consider these facts one by one.
The Losses the Materialists' Obsession with an "Infinite Universe" Have Caused Science
Until the early 20th century, the conventional opinion of the scientific community, which was then under the influence of the materialists, was that the universe has infinite dimensions, that it existed in infinite time, and will exist infinitely. According to this view, called the "static universe model", the universe had neither a beginning nor an end, and was simply a limitless conglomeration of matter. Denying that the universe was created, this view laid the groundwork for the materialist philosophy.
Many scientists who espoused materialism, or were partial to such a philosophy, set the "infinite universe" model as the basis for their scientific research. Consequently, all research into astronomy and physics depended on the hypothesis that matter existed in infinite time. For some time, many scientists labored and toiled to no avail, as science was soon to shatter that misconception.
The Belgian scientist, Georges Lemaître, was the first to recognize the inaccuracy of the "infinite universe" model, and postulated a scientific alternative to it. Based on certain computations by the Russian scientist, Alexandre Friedmann, Lemaître declared that the universe actually had a beginning, and that it was expanding since that initial moment. He also asserted that it must be possible to detect the remnants of radiation from that initial moment.
Here, it should be noted that Georges Lemaître was also a priest. Lemaître strongly believed that "the universe was created by God from nothingness". Therefore, his approach to science greatly differed from that of the materialists.
The years to come confirmed the correctness of the assumption put forth by Lemaître. Firstly, American astronomer, Edwin Hubble, discovered with his huge telescope that the stars were moving away both from us and from each other. This meant that the universe was expanding, and thus, was not static as materialists assumed.
In fact, earlier on, Albert Einstein had already theoretically calculated that the universe could not be static. However, he put the theory to rest, simply because his calculations did not concur with the widely recognized static universe model of his time. Even a scientist considered the greatest genius of the century was intimidated by the dogmatism of the materialist view, having chosen not to reveal the important discovery. Later on, Einstein was to refer to that choice as 'the greatest mistake of his career'.
There was another important truth that the expansion of the universe pointed to: if the universe was getting larger as time went on, then, following it backward in time meant that it would become smaller; and if one went back far enough, everything would shrink and converge to a single point. Calculations showed that this single point should have zero volume. Our universe came into being as the result of the explosion of this point, an explosion which has come to be called the "the Big Bang".
In fact, the reference to this exploding point having zero volume is but a theoretical expression. The expression of zero volume simply suggests "nothingness". The whole universe was created from "nothing".
The Big Bang theory clearly demonstrated that the universe was created from nothing. Nevertheless, further scientific evidence was required in order for the theory to be widely accepted. In 1948, George Gamov proposed that, if the universe was formed in a sudden, cataclysmic explosion, as Lemaître had suggested, there ought to be a definite amount of radiation left over from that explosion, and that this radiation must be uniform throughout the universe.
Scientific confirmation of Gamov's postulate was forthcoming. In 1965, two researchers by the name of Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the remnants of that radiation. Called "cosmic background radiation", it was not localized but distributed equally everywhere in the universe. It was soon realized that this radiation was the echo of the Big Bang, still reverberating since the first moments of that great explosion. Penzias and Wilson were awarded a Nobel prize for their discovery.
In 1989, NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, launched the COBE satellite into space, for the purpose of research into cosmic background radiation. Within minutes, the satellite's sensitive scanners confirmed the measurements of Penzias and Wilson.
Discovery of the evidence confirming the creation of the universe from nothing in the "Big Bang" staggered materialist scientists. They witnessed the collapse of their extensive research, their hypotheses, and unsubstantiated theories, one after the other. The renowned atheist philosopher, Antony Flew, had these comments to offer about the situation:
Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof of what St.. Thomas contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of as being not only without end but also without beginning, it remains easy to urge that its brute existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates. Although I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither easy nor comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the Big Bang story.12
As the above example makes clear, if someone is blindly devoted to materialism he is reluctant to admit any evidence to the contrary. Even if he must confess to the fact, he does not compromise his commitment to materialism.
On the other hand, many scientists, who did not resolve themselves unconditionally to denying God's existence, today accept that God, the All-Powerful, created the universe. One such example is the American scientist William Lane Craig, who is known for his research on the Big Bang:
Indeed, given the truth of the maxim ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing comes nothing), the Big Bang requires a supernatural cause. Since the initial cosmological singularity represents the terminus of all space-time trajectories, there cannot be any physical cause of the Big Bang. Rather, the cause must transcend physical space and time: it must be independent of the universe, and unimaginably powerful. Moreover, this cause must be a personal being, endowed with free will... The cause of the origin of the universe must therefore be a personal Creator, who a finite time ago brought the universe into existence by his free agency.13
Another important conclusion to be drawn from the Big Bang theory is that, as we have mentioned earlier, a scientific approach based on divine knowledge will be highly successful in unraveling the mysteries of the universe. Scientists who proceeded from a materialist philosophy and put forth the "infinite universe" model, were unable to substantiate it, despite their best efforts. However, the Big Bang theory, which Georges Lemaître developed, and which was based on divine sources, contributed to scientific progress and helped to uncover the true origin of the universe.
