The cover story of the 9 April, 2005, edition of New Scientist magazine
bore the title “Life’s Top 10 greatest Inventions.” The report
resorted to evolutionist myths and maintained that the present order in the
world formed as the result of phenomena in nature caused by blind chance and
that man also came into possession of his present-day biological abilities
by chance.
In the pages that follow the scientific invalidity and internal
inconsistencies of this claim and the true facts about what evolutionists
seek to depict as “the
discovery of nature” will be set out.
Errors in the Claim that Evolution Invented Death
The journal in question claims that death is a discovery of the alleged process
of evolution. In order to see the illogical nature of this claim, and how it
is devoid of any evidence, all we need do is to examine the examples cited
in the magazine.
These include the way that certain cells in the embryo form gaps between five
fingers by committing suicide, how white blood cells risk death in order to
protect the body against certain bacteria, and how cells prevent human beings
dying from cancer by their regular deaths. It is alleged in New Scientist that
this controlled cell death was invented by evolution, and that it makes it
possible for man to survive.
Even a little thought on this subject is sufficient to grasp
the lack of logic here. The mechanism described as the process of evolution
is based solely upon chance. In other words, in this alleged process, according
to evolutionists’ claims,
inanimate substances with no mind or consciousness are able, by chance, to
construct such important systems as to represent the basis of human life, and
to exhibit astonishingly conscious behaviour. According to this claim, for
example, cells that see the webbed hands of the embryo understand that those
webbed hands will be a source of discomfort after birth and that the living
thing will not be able to use its hands properly. The cells that constitute
that webbing then decide, of their own free will and mind, or with the alleged
order of the unknown imaginary will which is called evolution as evolutionists
claim, to die. In addition, the level of deaths is neither too high nor too
low. Otherwise deformed fingers would be the result, and the right number of
cells die in every human being and the webbing between the fingers is eliminated.
If the cells did not die in an ordered manner human life would be impossible,
and people would soon die of cancer. All of this shows that our cells act under
a flawless supervision. It is impossible for a system, known as the process
of evolution, which has no mind or consciousness and is totally based on chance,
to provide such supervision. If such a system had come into being by chance,
as evolutionists would have us believe, then the questions of which cells should
die in the body, when and for what purpose, would all be left up to coincidence.
Uncontrolled cell growth would continue in the body, and the human body would
turn into a deformed mass of flesh, covered with tumours.
When the controlled cell deaths in the body are examined
it can clearly be seen that life is under the control of a superior mind
and will. The magazine in question describes these cell deaths as “Programmed Cell Deaths.” If
there is a programmed action, then there must be a creator of the program.
For example, an oven cannot program itself to work at a specific temperature
and time. There must be something with a mind and consciousness that programs
the required temperature and time into the oven. To maintain the opposite means
to ascribe intelligence and consciousness to the oven, which is nonsensical.
Thus it is that evolution claims that an imaginary concept with no intelligence
or consciousness made conscious programs, which is equally nonsensical. It
is evident that all the cells in the human body have been flawlessly programmed
for human life by one with a superior knowledge, mind and power. That great
power is our Creator, God.
There is another point in the magazine claims that needs to be considered.
The article in question noted those elements of cell death that constitute
an advantage for people. Yet cells also lead to death, as in the case of old
age, which means gradual cell death. Therefore, according to evolutionist logic,
these cell deaths are not beneficial to the living thing. According to fundamental
evolutionist logic, features that confer no advantage are eliminated over the
course of time by the mechanism of natural selection. In other words, according
to their claim, the imaginary force known as the process of evolution should
have eliminated these deaths after seeing that they kill living things. In
other words again, the magazine in question is in conflict with its own evolutionist
logic.
The explanation with regard to death is this: there is death
on Earth, because in the same way that God gives a soul to beings, He later
takes it away. This is at God’s discretion. Like the death of cells
in the body, that of human beings themselves is under His control. God has
determined a destiny, a time of death for all entities, all cells and all
people. Everyone will depart from this world when the time comes, in the
manner appointed for them. Therefore, there can be no question of a process,
or an evolutionary strategy as New
Scientist described it, in the death of living things, as evolutionists
would like us to believe. Human beings and all other living things live at
God’s discretion, for as long as their destiny ordains, and then die.
