Full text of "THE EVOLUTION DECEIT"

See other formats

. .. .. .

■ *?•■

KSv

The Scientific
Collapse of
Darwinism

[■in*

HARUN YAHYA

For some people the theory of evolution or Darwinism has only scientific
connotations, with seemingly no direct implication in their daily lives. This is, of
course, a common misunderstanding. Far beyond just being an issue within the
framework of the biological sciences, the theory of evolution constitutes the
underpinning of a deceptive philosophy that has held sway over a large number of
people: Materialism.

Materialist philosophy, which accepts only the existence of matter and
presupposes man to be "a heap of matter", asserts that he is no more than an
animal, with "conflict" the sole rule of his existence. Traces of this philosophy,
which has a lot to answer as regards man-made disasters of the last two centuries,
can be found in every ideology that perceives differences among people as a
"reason for conflict".

The theory of evolution, or Darwinism, comes in handy at this point by
completing the jigsaw puzzle. It provides the myth that materialism is a scientific

However, that basis is rotten. Modern scientific discoveries reveal over and
over again that the popular belief associating Darwinism with science is false.
Scientific evidence refutes Darwinism comprehensively and reveals that the origin
of our existence is not evolution but intelligent design, i.e., creation. God has

created the universe, all living things and man.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

he author, who writes under the pen-name Harun
Yahya, was born in Ankara in 1956. He studied arts at
Istanbul's Mimar Sinan University and philosophy at Istanbul
University. Since the 1980s, the author has published many
books on political, faith-related and scientific issues. His
main focus has been the refutation of Darwinism and
n myths presented under a scientific guise. Some of the books
I translated into more than 20 languages and published in the
countries concerned. Harun Yahya's books appeal to all people, Muslims and non-
Muslims alike, regardless of their age, race, and nationality, as they center around one
goal: to open the readers' mind by encouraging them to think about some critical
issues such as the existence of God and His unity, and to display the decrepit
foundations and perverted works of godless systems.

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

About The Author

The author, who writes under the pen-name HARUN YAHYA, was born
in Ankara in 1956. Having completed his primary and secondary educa-
tion in Ankara, he then studied arts at Istanbul's Mimar Sinan University
and philosophy at Istanbul University. Since the 1980s, the author has pub-
lished many books on political, faith-related and scientific issues. Harun
Yahya is well-known as an author who has written very important works
disclosing the imposture of evolutionists, the invalidity of their claims and
the dark liaisons between Darwinism and bloody ideologies such as fas-
cism and communism.

His pen-name is made up of the names "Harun" (Aaron) and "Yahya"
(John), in memory of the two esteemed prophets who fought against lack
of faith. The Prophet's seal on the cover of the books is symbolic and is
linked to the their contents. It represents the Qur'an (the final scripture)
and the Prophet Muhammad, the last of the prophets. Under the guidance
of the Qur'an and sunnah, the author makes it his purpose to disprove
each one of the fundamental tenets of godless ideologies and to have the
"last word", so as to completely silence the objections raised against reli-
gion. The seal of the final Prophet, who attained ultimate wisdom and
moral perfection, is used as a sign of his intention of saying this last word.
All author's works center around one goal: to convey the Qur'an's message
to people, encourage them to think about basic faith-related issues (such as
the existence of God, His unity and the Hereafter), and to expose the fee-
ble foundations and perverted ideologies of godless systems.
Harun Yahya enjoys a wide readership in many countries, from India to
America, England to Indonesia, Poland to Bosnia, and Spain to Brazil.
Some of his books are available in English, French, German, Spanish, Ital-
ian, Portuguese, Urdu, Arabic, Albanian, Russian, Serbo-Croat (Bosnian),
Polish, Malay, Uygur Turkish, and Indonesian, and they are enjoyed by
readers worldwide.

Greatly appreciated all around the world, these works have been instru-
mental in many people recovering their faith in God and in many others
gaining a deeper insight into their faith. The wisdom, and the sincere and
easy-to-understand style gives these books a distinct touch which directly
effects any one who reads or studies them. Immune to objections, these
works are characterized by their features of rapid effectiveness, definite re-
sults and irrefutability. It is unlikely that those who read these books and

give serious thought to them can any longer sincerely advocate the mate-
rialistic philosophy, atheism or any other perverted ideology or philoso-
phy. Even if they continue to do so, it will be only a sentimental insistence
since these books refuted such ideologies from their very foundations. All
contemporary movements of denial are now ideologically defeated,
thanks to the collection of books written by Harun Yahya.
There is no doubt that these features result from the wisdom and lucidity
of the Qur'an. The author modestly intends to serve as a means in human-
ity's search for God's right path. No material gain is sought in the publica-
tion of these works.

Considering these facts, those who encourage people to read these books,
which open the "eyes" of the heart and guide them to become more de-
voted servants of God, render an invaluable service.

Meanwhile, it would just be a waste of time and energy to propagate other
books which create confusion in peoples' minds, lead man into ideological
chaos, and which, clearly have no strong and precise effects in removing
the doubts in peoples' hearts, as also verified from previous experience. It
is apparent that it is impossible for books devised to emphasize the au-
thor's literary power rather than the noble goal of saving people from loss
of faith, to have such a great effect. Those who doubt this can readily see
that the sole aim of Harun Yahya's books is to overcome disbelief and to
disseminate the moral values of the Qur'an. The success and impact of this
service are manifest in readers' conviction.

One point should be kept in mind: The main reason for the continuing cru-
elty, conflict, and all the ordeals the majority of people undergo is the ide-
ological prevalence of disbelief. This state can only be ended with the
ideological defeat of disbelief and by conveying the wonders of creation
and Qur'anic morality so that people can live by it. Considering the state
of the world today, which leads people into the downward spiral of vio-
lence, corruption and conflict, it is clear that this service has to be provided
more speedily and effectively. Otherwise, it may be too late.
It is no exaggeration to say that the collection of books by Harun Yahya
have assumed this leading role. By the will of God, these books will be a
means through which people in the 21st century will attain the peace, jus-
tice and happiness promised in the Qur'an.

TO THE READER

In all the hooks by the author, faith-related issues are explained in the
light of Qur'anic verses, and people are invited to learn God's words and
to live by them. All the subjects that concern God's verses are explained
in such a way as to leave no room for doubt or question marks in the
reader's mind. The sincere, plain and fluent style employed ensures that
everyone of every age and from every social group can easily under-
stand the books. This effective and lucid narrative makes it possible to
read them in a single sitting. Even those who rigorously reject spiritual-
ity are influenced by the facts recounted in these books and cannot re-
fute the truthfulness of their contents.

This book and all the other works by Harun Yahya can be read individ-
ually or discussed in a group. Those readers who are willing to profit
from the books will find discussion very useful in that they will be able
to relate their own reflections and experiences to one another.

In addition, it is a great service to the religion to contribute to the pre-
sentation and circulation of these books, which are written solely for the
good pleasure of God. All the books of the author are extremely con-
vincing, so, for those who want to communicate the religion to other
people, one of the most effective methods is to encourage them to read
these books.

It is hoped that the reader will take time to look through the review of
other books on the final pages of the book, and appreciate the rich
source of material on faith-related issues, which are very useful and a
pleasure to read.

In them, one will not find, as in some other books, the personal views of
the author, explanations based on dubious sources, styles unobservant
of the respect and reverence due to sacred subjects, or hopeless, doubt-
creating, and pessimistic accounts that create deviations in the heart.

THE

EVOLUTION
DECEIT

First English Edition published in July 1999

Published by:

Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd.

1 Wynne Road

London SW9 OBB

United Kingdom

Website: http://www.taha.co.uk
E-mail: sales@taha.co.uk

stored in any retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any methods,

electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording

or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers.

By Harun Yahya
Translated by: Mustapha Ahmad

A Catalog Record of this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 1-897940-97-1

Printed and bound by:
Kelebek Matbaacilik

www.harunyahya.com
www.evolutiondeceit.com

THE

EVOLUTION
DECEIT

The Scientific Collapse of

Darwinism and Its

Ideological Background

HARUN YAHYA

dft

Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd.

1 Wynne Road London SW9 OBB

United Kingdom

SPECIAL PREFACE: The Real Ideological Root of Terrorism:

Darwinism and Materialism 14

Introduction 14

The Darwinist Lie: 'Life is conflict' 14

Darwin's Source of Inspiration: Malthus's Theory of Ruthlessness 15

What 'The Law of the Jungle' Led to: Fascism 16

The Bloody Alliance: Darwinism and Communism 17

Darwinism and Terrorism 19

ISLAM IS NOT THE SOURCE OF TERRORISM, BUT ITS SOLUTION 20

Islam is a Religion of Peace and Well-Being 20

God Condemns Mischief 21

Islam Defends Tolerance and Freedom of Speech 21

God Has Made the Killing of Innocent People Unlawful 22

God Commands Believers to be Compassionate and Merciful 23

God Has Commanded Tolerance and Forgiveness 23

Conclusion 24

PARTI
THE REFUTATION OF DARWINISM

INTRODUCTION: Why the Theory of Evolution? 27

FOREWORD: The Greatest Miracle of Our Times: Belief in the

Evolution Deceit 30

CHAPTER 1: To Be Freed FromPrejudice 34

Blind Materialism 36

Mass Evolutionist Indoctrination 38

CHAPTER 2: A Brief History of the Theory 41

Darwin's Imagination 42

Darwin's Racism 44

The Desperate Efforts of Neo-Darwinism 45

Trial and Error: Punctuated Equilibrium 46

The Primitive Level of Science in Darwin's Time 47

CHAPTER 3: Imaginary Mechanisms of Evolution 50

Natural Selection 50

"Industrial Melanism" 51

Can Natural Selection Explain Complexity? 53

Mutations 53

CHAPTER 4: The Fossil Record Refutes Evolution 58

Life Emerged on Earth Suddenly and in Complex Forms 61

Molecular Comparisons Deepen Evolution's Cambrian Impasse 64

CHAPTER 5: Tale of Transition from Water to Land 65

Why Transition From Water to Land is Impossible 67

CHAPTER 6: Origin of Birds and Mammals 69

Another Alleged Transitional Form: Archaeopteryx 70

Speculations of Evolutionists: The Teeth and Claws of Archaeopteryx 72

Archaeopteryx and Other Ancient Bird Fossils 73

The Design of the Bird Feathers 74

The Imaginary Bird-Dinosaur Link 76

What is the Origin of Flies? 77

The Origin of Mammals 78

The Myth of Horse Evolution 80

CHAPTER 7: Deceptive Fossil Interpretations 81

CHAPTER 8: Evolution Forgeries 84

Piltdown Man: An Orangutan Jaw and a Human Skull! 84

Nebraska Man: A Pig's Tooth 86

Ota Benga: The African In The Cage 87

CHAPTER 9: The Scenario of Human Evolution 89

The Imaginary Family Tree of Man 90

Australopithecus: An Ape Species 92

Homo Habilis: The Ape that was Presented as Human 93

Homo Rudolfensis: The Face Wrongly Joined 98

Homo Erectus and Thereafter: Human Beings 100

Homo Erectus: An Ancient Human Race 101

Neanderthals 104

Homo Sapiens Archaic, Homo Heilderbergensis and Cro-Magnon Man 105

Species Living in the Same Age as Their Ancestors 107

The Secret History of Homo Sapiens 108

A Hut 1.7 Million Years Old 110

Footprints of Modern Man, 3.6 Million Years Old! 110

The Bipedalism Impasse of Evolution 112

Evolution: An Unscientific Faith 113

CHAPTER 10: The Molecular Impasse of Evolution 116

The Tale of the "Cell Produced by Chance" 116

Confessions from Evolutionists 118

The Miracle in the Cell and the End of Evolution 119

Proteins Challenge Chance 121

Left-handed Proteins 125

Correct Bond is Vital 127

Zero Probability 127

Is There a Trial and Error Mechanism in Nature? 128

The Probability of a Protein Being Formed by Chance is Zero 129

The Evolutionary Fuss About the Origin of Life 131

Miller's Experiment 133

Miller's Experiment was Nothing but Make-believe 133

Latest Evolutionist Sources Dispute Miller's Experiment 135

Primordial World Atmosphere and Proteins 137

Protein Synthesis is not Possible in Water 138

Another Desperate Effort: Fox's Experiment 138

Inanimate Matter Cannot Generate Life 140

The Miraculous Molecule: DNA 141

Can DNA Come into Being by Chance? 142

Another Evolutionist Vain Attempt: "The RNA World" 145

Confessions From Evolutionists 146

Life is a Concept Beyond Mere Heaps of Molecules 148

CHAPTER 11: Thermodynamics Falsifies Evolution 150

The Myth of the "Open System" 152

The Myth of the "Self Organization of Matter" 153

CHAPTER 12: Design and Coincidence 152

Darwinian Formula! 158

Technology In The Eye and The Ear 159

The Theory of Evolution is the Most Potent Spell in the World 162

CHAPTER 13: Evolutionist Claims and the Facts 165

Variations and Species 165

Antibiotic Resistance and DDT Immunity

are not Evidence for Evolution 167

The Fallacy of Vestigial Organs 170

The Myth of Homology 172

Similar Organs in Entirely Different Living Species 173

The Genetic and Embryological Impasse of Homology 174

Invalidity of the Claim of Molecular Homology 175

The Myth of Embryological Recapitulation 178

CHAPTER 14: The Theory of Evolution: A Materialistic Liability 180

Materialist Confessions 182

The Death of Materialism 185

Materialists, False Religion and True Religion 186

CHAPTER 15: Media: Fertile Ground for Evolution 188

Wrapped-up Lies 190

CHAPTER 16: Conclusion: Evolution Is a Deceit 192

The Theory of Evolution has Collapsed 192

Evolution Can Not Be Verified in the Future Either 193

The Biggest Obstacle to Evolution: Soul 193

God Creates According to His Will 194

CHAPTER 17: The Fact of Creation 196

Honey Bees and the Architectural Wonders of Honeycombs 196

Amazing Architects: Termites 198

The Woodpecker 198

The Sonar System of Bats 199

Whales 199

The Design in The Gnat 200

Hunting Birds with Keen Eyesight 201

The Thread of the Spider 201

Hibernating Animals 202

Electrical Fish 203

An Intelligent Plan on Animals: Camouflage 203

Cuttlefish 204

Different Vision Systems 205

Special Freezing System 206

Albatrosses 207

An Arduous Migration 207

Koalas 208

Hunting Ability in Constant Position 209

The Design In Bird Feathers 209

Basilisk: The Expert of Walking on Water 210

Photosynthesis 211

PART II
THE REFUTATION OF MATERIALISM

CHAPTER 18: The Real Essence of Matter 215

The World Of Electrical Signals 216

How Do We See, Hear, And Taste? 217

"The External World" Inside Our Brain 222

Is The Existence Of The "External World" Indispensable? 225

Who Is The Perceiver? 226

The Real Absolute Being 228

Everything That You Possess Is Intrinsically Illusory 231

Logical Deficiencies Of The Materialists 235

The Example Of Dreams 236

The Example Of Connecting The Nerves In Parallel 237

The Formation Of Perceptions In The Brain Is Not

Philosophy But Scientific Fact 239

The Great Fear Of The Materialists 240

Materialists Have Fallen Into The Biggest Trap In History 243

Conclusion 246

CHAPTER 19: Relativity of Time and the Reality of Fate 249

The Perception Of Time 249

The Scientific Explanation Of Timelessness 250

Relativity In The Qur'an 254

Destiny 256

The Worry Of The Materialists 258

The Gain Of Believers 259

CHAPTER 20: SRF Conferences:

Activities for Informing the Public About Evolution 261

NOTES 268

The Real Ideological Root of Terrorism:
Darwinism and Materialism

Introduction

Most people think the theory of evolution was first proposed by
Charles Darwin, and rests on scientific evidence, observations and experi-
ments. However, the truth is that Darwin was not its originator, and nei-
ther does the theory rest on scientific proof. The theory consists of an
adaptation to nature of the ancient dogma of materialist philosophy. Al-
though it is not backed up by scientific discoveries, the theory is blindly
supported in the name of materialist philosophy.

This fanaticism has resulted in all kinds of disasters. Together with
the spread of Darwinism and the materialist philosophy it supports, the
answer to the question "What is a human being?" has changed. People who
used to answer: "God creates human beings and they have to live accord-
ing to the beautiful morality He teaches", have now begun to think that
"Man came into being by chance, and is an animal who developed by
means of the fight for survival." There is a heavy price to pay for this great
deception. Violent ideologies such as racism, fascism and communism,
and many other barbaric world views based on conflict have all drawn
strength from this deception.

This article will examine the disaster Darwinism has visited on the
world and reveal its connection with terrorism, one of the most important
global problems of our time.

The Darwinist Lie: 'Life is conflict'

Darwin set out with one basic premise when developing his theory:
"The development of living things depends on the fight for survival.
The strong win the struggle. The weak are condemned to defeat and
oblivion."

The Real Ideological Root of Terrorism: Darwinism and Materialism 15

According to Darwin, there is a ruthless struggle for survival and an
eternal conflict in nature. The strong always overcome the weak, and this
enables development to take place. The subtitle he gave to his book The
Origin of Species, "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", encapsulates that
view.

Furthermore, Darwin proposed that the 'fight for survival' also ap-
plied between human racial groups. According to that fantastical claim,
'favoured races' were victorious in the struggle. Favoured races, in Dar-
win's view, were white Europeans. African or Asian races had lagged be-
hind in the struggle for survival. Darwin went further, and suggested that
these races would soon lose the "struggle for survival" entirely, and thus
disappear:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the sav-
age races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous
apes... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his near-
est allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more
civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as
low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and
the gorilla. 1

The Indian anthropologist Lalita Vidyarthi explains how Darwin's
theory of evolution imposed racism on the social sciences:

His (Darwin's) theory of the survival of the fittest was warmly welcomed by
the social scientists of the day and they believed mankind had achieved var-
ious levels of evolution culminating in the white man's civilization. By the
second half of the nineteenth century racism was accepted as fact by the vast
majority of Western scientists. 2

Darwin's Source of Inspiration:
Malthus's Theory of Ruthlessness

Darwin's source of inspiration on this subject was the British econo-
mist Thomas Malthus's book An Essay on the Principle of Population. Left to
their own devices, Malthus calculated that the human population in-
creased rapidly. In his view, the main influences that kept populations
under control were disasters such as war, famine and disease. In short, ac-

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT
16

cording to this brutal claim, some people had to die for others to live.
Existence came to mean "permanent war."

In the 19th century, Malthus's ideas were widely accepted. European
upper class intellectuals in particular supported his cruel ideas. In the ar-
ticle "The Scientific Background of the Nazi 'Race Purification' Pro-
gramme", the importance 19th century Europe attached to Malthus's views
on population is described in this way:

In the opening half of the nineteenth century, throughout Europe, members
of the ruling classes gathered to discuss the newly discovered "Population
problem" and to devise ways of implementing the Malthusian mandate, to
increase the mortality rate of the poor: "Instead of recommending cleanli-
ness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we
should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and
court the return of the plague. In the country we should build our villages
near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy
and unwholesome situations," and so forth and so on. 3

As a result of this cruel policy, the weak, and those who lost the strug-
gle for survival would be eliminated, and as a result the rapid rise in pop-
ulation would be balanced out. This so-called "oppression of the poor"
policy was actually carried out in 19th century Britain. An industrial order
was set up in which children of eight and nine were made to work sixteen
hours a day in the coal mines and thousands died from the terrible condi-
tions. The "struggle for survival" demanded by Malthus's theory led to
millions of Britons leading lives full of suffering.

Influenced by these ideas, Darwin applied this concept of conflict to
all of nature, and proposed that the strong and the fittest emerged victori-
ous from this war of existence. Moreover, he claimed that the so-called
struggle for survival was a justified and unchangeable law of nature. On
the other hand, he invited people to abandon their religious beliefs by
denying the Creation, and thus undermined at all ethical values that might
prove to be obstacles to the ruthlessness of the "struggle for survival."

Humanity has paid a heavy price in the 20th century for the dissemi-
nation of these callous views which lead people to acts of ruthlessness and
cruelty.

What 'The Law of the Jungle' Led to: Fascism

As Darwinism fed racism in the 19th century, it formed the basis of an

The Real Ideological Root of Terrorism: Darwinism and Materialism 17

ideology that would develop and drown the world in blood in the 20th
century: Nazism.

A strong Darwinist influence can be seen in Nazi ideologues. When
one examines this theory, which was given shape by Adolf Hitler and Al-
fred Rosenberg, one comes across such concepts as "natural selection", "se-
lective mating", and "the struggle for survival between the races", which
are repeated dozens of time in the works of Darwin. When calling his book
Mein Kampf (My Struggle), Hitler was inspired by the Darwinist struggle
for survival and the principle that victory went to the fittest. He particu-
larly talks about the struggle between the races:

History would culminate in a new millennial empire of unparalleled splen-
dour, based on a new racial hierarchy ordained by nature herself. 4

In the 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that "a higher
race subjects to itself a lower race... a right which we see in nature and
which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right".

That the Nazis were influenced by Darwinism is a fact that almost all
historians who are expert in the matter accept. The historian Hickman de-
scribes Darwinism's influence on Hitler as follows:

(Hitler) was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper,
profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of
struggle was important because]... his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a
number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, sur-
vival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better so-
ciety 5

Hitler, who emerged with these views, dragged the world to violence
that had never before been seen. Many ethnic and political groups, and es-
pecially the Jews, were exposed to terrible cruelty and slaughter in the
Nazi concentration camps. World War II, which began with the Nazi inva-
sion, cost 55 million lives. What lay behind the greatest tragedy in world
history was Darwinism's concept of the "struggle for survival."

The Bloody Alliance: Darwinism and Communism

While fascists are found on the right wing of Social Darwinism, the
left wing is occupied by communists. Communists have always been
among the fiercest defenders of Darwin's theory.

This relationship between Darwinism and communism goes right

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

back to the founders of both these "isms". Marx and Engels, the founders
of communism, read Darwin's The Origin of Species as soon as it came out,
and were amazed at its 'dialectical materialist' attitude. The correspon-
dence between Marx and Engels showed that they saw Darwin's theory as
"containing the basis in natural history for communism". In his book The
Dialectics of Nature, which he wrote under the influence of Darwin, Engels
was full of praise for Darwin, and tried to make his own contribution to
the theory in the chapter "The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from
Ape to Man".

Russian communists who followed in the footsteps of Marx and En-
gels, such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, all agreed with Dar-
win's theory of evolution. Plekhanov, who is seen as the founder of
Russian communism, regarded marxism as "Darwinism in its application
to social science". 6

Trotsky said, "Darwin's discovery is the highest triumph of the di-
alectic in the whole field of organic matter." 7

'Darwinist education' had a major role in the formation of communist
cadres. For instance, historians note the fact that Stalin was religious in
his youth, but became an atheist primarily because of Darwin's books. 8

Mao, who established communist rule in China and killed millions of
people, openly stated that "Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin
and the theory of evolution." 9

The Harvard University historian James Reeve Pusey goes into great
detail regarding Darwinism's effect on Mao and Chinese communism in
his research book China and Charles Darwin. 10

In short, there is an unbreakable link between the theory of evolution
and communism. The theory claims that living things are the product of
chance, and provides a so-called scientific support for atheism. Commu-
nism, an atheist ideology, is for that reason firmly tied to Darwinism.
Moreover, the theory of evolution proposes that development in nature is
possible thanks to conflict (in other words "the struggle for survival") and
supports the concept of "dialectics" which is fundamental to communism.

If we think of the communist concept of "dialectical conflict", which
killed some 120 million people during the 20th century, as a "killing ma-
chine" then we can better understand the dimensions of the disaster that
Darwinism visited on the planet.

The Real Ideological Root of Terrorism: Darwinism and Materialism 19

Darwinism and Terrorism

As we have so far seen, Darwinism is at the root of various ideologies
of violence that have spelled disaster to mankind in the 20th century. The
fundamental concept behind this understanding and method is "fighting
whoever is not one of us."

We can explain this in the following way: There are different beliefs,
worldviews and philosophies in the world. It is very natural that all these
diverse ideas have traits opposing one another. However, these different
stances can look at each other in one of two ways:

1) They can respect the existence of those who are not like them and
try to establish dialogue with them, employing a humane method. Indeed,
this method conforms with the morality of the Qur'an.

2) They can choose to fight others, and to try to secure an advantage
by damaging them, in other words, to behave like a wild animal. This is a
method employed by materialism, that is, irreligion.

The horror we call terrorism is nothing other than a statement of the
second view.