When we look at the history of 20th century science, we see that similar occurrences took place in other fields as well.
The Losses The Claim That "There is No Design in Nature" Caused Science
Materialists not only proposed that the universe existed since infinite time, but also claimed that there is no design or purpose in the universe. They argued that the entire equilibrium, harmony, and order in the universe was the work of chance. This claim, which dominated the world of science beginning in the second half of the 19th century, dictated the subsequent course of scientific investigation.
For instance, certain scientists put forth an assumption called the "chaos theory" to show that there is no design in the universe. According to this theory, order may spontaneously form from chaos, and a number of scientific studies were conducted to support the claim. Mathematical calculations, studies in theoretical physics, physical trials and chemical experiments, were all conducted to find an answer to the question, "how can we demonstrate that the universe is the product of chaos?"
Every new discovery, however, further denied the chaos and chance theories, revealing that there is an enormous design in the universe. Research conducted since the 1960s consistently demonstrated that all the physical equilibria in the universe are intricately designed to render life possible. As research proceeded, it was discovered that each and every one of the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, of the fundamental forces such as gravity and electromagnetism, and of the details of the structure of atoms and the elements of the universe, has been precisely tailored so that human beings may exist. Scientists refer to this extraordinary design as the "Anthropic Principle". This is the principle by which every detail in the universe has been carefully arranged to make human life possible.
With these discoveries, the dictum formerly imposed on the scientific community by the materialist philosophy, touting that "the universe is a heap of matter with no meaning and purpose working according to chance", was exposed to be an unscientific fallacy. Noted molecular biologist Michael Denton makes the following comment in his book, Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe:
The new picture that has emerged in twentieth-century astronomy presents a dramatic challenge to the presumption which has been prevalent within scientific circles during most of the past four centuries: that life is a peripheral and purely contingent phenomenon in the cosmic scheme… The evidence provided by modern cosmology and physics is exactly the kind of evidence that the natural theologians were looking for in the seventeenth century but failed to find in the science of their day.14
The "natural theologians" referred to above are the 17th century and 18th century religiously devout scientists who strove to invalidate atheism on scientific grounds, and thus prove the existence of God. However, as also stated in the above quotation, the inferior degree of scientific knowledge at that time did not allow them to substantiate the truths they perceived, and materialism, deriving support from the same primitive level of science, grew in authority in the scientific world. 20th century science, however, has reversed that course, and provided conclusive evidence to prove that the universe was created by God.
Here, the real point to be considered is the extraordinary amount of time that has gone into studies to prove the materialist delusion, that claimed, "there is no purpose and design in the universe". All such theories, formulae, studies in theoretical physics, mathematical equations, etc., eventually proved to be worthless attempts expended in vain. Just as the racist ideology brought disaster for humanity by leading to World War II, so did the materialist ideology drag the world of science into darkness needlessly.
If, however, the scientific community had based its efforts, not on the misconception of materialism, but on the reality that the universe was created by God, scientific research would have taken a more proper course.
The Loss The Hopeless Efforts to Prove the Theory of Evolution Have Caused Science
The most instructive example of an improper orientation for science, was the adoption of Darwin's evolutionary theory. Having been introduced to the agenda of scientific study a 140 years ago, this theory is actually the greatest fallacy perpetrated in the history of science.
The theory of evolution contends that life came about by the configuration of lifeless matter through chance. The same theory further claims that organisms which have been formed by chance evolved into other creatures again by chance. At center stage for the last one and a half centuries, has been the concerted effort to find scientific justification for this scenario, whose results though, ironically, proved only the contrary. Scientific evidence has demonstrated that evolution never took place, that the possibility of the gradual transformation from one species to another is out of the question, and that all living species were created distinctly and in their present forms.
Nevertheless, despite all firm evidence, evolutionists perform countless studies and experiments, write volumes of books crammed with nothing but fallacies and errors, establish institutions, hold conferences, and air television programs, to prove evolution. The exploitation of thousands of scientists, and measureless amounts of money and resources, for an unprovable assertion, has certainly been a serious detriment for humanity. Had these resources been properly directed, such a loss would not have been incurred, but great strides rather would have been achieved, and definitive results attained in more pertinent areas of scientific study.
On the other hand, a number of scientists or thinkers have realized what a grave misconception the theory of evolution has been. British philosopher, Malcolm Muggeridge, for instance, makes the following comment:
I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.15
The Scandinavian scientist Søren Løvtrup makes the following remark in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth:
I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar 'Darwinian' vocabulary – 'adaptation', 'selection pressure', 'natural selection', etc. – thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events. They do not … I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.16
Even a number of evolutionary scientists have recognized that the theory they advocate does not concur with fact and feel uneasy about it. "Perpetuation of today's theory (of evolution) as dogma will not encourage progress toward more satisfactory explanations of observed phenomena" 17
, says evolutionist scientist Paul R. Ehrlich in an interview with Science, where he – though indirectly – admits the harm blind devotion to the evolutionary theory inflicts on science.
Now, let us look at all the futile effort made to support the unscientific claims of the theory of evolution, which cost science nothing but a great waste of time and resources.