God reveals this fact in a verse:
Every self will taste death. We test you with both
good and evil as a trial. And you will be returned to Us. (Qur’an,
21:35)
The Error of Portraying Symbiosis as Evidence for Evolution
New Scientist magazine sought to depict symbiosis,
the way that living things provide benefits both for themselves and for each
other by living together, as an evolutionary development. First and foremost,
the approach adopted here is erroneous, and also astonishing from the evolutionist
point of view. Not a single proof that any of the examples cited was the
result of an evolutionary process was offered. Moreover, all the examples
clearly show the existence of a flawless order in the world. Neither the
bacteria that provide light for fish, nor the orchids that collaborate with
fungi to reproduce, nor the insects which carry plant pollens have the consciousness,
desire and decisiveness with which to construct such systems and advantageous
unions. It cannot be
related to the ability of an organism to determine the ideal environment
for itself, its ideal partner and the ideal system of mutual collaboration
and to live its life accordingly, and for generation after generation to keep
doing this in the same way.
It is impossible for a plover to settle in the mouth of a crocodile
in the knowledge that it can offer dental hygiene in return for food and also
provide a benefit for the crocodile, and that the crocodile will understand
the advantageous nature of this relationship and refrain from harming it. It
is also impossible for it to teach all the other members of the species that
come after it. These things all require consciousness. An illusory evolutionary
process based on unconscious chance cannot be what makes these decisions. The
ideal environment and the way in which they will live alongside with other
creature are inspired in them. It is God Who inspires these things in them,
Who created them and knows the needs of each, and Who made them compatible
with one another. In one verse God reveals His inspiration in living things
by citing the example of the honey bee:
Your Lord revealed to the bees: “Build
dwellings in the mountains and the trees, and also in the structures which
men erect. Then eat from every kind of fruit and travel the paths of your Lord,
which have been made easy for you to follow.” From inside them comes
a drink of varying colours, containing healing for humanity. There is certainly
a sign in that for people who reflect. (Qur’an, 16:68-69)
The Error That Photosynthesis Is an Invention of the So-Called
Process of Evolution
Photosynthesis is described as an invention of the co-called process of evolution
in New Scientist. The fact is, however, that bearing in mind what
a complex system photosynthesis, which consists of many stages and elements,
actually is, the groundless and illogical nature of evolutionist claims is
plain for all to see. The diagrams below summarise the process of photosynthesis
as succinctly as possible: ŞEMA EKLENECEK
The above diagrams show only the general stages of the highly complex mechanism
of photosynthesis. It is impossible for even one stage in this cycle to have
come about by chance. Any random intervention in this system will entirely
ruin it. This magnificent mechanism is one of the flawless systems created
by God.
It is of course impossible for such a complex system to come about by chance,
as the result of inanimate and unconscious substances organising themselves
and establishing the conditions necessary for the continuation of life. In
order to see the impossibility of this, let us investigate what photosynthesis
is.
Photosynthesis is the way that plants and some bacteria and single-celled
organisms use solar energy to produce sugar from carbon dioxide and water.
In its simplest form, photosynthesis can be formulated as follows:
6H2O + 6CO2 – PHOTOSYNTHESIS à C6H12O6
+ 6O2
This chemical formula may be translated thus:
6 water molecules + six carbon dioxide molecules
turn into 1 sugar molecule + six oxygen molecules as a result of
PHOTOSYNTHESIS.
Although the formula looks simple, the countless processes
that take place during photosynthesis contain complex systems that operate
at the electron level. The system includes different pigments, various salts,
minerals, trace elements (such as ferredoxin, adenosine triphosphate, etc.),
sub-catalysts, substances that assume various tasks and other chemical agents.
Considering that plants require 30 different proteins in order to manufacture
such a simple sugar molecule as “saccharose,” the complexity
of the process as a whole becomes more apparent.
As a result of the reactions taking place, the energy in the Sun is stored
inside the sugar molecule produced. Unused solar energy is converted into usable
chemical energy, a process in which the chlorophyll molecule in green leaves
and a pigment capable of absorbing light in bacteria and some single-celled
organisms play a large role.
