Ali Khan Essay Research Paper Introduction Why

Ali Khan Essay, Research Paper

Introduction: Why the Theory of Evolution?

Some of the people who have heard of “the theory of evolution” or “Darwinism”, may think that these concepts only concern the field of biology and that they have no significance in their everyday lives. This is a big misconception because far more than a biological concept, the theory of evolution constitutes the underpinnings of a dishonest philosophy that has held sway over a great number of people.

That philosophy is “materialism”, which holds a number of bogus views about why and how we came into being. Materialism maintains that there is nothing but the matter and that matter is the essence of everything, be it organic or inorganic. Starting out from this premise, it denies the existence of a divine Creator, that is, Allah. Reducing everything to the level of matter, this notion transforms man into a creature that heeds only matter and turns away from moral values of whatever kind. This is the beginning of big disasters that will befall a man?s life.

The detriments of materialism are not only limited to individuals. Materialism also seeks to abolish the basic values on which the state and society rest and generate a soulless and insensitive society that pays attention only to matter. Since the members of such a society can never possess idealistic notions such as patriotism, love for one?s people, justice, loyalty, honesty, sacrifice, honour, or good morals, the social order established by these individuals is doomed to be shattered in a short while. For these reasons, materialism is one of the severest menaces to the basic values of the political and social order of a nation.

Another great evil of materialism is its underpinning of anarchist and divisive ideologies that take aim at the perpetuity of the state and the people. Communism, the foremost of these ideologies, is the natural political outcome of the materialist philosophy. Seeking to abolish such sacred notions as state and family, it constitutes the fundamental ideology of every form of separatist actions directed against the unitary structure of the state.

The theory of evolution constitutes the so-called scientific foundation of materialism that the communist ideology depends on. By taking the theory of evolution as a reference, communism seeks to justify itself and to present its ideology as sound and correct. This is why the founder of communism, Karl Marx, wrote for Darwin?s book, The Origin of Species which laid the basis for the theory of evolution as “this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view”.

In point of fact, materialist notions of every kind, Marx?s ideas being foremost among them, have utterly collapsed for the reason that the theory of evolution, which is in fact a 19th century dogma on which materialism rests, has been absolutely invalidated by the findings of modern science. Science has disproved and continues to disprove the materialist hypothesis that recognises the existence of nothing but matter and it demonstrates that all beings are the products of creation by a superior being.

The purpose of this book is to reveal the scientific facts that refute the theory of evolution in all fields and to inform people about the ulterior, underlying, and real purpose of this so-called “science”, which is in fact a fraud.

It should be pointed out that evolutionists have no answer to give to the book you are now reading. And they will not even attempt to answer it for they are aware that such an act will simply help everyone to a better understanding that evolution is simply a lie.

Karl Marx made it clear that Darwin?s theory provided a solid ground for materialism and thus also for communism. He also showed his sympathy to Darwin by dedicating Das Kapital, which is considered as his greatest work, to him. In the German edition of the book, he wrote: “From a devoted admirer to Charles Darwin”.

To Be Freed From Prejudice

Most people accept everything they hear from scientists as strictly true. It does not even occur to them that scientists may also have various philosophical or ideological prejudices. The fact of the matter is that evolutionist scientists impose their own prejudices and philosophical views on the public under the guise of science. For instance, although they are aware that random events do not cause anything other than irregularity and confusion, they still claim that the marvellous order, plan, and design seen both in the universe and in living organisms arose by chance.

For instance, such a biologist easily grasps that there is an incomprehensible harmony in a protein molecule, the building block of life, and that there is no probability that this might have come about by chance. Nevertheless, he alleges that this protein came into existence under primitive earth conditions by chance billions of years ago. He does not stop there; he also claims, without hesitation, that not only one, but millions of proteins formed by chance and then incredibly came together to create the first living cell. Moreover, he defends his view with a blind stubbornness. This person is an “evolutionist” scientist.