The Losses the Claim That "Inanimate Matter Can Form Life" Caused Science
What is the origin of life? What distinguishes a bird, or a giraffe from a stone, water, earth, that is, inanimate matter?
The answer to this question has been a matter of curiosity since antiquity. The predominant views are two. The first idea is that there is a very fine line between animate and inanimate matter, which can easily be pierced, and that life can spontaneously arise from inanimate matter. This view is called "abiogenesis" in scientific literature.
The second idea maintains that there is an unsurpassable border between living and non-living matter. According to this view, it is impossible for living organisms to develop from non-living materials, and a life-form can arise only if it comes from another life-form. This view, summed up as "life comes only from life", is called "biogenesis".
Interestingly, the idea of "abiogenesis" is connected to the materialist philosophy, whereas the idea of "biogenesis" stems from religious sources. The materialist philosophy has always argued that non-living materials can give rise to living organisms. The Greek philosophers believed that simple life-forms continuously arose from non-living matter.
On the contrary, divine sources state that the only power to give life to inanimate matter can be God's creative power. The verses of the Qur'an read:
It is God Who causes the seed-grain and the date stone to split and sprout. He causes the living to issue from the dead, and He is the One to cause the dead to issue from the living. That is God: then how are you deluded away from the truth? (Surat al-An'am: 95)
To Him belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth: It is He Who gives Life and Death; and He has Power over all things. (Surat al-Hadid: 2)
In the Middle Ages, when people had a very limited knowledge of nature, the view of "abiogenesis" prevailed because of certain erroneous observations. Those who saw that maggots developed on uncovered meat thought that it happened "spontaneously". They also supposed that mice appeared spontaneously in wheat grains kept in storage. This belief, also called "spontaneous generation", was widely accepted until the 17th century.
Experiments conducted by two important scientists, however, laid the idea of spontaneous generation in its grave. The first of them was Francisco Redi. Redi showed, with the experiments he carried out in 1668, that the maggots that appeared on meat did not form spontaneously, but came from flies laying their eggs on it. Upon this discovery, the defenders of the "abiogenesis" idea retreated and claimed that, not big organisms like maggots or frogs, but invisible microbes were produced from non-living matter. The debate lingered over the next two centuries. The French biologist Louis Pasteur finally demonstrated, through a series of experiments, that microbes could not develop from non-living materials either. Pasteur summed up his conclusion in the following words:
Can matter organize itself? In other words, can organisms come into the world without parents, without ancestors? that's the question to be resolved…. There is no known circumstance today in which one can assert that microscopic beings have originated without germs.18
Redi and Pasteur had one thing in common: both scientists believed in the existence of God, and that life was created by Him. Their belief played a critical role in their recognition of the absurdity of the idea of abiogenesis. Effectively, while a number of scientists under the influence of materialism (evolutionists such as Darwin, Haeckel, etc.) had subscribed to the view of abiogenesis, others, who approached science with proper insight, realized the fact of "biogenesis".
Evolutionist scientists, however, went on resisting this evident reality. Their blind devotion to the materialist philosophy drew them into a futile struggle that would last a century. Two materialist scientists, Alexander Oparin and J. B. Haldane, introduced the notion of "chemical evolution". According to Oparin and Haldane, abiogenesis did not take place in a short time, but happened over a long period. In conflict with certain scientific laws, foremost among them, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, this claim led the science-world into a stalemate, contributing to a detrimental amount of lost of time.
Over the course of the century, a number of scientists conducted experiments in favor of the chemical evolution hypothesis, or exerted great pains to support the claim with new theories. Huge laboratories, major institutions, and university divisions were set into action. All these efforts, however, ended in failure. Well-known evolutionist Prof. Klaus Dose, the Director of the Institute of Biochemistry, at Johannes-Gutenberg University, confessed that all attempts to produce evidence for the claim that non-living materials produce living matter were inconclusive:
More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.19
If the science-world had not become obsessed with the idea of "abiogenesis", a materialist fallacy, all such efforts, conducted in the name of "chemical evolution", could have been channeled to more productive areas. Had the scientific community started out by recognizing that life is created by God, and that our Lord alone has the power to give life, all this wasted time, money and human resources, could have been avoided. Would such have been the case, science could concentrate on new discoveries and research useful to mankind, rather than seeking to prove Ancient Greek myths.
Today, the scientific community has demonstrated that non-living materials cannot self-organize through random events and then join with other non-living materials to form perfect and highly complex cells. It has also become obvious that the millions of life-forms we see around us could not have formed, as evolutionists claim, from cells that came together accidentally. Certainly, a rose, a peacock, a tiger, an ant, in other words, no living being, could have come into existence by the will of unconscious cells made up of the combination of unconscious atoms.
A scientist performing extensive studies into these subjects is by no means a product of the common decision taken by unconscious atoms. It is certainly impossible for unconscious atoms to develop a fully conscious human being.
In this regard, hundreds of years ago it was related in the Qur'an that life was created by God from "nothing", that God alone gives life, and no other being but He has the power to "give life". If science had ascertained the implications of the facts transmitted by God to mankind, it would not have "toyed away" in inconclusive research for such a long period of time.