There can be no life on Earth without photosynthesis.
In order to carry out this process, which we have summarised in brief, millions
of reactions take place in the systems of living things capable of making photosynthesis,
countless molecules become involved and each process possesses its own separate
complexity. In the meantime, the organism making photosynthesis behaves with
care to prevent the solar energy reaching it being redundant or harmful. It
receives no assistance from anywhere else, and the miraculous system works
to perfection. Modern-day technology has been unable to unravel all the details
of how this system functions, let alone to imitate photosynthesis. A mechanism
of such importance to the continuation of life is linked solely to green leaves
and single-celled organisms.
Since Darwinists present a picture in which life emerged by chance, they also
maintain that these first living things also developed the photosynthesis system
by chance. However, they have never been able to explain how a bacterium could
completely alter its own physiology and start manufacturing its own food. Indeed,
when we look at all other evolutionist sources we encounter similar fairy tale-like
expressions regarding the origins of photosynthesis. Some evolutionists, however,
who have clearly seen that the complexity of the mechanism could never come
into being by chance, have had to admit this fact. The words of the Turkish
evolutionist Professor Ali Demirsoy on this subject are particularly striking:
“Photosynthesis is a rather complex process and it
would seem impossible for it to appear in an organelle inside the cell. That
is because it is impossible for all the stages to occur at once, and meaningless
for them to do so one by one.” (1)
The German evolutionary biologist Hoimar von Ditfurth openly states that photosynthesis
is a process that cannot be learned by any cell:
No cell possesses the capacity to “learn” a
process in the true sense of the world. It is impossible for any cell to
come by the ability to carry out such functions as respiration or photosynthesis,
neither when it first comes into being, nor later in life. (2)
Indeed, even New Scientist felt it necessary to make it clear as
it covered these claims that there were still uncertainties in this aspect
of the theory of evolution:
Before photosynthesis, life consisted of single-celled microbes
whose sources of energy were chemicals such as sulphur, iron and methane.
Then, around 3.5 billion years ago, or perhaps earlier, a group of microbes
developed the ability to capture energy from sunlight to help make the carbohydrates
they needed for growth and fuel. It is unclear how they achieved this feat… (3)
It is impossible for such a special and vital system to
come into existence by chance and function flawlessly for so long as life
survives. In addition, this mechanism is an “irreducibly complex” system,
from which no component can be removed and which can only maintain its functionality
so long as all its components are present. Therefore, it is a contravention
of the general claim of Darwinism to expect a mechanism, the components of
which serve no purpose on their own, to form over thousands or millions of
years. The system that carries out photosynthesis came into being fully formed
and in a single moment in green-leaved plants and bacteria capable of making
photosynthesis. It is clear that such a miracle, which man has not yet fully
understood was specially designed. All plants and photosynthetic bacteria
were created together with the ability to make photosynthesis.
New Scientist ends by advising people to thank the primordial oxygen-hating
microbes for their biochemical inventiveness. That sentence alone is an indication
of the superficial thinking of the New Scientist authors. The entities
that the New Scientist writer wanted the readers to thank are organisms
that are unaware of the abilities they possess. They are unaware of the complex
processes they carry out. Rather than to these entities themselves, gratitude
should be directed towards God, Who created and maintains them, and Who causes
all these reactions to take place flawlessly in every one. That is the fundamental
truth that New Scientist magazine is unwilling to accept.
In the Qur’an God has this to say about those who
attribute properties belonging to God to other entities, and who thus take
entities other than God as their deities:
Do they make things into partner-deities which cannot
create anything and are themselves created; which are not capable of helping
them and cannot even help themselves? (Qur’an, 7:191-192)
Instead of God you worship only idols. You are inventing
a lie. Those you worship besides God have no power to provide for you.
So seek your provision from God and worship Him and give thanks to Him.
It is to Him you will be returned. (Qur’an, 29:17)
The Error That Man Acquired the Ability to Produce Language and His
Brain Power as a
Result of an Evolutionary Process
New Scientist magazine maintained that language was the ultimate
evolutionary innovation within the imaginary evolutionary process.