If the same scientist were to find three bricks resting on top of one another while walking along a flat road, he would never suppose that these bricks had come together by chance and then climbed up on top of each other, again by chance. Indeed, anyone who did make such an assertion would be considered insane.

How then can it be possible that people who are able to assess ordinary events rationally can adopt such an irrational attitude when it comes to thinking about their own existence?

It is not possible to claim that this attitude is adopted in the name of science: science requires taking both alternatives into consideration wherever there are two alternatives equally possible concerning a certain case. And if the likelihood of one of the two alternatives is much lower, for example if it is only one percent, then the rational and scientific thing to do is to consider the other alternative, whose likelihood is 99 percent, to be the valid one.

Let us continue, keeping this scientific basis in mind. There are two views that can be set forth regarding how living beings came into being on earth. The first is that all living beings were created by Allah in their present complex structure. The second is that life was formed by unconscious, random coincidences. The latter is the claim of the theory of evolution.

When we look at the scientific data, that of molecular biology for instance, we can see that there is no chance whatsoever that a single living cell-or even one of the millions of proteins present in this cell-could have come into existence by chance as the evolutionists claim. As we will illustrate in the following chapters, probabilistic calculations also confirm this many times over. So the evolutionist view on the emergence of living beings has zero probability of being true.

This means that the first view has a “one hundred percent” probability of being true. That is, life has been consciously brought into being. To put it in another way, it was “created”. All living beings have come into existence by the design of a Creator exalted in superior power, wisdom, and knowledge. This reality is not simply a matter of conviction; it is the normal conclusion that wisdom, logic and science take one to.

Under these circumstances, our “evolutionist” scientist ought to withdraw his claim and adhere to a fact that is both obvious and proven. To do otherwise is to demonstrate that he is actually someone who is sacrificing science on behalf of his philosophy, ideology, and dogma rather than being a true scientist.

The anger, stubbornness, and prejudices of our “scientist” increase more and more every time he confronts reality. His attitude can be explained with a single word: “faith”. Yet it is a blind superstitious faith, since there can be no other explanation for one?s disregard of all the facts or for a lifelong devotion to the preposterous scenario that he has constructed in his imagination.

Blind Materialism

The faith that we are talking about is the materialistic philosophy, which argues that matter has existed for all eternity and there is nothing other than matter. The theory of evolution is the so-called “scientific foundation” for this materialistic philosophy and that theory is blindly defended in order to uphold this philosophy. When science invalidates the claims of evolution-and that is the very point that has been reached here at the end of the 20th century-it then is sought to be distorted and brought into a position where it supports evolution for the sake of keeping materialism alive.

A few lines written by one of the prominent evolutionist biologists of Turkey is a good example that enables us to see the disordered judgement and discretion that this blind devotion leads to. This scientist discusses the probability of the coincidental formation of Cytochrome-C, which is one of the most essential enzymes for life, as follows:

The probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realised once in the whole universe. Otherwise, some metaphysical powers beyond our definition should have acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate to the goals of science. We therefore have to look into the first hypothesis.

This scientist finds it “more scientific” to accept a possibility “as likely as zero” rather than creation. However according to the rules of science, if there are two alternative explanations concerning an event and if one of them has “as likely as zero” a possibility of realisation, then the other one is the correct alternative. However the dogmatic materialistic approach forbids the admittance of a superior Creator. This prohibition drives this scientist-and many others who believe in the same materialist dogma-to accept claims that are completely contrary to reason.

People who believe and trust these scientists also become enthralled and blinded by the same materialistic spell and they adopt the same insensible psychology when reading their books and articles.