When we consider the difference between these two approaches, we
can see that the idea of "man as a fighting animal" which Darwinism has
subconsciously imposed on people is particularly influential. Individuals
and groups who choose the way of conflict may never have heard of Dar-
winism and the principles of that ideology. But at the end of the day they
agree with a view whose philosophical basis rests on Darwinism. What
leads them to believe in the Tightness of this view is such Darwinism-
based slogans as "In this world, the strong survive", "Big fish swallow lit-
tle ones", "War is a virtue", and "Man advances by waging war". Take
Darwinism away, and these are nothing but empty slogans.

Actually, when Darwinism is taken away, no philosophy of 'conflict'
remains. The three divine religions that most people in the world believe
in, Islam, Christianity and Judaism, all oppose violence. All three religions
wish to bring peace and harmony to the world, and oppose innocent peo-
ple being killed and suffering cruelty and torture. Conflict and violence vi-
olate the morality that God has set out for man, and are abnormal and
unwanted concepts. However, Darwinism sees and portrays conflict and
violence as natural, justified and correct concepts that have to exist.

For this reason, if some people commit terrorism using the concepts

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

and symbols of Islam, Christianity or Judaism in the name of those reli-
gions, you can be sure that those people are not Muslims, Christians or
Jews. They are real Social Darwinists. They hide under a cloak of religion,
but they are not genuine believers. Even if they claim to be serving reli-
gion, they are actually enemies of religion and of believers. That is because
they are ruthlessly committing a crime that religion forbids, and in such a
way as to blacken religion in peoples' eyes.

For this reason, the root of the terrorism that plagues our planet is not
any of the divine religions, but in atheism, and the expression of atheism
in our times: "Darwinism" and "materialism."

ISLAM IS NOT THE SOURCE OF TERRORISM,
BUT ITS SOLUTION

Some people who say they are acting in the name of religion may mis-
understand their religion or practice it wrongly. For that reason, it would
be wrong to form ideas about that religion by taking these people as an ex-
ample. The best way to understand a religion is to study its divine source.

The holy source of Islam is the Qur'an; and the model of morality in
the Qur'an-Islam-is completely different from the image of it formed in the
minds of some westerners. The Qur'an is based on the concepts of moral-
ity, love, compassion, mercy, humility, sacrifice, tolerance and peace, and a
Muslim who lives by that morality in its true sense will be most polite,
considerate, tolerant, trustworthy and accomodating. He will spread love,
respect, harmony and the joy of living all around him.

Islam is a Religion of Peace and Well-Being

The word Islam is derived from the word meaning "peace" in Arabic.
Islam is a religion revealed to mankind with the intention of presenting a
peacable life through which the infinite compassion and mercy of God man-
ifest on earth. God calls all people to Islamic morals through through which
mercy, compassion, tolerance and peace can be experienced all over the
world. In Surat al-Baqara verse 208, God addresses the believers as follows:

You who believe! Enter absolutely into peace (Islam). Do not follow in the

footsteps of Satan. He is an outright enemy to you.

As the verse makes clear, security can only be ensured by 'entering
into Islam', that is, living by the values of the Qur'an.

The Real Ideological Root of Terrorism: Darwinism and Materialism 21

God Has Condemned Wickedness

God has commanded people to avoid committing evil; He has for-
bidden disbelief, immorality, rebellion, cruelty, aggressiveness, murder
and bloodshed. He describes those who fail to obey this command as "fol-
lowing in Satan's footsteps" and adopting a posture that is openly revealed
to be sinful in the Qur'an. A few of the many verses on this matter in the
Qur'an read:

But as for those who break God's contract after it has been agreed and
sever what God has commanded to be joined, and cause corruption in the
earth, the curse will be upon them. They will have the Evil Abode. (Surat
ar-Ra'd: 25)

Seek the abode of the hereafter with what God has given you, without for-
getting your portion of the world. And do good as God has been good to
you. And do not seek to cause mischief on earth. God does not love mis-
chief makers.' (Surat al-Qasas: 77)

As we can see, God has forbidden every kind of mischievous acts in
the religion of Islam including terrorism and violence, and condemned
those who commit such deeds. A Muslim lends beauty to the world and
improves it.

Islam Defends Tolerance and Freedom of Speech

Islam is a religion which provides and guarantees freedom of ideas,
thought and life. It has issued commands to prevent and forbid tension,
disputes, slander and even negative thinking among people.

In the same way that it is determinedly opposed to terrorism and all
acts of violence, it has also forbidden even the slightest ideological pres-
sure to be put on them:

There is no compulsion in religion. Right guidance has become clearly dis-
tinct from error. Anyone who rejects false gods and believes in God has
grasped the Firmest Handhold, which will never give way. God is All-
Hearing, All-Knowing. (Surat al-Baqara: 256)

So remind, you need only to remind. You cannot compel them to believe.
(Surat al-Ghashiyah: 22)

Forcing people to believe in a religion or to adopt its forms of belief is
completely contrary to the essence and spirit of Islam. According to Islam,
true faith is only possible with free will and freedom of conscience. Of

22 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

course, Muslims can advise and encourage each other about the features of
Qur'anic morality, but they will never resort to compulsion, nor any kind
of physical or psychological pressure. Neither will they use any worldly
privilege to turn someone towards religion.

Let us imagine a completely opposite model of society. For example,
a world in which people are forced by law to practice religion. Such a
model of society is completely contrary to Islam because faith and wor-
ship are only of any value when they are directed to God by the free will
of the individual. If a system imposes belief and worship on people, then
they will become religious only out of fear of that system. From the reli-
gious point of view, what really counts is that religion should be lived for
God's good pleasure in an environment where peopls' consciences are to-
tally free.

God Has Made the Killing of Innocent People Unlawful

According to the Qur'an, one of the greatest sins is to kill a human
being who has committed no fault.

...If someone kills another person - unless it is in retaliation for someone
else or for causing corruption in the earth - it is as if he had murdered all
mankind. And if anyone gives life to another person, it is as if he had
given life to all mankind. Our Messengers came to them with Clear Signs
but even after that many of them committed outrages in the earth. (Surat
al-Ma'ida: 32)

Those who do not call on any other deity together with God and do not kill
anyone God has made inviolate, except with the right to do so, and do not
fornicate; anyone who does that will receive an evil punishment. (Surat al-
Furqan: 68)

As the verses suggest, a person who kills innocent people for no rea-
son is threatened with a great torment. God has revealed that killing even
a single person is as evil as murdering all mankind. A person who ob-
serves God's limits can do no harm to a single human, let alone massacre
thousands of innocent people. Those who assume that they can avoid jus-
tice and thus punishment in this world will never succeed, for they will
have to give an account of their deeds in the presence of God. That is why
believers, who know that they will give an account of their deeds after
death, are very meticulous to observe God's limits.

The Real Ideological Root of Terrorism: Darwinism and Materalism 23

God Commands Believers to be Compassionate and Merciful

Islamic morality is described in one verse as:

...To be one of those who believe and urge each other to steadfastness and
urge each other to compassion. Those are the Companions of the Right.
(Surat al-Balad: 17-18)

As we have seen in this verse, one of the most important moral pre-
cepts that God has sent down to His servants so that they may receive sal-
vation and mercy and attain Paradise, is to "urge each other to
compassion".

Islam as described in the Qur'an is a modern, enlightened, progres-
sive religion. A Muslim is above all a person of peace; he is tolerant with a
democratic spirit, cultured, enlightened, honest, knowledgeable about art
and science and civilized.

A Muslim educated in the fine moral teaching of the Qur'an, ap-
proaches everyone with the love that Islam expects. He shows respect for
every idea and he values art and aesthetics. He is conciliatory in the face
of every event, diminishing tension and restoring amity. In societies com-
posed of individuals such as this, there will be a more developed civiliza-
tion, a higher social morality, more joy, happiness, justice, security,
abundance and blessings than in the most modern nations of the world
today.

God Has Commanded Tolerance and Forgiveness

The concept of forgiveness and tolerance, described in the words,
'Make allowences for people' (Surat al-A'raf : 199), is one of the most fun-
damental tenets of Islam.

When we look at the history of Islam, the way that Muslims have
translated this important feature of Qur'anic morality into the life of soci-
ety can be seen quite clearly. Muslims have always brought with them an
atmosphere of freedom and tolerance and destroyed unlawful practices
wherever they have gone. They have enabled people whose religions, lan-
guages and cultures are completely different from one another to live to-
gether in peace and harmony under one roof, and provided peace and
harmony for its own members. One of the most important reasons for the
centuries-long existence of the Ottoman Empire, which spread over an
enormous region, was the atmosphere of tolerance and understanding that

24 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

Islam brought with it. Muslims, who have been known for their tolerant
and loving natures for centuries, have always been the most compassion-
ate and just of people. Within this multi-national structure, all ethnic
groups have been free to live according to their own religions, and their
own rules.

True tolerance can only bring peace and well-being to the world when
implemented along the lines set out in the Qur'an. Attention is drawn to
this fact in a verse which reads:

A good action and a bad action are not the same. Repel the bad with some-
thing better and, if there is enmity between you and someone else, he will
be like a bosom friend. (Surat al-Fussilat: 34)

Conclusion

All of this shows that the morality that Islam recommends to
mankind brings to the world the virtues of peace, harmony and justice.
The barbarism known as terrorism, that is so preoccupying the world at
present, is the work of ignorant and fanatical people, completely estranged
from Qur'anic morality, and who have absolutely nothing to do with reli-
gion. The solution to these people and groups who try to carry out their
savagery under the mask of religion is the teaching of true Qur'anic moral-
ity. In other words, Islam and Qur'anic morality are solutions to the
scourge of terrorism, not supporters of it.

1. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd edition, New York, A L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178

2. Lalita Prasad Vidyarthi, Racism, Science and Pseudo-Science, Unesco, France, Vendome, 1 983. p. 54

3. Theodore D. Hall, The Scientific Background of the Nazi "Race Purification" Program,
http://www.trufax.org/avoid/nazi.html

4. L.H. Gann, "Adolf Hitler, The Complete Totalitarian", The Intercollegiate Review, Fall 1985, p. 24; cited in
Henry M. Morris, The Long war Against God, Baker Book House, 1989, p. 78

5. Hickman, R., Biocreation, Science Press, Worthington, OH, pp. 51-52, 1983; Jerry Bergman,
"Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust", Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13 (2): 101-111, 1999

6. Robert M. Young, Darwinian Evolution and Human History, Historical Studies on Science and Belief, 1980

7. Alan Woods and Ted Grant, Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science, London: 1 993

8. Alex de Jonge, Stalin and The Shaping of the Soviet Uninon, William Collins Sons & Limited Co.,
Glasgow, 1987, p. 22

9. K. Mehnert, Kampf um Mao's Erbe, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1977

10. James Reeve Pusey, China and Charles Darwin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1983

PARTI

THE REFUTATION

DARWINISM

INTRODUCTION

Why the Theory
of Evolution?

For some people the theory of evolution or Darwinism has only sci-
entific connotations, with seemingly no direct implication in their
daily lives. This is, of course, a common misunderstanding. Far be-
yond just being an issue within the framework of the biological sciences,
the theory of evolution constitutes the underpinning of a deceptive phi-
losophy that has held sway over a large number of people: Materialism.

Materialist philosophy, which accepts only the existence of matter
and presupposes man to be 'a heap of matter', asserts that he is no more
than an animal, with 'conflict' the sole rule of his existence. Although prop-
agated as a modern philosophy based on science, materialism is in fact an
ancient dogma with no scientific basis. Conceived in Ancient Greece, the
dogma was rediscovered by the atheistic philosophers of the 18th century.
It was then implanted in the 19th century into several science disciplines
by thinkers such as Karl Marx, Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud. In
other words science was distorted to make room for materialism.

The past two centuries have been a bloody arena of materialism: Ide-
ologies based on materialism (or competing ideologies arguing against ma-
terialism, yet sharing its basic tenets) have brought permanent violence,
war and chaos to the world. Communism, responsible for the death of 120
million people, is the direct outcome of materialistic philosophy. Fascism,
despite pretending to be an alternative to the materialistic world-view, ac-
cepted the fundamental materialist concept of progress though conflict and
sparked off oppressive regimes, massacres, world wars and genocide.

Besides these two bloody ideologies, individual and social ethics have
also been corrupted by materialism.

The deceptive message of materialism, reducing man to an animal
whose existence is coincidental and with no responsibility to any being,
demolished moral pillars such as love, mercy, self-sacrifice, modesty, hon-
esty and justice. Having been misled by the materialists' motto "life is a
struggle", people came to see their lives as nothing more than a clash of in-

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

Karl Marx made it clear that Dar-
win'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"

terests which, in turn, led to life according to the law of the jungle.