All Darwinists who suggest this fall into a major error: that is the fact
that human beings have consciousness beyond their ability to talk. Darwinist
efforts to teach apes to speak are the result of their ignoring this important
fact. The ability to produce language is not an attribute that can be acquired
solely as the result of various physical features. The most important attribute
necessary for producing language is consciousness, an attribute which animals
lack.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor of Linguistics Noam Chomsky,
one of the most eminent figures in the field of genetics and philosophy of
language, has once said that attempting to teach linguistic skills to animals
is irrational -- like trying to teach people to flap their arms and fly. (4)
Therefore, Darwinists first have to account for the way in which human consciousness
emerged long before the ability to produce language, not a single stage of
which they are able to explain. Evolutionists are unable to explain the emergence
of the human mind, which understands language, is able to interpret what is
said, can grasp and describe a situation it has never before seen or experienced,
which is able to form an image in the brain and then express this in words
in a flawless manner. Another scientist to explain that the ability to produce
language is peculiar to the human brain is the evolutionist Philip Lieberman,
a Rhode Island Brown University professor of linguistics:
But though animal trainers and investigators have tried since the seventeenth
century to teach chimpanzees to talk, no chimpanzee has ever managed it. True,
a chimpanzee's sound-producing anatomy is fundamentally different from our
own. But chimpanzees might still produce a muffled approximation of human speech
if their brains could only plan and execute the necessary articulate maneuvers.
To do this, they would have to have our brains. (5)
New Scientist magazine, which covered the report in question, admits
that the evolutionary development of language has still not been unravelled:
A decade ago, John Maynard Smith, then emeritus professor of biology at the
University of Sussex, UK, and Eors Szathmary from the Institute of Advanced
Study in Budapest, Hungary, published The Major Transitions in Evolution,
their description of life's great leaps forward. They identified these crucial
steps as innovations in the way information was organised and transmitted from
one generation to the next - starting with the origin of life itself and ending
with language.
Exactly how our ancestors took this leap is possibly the
hardest problem in science, Szathmary says. He points out that complex language
- language with syntax and grammar, which builds up meaning through a hierarchical
arrangement of subordinate clauses - evolved just once. Only human brains
are able to produce language, and, contrary to popular belief, this ability
is not confined to specialised regions in the brain such as Broca's and Wernicke's
areas. If these are damaged others can take over. Szathmary likens language
to an amoeba, and the human brain to the habitat in which it can thrive. "A surprisingly
large part of our brain can sustain language," he says. (6)
As stated by scientists in the field, the ability to produce
language can only arise together with consciousness and intellect. It is
impossible for a fictitious process such as evolution, which is based on
chance and attributes the origin of life to unconscious matter, to give rise
to human consciousness. Even if the greatest professors in the world join
forces with all the means available in the world and use all the very latest
technology they will still be unable to produce human consciousness. They
can never create an entity from stone and soil that is capable of thinking,
speaking, coming up with ideas, rejoicing and making discoveries, and that
possesses feelings such as love and devotion. Blind chance can never achieve
what conscious beings with advanced technology cannot. Consciousness and
mind are a property that God has given to human beings alone. As He reveals
in the Qur’an, God breathed His
spirit into man, thus creating a being able to think, speak and reason, with
spiritual values. It is also God Who teaches man words, and teaches him to
speak. The fact that it is God Who grants the power of speech is revealed in
Verse 21 of Surah Fussilat:
God gave us speech as He has given speech to everything.
(Qur’an,
41:21)
The Error That Only the Strongest Survive in the Micro World
New Scientist maintained that the battle between the parasites and
their hosts are the most powerful driving forces to accelerate the process
of evolution on Earth. They claimed that their effects on the entities on which
they live and the way they overcame these led to them having a major influence
on both their own so-called evolution and that of their hosts.
According to these claims, someone suffering under the effect
of parasites from the genetic disorder sickle cell disease is allegedly “benefited” by
developing immunity to malaria. Contagious diseases make a virus less deadly
by improving the so-called evolution of parasites.