This dogmatic materialistic point of view is the reason why many prominent names in the scientific community are atheists. Those who free themselves from the thrall of this spell and think with an open mind do not hesitate to accept the existence of a Creator. American biochemist Dr Michael J. Behe, one of those prominent names who support the theory of “intelligent design” that has lately become very accepted, describes the scientists who resist believing in the “design” or “creation” of living organisms thus:

Over the past four decades, modern biochemistry has uncovered the secrets of the cell. It has required tens of thousands of people to dedicate the better parts of their lives to the tedious work of the laboratory. The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell -to investigate life at the molecular level-is a loud, clear, piercing cry of “design!”. The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science… Instead a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling discovery? Why is the observation of design handled with intellectual gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the elephant is labelled intelligent design, the other side must be labelled God.

This is the predicament of the atheist evolutionist scientists you see in magazines and on television and whose books you may be reading. All the scientific research carried out by these people demonstrates to them the existence of a Creator. Yet they have become so insensitised and blinded by the dogmatic materialist education they have absorbed that they still persist in their denial.

People who steadily neglect the clear signs and evidences of the Creator become totally insensitive. Caught up in an ignorant self-confidence caused by their insensitivity, they may even end up supporting an absurdity as a virtue. A good case in point is the prominent evolutionist Richard Dawkins who calls upon Christians not to assume that they have witnessed a miracle even if they see the statue of the Virgin Mary wave to them. According to Dawkins, “Perhaps all the atoms of the statue?s arm just happened to move in the same direction at once-a low probability event to be sure, but possible.”

The psychology of the unbeliever has existed throughout history. In the Qur?an it is described thus:

Even if We did send unto them angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless it is in God?s plan. But most of them ignore (the truth). (Surat Al-Anaam : 111)

As this verse makes clear, the dogmatic thinking of the evolutionists is not an original way of thinking, nor is it even peculiar to them. In fact, what the evolutionist scientist maintains is not a modern scientific thought but an ignorance that has persevered since the most uncivilised pagan communities.

The same psychology is defined in another verse of the Qur?an:

Even if We opened out to them a gate from heaven and they were to continue (all day) ascending therein, they would only say: “Our eyes have been intoxicated: Nay, we have been bewitched by sorcery.” (Surat Al-Hijr : 14-15)

Mass Evolutionist Indoctrination

As indicated in the verses cited above, one of the reasons why people cannot see the realities of their existence is a kind of “spell” impeding their reasoning. It is the same “spell” that underlies the world-wide acceptance of the theory of evolution. What we mean by spell is a conditioning acquired by indoctrination. People are exposed to such an intense indoctrination about the correctness of the theory of evolution that they often do not even realise the distortion that exists.

This indoctrination creates a negative effect on the brain and disables the faculty of judgement. Eventually, the brain, being under a continuous indoctrination, starts to perceive the realities not as they are but as they have been indoctrinated. This phenomenon can be observed in other examples. For instance, if someone is hypnotised and indoctrinated that the bed he is lying on is a car, he perceives the bed as a car after the hypnosis session. He thinks that this is very logical and rational because he really sees it that way and has no doubt that he is right. Such examples as the one above, which show the efficiency and the power of the mechanism of indoctrination, are scientific realities that have been verified by countless experiments that have been reported in the scientific literature and are the everyday fare of psychology and psychiatry textbooks.

The theory of evolution and the materialistic world view that relies on it are imposed on the masses by such indoctrination methods. People who continuously encounter the indoctrination of evolution in the media, academic sources, and “scientific” platforms, fail to realise that accepting this theory is in fact contrary to the most basic principles of reason. The same indoctrination captures scientists as well. Young names stepping up in their scientific careers adopt the materialist world view more and more as time passes. Enchanted by this spell, many evolutionist scientists go on searching for scientific confirmation of 19th century?s irrational and outdated evolutionist claims that have long since been refuted by scientific evidence.

There are also additional mechanisms that force scientists to be evolutionist and materialist. In Western countries, a scientist has to observe some standards in order to be promoted, to receive academic recognition, or to have his articles published in scientific journals. A straightforward acceptance of evolution is the number-one criterion. This system drives these scientists so far as to spend their whole lives and scientific careers for the sake of a dogmatic belief.