Traces of this philosophy, which has a lot to answer as regards man-
made disasters of the last two centuries, can be found in every ideology
that perceives differences among people as a 'reason for conflict'. That in-
cludes the terrorists of the present day who claim to uphold religion, yet
commit one of the greatest sins by murdering innocent people.

The theory of evolution, or Darwinism, comes in handy at this point
by completing the jigsaw puzzle. It provides the myth that materialism is
a scientific idea. That is why, Karl Marx, the founder of communism and
dialectical materialism, wrote that Darwinism was "the basis in natural
history" for his worldview. 1

However, that basis is rotten. Modern scientific discoveries reveal
over and over again that the popular belief associating Darwinism with
science is false. Scientific evidence refutes Darwinism comprehensively
and reveals that the origin of our existence is not evolution but creation.
God has created the universe, all living things and man.

This book has been written to make this fact known to people. Since
its first publication, originally in Turkey and then in many other countries,
millions of people have read and appreciated the book. In addition to
Turkish, it has been printed in English, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Bosnian,
Arabic, Malay and Indonesian. (The text of the book is freely available in
all these languages at www.evolutiondeceit.com.)

The impact of The Evolution Deceit has been acknowledged by stan-
dard-bearers of the opposing view. Harun Yahya was the subject of a New
Scientist article called "Burning Darwin". This leading popular Darwinist
periodical noted in its 22 April 2000 issue that Harun Yahya "is an interna-

Why the Theory of Evolution

tional hero" sharing its
concern that his books
"have spread everywhere
in the Islamic world."

Science, the leading
periodical of the general
scientific community, em-
phasized the impact and
sophistication of Harun
Yahya's works. The Science
article "Creationism Takes
Root Where Europe, Asia
Meet", dated 18 May 2001,
observed that in Turkey
"sophisticated books such
as The Evolution Deceit and
The Dark Face of Darwin-
ism... have become more
influential than textbooks in certain parts of the country". The reporter
then goes on to assess Harun Yahya's work, which has initiated "one of the
world's strongest anti-evolution movements outside of North America".

Although such evolutionist periodicals note the impact of The Evolu-
tion Deceit, they do not offer any scientific replies to its arguments. The rea-
son is, of course, that it is simply not possible. The theory of evolution is in
complete deadlock, a fact you will discover as you read the following
chapters. The book will help you realise that Darwinism is not a scientific
theory but a pseudo-scientific dogma upheld in the name of materialist
philosophy, despite counter evidence and outright refutation.

It is our hope that The Evolution Deceit will for a long time continue its
contribution towards the refutation of materialist-Darwinist dogma which
has been misleading humanity since the 19th century. And it will remind
people of the crucial facts of our lives, such as how we came into being and
what our duties to our Creator are.

The Greatest Miracle of Our Times:
Belief in the Evolution Deceit

All the millions of living species on the earth possess miraculous
features, unique behavioural patterns and flawless physical
structures. Every one of these living things has been created with
its own unique detail and beauty. Plants, animals, and man above all, were
all created with great knowledge and art, from their external appearances
down to their cells, invisible to the naked eye. Today there are a great
many branches of science, and tens of thousands of scientists working in
those branches, that research every detail of those living things, uncover
the miraculous aspects of those details and try to provide an answer to the
question of how they came into being.

Some of these scientists are astonished as they discover the miracu-
lous aspects of these structures they study and the intelligence behind that
coming into existence, and they witness the infinite knowledge and wis-
dom involved. Others, however, surprisingly claim that all these miracu-
lous features are the product of blind chance. These scientists believe in the
theory of evolution. In their view, the proteins, cells and organs that make
up these living things all came about by a string of coincidences. It is quite
amazing that such people, who have studied for long years, carried out
lengthy studies and written books about the miraculous functioning of just
one organelle within the cell, itself too small to be seen with the naked eye,
can think that these extraordinary structures came about by chance.

The chain of coincidences such eminent professors believe in so flies
in the face of reason that their doing so leaves outside observers utterly
amazed. According to these professors, a number of simple chemical sub-
stances first came together and formed a protein - which is no more possi-
ble than a randomly scattered collection of letters coming together to form
a poem. Then, other coincidences led to the emergence of other proteins.
These then also combined by chance in an organised manner. Not just pro-
teins, but DNA, RNA, enzymes, hormones and cell organelles, all of which

The Greatest Miracle of Our Times: Belief in the Evolution Deceit 31

..r t ttffr L-& T A PiG »i Ct & At c,t Pi CM &TT T & *t ACTS * CTT k& ft C

T&WT&GiJiiO&IAftOPi&SAe, i fttfli&GITTG** C
'CiT&^^T&^tTiCj&^C,&T^ft.Cft<j&*tLT^Cfti"--*Tt&ftfrC;TGAr.

H.T»SliWiirIrti

CTPiGMi&TTfcPi

GAiCTTkCfP

fc JPIk*.

are very complex structures within the cell, coincidentally happened to
emerge and come together. As a result of these billions of coincidences, the
first cell came into being. The miraculous ability of blind chance did not
stop there, as these cells then just happened to begin to multiply. Accord-
ing to the claim in question, another coincidence then organised these cells
and produced the first living thing from them.

Billions of "chance events" had to take place together for just one eye
in a living thing to form. Here too the blind process known as coincidence
entered the equation: It first opened two holes of the requisite size and in
the best possible place in the skull, and then cells that happened by chance
to find themselves in those places coincidentally began to construct the eye.

As we have seen, coincidences acted in the knowledge of what they
wanted to produce. Right from the very start, "chance" knew what seeing,
hearing and breathing were, even though there was not one example of

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

such things anywhere in the world at that time. It displayed great intelli-
gence and awareness, exhibited considerable forward planning, and con-
structed life step by step. This is the totally irrational scenario to which
these professors, scientists and researchers whose names are greatly re-
spected and whose ideas are so influential have devoted themselves. Even
now, with a childish stubbornness, they exclude anyone who refuses to be-
lieve in such fairy tales, accusing them of being unscientific and bigoted.
There is really no difference between this and the bigoted, fanatical and ig-
norant medieval mentality that punished those who claimed the earth was
not flat.

What is more, some of these people claim to be Muslims and believe in
God. Such people find saying, "God created all of life" unscientific, and yet
are quite able to believe instead that saying, "It came about in an unconscious
process consisting of billions of miraculous coincidences" is scientific.

If you put a carved stone or wooden idol in front of these people and
told them, "Look, this idol created this room and everything in it" they
would say that was utterly stupid and refuse to believe it. Yet despite that

The mentality of those who claim that life formed from nonliving matter by random gradual changes and
who defend this with a childish stubbornness despite all scientific evidence to the contrary, is no different
from the bigoted, fanatical and ignorant medieval mentality that punished those who claimed the earth was
not flat.

The Greatest Miracle of Our Times: Belief in the Evolution Deceit 33

they declare the nonsense that "The unconscious process known as chance
gradually brought this world and all the billions of wonderful living
things in it into being with enormous planning" to be the greatest scientific
explanation.

In short, these people regard chance as a god, and claim that it is in-
telligent, conscious and powerful enough to create living things and all the
sensitive balances in the universe. When told that it was God, the posses-
sor of infinite wisdom, who created all living things, these evolutionist
professors refuse to accept the fact, and maintain that unconscious, unin-
telligent, powerless billions of coincidences with no will of their own are
actually a creative force.

The fact that educated, intelligent and knowledgeable people can as a
group believe in the most irrational and illogical claim in history, as if
under a spell, is really a great miracle. In the same way that God miracu-
lously creates something like the cell, with its extraordinary organization
and properties, this people are just as miraculously so blind and devoid of
understanding as to be unable to see what is under their very noses. It is
one of God's miracles that evolutionists are unable to see facts that even
tiny children can, and fail to grasp them no matter how many times they
are told.

You will frequently come across that miracle as you read this book.
And you will also see that as well as being a theory that has totally col-
lapsed in the face of the scientific facts, Darwinism is a great deceit that is
utterly incompatible with reason and logic, and which belittles those who
defend it.

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 incompre-
hensible harmony in a protein molecule, the building block of life, and that
there is no probability that this might have come about by chance. Never-
theless, 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 liv-
ing 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 an-
other 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 ordi-
nary 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: scientific approach requires taking both alternatives into consider-

To Be Freed From Prejudice 35

ation 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 per-
cent, 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 God creates all living beings in their present complex
structure. The second is that life was formed by unconscious, random co-
incidences. The latter is the claim of the theory of evolution.

When we look at the scientific data, that of molecular biology for in-
stance, 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 illus-
trate in the following chapters, probabilistic calculations also confirm this
many times over. So the evolutionist view on the emergence of living be-
ings has zero probability of being true.

This means that the first view has a "one hundred percent" probabil-
ity 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 ex-
istence 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 nor-
mal conclusion that wisdom, logic and science take one to.

Under these circumstances, our "evolutionist" scientist ought to with-
draw 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 ex-
plained 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.

36 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

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 foun-
dation" for this materialistic philosophy and that theory is blindly de-
fended 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 materi-
alism 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 forma-
tion. To accept the latter is not appropriate to the goals of science. We there-
fore have to look into the first hypothesis. 2

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 in-
sensible 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

To Be Freed From Prejudice

Michael Behe:

"An embarrased silence

surrounds the stark complexity of

the cell"

"intelligent design" that has lately become very accepted, describes the
scientists who resist believing in the "design" or "creation" of living organ-
isms thus:

Over the past four decades, modern bio-
chemistry has uncovered the secrets of the
cell. It has required tens of thousands of peo-
ple to dedicate the better parts of their lives
to the tedious work of the laboratory... The
result of these cumulative efforts to investi-
gate the cell- to investigate life at the molec-
ular 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 si-
lence 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 [issue] is labelled intel-
ligent design, the other side must be labelled God. 3

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 ex-
istence of a Creator. Yet they have become so insensitised and blinded by
the dogmatic materialist education they have absorbed that they still per-
sist in their denial.

People who steadily neglect the clear signs and evidences of the Cre-
ator become totally insensitive. Caught up in an ignorant self-confidence
caused by their insensitivity, they may even end up supporting an absur-
dity as a virtue. A good case in point is the prominent evolutionist Richard
Dawkins who calls upon Christians not to assume that they have wit-
nessed 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." 4

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

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

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 con-
tinue (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)

Richard Dawkins, busy with
propagating evolution

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 ac-
quired by indoctrination. People are exposed to such an intense indoctri-
nation 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 ex-
amples. 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 in-
doctrination, are scientific realities that have been verified by countless ex-

To Be Freed From Prejudice 39

periments 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, aca-
demic 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 evolu-
tionist 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 ob-
serve some standards in order to be promoted, to receive academic recog-
nition, 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 sci-
entific careers for the sake of a dogmatic belief. American molecular biolo-
gist Jonathan Wells refers to these pressure mechanisms in his book Icons
of Evolution published in 2000:

...Dogmatic Darwinists begin by imposing a narrow interpretation on the ev-
idence and declaring it the only way to do science. Crit-
ics are then labeled unscientific; their articles are rejected
by mainstream journals, whose editorial boards are
dominated by the dogmatists; the critics are denied
funding by government agencies, who send grant pro-
posals to the dogmatists for "peer" review; and even- Ce Cm «*.~f^
tually the critics are hounded out of scientific
community altogether. In the process, evidence
against the Darwinian view simply disappears, like
witnesses against the Mob. Or the evidence is
buried in specialized publications, where only a
dedicated researcher can find. Once critics have
been silenced and counter-evidence has been
buried, the dogmatists announce that there is scientific debate about
their theory, and no evidence against it. 5

This is the reality that continues to lie behind the assertion "evolution

|COA/S0f

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

is still accepted by the world of science". Evolution is kept alive not be-
cause 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 against evolution which are either disregarded by evolutionists or
"buried in specialized publications", and display of the clear evidence of
God'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.

A Brief History
of the Theory

The roots of evolutionist thought go back as far as antiquity as a dog-
matic belief attempting to deny the fact of creation. Most of the
pagan philosophers in ancient Greece defended the idea of evolu-
tion. When we take a look at the history of philosophy we see that the idea
of evolution constitutes the backbone of many pagan philosophies.

