17 February 2013
Creation Adam/Evolution
Summary:
Lives of
the Prophets:
Creation of Universe in Six
"Days" / Long Periods of Time
Big Bang and Life from
Water
The place of Jinn and
Angels
Khalifah = assumed
responsibility after The Prophet* and is succeeding after The Prophet*
Creation of Adam from
Turaab (dirt / soil) - Teen (clay) - Teen al-laazib (sticky clay) - Hama`im
masnoon (black, smooth mud) - Salsaal (sounding clay)
Allah created Adam on the
image of Adam
Main Topic: What is Evolution?
Scientific thought has
limits and not always proven fact - just observations
The Qur'an is fact
How did 'Life' create
itself (except by Allah)
The first DNA and cell
survival?
Theory of Evolution
involves mutation, migration, genetic drift and natural selection
Natural Selection has
variation in traits, differential reproduction, heredity and Fitness
Is Evolution a Continual
Process - why can't we see it
Variations within a Species
isn't Evolution of a Species
Holes in fossil records -
limited (if any) transitional forms
Mutations usually kill the
cells
Artificial selection can’t
introduce a radically new species
Evolution can't explain
consciousness / mind
Adaptation doesn't prove
Evolution
Irreducible complexity -
mousetrap or Eye
Lives of the Prophets
Creation of
the Universe: Six "Days" or Long Periods of Time
The descriptions of creation in the Qur’an
are not intended as dry historical accounts, but rather to engage the reader in
contemplating the lessons to be learned from it. The act of creation,
therefore, is frequently spoken of as a way of drawing the reader into thinking
about the order in all things, and the All-Knowing Creator Who is behind it
all. For example:
"Verily 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. And in the alternation of night and day, and that fact that
Allah sends down sustenance from the sky, and revives therewith the earth after
its death, and in the change of the winds, are signs for those who are
wise" (TMQ 45:3-5).
Big
Bang?
When describing the creation of the "heavens and the earth," the Qur’an
does not discount the theory of a "Big Bang" explosion at the start
of it all. In fact, the Qur’an says that "the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit, before We
clove them asunder" (TMQ 21:30). Following this big explosion, Allah
"turned to the sky, and it had been
(as) smoke. He said to it and to the earth: 'Come together, willingly or
unwillingly.' They said: 'We come (together) in willing obedience'" (TMQ
41:11). Thus the elements and what was to become the planets and stars began to
cool, come together, and form into shape, following the natural laws that Allah
established in the universe.
The Qur’an further states that Allah created
the sun, the moon, and the planets, each with their own individual courses or
orbits. "It is He Who created the
night and the day, and the sun and the moon; all (the celestial bodies) swim
along, each in its rounded course" (TMQ 21:33).
Expansion
of Universe
The Qur’an also does not rule out the idea
that the universe is continuing to expand. "The heavens, We have built them with power. And verily, We are
expanding it" (TMQ 51:47). There has been some historical debate among
Muslim scholars about the precise meaning of this verse, since knowledge of the
universe's expansion was only recently discovered.
Six
Days?
The Qur’an states that "Allah created the heavens and the earth,
and all that is between them, in six days" (TMQ 7:54). While on the
surface this might seem similar to the account related in the Bible, there are
some important distinctions. The verses that mention "six days" use
the Arabic word "yawm" (day). This word appears several other times
in the Qur’an, each denoting a different measurement of time. In one case, the
measure of a day is equated with 50,000
years (TMQ 70:4), whereas another verse states that "a day in the sight of your Lord is like
1,000 years of your reckoning" (TMQ 22:47). The word "yawm "
is thus understood, within the Qur'an, to be a long period of time -- an era or
eon. Therefore, Muslims interpret the description of a "six day"
creation as six distinct periods or eons. The length of these periods is not
precisely defined, nor are the specific developments that took place during
each period.
After completing the Creation, the Qur’an
describes that Allah "settled
Himself upon the Throne" (57:4) to oversee His work. A distinct point
is made to counter the Biblical idea of a day of rest: "We created the heavens and the earth and
all that is between them in six days, nor did any sense of weariness touch Us"
(TMQ 50:38).
Allah is never "done" with His
work, because the process of creation is on-going. Each new child who is born,
every seed that sprouts into a sapling, every new species that appears on
earth, is part of the on-going process of Allah's creation. "He it is Who created the heavens and the
earth in six days, then established Himself on the Throne. He knows what enters
within the heart of the earth, and what comes forth out of it, what comes down
from heaven, and what mounts up to it. And He is with you wherever you may be.
And Allah sees well all that you do" (TMQ 57:4).
The modern scientific thought about the
development of the universe and life on earth is in line with Qur’anic account
of creation. Muslims acknowledge that life developed over a long period of
time, but see Allah's power behind it all. Descriptions of creation in the Qur’an
are set in context to remind the readers of Allah's majesty and wisdom.
"What
is the matter with you, that you are not conscious of Allah's majesty, seeing
that it is He Who has created you in diverse stages? See you not how Allah has
created the seven heavens one above another, and made the moon a light in their
midst, and made the sun as a (glorious) lamp? And Allah has produced you from
the earth, growing (gradually)" (TMQ 71:13-17).
Life
Came From Water
The Qur’an describes that Allah "made from water every living thing"
(TMQ 21:30). Another verse describes how "Allah has created every animal from water. Of them are some that creep
on their bellies, some that walk on two legs, and some that walk on four. Allah
creates what He wills, for truly Allah has power over all things" (TMQ
24:45). Modern scientific theory that life began in the Earth's oceans is in support
of these verses.
The Story of
the Creation of Adam
The Prophet* says, the angels were created
from light and the jinn were created from fire. Iblis was from al-jinn, but
because he was so righteous he was included amongst the angels and elevated to
a very high level amongst the angels. Adam was created from dirt. Allah says: “And (remember) when your Lord said to the
angels: ‘Verily, I am going to place a khalifah on earth.’ ” (TMQ 2:30)
Vocabulary
– Khalifah
What does khalifah mean? It comes from the
word khalaf, which means to succeed someone else or to assume the position of
someone else. For example, Allah says in the Qur’aan: “But there came after them successors who neglected prayer and pursued
desires; so they are going to meet evil.” (TMQ 19:59). In this ayah, it
means a generation that came after them.
What was Abu Bakr called after he assumed khalifa
after The Prophet*? He was called Khalifa tur Rasulillah – the Khalifah
of RasulAllah because he assumed responsibility after The Prophet* and he came
after The Prophet*. So we see that in this word, which was used in reference of
Abu Bakr, that it has two meanings:
1) That he assumed responsibility after The
Prophet*
2) He is coming after The Prophet*.
If we would apply these two meanings to the
responsibility or title given to humanity, we find two explanations given:
1) Allah has appointed Adam and his children
/ descendants in the position of responsibility to apply the Laws of Allah. So
they are representing the law of Allah on earth. That is the explanation given
by Ibn Mas’ood.
2) Human beings would succeed each other in
this world generation after generation. And this is the opinion of Ibn ‘Abbaas.
Our responsibility on earth is to establish
the laws according to Allah and we also see that we succeed each other. We are
not like the angels who are living but not marrying and having children.
If we look at the ayah before this, it would
help us to understand our mission and role in this world. Allah says in the
ayah: [see TMQ 2:22] He has created for
you everything in this world. That is the honour that Allah has given to
the human being. Everything is created for the exploitation of human beings.
They are the ones whom Allah has given the responsibility of establishing this
world. Therefore, we should not give precedence to anything material over the
human being. Allah has given this noble position to human beings, so the human
being is sacred. Look at the world – humans are being destroyed all over the
world for material things. Allah said that the sanctity of the Muslim blood is
more than the Ka’bah. That is the honour that Allah has given to the son of
Adam.
When Allah told the angels that He would
place a khalifah on earth, what did they say? They said: “Will you place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed
blood, while we glorify You with praises and thanks?” [TMQ 2:30] How did the
angels know that the human beings would corrupt the earth? There are two
explanations given. One is that Allah told the angels ahead of time that this
is what human beings will do. The second explanation, which is mentioned by Ibn
‘Abbaas, that jinn were living in this world before. They caused corruption and
shed blood, fought with each other, corrupted this world and caused so much
evil. Allah sent on them armies from the angels, and also Iblis, to fight
against them. And then they were pushed and cornered to the islands of the
ocean. The angels said, Why are you going to place someone on earth who will
cause corruption and shed blood? There are no hadith to support either of these
explanations. Allah said, “I know what
you know not.”