The Losses the Efforts to Prove the Claim of "The Evolution of Species" Caused Science
There are millions of living species on the earth, and these species differ from one another in a variety of ways. Consider, for instance, horses, birds, snakes, butterflies, fish, cats, bats, worms, ants, elephants, mosquitoes, bees, dolphins, starfish, jellyfish, camels... All these forms of life greatly differ from each other in their physical characteristics, habitats, hunting techniques, defense tactics, feeding habits, reproduction, and so on.
So, how did these creatures come into being?
Anyone who reflects upon this question, employing the faculty of his reason, would see that all living things are designed, that is, created. Every design proves the existence of an intelligent designer that has produced it. Living things, just as all other examples of design in nature, prove the existence of God.
And among His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the living creatures that He has scattered through them: and He has power to gather them together when He wills. (Surat ash-Shura: 29)
And God has created every animal from water: of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. God creates what He wills for, surely, God has power over all things. (Surat an-Nur: 45)
He created the heavens without any pillars that you can see; He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and He scattered through it beasts of all kinds. We send down rain from the sky, and produce on the earth every kind of noble creature, in pairs. Such is the Creation of God: now show Me what is there that others besides Him have created: no, but the transgressors are in manifest error. (Surah Luqman: 10-11)
Surely in the heavens and the earth, are signs for those who believe. And in the creation of yourselves and the fact that animals are scattered (through the earth), are signs for those of assured faith. (Surat al-Jathiyyah: 3-4)
This truth has been revealed to us through Islam. In the Qur'an, we are informed how living things came into being: All living species were created distinctively by God. God, with His unique creative power and infinite knowledge, equipped creatures with diverse features, and thus communicated His infinite power, wisdom and knowledge to humanity. Some of the verses that refer to the creation of living things read:
Having recognized the reality of creation, scientists established various disciplines, such as biology, anatomy, and paleontology. Noted scientists, like Carl Linnaeus, who categorized the living world under definite classes, and who is known as "the founder of taxonomy"; Georges Cuvier, the founder of fossil science and comparative anatomy; Gregor Mendel, the founder of genetics who discovered the laws of inheritance; or Louis Agassiz, who is considered the greatest American biologist of the 19th century, all practiced science with an awareness that all living species were created by God.
Then, with the introduction of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, the world of science became immersed in an effort to prove that "species evolved from one another". This endeavor caused scientists to engage themselves in a number of fruitless investigations. In fossil excavations conducted all around the world, scientists looked for intermediate form fossils that had existed at no time in history. Moreover, imaginary scenarios were fabricated to explain how certain species could have evolved into each other. Science journals published these scenarios, and eventually, these were taught to students in schools.
It will be helpful to quote some of these scenarios, to demonstrate how evolu-tionists subject science to their wild fantasies. For instance, the following story was printed in an evolutionist article, regarding the transition of reptiles into mammals:
Some of the reptiles in the colder regions began to develop a method of keeping their bodies warm. Their heat output increased when it was cold and their heat loss was cut down when scales became smaller and more pointed, and evolved into fur. Sweating was also an adaptation to regulate the body temperature, a device to cool the body when necessary by evaporation of water. But incidentally the young of these reptiles began to lick the sweat of the mother for nourishment. Certain sweat glands began to secrete a richer and richer secretion, which eventually became milk. Thus the young of these early mammals had a better start in life.20
In order to substantiate this evolutionary hypothesis, it was necessary to scientifically prove impossible occurrences, such as the transition of sweat into milk, and scales into fur, causing thousands of scientists to waste their time trying to verify the claim. In reality, none of these transitions is possible. Mainly, it is impossible for mother's milk, which contains everything a baby needs, to have evolved from "sweat", as claimed above. Mother's milk is a substance specially regulated according to the needs of a baby, and it is moderated depending on each phase within a plan.
Everything a baby needs is found in the mother's milk just when it needs to be. For instance, the day the baby needs potassium, is the same as the day the mother's milk is rich in potassium. This specialization is true for all the other materials the baby needs throughout its development. It is obviously impossible for such a nutriment to have formed by unconscious coincidences.
By the same token, the other component of the above claim, the story of "the evolution of reptile scales into mammal furs", is clearly at odds with scientific facts. Scales and fur have completely different structures:
1. Fur is follicular; that is, it grows out of a sac. Scales, on the other hand, are plate-like structures within the skin. In addition, scales develop, grow and are shed in a completely different way from that of fur. They definitely have nothing in common.
2. There is no scientific evidence suggesting that fur evolved from scales. Evolutionists have no fossil evidence to prove this claim, just as they can put forth no logical mechanism to account for this transformation.