However, it is not this ancient pagan philosophy, but faith in God
which has played a stimulating role in the birth and development of mod-
ern science. Most of the people who pioneered modern science believed in
the existence of God; and while studying science, they sought to discover
the universe God has created and to perceive His laws and the details in
His creation. Astronomers such as Copernicus, Keppler, and Galileo; the
father of paleontology, Cuvier; the pioneer of botany and zoology, Lin-
naeus; and Isaac Newton, who is referred to as the "greatest scientist who
ever lived", all studied science believing not only in the existence of God
but also that the whole universe came into being as a result of His cre-
ation. 6 Albert Einstein, considered to be the greatest genius of our age,
was another devout scientist who believed in God and stated thus; "I can-
not conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situa-
tion may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame." 7

One of the founders of modern physics, German physician Max
Planck said: "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work
of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of sci-
ence are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the sci-
entist cannot dispense with." 8

The theory of evolution is the outcome of the materialist philosophy
that surfaced with the reawakening of ancient materialistic philosophies
and became widespread in the 19th century. As we have indicated before,
materialism seeks to explain nature through purely material factors. Since
it denies creation right from the start, it asserts that every thing, whether
animate or inanimate, has appeared without an act of creation but rather

42 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

as a result of a coincidence that then acquired a condition of order. The
human mind however is so structured as to comprehend the existence of
an organising will wherever it sees order. Materialistic philosophy, which
is contrary to this very basic characteristic of the human mind, produced
"the theory of evolution" in the middle of the 19th century.

Darwin's Imagination

The person who put forward the theory of evolution the way it is de-
fended today, was an amateur English naturalist, Charles Robert Darwin.

Darwin had never undergone a formal education in biology. He took
only an amateur interest in the subject of nature and living things. His in-
terest spurred him to voluntarily join an expedition on board a ship named
H.M.S. Beagle that set out from England in 1832 and travelled around dif-
ferent regions of the world for five years. Young Darwin was greatly im-
pressed by various living species, especially by certain finches that he saw
in the Galapagos Islands. He thought that the variations in their beaks
were caused by their adaptation to their habitat. With this idea in mind, he
supposed that the origin of life and species lay in the concept of "adapta-
tion to the environment". According to Darwin, God did not create differ-
ent living species separately but they rather came from a common ancestor
and became differentiated from each other as a result of natural conditions.

Darwin's hypothesis was not based on any scientific discovery or ex-
periment; in time however he turned it into a pretentious theory with the
support and encouragement he received from the famous materialist biol-
ogists of his time. The idea was that the individuals that adapted to the
habitat in the best way transferred their qualities to subsequent genera-
tions; these advantageous qualities accumulated in time and transformed
the individual into a species totally different from its ancestors. (The origin
of these "advantageous qualities" was unknown at the time.) According to
Darwin, man was the most developed outcome of this mechanism.

Darwin called this process "evolution by natural selection". He
thought he had found the "origin of species": the origin of one species was
another species. He published these views in his book titled The Origin of
Species, By Means of Natural Selection in 1859.

Darwin was well aware that his theory faced lots of problems. He

A Brief History Of The Theory 43

confessed these in his book in the chapter "Difficulties of the Theory".
These difficulties primarily consisted of the fossil record, complex organs
of living things that could not possibly be explained by coincidence (e.g.
the eye), and the instincts of living beings. Darwin hoped that these diffi-
culties would be overcome by new discoveries; yet this did not stop him
from coming up with a number of very inadequate explanations for some.
The American physicist Lipson made the following comment on the "dif-
ficulties" of Darwin:

On reading The Origin of Species, I found that Darwin was much less sure
himself than he is often represented to be; the chapter entitled "Difficulties of
the Theory" for example, shows considerable self-doubt. As a physicist, I was
particularly intrigued by his comments on how the eye would have arisen. 9

While developing his theory, Darwin was impressed by many evolu-
tionist biologists preceding him, and primarily by the French biologist,
Lamarck. 10 According to Lamarck, living creatures passed the traits they
acquired during their lifetime from one generation to the next and thus
evolved. For instance, giraffes evolved from antelope-like animals by ex-
tending their necks further and further from generation to generation as
they tried to reach higher and higher branches for food. Darwin thus em-
ployed the thesis of "passing the acquired traits" proposed by Lamarck as
the factor that made living beings evolve.

But both Darwin and Lamarck were mistaken because in their day,
life could only be studied with very primitive technology and at a very in-
adequate level. Scientific fields such as genetics and biochemistry did not
exist even in name. Their theories therefore had to depend entirely on their
powers of imagination.

While the echoes of Darwin's book reverber-
ated, an Austrian botanist by the name of Gregor
Mendel discovered the laws of inheritance in 1865.
Not much heard of until the end of the century,
Mendel's discovery gained great importance in the
early 1900s. This was the birth of the science of ge-
netics. Somewhat later, the structure of the genes
and the chromosomes was discovered. The discov-
ery, in the 1950s, of the structure of the DNA mole-
cule that incorporates genetic information threw
the theory of evolution into a great crisis. The rea- Charles Darwin

Darwin's Racism

^■^ ne of the

§ * -■:

■ ■ most im-

^^r p o rt a n t

yet least-known as-

■ pects of Darwin is

>■

■'' his racism: Darwin

regarded white Eu-

ropeans as more

■ K

"advanced" than

■:-

other human races.

While Darwin presumed that
man evolved from ape-like
creatures, he surmised that
some races developed more
than others and that the latter
still bore simian features. In his
book, The Descent of Man,
which he published after The
Origin of Species, he boldly
commented on "the greater dif-
ferences between men of dis-
tinct races". 1 In his book,
Darwin held blacks and Aus-
tralian Aborigines to be equal to
gorillas and then inferred that
these would be "done away
with" by the "civilised races" in
time. He said:

At some future period, not very distant
as measured by centuries, the civilized
races of man will almost certainly ex-
terminate and replace the savage races
throughout the world. At the same time
the anthropomorphous apes... will no
doubt be exterminated. The break be-
tween man and his nearest allies will
then be wider, for it will intervene in a
more civilised state, as we may hope,
even than the Caucasian, and some
ape as low as baboon, instead of as
now between the negro or Australian
and the gorilla. 2
Darwin's nonsensical ideas were not

only theorised,
but also brought
into a position
where they pro-
vided the most
important "scien-
tific ground" for
racism. Suppos-
ing that living be-
ings evolved in
the struggle for
life, Darwinism

adapted to the social sciences, and
turned into a conception that came to be
called "Social Darwinism".

Social Darwinism contends that ex-
isting human races are located at differ-
ent rungs of the "evolutionary ladder",
that the European races were the most
"advanced" of all, and that many other
races still bear "simian" features.

1- Benjamin Farrington, What Darwin Re-
ally Said. London: Sphere Books, 1971,
pp. 54-56

2- Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man,
2nd ed., New York: A.L. Burt Co., 1874, p.
178

A Brief History Of The Theory 45

son was the incredible complexity of life and the invalidity of the evolu-
tionary mechanisms proposed by Darwin.

These developments ought to have resulted in Darwin's theory being
banished to the dustbin of history. However, it was not, because certain cir-
cles insisted on revising, renewing, and elevating the theory to a scientific
platform. These efforts gain meaning only if we realise that behind the
theory lay ideological intentions rather than scientific concerns.

The Desperate Efforts of Neo-Darwinism

Darwin's theory entered into a deep crisis because of the laws of ge-
netics discovered in the first quarter of the 20th century. Nevertheless, a
group of scientists who were determined to remain loyal to Darwin en-
deavoured to come up with solutions. They came together in a meeting or-
ganised by the Geological Society of America in 1941. Geneticists such as
G. Led yard Stebbins and Theodosius Dobzhansky, zoologists such as Ernst
Mayr and Julian Huxley, paleontologists such as George Gaylord Simpson
and Glenn L. Jepsen, and mathematical geneticists such as Ronald Fisher
and Sewall Right, after long discussions, finally agreed on ways to "patch
up" Darwinism.

This cadre focused on the question of the origin of the advantageous
variations that supposedly caused living organisms to evolve-an issue
that Darwin himself was unable to explain but simply tried to side-step by
depending on Lamarck. The idea was now "random mutations". They
named this new theory "The Modern Synthetic Evolution Theory", which
was formulated by adding the concept of mutation to Darwin's natural se-
lection thesis. In a short time, this theory came to be known as "neo-Dar-
winism" and those who put forward the theory were called
"neo-Darwinists".

The following decades were to become an era of desperate attempts
to prove neo-Darwinism. It was already known that mutations-or "acci-
dents" -that took place in the genes of living organisms were always harm-
ful. Neo-Darwinists tried to establish a case for "advantageous mutation"
by carrying out thousands of mutation experiments. All their attempts
ended in complete failure.

They also tried to prove that the first living organisms could have
originated by chance under primitive terrestrial conditions that the theory

46 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

posited but the same failure attended these experiments too. Every exper-
iment that sought to prove that life could be generated by chance failed.
Probability calculations prove that not even a single protein, the building-
blocks of life, could have originated by chance. And the cell-which sup-
posedly emerged by chance under primitive and uncontrolled terrestrial
conditions according to the evolutionists-could not be synthesised by even
the most sophisticated laboratories of the 20th century.

Neo-Darwinist theory is also defeated by the fossil record. No "tran-
sitional forms", which were supposed to show the gradual evolution of liv-
ing organisms from primitive to advanced species as the neo-Darwinist
theory claimed, have ever been found anywhere in the world. At the same
time, comparative anatomy revealed that species that were supposed to
have evolved from one another had in fact very different anatomical fea-
tures and that they could never have been ancestors or descendants of each
other.

But neo-Darwinism was never a scientific theory anyway, but was an
ideological dogma if not to say some sort of "religion". The Darwinist pro-
fessor of philosophy and zoology Michael Ruse confesses this in these
words:

And certainly, there's no doubt about it, that in the past, and I think also in
the present, for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something
with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion ... And it
seems to me very clear that at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific
theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism... 11

This is why the champions of the theory of evolution still go on de-
fending it in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. One thing they can-
not agree on however is which of the different models proposed for the
realisation of evolution is the "right" one. One of the most important of
these models is the fantastic scenario known as "punctuated equilibrium".

Trial and Error: Punctuated Equilibrium

Most of the scientists who believe in evolution accept the neo-Dar-
winist theory of slow, gradual evolution. In recent decades, however, a dif-
ferent model has been proposed. Called "punctuated equilibrium", this
model maintains that living species came about not through a series of
small changes, as Darwin had maintained, but by sudden, large ones.

in Darwin's Time

When Darwin put for-
ward his as-
sumptions, the
< disciplines of genet-
■■'' ics, microbiology, .

and biochemistry

did not yet exist. If
they had been dis-
covered before Dar-
win put forward his theory,
Darwin might easily have
recognised that his theory
was totally unscientific and
might not have attempted
to advance such meaning-
less claims. The information deter-
mining the species already exists in
the genes and it is impossible for
natural selection to produce new
species through alterations in the
genes.

Similarly, the world of science in
those days had a very shallow and
crude understanding of the structure
and functions of the cell. If Darwin
had had the chance to view the cell
with an electron microscope, he
would have witnessed the great com-
plexity and extraordinary structure in
the organelles of the cell. He would
have beheld with his own
eyes that it would not be possi-
ble for such an intricate and com-
plex system to occur through
minor variations. If he had known
about bio-mathematics, then he
would have realised that not even
a single protein molecule, let
alone a whole cell, could not have
come into existence by chance.

Detailed studies of the cell were

only possible after the discovery

of the electron microscope. In

Darwin's time, with the primitive

microscopes seen here, it was

only possible to view the outside

surface of the cell.

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

Stephen Jay Gould

The first vociferous defenders of this no-
tion appeared at the beginning of the 1970s.
Two American paleontologists, Niles El-
dredge and Stephen Jay Gould, were well
aware that the claims of the neo-Darwinist
theory were absolutely refuted by the fossil
record. Fossils proved that living organisms
did not originate by gradual evolution, but
appeared suddenly and fully-formed. Neo-
Darwinists were living with the fond hope-
they still do-that the lost transitional forms
would one day be found. Realising that this hope was groundless, El-
dredge and Gould were nevertheless unable to abandon their evolutionary
dogma, so they put forward a new model: punctuated equilibrium. This is
the claim that evolution did not take place as a result of minor variations
but rather in sudden and great changes.

This model was nothing but a model for fantasies. For instance, Eu-
ropean paleontologist O.H. Shindewolf, who led the way for Eldredge and
Gould, claimed that the first bird came out of a reptile egg, as a "gross mu-
tation", that is, as a result of a huge "accident" that took place in the genetic
structure. 12 According to the same theory, some land-dwelling animals
could have turned into giant whales having undergone a sudden and com-
prehensive transformation. These claims, totally contradicting all the rules
of genetics, biophysics, and biochemistry are as scientific as the fairy tales
about frogs turning into princes! Nevertheless, being distressed by the cri-
sis that the neo-Darwinist assertion was in, some evolutionist paleontolo-
gists embraced this theory, which had the distinction of being even more
bizarre than neo-Darwinism itself.