There are old traditions about the angels
before the creation of Adam. According to Ibn Qatadah, it was said that the
angels were informed about the creation of Adam and his progency by the jinn
who lived before Adam. Abdullah Ibn Umar said that the jinn had existed for about
2000 years before Adam and then shed blood. Therefore Allah sent on them an
army of angels that drove them out to the depths of the seas. Ibn Abi Hatim
narrated from Ali jafar Al Baqer that the angels were informed that man would
cause wickedness and shed blood on earth. It was also said that they knew that
no one would be created on earth who would not be wicked and shed blood.
Whether or not these traditions are correct,
the angels did understand that Allah would create a vicegerent on earth. Allah
the Almighty announced that He was going to create a human being out of clay,
that He would mold him and blow His spirit into him and then the angels should
prostrate before him.
What
Adam Was Made From
Allah created Adam, and The Prophet* says,
“Allah created Adam from a handful of dirt, picked from all of the earth. So
the children of Adam became red, white, black and everything in between, and
they became soft and tough, bad and good, and everything in between.” This dirt
was picked from different parts of the earth – different colours were taken.
Some of the soil was taken from mountains, some from valleys, and it was mixed
together. So the descendants of Adam came out in different colours, because the
dirt they were created from was different colours. They came out with different
qualities, because some of this dirt was taken from mountains, and some of it
from valleys, some it from fertile land, some from infertile land. So you have
some righteous, some evil, some easy to deal with, some tough. They came out
according to the material they were created from.
What was Adam created from? Turaab – dirt.
That is not the only name given to the material we were created from. We find
in the Qur’an that the components of our body were described with different
terms. Allah has called it:
- Turaab – dirt / soil
- Teen – clay
- Teen al-laazib – sticky clay
- Hama`im masnoon – black, smooth mud
- Salsaal – sounding clay
Why the use of these different terms for the
material we were created from? In the beginning, it was turaab that was taken
from the earth. Then this dirt was mixed with the basis of every living being –
and that is water. “We created from
water every living being.” [TMQ 21:30] When it was mixed with water, it
became teen – mud. This mud was left for a while. When you leave mud for a while
and the moisture in it reduces, it becomes sticky and it hold to your hands –
and that is teen laazib. That teen laazib was left for a while longer and the
smell of it changed and the colour of it became darker, and that is hama`im
masnoon. That material was taken, and Allah moulded out of it the form/body of
Adam. That body was left to dry and it turned into salsaal kal fakhaar – clay, like pottery. When you knock on
pottery, what happens? It makes a ringing sound, like a bell. So the body – the
empty form of Adam without the soul – was left to dry.
[The following is not a hadith] It is said
that iblees saw this body lying on the ground (he didn’t know what it was) and
he walked up to it and knocked it and it made a ringing sound, and it was
hollow. He said, “This is a creation that is weak.” Then he said, “If I am
given influence over you, I will guide you astray. And if you are given
influence over me, I will disobey you.” Shaytan was our enemy from day one.
In
Allah’s Image?
We know that Allah has created Adam from His
own Hands. Adam was honoured that he was created from the Hands of Allah. It is
mentioned in the hadith of shafaa`a – that is one of the things that the people
will say to him – that Allah created him from His own Hands. The Prophet* says
in a hadith narrated by Muslim that Allah created Adam in His own Image. An-Nawawi
gives an explanation to this hadith. He says that what is meant that Allah has
created on his image, it is not talking about Allah. Allah created Adam on the image
of Adam.
That means that Allah created Adam as he was – in his adult form that
remained with him. Adam did not go through the stages that we go through – an
embryo, an infant, a child, then an adult. We go through different images. With
Adam, he was created on that image from day one. This is diametrically opposed
to what evolution says. Islam does not completely disapprove of everything in
the theory of evolution. Islam approves of some and disapproves of some. Islam
disapproves of the part that says that nature is the creator, or that things
came out of randomness. Islam is against the part that says human beings
evolved from a single cell and then went to the ape. Islam is not opposed to
the part that says species adapt to their environment – we see that around us
and we say that it happens with the will of Allah (see later Main Topic
Section)
Main Topic: Problems with Evolution and what Islam says about the Creation of Man
Problems with
Evolution
The Theory of Evolution has become the de
facto standard used in the West, and indeed beyond, to explain the existence of
creation and life. It is described as rational and scientific; many statements
are made to demonstrate the strength of the Theory – such as the number of
scientists who have given it their blessings and its widespread acceptance
beyond the scientific community. Nonetheless, there is a strong perception
existing in our day and age of the credibility of the Theory of Evolution. To
some extent, it is discussed and taught in schools and educational
establishments and promoted in the mainstream media. In stark contrast, other
arguments that explain the existence of life are considered to be irrational,
backward and steeped in ignorance borne out of belief in religion. In other words,
there are essentially two clear camps: the ‘scientific’ and progressive camp
which espouses the virtues of the Theory, and the apparently ‘unscientific’
contingent which clings to outmoded explanations such as the existence of a
Creator. In recent times, thanks in no small part to various Christian elements
in the U.S., the clashes between these two sides have become more visible and
the tempo seems to have been raised. There have been calls for a restructuring
to the way in which the Theory is taught to children, or at the very least
provision for a balanced approach, so that the young are taught about other
explanations as well. Many establishments have insisted on giving religious
teaching the priority, leading to conflict with those who believe religion
should have no such role in schools.
It has been proven by decisive and definite
evidence that when the Prophet* died the whole Qur’an had been written and all
of it was preserved in the hearts of the Sahabah (may Allah be pleased with
them). An verse or verses would be revealed and so he* used to order that they
be written down before him at once.
Over the past few decades there has been a
growing discourse on science, evolution and its compatibility with Divine
revelation. This discourse can be summarised in the following way: the theory
of evolution has been established as a scientific fact therefore a believer in
a particular revealed text, such as the Qur'an, must reconcile evolution with their
holy book. If there is no hope for reconciliation there are three main
outcomes: the religious text is discarded, evolution is renounced, or a hope
for a better understanding of the religious text and evolution in the future.
However, in this growing discussion there is a hidden premise. This premise is
that science produces certainty, evolution is fact and science is the only way
to establish or verify truth claims. This premise is assumed in the popular
discussion amongst many religious people, popular scientists and even the media,
and by not bringing this premise to the forefront of the debate many Muslims (and
fellow theists) have been left confused and disheartened.
It is not the scope of this article to enter
into a discussion concerning the various approaches taken by scholars and
thinkers to reconcile evolution with revelation. What will be discussed is what
can be described as a foundational approach to the discussion or what is
sometimes referred to as an epistemic approach. We believe that this approach exposes
the false assumption that the theory of evolution is a fact, or is certain.
Therefore, the need for reconciliation is
not entirely necessary. By understanding the scientific method and the
philosophy of science, and applying the concepts and principles to evolution,
it will be evident that it is not a fact, and thus does not reach the level of
certainty. This is also true for many of the intellectual outputs of science.
It must be noted that science can reach a
level of certainty - but this is very rare - and although highly effective, it
has severe limitations. People need to understand this and limit it to its
sphere. There are many areas of knowledge that science is de-scoped, in other
words, it has no say. Therefore, people must be aware of the fanatics in this
debate masquerading as bastions of truth and beacons of light for all to
follow. These fanatics are the science fundamentalists who advocate a narrow
and dogmatic approach to science. They presume and propagate naturalism,
empiricism and scientism, all of which are incoherent and lead to philosophical
absurdities. We strongly believe that people should beware of these
popularisers, and understand what science really is - a blessing from God with
limitations and unresolved problems concerning some of its claims to truth.
Excavating
Evolution: The scientific dogma of the 20th century
Observe the sun rising in the morning, the
stars hanging in the sky in their beautiful order, the incredible nature of man
or of any other creature for that matter. See their intricate system
interwoven, as splendid tapestry, systems upon systems, beauty upon beauty,
complexity upon complexity. If we were to come upon a beach where pebbles and
stones had been arranged in an intricate pattern, we would feel no hesitation
in jumping to the conclusion that they had been arranged in such a manner by
someone. Although it is theoretically possible that the sea could have
deposited the stones and pebbles in such a manner by chance. It would be
considered most unlikely.