The claims here regarding the so-called evolution and evolution-causing effect
of parasites very definitely rest on no scientific grounds. A parasite attack
on living things has no power to cause evolution. Living things are weakened
by the effects of a virus, and may die. This does not mean, however, that subsequent
generations will be weak and sickly. Moreover, in the present day immunity
to many viral diseases has been developed, and a great many diseases have been
neutralised. A healthy lifestyle and diet have further increased resistance
to various viruses.
The example of transposons employed by New Scientist magazine is
particularly noteworthy in terms of the errors it contains. According to the
magazine, a fragment of DNA can cut and paste themselves over the genome, can
be transformed into new genes or encourage the mutation and the DNA shuffle
that stimulates genetic variation. This account is accurate, but the point
on which New Scientist is mistaken is this: there is no evolution
here. In order for evolution, as the evolutionists themselves claim, to take
place, information which did not previously exist needs to come into being
in some way and be added to the DNA. Here, however, existing information merely
changes its location. The same DNA fragment acts within the same organism.
All that occurs is variation. No new living entity emerges as a result of this
change, and the living thing does not acquire any organs it did not possess
before. No mutation can add new information to or improve a living thing. All
it can do is make changes in its already existing system. And that is not evolution.
Since evolutionists are keen to portray the concept of evolution, which is
groundless and based on the deification of blind coincidences, as an irresistible
force, they seek to use every specimen they encounter along these lines. That
is the reason for these claims regarding parasites. As we have seen, however,
the more one goes into the bases of these claims, the more it can be seen they
have nothing to do with evolution. The invalidity of the evidence they supposedly
offer can be seen in all its detail. A virus can only affect or weaken a human
being if God so chooses. It has no independent power of its own, and it is
not possible for it to. It is their unwillingness to accept this important
fact that lies at the heart of these evolutionist errors.
The Error That the Eyes Formed as the Result of Evolutionary Stages
The magazine in question state that the eye formed as the
result of an evolutionary process and that this “important invention” subsequently
influenced the lifestyles of all living things. Trilobite fossil eyes dating
back to the Cambrian period some 543 million years ago are cited, and reference
is made to their so-called ancestors which possessed light-sensitive cells
but of which, for some reason, no trace has ever been found.
New Scientist magazine is making a grave error regarding
the eye. The human eye, with its amazing structure, is an incredibly complex
system consisting of 40 separate, delicate components. The most fundamental
thing to make sight possible is these 40 components being present at one
and the same time and working harmoniously together.
We may compare this to a camera. All its components have
to be present, in the right place and with the right functions, if the camera
is to work. Even if you possess all these components they will still mean
nothing and serve no purpose if they are randomly strewn about. These components
need to be combined in the right place and the right manner. The eye is incomparably
more complex than any camera. It is an organ with “irreducible complexity,” requiring
all its components to be present and functioning. The meaning of this is as
follows: the eye will not work, in other words it is functionless, in the absence
of a single component part. All these parts need to be present at one and the
same time for it to acquire functionality. The theory of evolution maintains
that functionless organs or structures gradually atrophy. Therefore, in order
for the eyes to exist it has to be present together with all these component
parts. This is one of the proofs that the eye was created. In the same way
that a person can be sure that a camera he sees when walking along the street
did not come into existence spontaneously, so the eye is an organ that cannot
have come into being by chance. Like all other organs, the eye was created.
The superior power that created the eye is Almighty God.
In covering claims regarding the eye, New Scientist magazine claimed
that even light-sensitive cells could only have evolved in half a million years.
There is an important point that needs to be noted here:
evolutionists give the reader general information about how the imaginary
simple stages in complex systems emerged, and seek to give the impression
that they actually possess facts about these stages. The fact is, however,
that these “simple” stages,
that evolutionists attempt to squeeze into a few brief lines are by no means
simple at all. In order for the light-sensitive “primitive eye” referred
to by evolutionists to form, some of a living thing’s cells have to become
sensitive to light, it has to have the ability to turn these perceptions to
electrical signals, a special nerve network needs to form between the cells
and the brain, and a sight centre to analyse this information has to develop
inside the brain. This system is exceedingly complex and has an irreducible
structure. It cannot be accounted for in terms of chance.