The only purpose of this model was to provide an explanation of the
gaps in the fossil-record that the neo-Darwinist model could not explain.
However, it is hardly rational to attempt to explain the fossil gap in the
evolution of birds with a claim that "a bird popped all of a sudden out of
a reptile egg", because by the evolutionists' own admission, the evolution
of a species to another species requires a great and advantageous change
in genetic information. However, no mutation whatsoever improves the
genetic information or adds new information to it. Mutations only derange
genetic information. Thus the "gross mutations" imagined by the punctu-

A Brief History Of The Theory

"HI 7

Darwin

Reh'tnl:

Dsirwhi's

Today, tens of thousands of scientists around the world, particularly in the USA and Europe, defy the the-
ory of evolution and have published many books on the invalidity of the theory. Above are a few exam-
ples.

ated equilibrium model would only cause "gross", that is "great", reduc-
tions and impairments in the genetic information.

Moreover, the model of "punctuated equilibrium" collapses from the
very first step by its inability to address the question of the origin of life,
which is also the question that refutes the neo-Darwinist model from the
outset. Since not even a single protein can have originated by chance, the
debate over whether organisms made up of trillions of those proteins have
undergone a "punctuated" or "gradual" evolution is senseless.

In spite of this, the model that comes to mind when "evolution" is at
issue today is still neo-Darwinism. In the chapters that follow, we will first
examine two imaginary mechanisms of the neo-Darwinist model and then
look at the fossil record to test this model. After that, we will dwell upon
the question of the origin of life, which invalidates both the neo-Darwinist
model and all other evolutionist models such as "evolution by leaps".

Before doing so, it may be useful to remind the reader that the reality
we will be confronting at every stage is that the evolutionary scenario is a
fairy-tale, a great deceit that is totally at variance with the real world. It is
a scenario that has been used to deceive the world for 140 years. Thanks to
the latest scientific discoveries, its continued defence has at last become
impossible.

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
natural mechanisms: "natural selection" and "mutation". The theory
basically asserts that natural selection and mutation are two complemen-
tary mechanisms. The origin of evolutionary modifications lies in random
mutations that take place in the genetic structures of living things. The
traits brought about by mutations are selected by the mechanism of nat-
ural selection, and by this means living things evolve.

When we look further into this theory, we find that there is no such
evolutionary mechanism. Neither natural selection nor mutations make
any contribution at all to the transformation of different species into one
another, and the claim that they do is completely unfounded.

Natural Selection

As process of nature, natural selection was familiar to biologists be-
fore Darwin, who defined it as a "mechanism that keeps species unchang-
ing 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 ev-
idence put forward to show that natural selection causes living things to
evolve. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist of the British Museum of
Natural History in London and a prominent evolutionist, stresses that nat-
ural selection has never been observed to have the ability 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-Darwin-

ism is about this question. 13

Imaginary Mechanisms of Evolution 51

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.

"Industrial Melanism"

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 ex-
amples on this subject is about the colour of the moth population, which
appeared to darken during the Industrial Revolution in England. It is pos-
sible to find the story of the Industrial Melanism in almost all evolutionist
biology books, not just in Futuyma's book. The story is based on a series of
experiments conducted by the British physicist and biologist Bernard Ket-
tlewell in the 1950s, and can be summarised as follows:

According to the account, around the onset of the Industrial Revolu-
tion in England, the colour of the tree barks around Manchester was quite
light. Because of this, dark-coloured (melanic) moths 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, in woodlands where in-
dustrial pollution has killed the lichens, the barks of the trees had dark-
ened, and now the light-colored moths became the most hunted, since they
were the most easily noticed. As a result, the proportion of light-coloured
moths to dark-coloured moths decreased. Evolutionists believe this to be a
great piece of evidence for their theory. They take refuge and solace in win-
dow-dressing, showing how light-coloured moths "evolved" into dark-
coloured ones.

However, although we believe these facts to be correct, it should be
quite clear that they can in no way be used as evidence for the theory of
evolution, since no new form arose that had not existed before. Dark col-
ored moths had existed in the moth population before the Industrial Revo-

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

Industrial Melanism is certainly not an evidence for evolution because the process did not pro-
duce any new species of moths. The selection was only among already existing varieties. More-
over, the classical story of melanism is deceptive. The textbook pictures above (portrayed as
genuine photos) are in fact of dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks by evolutionists.

lution. Only the relative proportions of the existing moth varieties in the
population changed. The moths had not acquired a new trait or organ,
which would cause "speciation". In order for one moth species to turn into
another living species, a bird for example, new additions would have had
to be made to its genes. That is, an entirely separate genetic program
would have had to be loaded so as to include information about the phys-
ical traits of the bird.

This is the answer to be given to the evolutionist story of Industrial
Melanism. However, there is a more interesting side to the story: Not just
its interpretation, but the story itself is flawed. As molecular biologist
Jonathan Wells explains in his book Icons of Evolution, the story of the pep-
pered moths, which is included in every evolutionist biology book and has
therefore, become an "icon" in this sense, does not reflect the truth. Wells
discusses in his book how Bernard Kettlewell's experiment, which is
known as the "experimental proof" of the story, is actually a scientific scan-
dal. Some basic elements of this scandal are:

• Many experiments conducted after Kettlewell's revealed that only
one type of these moths rested on tree trunks, and all other types pre-
ferred to rest beneath small, horizontal branches. Since 1980 it has be-

Imaginary Mechanisms of Evolution 53

come clear that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks.
In 25 years of fieldwork, many scientists such as Cyril Clarke and
Rory Howlett, Michael Majerus, Tony Liebert, and Paul Brakefield
concluded that "in Kettlewell's experiment, moths were forced to act
atypically, therefore, the test results could not be accepted as scien-
tific".

• Scientists who tested Kettlewell's conclusions came up with an even
more interesting result: Although the number of light moths would be
expected to be larger in the less polluted regions of England, the dark
moths there numbered four times as many as the light ones. This
meant that there was no correlation between the moth population and
the tree trunks as claimed by Kettlewell and repeated by almost all
evolutionist sources.

• As the research deepened, the scandal changed dimension: "The
moths on tree trunks" photographed by Kettlewell, were actually
dead moths. Kettlewell used dead specimens glued or pinned to tree
trunks and then photographed them. In truth, there was little chance
of taking such a picture as the moths rested not on tree trunks but un-
derneath the leaves. 14

These facts were uncovered by the scientific community only in the
late 1990s. The collapse of the myth of Industrial Melanism, which had
been one of the most treasured subjects in "Introduction to Evolution"
courses in universities for decades, greatly disappointed evolutionists.
One of them, Jerry Coyne, remarked:

My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of
six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christ-
mas Eve. 15

Thus, "the most famous example of natural selection" was relegated
to the trash-heap of history as a scientific scandal which was inevitable, be-
cause natural selection is not an "evolutionary mechanism," contrary to
what evolutionists claim. It is capable neither of adding a new organ to a
living organism, nor of removing one, nor of changing an organism of one
species into that of another.

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 ge-

54 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

Natural selection serves as a mechanism of eliminating weak individuals within a species. It is a
conservative force which preserves the existing species from degeneration. Beyond that, it has
no capability of transforming one species to another.

netic 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,
Stephen Jay Gould, refers to this impasse of natural selection as follows;

The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the cre-
ative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a
negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it cre-
ate the fit as well. 16

Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the
issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as a con-
scious 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
things. As a result, natural selection cannot explain biological systems and
organs that possess the feature of "irreducible complexity". These systems
and organs are composed of a great number of parts cooperating together,
and are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. (For ex-
ample, the human eye does not function unless it exists with all its compo-
nents intact). Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should
be able to foresee the future and aim directly at the advantage that is to be
acquired at the final stage. Since natural selection has no consciousness or
will, it can do no such thing. This fact, which demolishes the foundations
of the theory of evolution, also worried Darwin, who wrote: "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." 17

Imaginary Mechanisms of Evolution 55

Natural selection only selects out the disfigured, weak, or unfit indi-
viduals of a species. It cannot produce new species, new genetic informa-
tion, 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". 18 This is why neo-Darwinism has
had to elevate mutations next to natural selection as the "cause of benefi-
cial 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 nuclei of the cells of a living organ-
ism and which contains all its genetic information. These breaks or re-
placements 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 people in Hiroshima, Na-
gasaki, 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 damage it. B.G. Ranganathan states:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations
are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the struc-
ture of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the
worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a
highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change
in the framework of the building which, in all probability, would not be an
improvement. 19

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All

mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren
Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Ef-
fects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations
that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second
World War:

ALL MUTATIONS ARE HARMFUL

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 evo-
lution. How can a good effect - evolution to higher forms of life - results from
mutations practically all of which are harmful? 20

Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in
failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to pro-
duce 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. The evolu-
tionist geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus:

It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have
been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all around the world-
flies which produce a new generation every eleven days-they have never yet
seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme. 21

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

Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected genera-
tions of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treat-
ment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial

Imaginary Mechanisms of Evolution 57

or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not re-
ally: 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. 22

The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed
in human beings have had deleterious results. On this issue, evolutionists
throw up a smokescreen and try to enlist examples of even such deleteri-
ous mutations as "evidence for evolution". All mutations that take place in
humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism,
Down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. These mutations are pre-
sented in evolutionist textbooks as examples of "the evolutionary mecha-
nism at work". Needless to say, a process that leaves people disabled or
sick cannot be "an evolutionary mechanism"-evolution is supposed to pro-
duce forms that are better fitted to survive.

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

1) The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly,
they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Rea-
son tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex struc-
ture will not improve that structure, but will rather impair it. Indeed, no
"useful mutation" has ever been observed.

2) Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA: The parti-
cles making up the genetic information are either torn from their places,
destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a liv-
ing thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormali-
ties like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen.

3) 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 cell or organ of the body cannot be trans-
ferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the ef-
fects 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 evolution. Further-
more, this conclusion agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which
does not demonstrate the existence of a process of evolution, but rather
just the contrary.

The Fossil Record
Refutes Evolution

According to the theory of evolution, every living species has
emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previ-
ously turned into something else over time and all species have
come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation
proceeds gradually over millions of years.

If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should
have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations
were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the
past some half-fish/ half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptil-
ian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should
have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian
traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolution-
ists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in
the past, as "transitional forms".

If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions,
even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures
should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional
forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species,
and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of
Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely

all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed...

Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only

amongst fossil remains. 23

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional
forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his opti-
mism, he realised that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest
stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the
chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties of the Theory":

...Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do
we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all na-

The Fossil Record Refutes Evolution 59

ture in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well de-
fined?... But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have ex-
isted, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust
of the earth?... But in the intermediate region, having intermediate condi-
tions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties?
This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me. 24

The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objec-
tion was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate.
He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the miss-
ing links would be found.

Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionist paleontologists have
been digging up fossils and searching for missing links all over the world
since the middle of the 19th century. Despite their best efforts, no transi-
tional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in exca-
vations have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life
appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. Trying to prove their
theory, evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.

A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even
though he is an evolutionist:

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 an-
other. 25

Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as
follows:

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the im-
prints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations.
This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate
variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly
has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God. 26

These gaps in the fossil record cannot be explained by saying that suf-
ficient fossils have not yet been found, but that they one day will be. An-
other American scholar, Robert Wesson, states in his 1991 book Beyond
Natural Selection, that "the gaps in the fossil record are real and meaning-
ful". He elaborates this claim in this way:

The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any im-
portant branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly
so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into

' "ing Fos

he theory of evolution claims that species continuously evolve into other
species. But when we compare living things to their fossils, we see that they
have remained unchanged for millions of years. This fact is a clear evidence
that falsifies the claims of evolutionists.

Wf':

The living honeybee is no different
than its fossil relative, which is
millions of years old.

The 135 million year old dragon fly
fossil is no different than its
modern counterparts.

A comparison of ant fossil aged
100 million years and an ant living
in our day clearly indicates that
ants do not have any evolutionary
history.

The Fossil Record Refutes Evolution 61

new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more
or less abrupt. 27

Life Emerged on Earth Suddenly and in Complex Forms

When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to be
seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum
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 pe-
riod emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record-there are no pre-existing
ancestors. The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilo-
bites, 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 miracu-
lous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological litera-
ture.