The standard argument put forward to counter
the argument, that a Creator exists, is that the universe came into being
purely by chance through the random forces of nature over millions of years.
Thus the diversity and intricacy found in humans and animals is put down to
chance. This argument holds that there is no purpose behind the universe and
the complexity and intricacy of the world. Living experience shows us that
without the Creator's ‘design’ the random evolutionary process could never have
got started. Finally, how does one explain the beauty and diversity in the
world without reference to a purposeful Creator. The world exhibits order and
regularity that testifies to the wisdom of Creator. This is in stark
contradiction to the scientific view that things naturally tend towards
disorder, which only proves that something is indeed ordering life to a
particular plan.
Such an intricate relationship require an
intelligent, purposeful power behind the world, and not the random unconscious
and unintelligent process of chance. The occurrence of events requiring
intelligence to explain them is positive proof for the designer of the world.
Allah the Supreme being.
Like the Church in the Middle Ages that
chained the minds of the people into thinking that there was no hope for
salvation outside the Church, the Scientific Community has worked along the
similar lines to enslave the people with the notion that the concepts of
Evolution and Science are the key to understanding the nature of life and the
universe. Much too often we are forced to sit as passive observers in lecture
halls as university professors dazzle the crowd with the idea that apes and
baboons gave birth to humans. They have raised the Evolutionist Theory to the
level of something holy.
Limits of ‘Science’
In this age of science and technology, we
have become accustomed to thinking that science is everything. Let us suppose
for a moment that scientific knowledge became so complete that it encompassed
everything in the universe. Would we then be any closer to answer, through
science, questions like: “Why is there a
universe?” and “What is the purpose
of life?”
Science cannot answer such questions because
scientific knowledge is derived through
experiments. Science is concerned with observing things, i.e., the way
things behave. Questions like “Why did the universe come into being?” cannot be
answered just by observing things in an experiment. A scientist can observe the
movements of the watch and conclude that the watch keeps time because the
quartz and the mechanics or electronics behaves in a particular manner;
however, such observation will never answer the question “Why did the
watch-maker make the watch?”
Indeed, scientific experiment alone will not
tell us that there is a creator for the universe or a watch-maker for the
watch. Now, if we substitute the watch for the universe, external observation
alone will not answer the question “Why is there a universe?” Rather, these
observations should be used to lead us to answer the big question. Today there
is such an ideology or way of life which answers all of the questions about our
existence in a comprehensive manner. This ideology is Islam, and it is a
complete way of life.
The education system of western nations is a
means by which the thoughts, ideas, and culture of the secular ideology is
preserved and protected. So vehement is the protection that any viewpoint in
life that challenges the secular view and its systems is suppressed, distorted
and eradicated. This distortion is nowhere more apparent than the area of
science where any hint of objective scientific phenomena challenging the
secular belief is distorted and presented as fact to conform to the belief. One
of the best known examples of this manipulation is the subject of the origin of
life and evolution.
In Islam, there is no disagreement between
the objective scientific phenomena and the Islamic creed. On the contrary, the
Islamic belief is built upon the objective reality, upon the foundation of fact
rather than theory, assumption, or blindly accepted belief and therefore no
manipulation of scientific phenomena needs to occur to conform to its belief.
We will endeavour to show the fallacy of
modern scientific thinking regarding the evolution of mankind as a species, commonly referred to as Darwinism. It
is a fact that many of us take information for granted or just at face value,
because it has a great deal of scientific backing. For indeed it is science
that has put digital watches on our wrists, television in our living rooms, and
sent mankind into space. The credibility that science has attained over the
last three hundred years has empowered it to start dictating the way people
think. No longer do we question the theories and proposals, more likely we
start taking them as fact, and very soon it becomes foolish to argue against
them. So when we are faced with the question "are we descendant from
apes?" we are more inclined to answer "yes", not because we are
convinced of the theory, but more because of scientific thinking.
The
Question of Life: The first stage of the theory states
Life started as a result of an accident in
the sea. This is commonly referred to as "spontaneous generation." The result of this accident was a
single celled organism which could 'replicate' itself to form similar
organisms. The spontaneous generation took place within what is known as the 'organic soup'. When it comes to the
creation of life on this planet, the principle of 'chance' is invoked. The belief posits that given a large enough
number of planets, and the correct planetary conditions in the presence of the correct
fundamental building blocks, life could have emerged spontaneously by chance on
at least one of these planets (earth).
The earth at that time was very volatile
with a great deal of seismic and volcanic activity. There was radiation from
the sun owing to the partially formed atmosphere, and harsh weather conditions
that existed. The distance from the sun was such that the temperature of the
earth was able to sustain water in liquid form. Within these oceans existed a
mixture of elements compounds, and complex chemical chains. This is commonly
referred to as 'organic soup'. Organic
compounds are the building blocks that all living beings are comprised of (amino acids). It is not totally
unlikely that organic compounds existed at this stage, since they can be formed
by certain conditions arising. Up to this point the scenario that exists all
seems very plausible according to the evidence we have in the fields of
astronomy and chemistry. Indeed with only a partially formed atmosphere, and
the beginning of a crust forming, the climate would have been very severe.
The
Fallacy
The key statement amongst the facts
illustrated above is that 'life started
by accident through a process known as spontaneous generation'. To say that
it started by accident means that it was an incidental by-product of serious
conditions. In fact, the objective was never to create life. .."it just
happened". It is impossible to objectively analyze this because science
itself is proclaiming that it does not have the reason or the cause of life
itself. So, the question begs "what
is life?'
The inanimate or abiotic matter is simply
the world we see around us, it comprises the elements that makes up the ground
upon which we walk, the air we breathe, the buildings in which we live, or the
cars that we drive. These are elements that do not have a mind or
characteristics possessed by living or biotic organisms. The organic compounds
are those that are necessary for the formation of life but like matter they are
just unique configurations of inanimate objects. 'A collection of inanimate
objects is itself inanimate'. To say that life spontaneously arose from a
collection of organic compounds i.e. a collection of inanimate objects is
totally irrational and therefore totally absurd. The reason being that once
life was formed it had needs and requirements, & it needed laws to regulate
it, since it did not ability to create laws for itself. To state that an
element is the source of laws to regulate itself is completely unfounded & highly
ludicrous! This same element has the ability to replicate itself, repair
itself, & possessed survival characteristics.
All of these are implicit attributes of
life, i.e. everything we see living around us needs sustenance, has the ability
to renew or reproduce, and generates factors unique to its survival. We have to
remember that we are dealing with a collection of organic compounds or a
collection of inanimate objects. Somehow this collection of organic compounds
gained an extra attribute that yields the characteristics of life that cannot
be totally understood. As of yet there is absolutely no understanding of the
nature of the bridge between organic compounds and life.
In addition to this, scientists are still
puzzled as to how the very first cell was able to survive let alone start
replicating itself. Given the harsh temperatures and conditions that existed at
that time, it seems a more probable event that such an organism would have been
instantaneously eliminated. Even if it did survive, what was existent in the
cell to instruct it to create another just like it (the process of cell
division and replication i.e. mitosis/meiosis? This can only mean that the
first cell had some genetic structure thus begging some essential and
fundamental questions.
How
did the first DNA (or equivalent) molecule come into being?
We know that genetic material only comes
from a parent cell. Where was the parent cell? What is instructing this
molecule to replicate itself, and maintain the coding for hereditary cells? Again
this is an issue which is not satisfactorily tackled by science, since they use
spontaneous generation example to hide what they do not know. They cannot
answer how elements re-arranged themselves into unique configurations of
genetic material, and this complex coded chain then became the key to defining
the characteristics of the organism.
With the state of technology that exists at
the moment it would be very easy to recreate (within a controlled environment)
the harsh conditions that would have existed during the early period of the
earth. So you think that scientists would be actively trying to recreate these
conditions within experiments to see if life itself could be created
spontaneously as they suggest. However, in numerous experiments by scientists
they have never been able to produce the minimum required quantity of amino
acids from a random selection of elements under a myriad of conditions, let
alone these building blocks to resemble anything that could be classified as
life.