This is not the only unscientific "tale" put forth as to the imaginary transformation of reptiles into mammals. Every evolutionist has a "story" of his own. Similarly, quite a few imaginary scenarios have been produced as to how dinosaurs evolved into birds. One of these scenarios holds that some dinosaurs started to fly as they chased flies. Another argues that dinosaurs developed wings as they jumped from one tree to the next. Finally, science was wont to "prove" these scenarios produced by the imagination of the evolutionists. Thus far, a great number of scientists have conducted research into how dinosaurs could have started to fly as they ran or jumped from tree branches, and spent years to show how scales turned into bird feathers. Well-known evolutionist and ornithologist, Alan Feduccia, is one of these scientists, who spent his life working on the subject. Having spent 25 years searching for a link between dinosaurs and birds, Feduccia offered the following confession:
Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century.21
Evolutionist scenarios are not limited to these. Just as evolutionist paleontologist Dr. Colin Patterson admitted, "There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is."22
Evolutionists also put forth the fantastic claim that sea mammals, like whales and dolphins, evolved from bears that liked swimming. What's more, in order to provide a basis for this scenario, they have produced theories about half-bear/half-whale creatures, and even fabricated stories of "walking whales".
Evolutionists are free to dream and believe in any scenario they wish. The real problem is that they waste the science-world's resources and time in the hope of proving these scenarios. As another renowned evolutionist scientist, Pierre Paul Grassé, said, regarding these evolutionary scenarios, "There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it."23
Science will continue to hopelessly pursue such myths, as long as scientists base their studies on incorrect hypotheses such as Darwinism. The acknowledgment of the reality of creation, on the other hand, will put an end to all these vain endeavors, which inhibit the progress of science. As we have mentioned earlier, all living things were created individually by God. Their physical characteristics, feeding habits, hunting techniques, defense tactics, the way they foster their young etc., all reflect perfect harmonies.
There is no point in claiming and trying to prove that these harmonies could have come about by chance. This perfection could not have come into being haphazardly; it could only have come about through the power and control of our Lord, the supreme Creator. Therefore, it would be much more worthwhile to investigate verifiable realities and their details, rather than producing completely imaginary scenarios. Most importantly, research with such an intent would help us to better know God, the Almighty, Who created human beings and the entire universe from nothing.
Another assertion of the evolutionary theory which has wasted the science's time, was the delusive pursuit for "beneficial mutations". Mutations are changes that take place in the genetic code of an organism through the effect of radiation or chemicals. Though evolutionists claim that living things evolved through mutations, mutations are almost always harmful, and do not have an effect other than causing disorders in organisms. The radiation leakage in Chernobyl is an indication of the harmful effects of mutation. In the aftermath of this disaster, many people suffered illnesses such as leukemia, and serious disorders such as birth abnormalities.
Despite the negative effects of mutation, neo-Darwinism has put forth two concepts as "evolutionary mechanisms", one of which is mutation. Therefore, scientists were bent on proving that mutations could create beneficial effects on living things as far as the theory of evolution is concerned. However, as we have explained above, mutations are always harmful, and have never been observed to have an evolutionary effect.
Evolutionists tenaciously devised artificial mutation models, and worked for decades to observe a beneficial mutation. For instance, fruit flies were mutated numerous times, with the hope that they would give rise to "a mutation improving the genetic code". The result was an utter fiasco. Evolutionist Michael Pitman made the following remark about these extensive, albeit, inconclusive, mutation experiments:
Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type.24
Renowned evolutionist, Gordon Taylor, also stated that 50 years were lost to mutation experiments.
In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge... or even a new enzyme.25
Evolutionary arguments in other scientific areas have been no different. Nevertheless, evolutionists advocate Darwinism despite all scientific evidence, and then present their persistence as "scientific perseverance". What they practice, however, is not scientific perseverance, but resistance to science.
Another example of the time-loss the evolutionary theory caused science is the blind alley paleontology was pushed into. There is no doubt that paleontological studies are essential to enlightening us about the history of life on the earth. The erroneous preconceptions of the evolutionary theory, however, have had a negative effect on fossil research and misled scientists. In particular, some paleontologists investigating the "origin of man" are caught in a quandary: all research carried out to discover a half-ape/half-human creature has been a complete waste of time.
It must be mentioned that fossil excavations are carried out under very difficult conditions and require large budgets. Excavations conducted for the last 1,5 centuries, in regions such as African deserts, by crowded teams of researchers, maintaining camps for months under the scorching sun, and with budgets over billions of dollars, have not presented any concrete results. Well-known fossil researcher, Richard Leakey, and renowned science writer, Roger Lewin, made the following confession regarding the inconclusiveness of these studies:
If someone went to the trouble of collecting into one room all the fossil remains so far discovered of our ancestors (and their biological relatives) who lived, say, between five and one million years ago, he would need only a couple of large trestle tables on which to spread them out. And if that were not bad enough, a not unusually commodious shoe box would be more than sufficient to accommodate the hominid fossil finds of between fifteen and six million years ago!26
All these were a waste of time, knowledge, labor, money and resources, mistakenly undertaken under the guise of "science". All around the world, thousands of universities, scientific institutions and organizations, millions of scientists, instructors and students, laboratories, technicians, technical equipment and numberless resources, have been consecrated to the service of a false allegation. The end result is literally nothing, and, moreover, new discoveries continue to expose the fallacy of the evolutionary hypothesis. Evolutionist scientist, S.J. Jones, explains, in an article published in Nature magazine, the predicament of paleoanthropology, the study of fossil research into the origin of man:
Palaeoanthropologists seem to make up for a lack of fossils with an excess of fury, and this must now be the only science in which it is still possible to become famous just by having an opinion. As one cynic says, in human Paleontology the consensus depends on who shouts loudest.27
The Losses Those Who Deny "The Perfect Design in Nature" Caused Science
To deny the fact of creation, that is to say, "design" in nature, actually means inhibiting scientific research. A scientist who is aware of the existence of a design in nature embarks on his studies with the aim of investigating this design and its purpose. An evolutionist, however, would not have that objective, as he considers nature to be a purposeless collection of matter.