Most of the creatures in this layer have complex systems have com-
plex systems and advanced structures, such as eyes, gills, and circulatory
systems, exactly the same as those in modern specimens. For instance, the
double-lensed, combed eye structure of trilobites is a wonder of design.
David Raup, a professor of geology in Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago
Universities, says: "the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal
design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engi-
neer to develop today". 28

These complex invertebrates emerged suddenly and completely with-
out having any link or any transitional form between them and the unicel-
lular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them.

Richard Monastersky, a science journalist at Science News, one of the
popular publications of evolutionist literature, states the following about
the "Cambrian Explosion", which is a deathtrap for evolutionary theory:
A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see
today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cam-
brian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion
that filled the seas with the earth's first complex creatures. ...the large animal
phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian ...and they were
as distinct from each other as they are today. 29

Deeper investigation into the Cambrian Explosion shows what a

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

The fossil record proves that
transitional forms never ex-
isted, no evolution took
place and all species
have been created
separately in a per-
fect form.

great dilemma it creates for the theory of evolution. Recent findings indi-
cate that almost all phyla, the most basic animal divisions, emerged
abruptly in the Cambrian period. An article published in Science magazine
in 2001 says: "The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million
years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the
main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today". 30 The
same article notes that for such complex and distinct living groups to be
explained according to the theory of evolution, very rich fossil beds show-
ing a gradual developmental process should have been found, but this has
not yet proved possible:

This differential evolution and dispersal, too, must have required a previous
history of the group for which there is no fossil record. Furthermore, cladistic
analyses of arthropod phylogeny revealed that trilobites, like eucrustaceans,
are fairly advanced "twigs" on the arthropod tree. But fossils of these alleged
ancestral arthropods are lacking. ...Even if evidence for an earlier origin is
discovered, it remains a challenge to explain why so many animals should
have increased in size and acquired shells within so short a time at the base of
the Cambrian. 31

How the earth came to overflow with such a great number of animal
species all of a sudden, and how these distinct types of species with no
common ancestors could have emerged, is a question that remains unan-
swered by evolutionists. The Oxford University zoologist Richard
Dawkins, one of the foremost advocates of evolutionist thought in the
world, comments on this reality that undermines the very foundation of all
the arguments he has been defending:

The Fossil Record Refutes Evolution

For example the Cambrian strata of rocks... are the oldest ones in which we
find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them al-
ready in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is
as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. 32

As Dawkins is forced to acknowledge, the Cambrian Explosion is
strong evidence for creation, because creation is the only way to explain
the fully-formed emergence of life on earth. Douglas Futuyma, a promi-
nent evolutionist biologist admits this fact: "Organisms either appeared on
the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have
developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If
they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been
created by some omnipotent intelligence." 33 Darwin himself recognised
the possibility of this when he wrote: "If numerous species, belonging to
the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact
would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through
natural selection." 34 The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than

he trilobites that ap-
peared in the Cam-
brian period all of a sudden
have an extremely complex f
eye structure. Consisting of
millions of honeycomb-
shaped tiny particles and a double-
lens system, this eye "has an optimal design which
would require a well-trained and imaginative optical en-
gineer to develop today" in the words of David Ftaup,
a professor of geology.

This eye emerged 530 million years ago in a perfect
state. No doubt, the sudden appearance of such a
wondrous design cannot be explained by evolution
and it proves the actuality of creation.
Moreover, the honeycomb eye structure of the trilobite
has survived to our own day without a single change.
Some insects such as bees and dragon flies have the
same eye structure as did the trilobite.* This situation
disproves the evolutionary thesis that living things
evolved progressively from the primitive to the complex.

(*) R.L.Gregory, Eye and Brain: The Physiology of Seeing,
Oxford University Press, 1995, p.31

64 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

Darwin's "fatal stroke". This is why the Swiss evolutionist paleoanthropolo-
gist Stefan Bengtson, who confesses the lack of transitional links while de-
scribing the Cambrian Age, makes the following comment: "Baffling (and
embarrasing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us". 35

As may be seen, the fossil record indicates that living things did not
evolve from primitive to the advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a
sudden and in a perfect state. In short, living beings did not come into ex-
istence by evolution, they were created.

Molecular Comparisons Deepen Evolution's Cambrian Impasse

Another fact that puts evolutionists into a deep quandary about the
Cambrian Explosion is the comparisons between different living taxa. The
results of these comparisons reveal that animal taxa considered to be "close
relatives" by evolutionists until quite recently, are genetically very differ-
ent, which puts the "intermediate form" hypothesis, that only exists theo-
retically, into an even greater quandary. An article published in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2000 reports that
DNA analyses have displaced taxa that used to be considered "intermedi-
ate forms" in the past:

DNA sequence analysis dictates new interpretation of phylogenic trees. Taxa
that were once thought to represent successive grades of complexity at the
base of the metazoan tree are being displaced to much higher positions inside
the tree. This leaves no evolutionary "intermediates" and forces us to rethink
the genesis of bilaterian complexity.. 36

In the same article, evolutionist writers note that some taxa which
were considered "intermediate" between groups such as sponges, cnidari-
ans and ctenophores can no longer be considered as such because of new
genetic findings, and that they have "lost hope" of constructing such evo-
lutionary family trees:

The new molecular based phylogeny has several important implications.
Foremost among them is the disappearance of "intermediate" taxa between
sponges, cnidarians, ctenophores, and the last common ancestor of bilateri-
ans or "Urbilateria." ...A corollary is that we have a major gap in the stem
leading to the Urbilataria. We have lost the hope, so common in older evolu-
tionary reasoning, of reconstructing the morphology of the "coelomate ances-
tor" through a scenario involving successive grades of increasing complexity
based on the anatomy of extant "primitive" lineages. 37

Tale of Transition from
Water to Land

volutionists assume that the sea invertebrates that appear in the
Cambrian stratum somehow evolved into fish in tens of million
years. However, just as Cambrian invertebrates have no ancestors,
there are no transitional links indicating that an evolution occurred be-
tween these invertebrates and fish. It should be noted that invertebrates
and fish have enormous structural differences. Invertebrates have their
hard tissues outside their bodies, whereas fish are vertebrates that have
theirs on the inside. Such an enormous "evolution" would have taken bil-
lions of steps to be completed and there should be billions of transitional
forms displaying them.

Evolutionists have been digging fossil strata for about 140 years look-
ing for these hypothetical forms. They have found millions of invertebrate
fossils and millions of fish fossils; yet nobody has ever found even one that
is midway between them.

An evolutionist paleontologist, Gerald T. Todd, admits a similar fact
in an article titled "Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes":
All three subdivisions of bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at ap-
proximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologi-
cally and are heavily armored. How did they originate? What allowed them
to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armour? And
why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms? 38

According to the hypothetical
scenario of "from sea to land",
some fish felt the need to pass
from sea to land because of feed-
ing problems. This claim is "sup-
ported" by such speculative
drawings.

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

The evolutionary scenario goes one step further and argues that fish,
who evolved from invertebrates then transformed into amphibians. But
this scenario also lacks evidence. There is not even a single fossil verifying
that a half-fish/half-amphibian creature has ever existed. Robert L. Car-
roll, an evolutionary palaeontologist and authority on vertebrate palaeon-
tology, is obliged to accept this. He has written in his classic work,
Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, that "The early reptiles were very dif-
ferent from amphibians and their ancestors have not been found yet." In
his newer book, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, published in
1997, he admits that "The origin of the modern amphibian orders, (and) the
transition between early tetrapods" are "still poorly known" along with the
origins of many other major groups. 39 Two evolutionist paleontologists,
Colbert and Morales, comment on the three basic classes of amphibians-
frogs, salamanders, and caecilians:

There is no evidence of any Paleozoic amphibians combining the charac-
teristics that would be expected in a single common ancestor. The oldest
known frogs, salamanders, and caecilians are very similar to their living de-
scendants. 40

Until about fifty years ago, evolutionists thought that such a creature
indeed existed. This fish, called a coelacanth, which was estimated to be
410 million years of age, was put forward as a transitional form with a
primitive lung, a developed brain, a digestive and a circulatory system
ready to function on land, and even a primitive walking mechanism. These

410-million-year-old coelacanth fossil. Evolutionists claimed that it was the transitional
form representing the transition from water to land. Living examples of this fish have
been caught many times since 1938, providing a good example of the extent of the
speculations that evolutionists engage in.

volutionists
claim that one
day, a species
Jj dwelling in water some-
how stepped onto land
and was transformed
into a land-dwelling
species.

There are a number of obvious facts
that render such a transition impossi-

1. Weight-bearing: Sea-dwelling crea-
tures have no problem in bearing their
own weight in the sea.

However, most land-dwelling creatures
consume 40% of their energy just in car-
rying their bodies around. Creatures
making the transition from water to land
would at the same time have had to de-
velop new muscular and skeletal sys-
tems (!) to meet this energy need, and
this could not have come about by
chance mutations.

2. Heat Retention: On land, the tempera-
ture can change quickly, and fluctuates
over a wide range. Land-dwelling crea-
tures possess a physical mechanism
that can withstand such great tempera-
ture changes. However, in the sea, the
temperature changes slowly and within a
narrower range. A living organism with a
body system regulated according to the
constant temperature of the sea would
need to acquire a protective system to
ensure minimum harm from the tempera-
ture changes on land. It is preposterous
to claim that fish acquired such a system
by random mutations as soon as they
stepped onto land.

3. Water: Essential to metabolism, water
needs to be used economically due to its
relative scarcity on land. For instance,,
the skin has to be able to permit a certain
amount of water loss, while also prevent-
ing excessive evaporation. That is why
land-dwelling creatures experience
thirst, something the land-dwelling crea-
tures do not do. For this reason, the skin
of sea-dwelling animals is not suitable
for a nonaquatic habitat.

4. Kidneys: Sea-dwelling organisms dis-
charge waste materials, especially am-
monia, by means of their aquatic
environment. On land, water has to be
used economically. This is why these liv-
ing beings have a kidney system. Thanks
to the kidneys, ammonia is stored by
being converted into urea and the mini-
mum amount of water is used during its
excretion. In addition, new systems are
needed to provide the kidney's function-
ing. In short, in order for the passage
from water to land to have occurred, liv-
ing things without a kidney would have
had to develop a kidney system all at
once.

5. Respiratory system: Fish "breathe" by
taking in oxygen dissolved in water that
they pass through their gills. They canot
live more than a few minutes out of water.
In order to survive on land, they would
have to acquire a perfect lung system all
of a sudden.

It is most certainly impossible that all
these dramatic physiological changes
could have happened in the same organ-
ism at the same time, and all by chance.

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

TURTLES WERE ALWAYS TURTLES

Turtle fossil
aged 100 mil-
lion years: No
different from
its modern
counterpart.
( The Dawn of
Life, Orbis
Pub., London
1972)

ust as the evolutionary

theory cannot explain

basic classes of living
things such as fish and reptiles,
neither can it explain the origin

Ltie. urois

of the orders within these - Pub., London

classes. For example, turtles, ' _^ 1972 )

which is a reptilian order, appear
in the fossil record all of a sud-
den with their unique shells. To
quote from an evolutionary source: "...by the middle of the Triassic Period (about
175,000,000 years ago) its (turtle's) members were already numerous and in pos-
session of the basic turtle characteristics. The links between turtles and coty-
losaurs from which turtles probably sprang are almost entirely lacking"
(Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 1971, v.22, p.418)

There is no difference between the fossils of ancient turtles and the living members
of this species today. Simply put, turtles have not "evolved"; they have always been

anatomical interpretations were accepted as undisputed truth among sci-
entific circles until the end of the 1930's. The coelacanth was presented as
a genuine transitional form that proved the evolutionary transition from
water to land.

However on December 22, 1938, a very interesting discovery was
made in the Indian Ocean. A living member of the coelacanth family, pre-
viously presented as a transitional form that had become extinct seventy
million years ago, was caught! The discovery of a "living" prototype of the
coelacanth undoubtedly gave evolutionists a severe shock. The evolution-
ist paleontologist J.L.B. Smith said that "If I'd met a dinosaur in the street I
wouldn't have been more astonished". 41 In the years to come, 200 coela-
canths were caught many times in different parts of the world.