Professor Stanley Miller conducted an
experiment to see if it was possible to create the basic building blocks for
life. By accident he set up chemical solutions inside a flask and passed high
voltage arcs through the flask. In many attempts altering the experimental
parameters, he was never able to create more than four amino acids. The minimum
requirement for each cell in the human body is twenty. The fact that they have
not generated life has been attributed to the failure to replicate the exact
conditions that they presume to have existed, since according to them it is the
natural consequence of a pre-set environment. On the other hand there were
scientists like Louis Pasteur and Francisco Ready who contradicted modern
belief by stating that life could only come from previous life. If this was the
case, where did the first cell receive its life from?
From leading biologists in this field it
becomes apparent that probabilities of life emerging by itself was virtually
non-existent. In fact, the number quoted was so immensely small that it could
not even be imagined. It was estimated that in order to create a DNA molecule
by accident required fourteen stages. Within each stage there is a sequence of
approximately ten steps which lead to the next stage. The probabilities are not
known, so an example of a dice was used. If a dice was thrown at each step, the
probability of success at each stage is one in six. For a successful of 140
stages (fourteen stages with ten sequences each) the probability would be one
in 6x10(140) a number which incidentally is more than the number of
atoms in the entire universe! It is like having an explosion at a printing
factory that results in a concise English dictionary by letters and words
forming randomly. This is far from the reality within which we exist. DNA is simply
the collection of inanimate matter. There is something beyond the material form
of DNA to account for life giving properties (i.e., what differentiates live
matter from dead matter). Indeed, biologists recognize the fact that life could
be independent of the elements, coding or structure of the DNA molecule. Twins
could be born absolutely identical in makeup and DNA. However, one could be
still born. From a chemical makeup point of view they are exactly identical,
their DNA structure is exactly the same, however one has life the other has
not. Why does the characteristic of life exist in one and not the other?
After having explained the uniqueness and
wonder of life that most biologists appreciate, it seems confusing that they
leave the whole subject untackled. They say that life commenced through an
unknown cause (an accident) & they leave the whole subject unfinished from
a scientific viewpoint. The educational establishment, in upholding the secular
view has tried to convince the populace that science has answered the question
of life.
Evolution
Not content with glazing over the question
of life, one of the specialties of the educational establishment has been the
constant reinforcement of the assumption of evolution. So how did modern
scientists and indeed Darwin himself postulate simple organisms started to give
rise to more complex and advanced organisms?
Evolutionary theory continues to state that this
first living organism replicated
itself in abundance from similar organisms. According to normal cell division,
the rate of replication would have
been geometric if the external
factors remained constant. There is no idea of what structure the cell had at
this stage, but it would have needed to be complex enough to undergo cell division as is understood by
modern science.
The first cells found themselves living in a
hostile environment such that the original cells were struggling to survive
there in harsh surroundings. The random element known as mutation resulted in variations occurring within the basic genetic
structure. These primitive structures succumbed to the processes of Natural Selection. There are a lot
of terms here, all that need explanation before an in depth analysis can take
place.
The
Theory of Evolution
The theory of evolution is sometimes
described using complex and convoluted language, which can be a significant
source of confusion. What adds to the confusion is the fact that aspects of the
theory do undergo change and revision.
Firstly, the definition: biological evolution is defined as
descent with modification from a common ancestor. In this context, descent
means going down from one generation through to the following generations. Modification alludes to alterations in
genetic make-up and changes in gene frequencies. This definition encompasses
what is known as small-scale evolution
(changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and
large-scale evolution (the descent
of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Of course
biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things
change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but
they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.
Secondly, a key central idea of biological
evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as our
cousins and we share a common grandmother. It is argued that through the
process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave
rise to the diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us
today. Evolution means that we are all distant cousins: humans and oak trees,
hummingbirds and whales. The process of evolution produces a pattern of
relationships between species. As lineages evolve and split and modifications
are inherited, their evolutionary paths diverge. This produces a branching
pattern of evolutionary relationships. These relationships can be reconstructed
and represented on a "family tree," called a phylogeny.
As a consequence of this ‘family tree’
understanding, it is important to remember that:
1. Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees.
Humans and chimpanzees are evolutionary cousins and share a recent common
ancestor that was neither chimpanzee nor human.
2. Humans are not "higher" or
"more evolved" than other living lineages. Since these lineages
split, humans and chimpanzees have each evolved traits unique to their own
lineages.
3. The linking of speciation events to time
i.e. trying to understand when different species evolved. Using various
methods, such as radiometric dating, scientists are able to conclude that life
began 3.8 billion years ago, and insects diversified 290 million years ago, but
the human and chimpanzee lineages diverged only five million years ago.
To give an analogy for this, imagine
squeezing the billions of years of the history of life on Earth into a single
minute. Then it would take about 50 seconds for multi-cellular life to evolve,
another four seconds for vertebrates to invade the land, and another four
seconds for flowers to evolve — and only in the last 0.002 seconds would
"modern" humans arise.
So, the claim is made that evolution is the
process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient ancestors.
Evolution is apparently responsible for both the remarkable similarities we see
across all life and the amazing diversity of that life — but exactly how does
it work?
Fundamental to the process is genetic
variation upon which selective forces can act in order for evolution to occur.
Evolution only occurs when there is a change in gene frequency within a
population over time. These genetic differences are heritable and can be passed
on to the next generation — which is what really matters in evolution: long
term change. Therefore, we need to examine the actual mechanisms of evolution. In
essence there are four basic processes, which constitute the mechanisms of
evolution. These are mutation,
migration, genetic drift and natural selection.
Mutation refers to the actual changes in the DNA
within cells. The DNA affects how an organism looks, behaves and so on. Mutation
is the process of random genetic change. All cells within an organism carry
hereditary material in the form of genes, arranged linearly on the chromosomes
contained in the nuclei of the cells. As the body grows, new cells are created
with identical genetic material. Sometimes, genes make mistakes copying the genetic code. This is known
as genetic mutation. Various factors can affect the rate of genetic mutation.
These include external agents such as radiation, chemicals, smoke and certain
edibles. Thus a change in the DNA can alter all aspects of its life. When cells
divide the DNA is copied exactly as it is. However, on occasion, it is possible
for there to be a discrepancy in the copying of the DNA. This difference is
considered a mutation. It must be kept in mind that mutations are random – and
so do not normally depend on external factors. That said, it is possible for
there to be mutation as a result of exposure to radiation or chemicals, causing
the DNA to break down. In this case, when the cells repair the DNA, the result
is not a perfect repair – and so the resultant DNA is a mutation. Whether a
particular mutation occurs is not related to how useful that mutation would be.
The mutation in the genes can yield a beneficial, neutral or harmful change for
the organism. Although mutation can occur with any gene, it is the mutation
that affects genes, which can be transmitted from one generation to the next
that is of interest, since this is a form of evolution. If genes mutate and
cannot be passed to future generations, then these mutations cannot be
considered as having any relation to evolution. These are called Somatic
Mutations and occur in non-reproductive cells. Hence the genes that are
affected by mutation related to biological evolution are the reproductive
cells, like eggs and sperm. Any mutations in the sex cells mean that
potentially the change (the mutation) can be passed onto following generations.
These mutations are labelled Germ Line Mutations.
Geometric cell division is where each cell
replicates at the same rate. So, in effect if we have one cell, and it divides
then there are two. Then if the cells divide there are four. . . then eight,
sixteen, thirty-two and so on. . .
Darwinian theory lays the basis of
evolutionary change with genetic mutation. The problem here is that an
overwhelming majority of mutations are fatal to the organism. Mutations are
rarely beneficial, sometimes neutral, but mostly harmful, resulting in
deformed, sick or weakened organisms. In today's world where the effects of
radiation/pollution are far less than primitive earth, you would expect less
mutation. However, the effects of mutation are no less pronounced. According to
some recent studies an incredible 99.99% of genetic mutations kill the cells in
which they occur (be they harmful or even beneficial.)
Sometimes mutations may cause a cell to lose
control of its machinery. For example, the affected cells undergo uncontrolled
cell division, resulting in cancerous growth. Many human diseases can be traced
to mutant genes. Only in a very few cases will the organism be able to survive
a mutation, but even then to be of any use to the organism's survival, it must
produce a result in a feature which enhances the survival characteristics of
the organism within that environment (e.g., a deer that has larger muscles on
its hind legs allowing it to run faster from predators.)