This is the reality that continues to lie behind the assertion “evolution is still accepted by the world of science”. Evolution is kept alive not because it has a scientific worth but because it is an ideological obligation. Very few of the scientists who are aware of this fact can risk pointing out that the king isn?t wearing any clothes.

In the rest of this book, we will be reviewing the findings of modern science that have led to the collapse of the evolutionist belief and the display of the clear evidences of Allah?s existence. The reader will witness that evolution theory is in fact a deceit-a deceit that is belied by science at every step but is upheld to veil the fact of creation. What is to be hoped of the reader is that he will wake up from the spell that blinds people?s minds and disrupts their ability to judge and he will reflect seriously on what is related in this book.

If he rids himself of this spell and thinks clearly, freely, and without any prejudice, he will soon discover the crystal-clear truth. This inevitable truth, also demonstrated by modern science in all its aspects, is that living organisms came into existence not by chance but as a result of creation. Man can easily see the fact of creation when he considers how he himself exists, how he has come into being from a drop of water, or the perfection of every other living thing.

Imaginary Mechanisms Of Evolution

The neo-Darwinist model, which we shall take as the “mainstream” theory of evolution today, argues that life has evolved through two naturalistic mechanisms: “natural selection” and “mutation”. The basic assertion of the theory is as follows: Natural selection and mutation are two complementary mechanisms. The origin of evolutionary modifications is random mutations that take place in the genetic structure of living things. The traits brought about by the mutations are selected by the mechanism of natural selection and therefore the living things evolve.

When we further probe into this theory, we find that there is no such evolutionary mechanism at all, because neither natural selection nor mutations make any contribution to the claim that different species have evolved and transformed into one another.

Natural Selection

As process of nature, natural selection was familiar to biologists before Darwin, who defined it as a “mechanism that keeps species unchanging without being corrupted”. Darwin was the first person to put forward the assertion that this process had evolutionary power and he then erected his entire theory on the foundation of this assertion. The name he gave to his book indicates that natural selection was the basis of Darwin?s theory: The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection…

However since Darwin?s time, there has not been a single shred of evidence put forward to show that natural selection causes living beings to evolve. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist of the Museum of Natural History in England, who is also a prominent evolutionist by the way, stresses that natural selection has never been observed to have the power to cause things to evolve:

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

Natural selection holds that those living things that are more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will prevail by having offspring that will survive, whereas those that are unfit will disappear. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of wild animals, naturally those that can run faster will survive. That is true. But no matter how long this process goes on, it will not transform those deer into another living species. The deer will always remain deer.

When we look at the few incidents the evolutionists have put forth as observed examples of natural selection, we see that these are nothing but a simple attempt to hoodwink.

Butterflies of the Industrial Revolution

In 1986 Douglas Futuyma published a book, The Biology of Evolution, which is accepted as one of the sources explaining the theory of evolution by natural selection in the most explicit way. The most famous of his examples on this subject is about the colour of the butterfly population, which appeared to darken during the Industrial Revolution in England.

According to the account, around the outset of the Industrial Revolution in England, the colour of the tree barks around Manchester was quite light. Because of this, dark-coloured butterflies resting on those trees could easily be noticed by the birds that fed on them and therefore they had very little chance of survival. Fifty years later, as a result of pollution, the barks of the trees had darkened, and this time the light-coloured butterflies became the most hunted. As a result, the number of light-coloured butterflies decreased whereas that of the dark-coloured ones increased since the latter were not easily noticed. Evolutionists use this as a great evidence to their theory. Evolutionists, on the other hand, take refuge and solace in window-dressing by showing how light-coloured butterflies “evolved” into dark-coloured ones.

The example of the butterflies of the Industrial Revolution is advanced as the greatest evidence for evolution by natural selection. However, evolution is out of the question in this example, as no new butterfly species is formed. On the left are trees and butterflies of the pre-Industrial Revolution era, and on the right are those of the post-Industrial Revolution era.