What is more, such a formation in natural selection provides no advantage
for a living thing. Every component of the stages in the system needs to emerge
at once. When eye cells undergo a change, a nerve network connected to the
brain also has to form at the same time. No matter whether half a million years
go by or 600 million years, it is still impossible for the simplest of such
systems to come into being by chance and actually be functional.
The article in question also cited the trilobite eye, belonging to the Cambrian
period, in terms of the first complex eyes to emerge on Earth. These complex
eyes, first encountered around 543 million years ago, are a major proof that
completely undermine all the claims of the theory of evolution on the subject
and eradicate all the imaginary intermediate form fossils suggested by it,
and that show that, like every other system, the eye is a perfect system created
by God. You can find further details on this subject HERE.
The Error That Single-Celled Creatures Turned into Multi-Celled Ones
at the end of an Evolutionary Process
Among its claims, New Scientist magazine suggested that multi-celled
organisms gradually evolved from single-celled ones, and set out a number of
imaginary reasons for this. Among these was a single-celled organism deciding
to unite with other cells for protection against predators, and that single-celled
creatures, that are unable to grow flagella to move and divide and the same
time, decided to move to a state in which they could both move and divide,
in other worlds to become multi-celled. According to the magazine, various
causes born out of needs caused single-celled organisms to evolve into multi-celled
ones. As always, however, it said not a word about how this might have come
about.
The story related in the article is of a kind that might provoke doubts in
the minds of those unfamiliar with biology. This is a fact known to all: there
is a huge structural difference between single-celled and multi-celled organisms.
There is cellular specialisation and division of labour in the development
of multi-celled organisms. Every cell has its own task, and every cell is bound
to other cells. For example, initially the human body forms through the division
of a single cell, but as the process goes on the responsibilities assumed by
all the cells change. Each cell behaves according to the division of labour
determined in the body. Since they are connected to one another, there is a
special communication system among the cells. Hormones are regulated and the
nerve network in the body is shaped accordingly. Multi-cellularity is not a
simple numerical feature, but a special design of great complexity that forms
within an impeccable division of labour.
All these processes require a consciousness. Evolutionists are unable to account
for the chance emergence of a single cell, let alone being able to explain
the conscious behaviour between cells. The complexity in a single cell can
only be accounted for in terms of intelligent design. The system that complex
cells comprise is another example of this intelligent design, in other words
of the fact of creation.
In addition to all this, there are no intermediate forms demonstrating a progression
from one cell to many. All the fossil records give countless examples of single-celled
organisms, and countless multi-celled ones, but no fossil showing a transition
from one to the other has ever been found.
In short, evolutionists’ claims concerning the transition
from single-celled organisms to multi-celled ones are nothing more than conjecture.
All living things, single-celled and multi-celled organisms, are entities
created by God, brought into being in a single moment with all their special
and complex structures.
Conclusion:
Since the theory of evolution can in no way be proven, New Scientist magazine
considered certain subjects on which Darwinists find themselves in the worst
predicaments, and presented these to readers under the caption “inventions
of evolution.” Subjects that baffle evolution were specially selected,
reference was made to an imaginary evolutionary process concerning these, without
the slightest evidence being offered, and the attempt was made to depict all
this as a result of this alleged evolutionary process. However, their subject
matter is no more than a fairy tale from start to finish, and has no scientific
validity whatsoever. The objective behind the article was to establish a mass
of people who believe in evolution, and so no need to apply to scientific methods
was felt.
New Scientist needs to accept the fact that people are much more
aware of the scientific facts. By now people are clearly aware that neither
an eye, nor a brain, nor the intelligent examples among living things can
come into being by chance. The magazine in question must leave aside their
deceptive methods, call on people to learn the truth, and make the scientific
issues they deal with credible by means of scientific evidence and explanations.
If a claim clashes with the facts revealed by science, then this is an attempt
to deceive the reader, to cause him or her to believe in something that is
not true, to abandon impartiality and to seek to impose an ideology on people.
We call on New Scientist to behave in a scientific manner.