Migration is the flow of genes from one population to
another. This Gene Flow can include various different events, such as pollen
being blown to a new destination or people moving to new cities or countries.
In a situation where genes are carried to a population where those genes
previously did not exist, gene flow becomes a very important source of genetic
variation. Thus, as well as being mechanisms of evolution, Mutation and
Migration also constitute sources of genetic variation. Another source of
genetic variation is sex, which can introduce new gene combinations into a
population.
Genetic
drift refers to the
situation where, just ‘by chance’, some individuals leave behind a few more
descendents and thus genes than other individuals. This happens to all
populations since there can be no avoidance of chance. So for example, every
time somebody steps on an insect with a certain characteristic, this reduces
the number within that particular population and hence means there is one less
insect remaining to pass on its genes to a new generation. Conversely, this
also means that there are now more insects with different characteristics
within the same population, who are able to pass on their genes. Clearly, this
shows that genetic drift affects the genetic makeup of a population through
entirely random means.
Natural
Selection is the fourth
cog in the wheel of evolution. This in itself requires three components: variation in traits, differential
reproduction and heredity. To understand this, consider a population of
beetles. Some beetles are brown and others are green – this is a variation in a
trait or a characteristic.
The process of Evolution needs Natural
Selection. Genetic Mutations are identified as the root cause of the change of
characteristics of a certain number of members of a species. If the change
enables that proportion to be better suited for survival, then as the
environment changes, only those organisms within the species that are better
suited for survival will live. This means that through time, only enhanced
features will eventually dominate the species, and nature will gradually
eliminate those species which lack this feature. In other words, weak &
unsuitable forms that fail to adapt to their environment die out, while the
strong & well adapted organisms survive "Survival of the Fittest."
In fact, this is the basis of Evolution. It
is a very concise and clear theory to understand and appreciate (which probably
relates to one of the reasons it has been so widely accepted.) The theory
itself doesn't sound so ridiculous. However, there is vast evidence that points
to the fact that this could not possibly have been the case.
The environment is not able to support
unlimited growth of the population and so not all individuals are able to
reproduce to their full potential. For example, we could say that green beetles
are easily visible on the ground and so tend to get eaten more by birds – so
less survive to reproduce compared to brown beetles. In other words, we have
differential reproduction.
Finally, the brown beetles have brown baby
beetles since this trait has a genetic basis i.e. they pass on a gene that
determines the colour to be brown. This is what is meant by heredity. Putting
these components together, evolution by natural selection is seen at work. The
more advantageous trait of brown colour becomes more common in the population
with time and if this process continues, then eventually all the beetles will
be brown.
It is claimed that natural selection is also
able to shape behaviour. The mating rituals that many birds have, the wiggle
dance that bee’s do or the human capacity to learn language, have genetic
components. In some cases, natural selection can be observed directly. Data
shows that the shape of finches' beaks on the Galapagos Islands is related to
weather patterns: after droughts, the finch population has deeper, stronger
beaks that let them eat tougher seeds. In other cases, human activity has led
to environmental changes that have caused populations to evolve through natural
selection. A striking example is that of the population of dark moths in the
19th century in England, which rose and fell in parallel to industrial
pollution. These changes can often be observed and documented.
‘Fitness’
is a concept used to describe how good a particular organism is at leaving its
set of genes in the next generation compared with others with a different set
of genes. Going back to the example of beetles, if brown beetles were to
consistently leave more off spring than green beetles, then they would be
considered to have a higher fitness. Fitness however does depend on the
environment in which an organism lives. Also, from this perspective, the
fittest individual is not necessarily the strongest, fastest or biggest. What
matters is leaving it’s genes in the next generation and so survival ability,
finding a mate and producing off spring is more important. This sub-category of
natural selection in relation to finding a mate and reproductive behaviour is
labelled sexual selection.
Another category of natural selection is artificial selection. This is where,
instead of nature, humans consciously select for or against particular features
in organisms. For example, the human may allow only organisms with the desired
feature to reproduce or may provide more resources to the organisms with the desired
feature. Historically, farmers and breeders have used this idea of selection to
cause major changes in the features of their plants and animals.
One key aspect of natural selection is known
as adaptation. An adaptation is a
feature that is common in a population because it seems to provide an improved
function. Adaptations can take many forms: a behaviour that allows better
evasion of predators, a protein that functions better at body temperature, or
an anatomical feature that allows the organism to access a valuable new
resource — all of these might be adaptations. For example, mimicry of leaves by
insects is an adaptation for evading predators or the use of echolocation by
bats to help them catch insects. Similarly, the creosote bush is a desert-dwelling
plant that produces toxins that prevent other plants from growing nearby, thus
reducing competition for nutrients and water.
To summarise, all of the mechanisms
discussed above (mutation, migration, genetic drift and natural selection) can
cause changes in the frequencies of genes in populations, and so all of them
are mechanisms of evolutionary change. However, it is worth keeping in mind
that natural selection and genetic drift cannot operate unless there is genetic
variation — that is, unless some individuals are genetically different from
others.
The
Mechanics of Evolution
So, to be of any use, the mutation must
result in an enhancement of physical characteristics as specified above. The
mutations must take place within the sex cells in order to be passed on to
progeny. So, taking the example above, the mutation of muscle for the deer not
only has to take place in the hind legs, but, it also had to take place within
the sex cells of the deer (a mutation in a certain part of the body, without
taking place in the sex cells, will never get passed to any of the breeding
population). The most evident problem here is that a large number of mutations
would have to have taken place over a very large amount of time in order to
produce a minimum quantity of viable organisms that were better suited to the
changed environment (thousands of generations over millions of years). And then
as the environment changed the ones that were less able to survive were
selected out of existence. However, going by the nature of genetic mutation, if
the rate of mutation were increased then the mortality rate of the organisms
would have also drastically increased. So in order for a species to develop
from a lower one in a very short space of time would mean that the number of mutations
would have to have been very high, which also implies that a large proportion
of those organisms affected would have died.
A stark example will illustrate this
principle: Consider the evolution of terrestrial organisms to airborne
organisms (i.e. since life started in the sea, at some stage in history
according to Darwin, sea based organisms progressed onto land, some of these
land based animals subsequently took to the air). In order to create a viable
airborne organism, a wing is required. So an arm of a creature had to evolve
into a wing. Note, here that a stark mutation from an arm to a wing does not
occur overnight. Many mutations will have to take place, over a considerable
amount of time, before full transition is effective (typically millions of
years). During the phase in which the arm is mutating into a wing it is neither a wing or an arm, and as such
it is evidently detrimental to the organisms survival in the environment it was
adapting. An organism with fully functional arms is better suited to survival
than one which is undergoing mutations within the arm. In its current from, the
mutated organism is in a form of disability because it is not able to use the
originally intended arm for its main purpose. It is thus vulnerable, and by
Darwin's own process of natural selection, it should be selected out of
existence (because in its current form of transition it is not the fittest to
survive).
Taking this example further, not only must
the arms become wings but the entire physical structure must simultaneously
evolve together in order for an effective transition to take place (i.e. in
order for flight to take place the strength to weight ratio is critical as is
the skeletal structure, and muscle development, heart rate, lung capacity...etc).
So, in other words, what we are trying to say is that an organism suited to
living on the ground, undergoes physical mutation for flight, and somehow,
according to the theory undergoes similar mutation that will enable it to
eventually fly. It is not enough to have one feature, all these features must
evolve together simultaneously. The design complexity required for such a
change from a land bearing mammal to an airborne organism defies the idea that
such selections could have happened by chance.
What the theory proposes is that those
within the species undergoing transition from land to airborne flight,
succeeded as far as natural selection is concerned. Why would they succeed...? Of
those that survived mutation, only a few mutated to the necessary further physical
features that would enable flight. Of those, only a few had the equivalent
mutation with their sex cells. At each stage, the mutation gets rarer and
rarer, and the number of organisms gets less and less, and the time span
stretches over thousands of millions of years. These facts only lend to the
implausibility of the theory.