However, it should be quite clear that this situation can in no way be used as evidence for the theory of evolution, for natural selection did not give rise to a new form that had not existed before. Dark coloured butterflies existed in the butterfly population before the Industrial Revolution. Only the relative proportions of the existing butterfly species in the population changed. The butterflies had not acquired a new trait or an organ, which would cause a “change in species”. In order to have a butterfly turn into another living species, a bird for example, new additions would have had to be made to the genes. That is, an entirely separate genetic program would have had to be loaded so as to include information about the physical traits of the bird.

Briefly, natural selection does not have the capability to add a new organ to a living organism, remove one, or change the organism into another species-quite contrary to the image that evolutionists conjure up. The “greatest” evidence put forward since Darwin has been able to go no further than butterflies in England.

Can Natural Selection Explain Complexity?

There is nothing that natural selection contributes to the theory of evolution, because this mechanism can never increase or improve the genetic information of a species. Neither can it transform one species into another: a starfish into a fish, a fish into a frog, a frog into a crocodile, or a crocodile into a bird. The biggest defender of punctuated equilibrium, Gould, refers to this deadlock of natural selection as follows;

The essence of Darwism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.

Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as a conscious designer. However, natural selection has no consciousness. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living beings. As a result, natural selection cannot explain biological systems and organs that have the feature of “irreducible complexity”. These systems and organs are composed of the co-operation of a great number of parts and they are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. (For example, human eye does not function unless it exists with all its details). Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be able to figure the future in advance and aim directly for the benefit that is to be acquired at the last stage. Since natural mechanism has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing. This fact which also demolishes the foundations of the theory of evolution, also worried Darwin: “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.”

Natural selection only selects out the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a species. It cannot produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs. That is, it cannot make anything evolve. Darwin accepted this reality by saying: “Natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur”. This is why neo-Darwinism has had to elevate mutations next to natural selection as the “cause of beneficial changes”. However as we shall see, mutations can only be “the cause for harmful changes”.

Mutations

Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nucleus of the cell of a living organism and which holds all the genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an “accident” and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by the people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature…

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure and random effects can only cause harm to this structure. B.G. Ranganathan states:

Mutations are small, random, and harmful. They rarely occur and the best possibility is that they will be ineffectual. These four characteristics of mutations imply that mutations cannot lead to an evolutionary development. A random change in a highly specialised organism is either ineffectual or harmful. A random change in a watch cannot improve the watch. It will most probably harm it or at best be ineffectual. An earthquake does not improve the city, it brings destruction.

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that may have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:

Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect – evolution to higher forms of life – results from mutations practically all of which are harmful?

Every effort put into “generating a useful mutation” has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. Evolutionist geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus:

In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge… or even a new enzyme.

Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of the experiments carried out on fruit flies:

Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists’ monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type.

The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings have deleterious results. On this issue, evolutionists throw up a smokescreen and try to show even examples of such deleterious mutation as “evidence for evolution”. All mutations that take place in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, or dwarfism. These mutations are presented in evolutionist textbooks as examples of “the evolutionary mechanism at work”. Needless to say, a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be “an evolutionary mechanism”-evolution is supposed to produce better forms that are more fit to survive.

To summarise, there are three main reasons why mutations cannot be pressed into the service of supporting evolutionists? assertions:

The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure but impair it. Indeed, no “useful mutation” has ever been observed.

Mutations add no new information to an organism?s DNA: The particles making up the genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen.

In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism: A random change that occurs in a casual cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of radiation or by other causes will not be passed on to subsequent generations.

Briefly, it is impossible for living beings to have evolved, because there exists no mechanism in nature that can cause them to evolve. This agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which demonstrates that this scenario is far removed from reality.

A fruit fly (drosophila) with its legs jutting from its head: a mutation induced by radiation.

Mutations do not improve an organism, but rather harm it. Above, the effects of mutation on a human eye.