American physicist and philosopher, William Dembski, is another scientist who maintains that there is a "design" in nature. Dembski states that the evolutionary viewpoint, by denying the existence of a purpose in nature, holds back scientific progress. He quotes the evolutionists' term "junk DNA" as an example. (According to a hypothesis of evolutionist scientists, "junk DNA" are components of DNA that do not include any genetic information and therefore have no apparent genetic function). Dembski remarks:
…Design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as "junk" merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how "non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development." Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it…
Admitting design into science can only enrich the scientific enterprise. All the tried and true tools of science will remain intact. But design adds a new tool to the scientist's explanatory tool chest. Moreover, design raises a whole new set of research questions. Once we know that something is designed, we will want to know how it was produced, to what extent the design is optimal, and what is its purpose.28
Obviously, awareness of the fact that living things are created by God opens new avenues for science, as well as contributing to a better understanding of nature.
However, materialist scientists, denying God's creative power, claim that all the life-forms in nature came about as a result of haphazard events. In their view, the existence of "aberrant designs" or "unnecessary products" is quite natural in a universe which is the work of coincidence. Through the years, this flawed point of view has caused an improper interpretation of much scientific data, and prevented the discovery of numerous facts. For instance, a materialist scientist examining a bird feather he discovered in nature decides, looking at the asymmetric structure of the feather, that it has a distorted form because it came about by chance. Therefore, he does not feel the need to study the asymmetric structure of the feather. For a scientist who believes that God created every life-form for a specific purpose, and with a perfect design, however, the asymmetric pattern of a bird's feather is an important trait worthy of examination. A scientist who begins with such a premise will soon see that the asymmetric form of bird feathers is necessary for flight, and that birds with symmetric feather forms are unable to fly.
Such examples are common in the world of science. Scientists who studied honeybees had a similar experience. Certain scientists, after calculating the angles formed by the honeybees to join the honeybee cells, determined that two angles formed by honeybees differed from the optimum angle by 0,020. (Measurements showed that angles formed by bees are 109.28 and 70.32 degrees. By very intricate calculation, it was determined by the mathematician Konig, that the optimum angles for such a purpose should be 109.26 and 70.34). Scientists working on the subject came to the conclusion that honeybees were at fault by this minute fraction. The Scottish mathematician Colin Maclaurin (1698-1746), not satisfied with this explanation, applied himself to a fresh and careful investigation of the question. He showed that, owing to a slight misprint in the logarithmic tables, the result previously obtained was errant to the exact amount of two minutes of a degree.29
So, it was revealed that bees had calculated the optimum angle correctly, and not the scientists!
A person who is aware that God created all living things in a perfect form never supposes that there is an aberration in the design of an object of nature. He knows that every detail is created by God for a specific purpose.
Another misconception, adhered to by scientists who do not believe in the flawless creation of God, has again to do with honeybees. The 12 October 1996 issue of New Scientist contains a piece by Ben Crystall, where he maintains that honeybees beat their wings excessively, and therefore, their flight is inefficient. According to this article, honeybees beat their wings sometimes rapidly and sometimes slowly, yet fly at the same speed, and therefore they waste energy when they beat frequently. According to the writer, this was a failure in design.
A team led by Jon Harrison, of Arizona State University, has published research findings in Science (1996, vol. 274, p. 88) which suggest that there are good reasons for the differences in the wing-beat frequencies of honeybees. As the temperature of the environment was changed, the bee's body temperature, the rate of its wing-beats, and its metabolic rate was measured. As the temperature rose from 20 to 40 degrees C, the wing-beat frequency decreased. Research revealed that honeybees beat their wings less frequently in hot weather, whereas they beat them more frequently in cold weather. Yet, there was no change in their flight speeds. They were keeping their body and hive warm with the energy output they generated by beating their wings more frequently in cold weather. Ultimately, it was revealed that wings of honeybees had a dual function: flying and generating heat.