A second example that is widely used is the
successful competition example: According to Darwin, a modern giraffe's long
neck is an evidence of successful competition. If indeed there was such a
competition and this competition only favoured its long-necked forms, how did
the female giraffes and the baby giraffes (which are shorter than the males)
survive during periods of scarcity of food (when the leaves were on the highest
branches). According to Darwin's standards, female & baby giraffes would
have died first, and then the whole race would have died out in the absence of
the females. There are many other examples that lend themselves to the fact
that such stark mutation from species to species could not have occurred in
this manner.
The
Continual Process
According to Darwin, life originated on
earth from simple single-celled organisms giving rise to the multicellular
organisms through process of gradual change, through random mutations over
millions of years. This is how the diversity of species is explained: There is
overwhelming evidence today that the intermediate forms required for the
process of evolution are totally absent. Darwin was frustrated by this, and
this frustration extends to evolutionists today. If evolution was an ongoing
process, we should be able to see evolving species, genera, classes. But, the
fact is that there are sharply definable features within a species (classified
easily). This puts evolutionists in a very embarrassing situation. Darwin
wrote, "Why, if species have descended from other species to fine
gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not
all of nature in confusion, instead of the species as we see them, well
defined?"
To put it bluntly, if indeed mankind was
descended from apes and evolution is a continuous ongoing process, then why do
we not find today a half-man/half ape? According to the theory, evolution
resulted in the single cell organism forming more advanced better suited and
more adaptable multi-celled organisms. If natural selection took over, then why
weren't the single cells selected out of existence. Unicellular and
multicellular organisms exist to this day together in the same environment.
Bacteria and yeast are the oldest surviving organisms and yet they show no
signs of evolution. Why have they survived unchanged?
Some may argue that such organisms were too
small to evolve, but if we look at starfish
(440-500 million years), shark
(350-400 million years), horseshoe crab
(500-600 million years), these are neither too small or too simple or too
recent in time, and yet still they too have escaped evolution. It seems that
certain forms existed and died out, and some other forms have existed in a set state
for a considerable time. It does not seem that nature has made any species
progress drastically into another species. When we look at fossil remains there
is no evidence of gradual development,
(in fact, the opposite is true). Charles Darwin wondered about this, but
reconciled that when plenty of fossils were unearthed, in the near future the
gradual change could hopefully be seen. Indeed, he was postulating a theory
which needed proof, and to him that is all it was-just a theory. Today,
unfortunately it has been taken as fact. Today, large amounts of fossil
evidence exist. The evidence basically lead to the conclusion that species
existed for a set time, only to be replaced by a markedly different species. These
facts are now generally accepted by biologists, despite the fact that they
significantly oppose Darwinism. J.F. Case & V.E. Steirs write: "...
Though the fossil record makes an enormously important contribution to
evolutionary theory, this source of data poses some questions that have proved
to be a source of embarrassment to evolutionary theorists."
Variations
within a Species vs. Evolution of a Species
There exists a definite difference between variation
within a species and evolution of a species. The area of most confusion that
exists when evolutionists cling so dearly to the theory, is when they try to
reconcile the variation of species and the variation within those species.
Although evolution sounds improbable, there is no other scientific explanation
of the wide variety of animal species present on this planet.
1.)
Variations within a Species
We see today many variations within a
particular bird species: feathers, colour, weight, etc. This can occur, and is
classified as variation within a species. There is no better proof of this than
the human species. We can see the immense variation between individuals, and
races living in different continents. The pygmies of Central Africa differ
considerably in relation to the fair skinned people of Europe, but they are
still the same species. It’s just that the genetic make-up controlling the
height is different. Even with people of the same race; hair colour, eye colour,
mental ability are all varying factors affected by the natural selection
processes of human breeding.
The combining of the parent hereditary genes
upon human conception, is a random factor influenced only by dominant genes
governing certain characteristics. However, the fundamental genes governing
human characteristics (i.e. two arms, two legs, bone structure, muscle
configuration...) remain unchanged.
2.)
Evolution of a Species
According to the theory, evolution of a
species will only occur if the fundamental characteristics change within the
progeny, and that mutated change is beneficial to that organism (i.e. increases
its survival factor within a changing environment), and that organism manages
to reproduce that change to the rest of the species within that habitat, such
that it becomes the dominant survival characteristic over its predecessor.
There is a distinct difference between the
two. Take for example, a selection of cockroaches that have immunity A &
immunity B. If an insecticide is released which kills the immunity B
cockroaches, then we cannot say that type A is an evolution within the
cockroach species. It is still a cockroach and it has been living as a
cockroach for the last few million years. It is simply a variation within that
species that has succeeded as far as natural selection is concerned. These two
examples have simply illustrated the change in ratio of two different variants
within a particular species (not evolution).
Indeed, changes have occurred but they have
not been of such magnitude so as to change a lizard into a bird or a mouse into
a man. There seems to be inherent rules, that while permitting certain amount
of variation in certain directions, do not allow solid boundary of the
permanent kind to be crossed over into another. Whatever change occurs, it
occurs within secure boundaries of the same kind. Even Pierre Crosee who held
the chair of evolution for 30 years at the Sorbonne university writes "The
repertory of mutations of a species has nothing to do with evolution. They
merely represent the mutation spectrum”.
Evidences
used by the proponents of the Theory
The mechanisms covered thus far are the basic
building blocks of the theory of evolution. The next logical step is to look at
the evidence that is given to claim these processes are responsible for both
micro and macroevolution. In other words, what evidence is there that evolution
has occurred and is responsible for the variety of life around us, and also is
there evidence that demonstrates the mechanisms discussed in this article are
indeed behind all these changes?
The primary source of proof for the theory
comes from Fossil Evidence. The
argument is that fossil records provide excellent snapshots of the past and
when assembled they illustrate evolutionary change over many millions of years.
The second source of evidence is garnered
from studying homologies.
Evolutionary theory predicts that organisms that come from the same ancestor
will share similarities. These similar characteristics are known as homologies.
As mentioned earlier, the logic is essentially that historically every species
shares a common ancestor. As we move forward in time, new species evolve, but
since they share a number of common ancestors, so we would expect them to share
some characteristics that exist or existed in those ancestors.
A third source of evidence for evolution is
the fact that there has been sufficient time for this process to have produced
the diversity we see. The age of the earth has been determined through both
relative dating (i.e. examining the different layers of rocks on the surface of
the earth) and numerical dating which relies on the decay of radioactive
elements such as uranium and potassium. The conclusion made is that the
timescales involved are adequate for evolution to take its course.
Artificial selection, mentioned earlier, is
also an evidence for evolution. This is because people have been using
selective breeding with plants and animals for many hundreds of years, and this
breeding has shown how species can change dramatically.
Arguments
against the Theory of Evolution
The previous section outlined some of the
proofs that are presented for the theory of evolution. We will now consider
briefly a few of the arguments against the theory.
1. The theory of evolution is usually
described as fact, and many people see it like this due to a moulding of public
opinion. Yet the trouble is that it is simply a theory. And like many theories
it is wont to constantly chop and change. Indeed we can see on numerous
occasions how it has changed over time and undergone revisions. For example,
according to Darwin himself, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex
organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous,
successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”.
Another example is the proposition of a
slightly different model in recent times. Called "punctuated equilibrium",
this model rejects the Darwinist idea of a cumulative, step-by-step evolution
and holds that evolution took place instead in big, discontinuous
"jumps". This is because those who ascribe to it believe the fossil
record does not support gradual evolution. Sadly for the proponents, Niles
Eldredge and Stephen Gould (American palaeontologists) their own theory is
bankrupt – since for one thing, it conflicts with the understanding that genes
cannot undergo radical mutations.
2. The sources of proof given for the theory
essentially rely on retro-fitting the supposed evidence to the theory i.e. the
theory states evolution occurred from a common ancestor, and then study of
fossils and homologies is used to indicate that indeed the theory is correct
and evolution does occur. But equally we could state there is a creator who
created the amazing diversity of life and also the similarities between species
– in fact this is more plausible. Thus fossils and homologies would just as
much, if not more, support this ‘theory’ of a Creator.
3. Fossils are a record of what may have
existed. They do not indicate anything more than this. By examining a fossil we
could equally state that the organism was created as opposed to evolving from
an ancestor. The fossil record is also very much incomplete – there are
massive, gaping holes. This presents a staggering problem for proponents of the
Theory. The somewhat weak argument is that the bulk of the fossil record may
have been destroyed or is yet to be discovered. According to Neville George, a
professor of Palaeontology at Glasgow University: “There is no need to
apologise any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has
become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration…” Yet he
goes on to say, “The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly
of gaps”.
Contrary to what evolutionists claim, there
are only limited (if any) transitional forms. Importantly, for example, we
don’t see transitional forms that show the alleged evolution of apes to humans
[and to try and explain the many loopholes regarding this, there is a current
debate among evolutionists themselves about whether it occurred in steps or
smoothly which we alluded to earlier i.e. punctuated equilibrium]. The fossil record
back then (and still today) is nearly totally void of transitional species. If
species are continually mutating, never constant, why do we find several of the
same, certain prehistoric creatures, but never any that appear to be in
transition? Why do palaeontologists find lots of dinosaurs but never where
dinosaurs come from, nor what they turned into?
In Darwin's own words, 'Why, if species have
descended by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable
transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of species
being, as we see them, well defined?' It is an excellent question, which he
answers himself, 'I can give no satisfactory answer.' Indeed British
evolutionist Derek Ager admits, “The point emerges that if we examine the
fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find
- over and over again - not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one
group at the expense of another”.
Yet another problem in using the fossil
record as evidence for evolution is that under closer examination, it appears
to be a proof for exactly the opposite argument – i.e. creation. For example,
one of the oldest strata of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have
been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550
million years. The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the
Cambrian period seemed to emerge all of a sudden in the fossil record – there
appeared to be no ancestors, although in relatively recent times palaeontologists
believe fossils have been found dating from the preceding Vendian (or
Ediacaran) period. The fossils found in the Cambrian rocks belonged to snails,
trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex
invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great
number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is
referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.
4. The basic mechanism for gene variation is
mutation. And it is known that mutations are random and limited in their scope.
We should note that what is not a point of debate here is the fact that genes
undergo mutation; neither is there a point of conflict with the various
biological processes within organisms. For example, we know that insects can
build up resistance against forms of pesticide over time – in fact, in the same
manner humans have long believed that taking poison in small quantities can
help survive what would normally be a fatal dose. These observations do not
really constitute evolution. However, even if we agreed to define these
particular cases as examples of microevolution, the fact is that they can be
explained by what we have come to know through scientific study and resulting
conclusions. The argument for a Creator also accepts scientific facts and
conclusions – it no more denies the laws of biology being created, than it
denies the laws of physics being put in place by the Creator. Hence, change
within the framework of the laws of biology is possible – and there is
sufficient evidence for this. The main problem however is with macroevolution.
To even begin to consider macroevolution, mutations would need to be dramatic –
trying to get round this, it is claimed that there has been sufficient time for
many small scale mutations to eventually yield the different species we see.
But frankly this isn’t plausible – we have seen no evidence to support such a
claim - and so this is again nothing more than a pure hypothesis.
In addition, there are many other problems
with the mutation argument. If mutations occur, they actually cause harmful
effects and not beneficial ones. We can witness the effects of mutations caused
in humans following radiation poisoning at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl –
that is, a litany of death, disability and illness.
Finally, mutations do not actually add any
new information to an organisms DNA. During a mutation, the genetic information
is either destroyed or rearranged, but since there is no new information, it is
impossible for mutations to cause a new trait or organ within a living
organism.
5. Artificial selection (breeding) and
sexual selection do produce new combinations but these are limited in their
scope. They are restricted to a finite set of possible gene combinations. So
breeding cannot introduce a radically new species – it simply gives a result
based on the limited pool of combined genes. It cannot give a result outside of
this. E.g. Horse plus donkey gives a mule. Or an African married to a Caucasian
can result in off spring described as half-cast. The latter cannot produce a
human whose skin colour is red or purple, etc.
6. The odds are heavily stacked against
evolution. Evolution cannot answer where the first cell came from. The best
guess is that came about through a random coincidence. Fred Hoyle, a well-known
English mathematician and astronomer, and someone who believes in evolution,
made the analogy that the chances of the first cell forming in this manner were
comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might
assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials present. And according to Professor of
Applied Mathematics and astronomy from University College (Cardiff, Wales),
Chandra Wickramasinghe: “The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life
from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is
big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no
primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings
of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of
purposeful intelligence”. In other words the random formation of such a first
cell is an impossibility.
But still let’s assume we suddenly have a
cell. The first cell would then have to self-reproduce otherwise there would
only ever be one cell. This becomes problematic for evolutionists so they
suggest self-replication – i.e. the first cell has the ability to clone itself.
However, organic matter can only self reproduces if it exists as a fully developed
cell with existing support structures such as the particular environment and
energy. This then requires more leaps of faith – so let’s make another
assumption, this time that the cell does have a complex structure and the
ability to reproduce. But, for evolution, mutation needs to happen. So firstly,
since mutation is random, even given an absolute age, mutation might not occur.
And secondly, mutation can only take place if the cell is forced to repair
itself or if it makes a copy of itself. Thus, for a handful of cells, to copy
and mutate successfully and form different cells and for this process to
continue onwards to produce the complexity of life we see is something, which
cannot happen. Leaving aside time, and the random nature of mutation, just the
series of mutations necessary to produce even the simplest of species are
impossible.
7. There is no actual hard evidence for the
process of evolution itself. We don’t witness evolution. All that experiments
(such as the one involving guppies) or observations in the field (such as the
house sparrows example) demonstrate is a form of selection. But this is not
real evolution – the fact that a population may change due to various factors
(such as environment, predators, etc) or that it may become extinct is not a
change from one species to another. So even if we can see natural selection of
sorts, this is based on rational factors, and is not evolution.
8. Evolution cannot answer why only the
human species has the clear faculty of intelligence, thought and reasoning that
has allowed it to progress. It cannot explain the existence of emotions, except
through an undefined notion such as chemicals within the body. And it is unable
to offer any satisfactory explanation for issues such as the existence of the soul
– indeed according to evolutionary theory, there cannot be a soul, rather life
itself must be caused by the functioning of cells since after all everything
has evolved from a single cell.
9. Adaptation is mentioned as a feature of
evolution. That is, the manner in which organisms have evolved beneficial
characteristics adapted to their environment, which help them survive. So one
example we gave earlier was that of stick insects, where their body itself is a
form of camouflage protecting them against predators. However, evolutionists
themselves state that mutation is random and can lead to beneficial as well as
harmful results. The environment cannot influence the occurrence or form of any
mutation. So in this case, the evolutionary argument would have to be that
today’s stick insects evolved from ancestors, which did randomly mutate to have
this beneficial characteristic of camouflage. Those within the population that
didn’t inherit this mutation would have died out due to their inability to
survive. But once again, claiming that a series of mutations occurred, that
lead to stick insects possessing characteristics that are suited to their
environment, is nothing but conjecture. As before, we could equally state that
a Creator has created various species and organisms of life with these inherent
varying characteristics. So, organisms were in fact created with
characteristics that we interpret as beneficial to them, instead of these
traits evolving through time. Thus, the fact that many organisms seem well matched
to their environments cannot be cited as any kind of proof or indication of
evolution.
10. Let’s take a look at another argument
that shows the fallacy of evolution. Many organisms and parts of organisms do
not appear to have evolved from lesser things because they are 'irreducibly
complex' life forms. Irreducible complexity is a concept that has been
developed to describe something that is made of interacting parts that all work
together. To understand this, take the example of a mousetrap. A mousetrap
cannot be assembled through gradual improvement. You cannot start with a wooden
base, catching a few mice, then add a hammer, and catch more, then add a
spring, improving it further. To even begin catching mice one must assemble all
the components completely with design and intent. Furthermore, if one of these
parts changes or evolves independently, the entire thing will stop working. The
mousetrap, for instance, will become useless if even one part malfunctions.
Likewise, many biological structures are
irreducibly complex. Bats are a well-known example. They are said to have
evolved from a small rodent whose front toes became wings. This presents a
multitude of problems. As the front toes grow skin between them, the creature
has limbs that are too long to run, or even walk well, yet too short to help it
fly. There is no plausible way that a bat wing can evolve from a rodent's front
toes. In fact, the fossil record supports this, because the first time bats are
seen in the fossil record, they have completely developed wings and are
virtually identical to modern bats.
Consider another example, that of the eye.