Another sophistry put forward by evolutionist scientists, who do not believe that God created living things distinctly and perfectly in their present forms, is the fallacy of "vestigial organs". Evolutionists, who argue that all living things evolved from a predecessor by chance, believe that there existed a number of "non-functional organs" in the human body, inherited from progenitors which had become vestigial over time by not being used. Scientists who do not believe in the creative attribute of God, caused a great deal of harmful confusion in the scientific study of these organs, which they assumed to be nonfunctional. As science progressed, it was understood that these supposedly nonfunctional organs are actually vital for the human body. The gradual decrease in evolutionists' long list of vestigial organs was the best indication of how flawed was this premise, that had impeded the progress of science. S.R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article, titled "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?", published in the magazine Evolutionary Theory:
Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that "vestigial organs" provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.30
The list of vestigial organs compiled by the German anatomist R. Wiedersheim, in 1895, comprised of approximately 100 organs, including the appendix and coccyx. With the advancement of science, the number of organs in Widersheim's list gradually decreased, and it was discovered that these organs had in fact very important functions in the body. For instance, it was discovered that the appendix, which was supposed to be a "vestigial organ", was actually a lymphoid organ that fought against infections in the body. It was also discovered that the tonsils, which were included in the same list of vestigial organs, had a significant role in protecting the throat against infections, particularly until adolescence. It was found that the coccyx, at the lower end of the vertebral column, supports the bones around the pelvis, and is the converging point of certain small muscles. In the years to follow, it came to be understood that the thymus instigated the immune system in the human body by activating the T cells, that the pineal gland was in charge of the secretion of some important hormones, and the functions of many other supposedly non-functional organs were discovered. The semi-lunar fold in the eye, that was referred to as a vestigial organ by Darwin, is in fact in charge of cleansing and lubricating the eyebrow.
All of these examples point to one fact: in order for scientific research to be effective and expeditious, it must be founded on a correct premise. God created everything for a certain purpose, with a flawless and inimitable design. Therefore, the ultimate goal of a scientist investigating nature should be to discover the details of this perfection in all things, and explore the hidden purposes of every phenomenon he encounters.
The Negative Effects on Evolutionist and Atheist Scientists From Knowing that Their Efforts are in Vain
In fact, conducting extensive research and study of fallacious and inconclusive hypotheses, is also emotionally draining for evolutionist scientists. When they come to understand that a majority of the research to which they have devoted their lives is futile and useless, they feel great despair. Conducting scientific research requires great discipline and self-sacrifice. Carrying out long drawn-out experiments and observations in the laboratory, for a premise which they know will come to nothing, and only to discover that the direct opposite of the hypothesis they want to prove is correct, is certainly quite upsetting for such scientists.
In his book, Darwin's Black Box, where he discusses the scientific invalidity of Darwinism, noted American biochemist, Michael Behe, describes the psychology of the evolutionist scientists confronted by the reality of "design" apparent in the living cell:
Over the past four decades modern biochemistry has uncovered the secrets of the cell. The progress has been hard won. It has required tens of thousands of people to dedicate the better parts of their lives to the tedious work of the laboratory… The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell – to investigate life at the molecular level – is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design!" The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. This triumph of science should evoke cries of "Eureka" from ten thousand throats.
But, no bottles have been uncorked, no hands clapped. Instead, a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. When the subject comes up in public, feet start to shuffle, and breathing gets a bit labored. In private people are a bit more relaxed; many explicitly admit the obvious but then stare at the ground, shake their heads, and let it go like that. Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling discovery? Why is the observation of design handled with intellectual gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the [issue] is labeled intelligent design, the other side must be labeled God.31
Some evolutionists in the scientific community have admitted to suffering such desperation. For instance, evolutionist paleontologist, Dr. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, and also the author of the book titled Evolution, made the following famous comments in an address he made at the opening of the Museum of Natural History in New York:
Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence… Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way. 32
Somewhere else in the same speech, Patterson also noted:
One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a non- evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long.33
Evolutionist, Dr. N. Heribert-Nilsson, Director of the Botanical Institute at Lund University, Sweden, confessed to having wasted over 40 years for nothing, saying, "My attempt to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years has completely failed."34
These individual examples show what science has suffered by pursuing a false theory. For decades, the knowledge, time, energy, work, laboratory, assistants and financial resources of thousands of scientists have been wasted in a bogus attempt to support the myth of evolution.
More interestingly, not only the evolutionists of our day, but also Charles Darwin, the founder of the theory, often fretted about "spending his time for nothing", and that "he will be disappointed at the end". Darwin repeatedly talked about his worries over this point in his letters to his friends or in his articles. In one of these, he confessed that there is no evidence in nature to support his theory:
All nature is perverse and will not do as I wish it.35
Darwin's lack of self-confidence is also manifest in his following words:
Nevertheless I doubt whether the work (of writing The Origin of Species) was worth the consumption of so much time.36
Obviously, a fallacious theory, if advocated purely for ideological reasons, also causes distress and desperation in its proponents. Such are the inevitable consequences of setting science on an erroneous course.