Suppose that before animals had sight, one species decided it would be
advantageous to be able to decrypt light rays. So, what is evolved first? The
retina? The iris? The eye is made of many tiny parts, each totally useless
without the others. The probability that a genetic mutation that would create
each of these at the same time, in the same organism, is zero. If, however, one
organism evolved just a retina, then the logic of Darwin suggests that the only
solution is to rid oneself of useless traits replacing them with beneficial
ones, so the idea of the eye evolving one segment at a time is also bogus.
The
Mind
The probability of life emerging by itself
is astoundingly small (if at all we can say that the DNA molecule gives rise to
life). But what has left scientists in the fields of anatomy, psychology, and
even computer science completely baffled is the mind of human beings. The mind
is the sensing of the reality linked with the precedent information, allowing
human beings to produce thoughts and enable them to verify that they exist. We
say that computers work in a similar fashion to the processing abilities of the
brain, but they do not have a mind. They are not aware of their own existence,
they cannot produce independent thought.
Of course, you know that you exist. But if
you were to examine yourself from a material point of view, then all you
consist of is a collection of complex chains of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
nitrogen, and some trace elements.
What gives this strange collection of atoms
the ability to recognize that it exists? Why does it attempt to protect itself
against danger? Why do we generate emotions, like love, hate and jealousy? ...given
that all that is happening at the base level is, electrical impulses firing
along neurons.
Indeed, if as Darwin proposes, that all life
on earth emerged from just one single cell, and that the evolution of species
was a random factor, then how does the theory account for the development of
mental processes, and the mind. Nature seems to have played a cruel trick on
Darwin. Since it seems that when we consider man in relation to other species,
dominance has not occurred via physical survival characteristics. It has in
fact come via progressive thought.
Many biologists have tried to attribute this
to the brain to body ratio. But if we look at apes, the brain to body ratio is
almost the same, and yet they have not advanced as far as man has. There is in
fact, a more fundamental difference between humans and animals. Some may argue
that you can teach an animal tricks and they have the ability to learn, but
this is indeed not true. In animals it is based on reward, i.e. the instincts
are pushing the animal to satisfy a certain requirement. This is in stark
contrast to the human child who will ask the question, "WHY?" because
it has a mind which allows it to learn and progress.
Again, as in the dilemma of life itself, the
ability for a human mind to be able to monitor, react, and control a machine
more complex and involved than any super computer on this earth (i.e. human
body,) leaves evolutionists at a complete loss as to how this could occur
through the haphazard random process they describe as Evolution. It actually
seems as though evolving organisms knew their goal. Could it be the result of
fortuitous simultaneous mutations or are there other factors involved which we
are not considering or cannot understand...?
"We can still stand in awe of a
universe in which galaxies and life and the human mind came into being.
Evidence from cosmology does not provide a proof for the existence of God but
it is consistent with belief in a cosmic design that is not pre-determined in
all its details. Humans might seem insignificant in the immensity of time and
space, but the greatest complexity in the universe was not in the atomic
structure or the galactic scale. It lies in the 100 million synapses in the
human brain. The number of ways of connecting these, is greater than the number
of atoms in the universe. There is a higher level or organization and richness
in a human being than in a thousand lifeless galaxies. It is human beings,
after all, that reach out to understand that cosmic immensity." [Prof. Ian
Barbour]
The
Dogma
How did evolution work with such serious
difficulties...? It is obvious that throughout the history of this planet, that
species have come and gone, each being succeeded by other forms, as though it
was following a well defined system. Today, in schools, evolution is taught
almost as fact, indoctrinating many millions with the idea that the current
race of mankind in fact, all the species on earth derived their existence from
a freak accident many millions of years ago. Something which may never have happened,
something with no known case, no reason, and no purpose.
It does not seem to be a reasonable
conclusion. The immense complexity around us has led many to concede that there
may well be something beyond which we understand that instigated and controlled
at the development of life on this planet. J.F. Case & V.E. Stiers writes: "...It
is as though life-forms incubating in a single-celled form for a billion years
or more, suddenly evolved overnight into the great variety of complex
multicellular animals."
Prof. D'Arcy Thompson quotes: "...Eighty
years of Darwinism evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles,
nor vertebrates from invertebrate stock..." and "...The breach
between vertebrate & invertebrate, worm & coelenterate, and protozoan
is so wide that we cannot set across the intervening gap at all...to seek for
stepping stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain forever."
The Theory of Evolution has become a symbol
of scientific logic & progressive thinking although its nothing of the
kind. It has been taken as a dogma, proven or unproven it is always right. The
absence of a coherent alternative to Darwinism has made biologists feel that a
bad theory is better than no theory at all.
Conclusion
In a time where the theory of evolution has
been catapulted to the level of fact, it is useful for us to have a firm grasp
of what this theory is, and with the emerging discussion gaining more and more
profile (that between creationism on the one side and evolutionary thought on
the other) it is vital that we are able to show the strength of the correct
argument.
One big problem of presenting the topic of
evolution is finding a reasonable balance: on the one hand, simplifying and
leaving out some of the terminology risks not being able to convey the subject
matter accurately; on the other, by not revising and simplifying at all, there
is a distinct possibility that only those with a solid understanding of biology
and science will grasp what is being presented. This article has attempted to
run through the basic mechanics of the theory, proofs that are presented for it
and some of the arguments against evolution. Many points are too elaborate and
wide ranging to touch upon in this discussion. In any event, there is an
abundance of material available regarding the theory and surrounding issues
that discuss these aspects in much more detail and is worth exploring for those
that are interested in doing so. The theory is often cloaked in scientific
language and complex terminology, and presented as a solid and viable
explanation for the existence of life. Although the focus and objective of the
article was not to prove the fallacy of the theory, but rather to be
informative with respect to the whole discussion regarding evolution as a
concept, nevertheless it has hopefully been shown that evolutionary
understanding, far from being fact, is nothing more than speculation and
hypothesis.
Islam is a system of life which originated
from the Creator (Allah in Arabic). Allah is the One who created man, life, and
the universe and subjected man to the physical laws that He imposed on the
universe. The Qur'an, as revealed to Muhammed*, directs man to study the
physical world in order to understand the reality and to appreciate more the
greatness of the One who created man, life and the universe. Many verses in the
Qur'an point to the physical world and explain natural phenomena to man, as a
confirmation for mankind that this revelation is from the Creator, the Supreme.
Some of these explanations could not be understood at the time of the
revelation because man did not have the tools that we take for granted in
modern times, such as the microscope, X-rays, etc. It is only in the last
hundred years that some of these explanations became understood as a result of advances
in science.
The examples in the Qur'an are many and
range from the creation of the universe down to the fertilization of the egg by
the sperm. It will suffice here just to quote few of these verses. "Do not the disbelievers see that the
heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them? We made every
living thing from water. Will they not then believe?" [TMQ 21; verse
30]
"Do
you not see that Allah has made subservient to you whatsoever is in the earth?"
[TMQ 22; 65]
"Then
We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed. Then we
made the sperm into a thing which clings (to the womb), then of that thing We
made a (fetus) lump, then We made out of that lump, bones and clothed the bones
with flesh, then We developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah,
the perfect Creator." [TMQ 23; 13-14]
"Verily,
in cattle there is a lesson for you. We give you to drink of what is inside
their bodies, coming from a conjunction between the contents of the intestines
and blood, a milk pure and pleasant for those who drink it." [TMQ 16;
66]
Although Islam points to the physical world
to make man think, it did not come to explain the detailed physical laws, nor
did it come to stop man from discovering them. Rather, it came to organize
man's relationship with man himself, man's relationship with the society and
man's relationship with his Creator. Islamic law therefore deals with the
proper use of scientific facts and not their discovery in the state and
society. For example, Islam does not prevent man from designing a gun, but it
does lay down principles for its use.
Islam is an ideology which offers solution
to all the problems faced by humanity. Islam secures the mind by asking mankind
to think about the existence of the creator and arrive to the rational
conclusion that He does exist.
Children's Feedback:
- Dawah part 3 - Proving Allah
- Silence (is Golden)
- What the Durood means
Homework:
What was the first thing Adam did after being created?
Logo:
Don't forget your designs for the Harborne Islamic Study Circle LOGO....
Some submitted examples include:
Mughal Exhibition Trip Info to follow