The Losses Evolutionist Frauds Have Caused For Science
As evolutionists were unable to discover evidence in support of their theory, now and then, they deceived humanity by distorting their scientific findings and perpetrating hoaxes. The most notorious of these hoaxes was the "Piltdown Man" scandal. Unable to discover fossils of the supposedly half-ape/half-human creatures, which they alleged to have existed, evolutionists finally decided to produce one themselves. By mounting an orangutan's jaw onto a human skull, and giving it a dated appearance by treating it with certain chemicals, for several years they exhibited the skull in the most famous museum of the world, as a "human ancestor". F. Clark Howell, an evolutionist himself, describes the detriment this fraud has caused for science as such:
Piltdown was discovered in 1953 to have been nothing more than an Ape's jaw placed with a human skull. It was a hoax placed on purpose. They recognized neither the jaw to be an ape's or the skull to be a human's. Instead, they declared each part as an in between of ape and human. They dated it to be 500,000 years old, gave it a name (Eoanthropus Dawsoni or 'Dawn Man'), and wrote some 500 books on it. The 'discovery' fooled paleontologists for forty five years.37
The words of this scientist are truly remarkable. A false piece of "so-called evidence" "fooled" the scientific community for 40 years. The fact that 500 books were written about a fraudulent skull is a glaring indication of effort expended for naught.
The perpetrator of another evolutionary fraud, Ernst Haeckel, not only confessed to his forgery, but also referred to the distortions committed by his colleagues in order to perpetuate their various ideologies:
After this compromising confession of "forgery" I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoners' dock hundreds of fellow culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of "forgery", for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed.38
Attempts to make observations, experiments and research concur with evolution, the covering-up of the truths, or their distorted presentation, has certainly been a serious impediment to scientific progress. The evolutionist writer W.R. Thompson admitted to that fact, though indirectly, with these words:
This situation where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.39
The most interesting thing is that all the studies and experiments evolutionists make to prove evolution ultimately yield evidence that supports the fact of creation.
Scientific Findings Always Prove the Fact of Creation Though Evolutionist Do Not Like It
As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, when science is guided by erroneous ideologies, time, money and labor are spent wastefully. Since the 18th century, science has been under the influence of materialists, and almost all research was intended to provide scientific evidence for the materialist philosophy. Therefore, scientific evidence discounting the materialist philosophy was either covered up or presented in a distorted manner.
Moreover, every study and experiment made by evolutionists to prove evolution produced further evidence in support of creation. Science is relatively simple and trouble-free for those who believe in God's existence. Investigating a phenomenon known to exist, and looking for evidence for it, would cause no trouble for scientists. On the contrary, to seek out non-existent evidence is "tedious" and "annoying", as they themselves attest.
One of the most blatant examples of this is the paleontological findings of the Cambrian Period. This is the name given to the period which is estimated to date back 550 million years, and at which the first signs of life have been observed. All of the life-forms that existed in this period were fully developed creatures possessing highly complex systems. For instance, an extinct creature called the trilobite possesses a complicated compound eye structure. Comprised of 100 lenses, this eye structure is the same as that of some modern insects such as the dragonfly. What is "troublesome" for the evolutionists is that these creatures, exhibiting such complex structures, appear in this stratum all of a sudden and without any ancestors. These scientific facts clearly point to Creation.
This is how renowned evolutionist scientist, British zoologist Richard Dawkins, assesses how scientific discoveries are consistently in support of the fact of creation:
For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.40
This state of "inconclusiveness" in the field of paleontology is one of the gravest impasses to encumber the evolutionary theory. As we have repeatedly stated, evolutionist scientists have expended their best efforts for decades to find transitional forms (a supposed animal in between two different species) that will provide evidence of evolution. Yet, they have never achieved any concrete results, because such creatures have never existed on the earth. Evolutionist paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki, makes the following comment about the failure of evolutionists to find the fossils of transitional forms which they have been looking for:
A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.41
Reading between the lines of the statements of some evolutionists reveals that every endeavor to seek scientific justification for evolution has proved unsuccessful, and failed to lead to any definite conclusions. On the contrary, each study conducted by evolutionist scientists to confirm the notion that everything came into being through chance points to an irrepressible truth: the reality that all living things are created flawlessly by God, the Lord of the heavens and the earth.
Our immediate surroundings, and the universe we live in, teem with numerous signs of the fact of creation. Implicit in the fascinating system of a mosquito, the glorious artistry in the wings of a peacock, a complex and perfectly functioning organ like the eye, and millions of other forms of life, are signs of the existence of God, and His supreme knowledge and wisdom, for people who believe. A scientist who maintains that creation is a fact views nature from this perspective, and derives great pleasure in every observation he makes, and every experiment he conducts, gaining inspiration for further studies.
On the other hand, believing in a myth such as evolution, and adhering to it despite the findings of science, results in an emotional state of despair. The harmony in the universe and the design in living things becomes rather a great source of trouble to them. The following words of Darwin offer us a glimpse into the sentiments of most evolutionists:
I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of complaint... and now trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!42
The feathers of a peacock, as well as countless other signs of creation in nature, continue to discomfit evolutionists. Turning a blind eye to such apparent miracles, they develop an ambivalence to such truths, accompanied by a mental state of denial. A good case to this point is the prominent evolutionist Richard Dawkins, who goes so far as to call upon Christians not to assume that they have witnessed a miracle, even if they see the statue of the Virgin Mary waving to them. According to Dawkins, "Perhaps all the atoms of the statue's arm just happened to move in the same direction at once–a low probability event to be sure, but possible."43
In order for science to progress, these holdovers of the 19th century must be pushed aside, and free-thinking scientists bold enough to admit the facts they apprehend take their place.