Living coelacanths revealed how far the evolutionists could go in
making up their imaginary scenarios. Contrary to what had been claimed,
coelacanths had neither a primitive lung nor a large brain. The organ that
evolutionist researchers had proposed as a primitive lung turned out to be
nothing but a lipid pouch. 42 Furthermore, the coelacanth, which was in-
troduced as "a reptile candidate getting prepared to pass from sea to
land", was in reality a fish that lived in the depths of the oceans and never
approached nearer than 180 metres from the surface. 43

Origin of Birds
and Mammals

ccording to the theory of evolution, life originated and evolved in
the sea and then was transported onto land by amphibians. This
evolutionary scenario also suggests that amphibians evolved into
reptiles, creatures living only on land. This scenario is again implausible,
due to the enormous structural differences between these two classes of
animals. For instance, the amphibian egg is designed for developing in
water whereas the amniotic egg is designed for developing on land. A
"step by step" evolution of an amphibian is out of the question, because
without a perfect and fully-designed egg, it is not possible for a species to
survive. Moreover, as usual, there is no evidence of transitional forms that
were supposed to link amphibians with reptiles. Evolutionist paleontolo-
gist and an authority on vertebrate paleontology, Robert L. Carroll has to
accept that "the early reptiles were very different from amphibians and
that their ancestors could not be found yet." 44

Yet the hopelessly doomed scenarios of the evolutionists are not over
yet. There still remains the problem of making these creatures fly! Since
evolutionists believe that birds must somehow have been evolved, they as-
sert that they were transformed from reptiles. However, none of the dis-
tinct mechanisms of birds, which have a completely different structure
from land-dwelling animals, can be explained by gradual evolution. First
of all, the wings, which are the exceptional traits of birds, are a great im-
passe for the evolutionists. One of the Turkish evolutionists, Engin Korur,
confesses the impossibility of the evolution of wings:

The common trait of the eyes and the wings is that they can only function if
they are fully developed. In other words, a halfway-developed eye cannot
see; a bird with half-formed wings cannot fly. How these organs came into
being has remained one of the mysteries of nature that needs to be enlight-
ened. 45

The question of how the perfect structure of wings came into being as
a result of consecutive haphazard mutations remains completely unan-

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

swered. There is no way to explain how the front arms of a reptile could
have changed into perfectly functioning wings as a result of a distortion in
its genes (mutation).

Moreover, just having wings is not sufficient for a land organism to
fly. Land-dwelling organisms are devoid of many other structural mecha-
nisms that birds use for flying. For example, the bones of birds are much
lighter than those of land-dwelling organisms. Their lungs function in a
very different way. They have a different muscular and skeletal system
and a very specialised heart-circulatory system. These features are pre-req-
uisites of flying needed at least as much as wings. All these mechanisms
had to exist at the same time and altogether; they could not have formed
gradually by being "accumulated". This is why the theory asserting that
land organisms evolved into aerial organisms is completely fallacious.

All of these bring another question to the mind: even if we suppose
this impossible story to be true, then why are the evolutionists unable to
find any "half-winged" or "single-winged" fossils to back up their story?

Another Alleged Transitional Form: Archseopteryx
Evolutionists pronounce the name of one single creature in response.
This is the fossil of a bird called Archseopteryx, one of the most widely-
known so-called transitional forms among the very few that evolutionists

SPECIAL LUNGS FOR BIRDS

bronchia

Reptile lung

parabronchia

Avian lung

The anatomy of birds is very different from that of reptiles, their supposed ancestors. Bird lungs
function in a totally different way from those of land-dwelling animals. Land-dwelling animals
breathe in and out from the same air vessel. In birds, while the air enters into the lung from the
front, it goes out from the back. This distinct "design" is specially made for birds, which need
great amounts of oxygen during flight. It is impossible for such a structure to evolve from the rep-
tile lung.

Origin of Birds and Mammals 71

still defend. Archaeopteryx, the so-called ancestor of modern birds accord-
ing to evolutionists, lived approximately 150 million years ago. The theory
holds that some small dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors or Dromeosaurs,
evolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archaeopteryx is
assumed to be a transitional form that branched off from its dinosaur an-
cestors and started to fly for the first time.

However, the latest studies of Archaeopteryx fossils indicate that this
creature is absolutely not a transitional form, but an extinct species of bird,
having some insignificant differences from modern birds.

The thesis that Archaeopteryx was a "half-bird" that could not fly per-
fectly was popular among evolutionist circles until not long ago. The ab-
sence of a sternum (breastbone) in this creature was held up as the most
important evidence that this bird could not fly properly. (The sternum is a
bone found under the thorax to which the muscles required for flight are
attached. In our day, this breastbone is observed in all flying and non-fly-
ing birds, and even in bats, a flying mammal which belongs to a very dif-
ferent family.)

However, the seventh Archaeopteryx fossil, which was found in
1992, caused great astonishment among evolutionists. The reason was that
in this recently discovered fossil, the breastbone that was long assumed by
evolutionists to be missing was discovered to have existed after all. This
fossil was described in Nature magazine as follows:

The recently discovered seventh specimen of the Archaeopteryx preserves a
partial, rectangular sternum, long suspected but never previously docu-
mented. This attests to its strong flight muscles. 46

This discovery invalidated the mainstay of the claims that
Archaeopteryx was a half-bird that could not fly properly.

Moreover, the structure of the bird's feathers became one of the most
important pieces of evidence confirming that Archaeopteryx was a flying
bird in the real sense. The asymmetric feather structure of Archaeopteryx is
indistinguishable from that of modern birds, and indicates that it could fly
perfectly well. As the eminent paleontologist Carl O. Dunbar states, "be-
cause of its feathers [Archaeopteryx is] distinctly to be classed as a bird." 47

Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archaeopteryx 's
feathers was its warm-blooded metabolism. As was discussed above, rep-
tiles and dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals whose body heat fluctuates
with the temperature of their environment, rather than being homeostati-

72 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

cally regulated. A very important function of the feathers on birds is the
maintenance of a constant body temperature. The fact that Archaeopteryx
had feathers showed that it was a real, warm-blooded bird that needed to
regulate its body heat, in contrast to dinosaurs.

Speculations of Evolutionists:

The Teeth and Claws of Archseopteryx

Two important points evolutionist biologists rely on when claiming
Archseopteryx was a transitional form, are the claws on its wings and its
teeth.

It is true that Archaeopteryx had claws on its wings and teeth in its
mouth, but these traits do not imply that the creature bore any kind of re-
lationship to reptiles. Besides, two bird species living today, Taouraco and
Hoatzin, have claws which allow them to hold onto branches. These crea-
tures are fully birds, with no reptilian characteristics. That is why it is com-
pletely groundless to assert that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form just
because of the claws on its wings.

Neither do the teeth in Archaeopteryx' s beak imply that it is a transi-
tional form. Evolutionists make a purposeful trickery by saying that these
teeth are reptile characteristics, since teeth are not a typical feature of rep-
tiles. Today, some reptiles have teeth while others do not. Moreover,
Archseopteryx is not the only bird species to possess teeth. It is true that
there are no toothed birds in existence today, but when we look at the fos-
sil record, we see that both during the time of Archaeopteryx and after-
wards, and even until fairly recently, a distinct bird genus existed that
could be categorised as "birds with teeth".

The most important point is that the tooth structure of Archaeopteryx
and other birds with teeth is totally different from that of their alleged
ancestors, the dinosaurs. The well-known ornithologists L. D. Martin, J. D.
Steward, and K. N. Whetstone observed that Archaeopteryx and other simi-
lar birds have teeth with flat- topped surfaces and large roots. Yet the teeth
of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of these birds, are protuberant
like saws and have narrow roots. 48

These researchers also compared the wrist bones of Archaeopteryx and
their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs, and observed no similarity between
them.49

Origin of Birds and Mammals

Studies by anatomists like S. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht, and A.D. Walker
have revealed that some of the similarities that John Ostrom and other
have seen between Archaeopteryx and dinosaurs were in reality misinter-
pretations. 50

All these findings indicate that Archaeopteryx was not a transitional
link but only a bird that fell into a category that can be called "toothed
birds".

Archaeopteryx and Other Ancient Bird Fossils

While evolutionists have for decades been proclaiming Archaeopteryx
to be the greatest evidence for their scenario concerning the evolution of
birds, some recently-found fossils invalidate that scenario in other re-
spects.

Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou, two paleontologists at the Chinese
Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology, discovered a new bird fossil in 1995,
and named it Confuciusornis. This fossil is almost the same age as
Archaeopteryx (around 140 million years), but has no teeth in its mouth. In
addition, its beak and feathers shared the same features as today's birds.
Confuciusornis has the same skeletal structure as modern birds, but also has
claws on its wings, just like Archaeopteryx. Another structure peculiar to
birds called the "pygostyle", which supports the tail feathers, was also
found in Confuciusornis. In short, this fossil-which is the same age as
Archaeopteryx, which was previously thought to be the earliest bird and
was accepted as a semi-reptile-looks very much like a modern bird. This

fact has invalidated all the evo-
lutionist theses claiming
Archaeopteryx to be the primi-
tive ancestor of all birds. 51

Another fossil unearthed
in China, caused even greater
confusion. In November 1996,

en bird feathers are examined in detail, it
s £een that they are made up of thousands of
tjpy tendrils attached to one another with
ooks. This unique design results in superior

odynamic performance.

he theory of evolu-
tion, which claims
that birds evolved
i from reptiles, is unable to
''' explain the huge differ-
ences between these two
different living classes. In
terms of such features as
their skeleton structure,
lung systems, and warm-blooded metabo-
lism, birds are very different from reptiles.
Another trait that poses an insurmount-
able gap between birds and reptiles is the
feathers of birds which have a form en-
tirely peculiar to them.

The bodies of reptiles are covered with
scales, whereas the bodies of birds are
covered with feathers. Since evo-
lutionists consider reptiles the
ancestor of birds, they are
obliged to claim that bird feathers I
have evolved from reptile scales.
However, there is no similarity
between scales and feathers.

A professor of physiology I
and neurobiology from the Uni- -
versify of Connecticut, A.H.
Brush, accepts this reality al- I
though he is an evolutionist: I
"Every feature from gene struc-
ture and organization, to develop-
ment, morphogenesis and tissue < =^ —

organization is different (in feathers and
scales)." 1 Moreover, Prof. Brush examines
the protein structure of bird feathers and
argues that it is "unique among verte-
brates". 2

There is no fossil evidence to prove
that bird feathers evolved from reptile
scales. On the contrary, "feathers appear
suddenly in the fossil record, as an'unde-
niably unique' character distinguishing
birds" as Prof. Brush states. 3 Besides, in
reptiles, no epidermal structure has yet
been detected that provides an origin for
bird feathers. 4

In 1996, paleontologists made abuzz
about fossils of a so-called feathered di-

nosaur, called Sinosauropteryx. However,
in 1997, it was revealed that these fossils
had nothing to do with birds and that they
were not modern feathers. 5

On the other hand, when we examine
bird feathers closely, we come across a
very complex design that cannot be ex-
plained by any evolutionary process. The
famous ornithologist Alan Feduccia states
that "every feature of them has aerody-
namic functions. They are extremely light,
have the ability to lift up which increases
in lower speeds, and may return to their
previous position very easily". Then he
continues, "I cannot really understand
how an organ perfectly designed for flight
may have emerged for another need at the
beginning". 6

The design of feath-
ers also compelled
i. Charles Darwin ponder
- them. Moreover, the per-
fect aesthetics of the
■ peafowl's feathers had
, made him "sick" (his
■ u own words). In a letter
I he wrote to Asa Gray on
i| April 3, 1860, he said "I
remember well the time
I when the thought of the
I eye made me cold all
over, but I have got over
this stage of complaint.. ."And then contin-
ued: "...and now trifling particulars of
structure often make me very uncomfort-
able. The sight of a feather in a peacock's
tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" 7

1- A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers". Journal

of Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 9, 1996, p.132
2- A. H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers", p. 131

3- Ibid.

4- Ibid.

5- "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur", Science, Vol.
278, 14 November 1997, p. 1229

6- Douglas Palmer, "Learning to Fly" (Review of The
Origin of and Evolution of Birds by Alan Feduccia,
Yale University Press, 1996), New Scientist, Vol.
153, March, 1 1997, p. 44

7- Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to
Reason. Boston, Gambit, 1971, p. 101

Origin of Birds and Mammals 75

the existence of a 130-million-y ear-old bird named Liaoningornis was an-
nounced in Science by L. Hou, L. D. Martin, and Alan Feduccia. Liaoningor-
nis had a breastbone to which the muscles for flight were attached, just as
in modern birds. This bird was indistinguishable from modern birds also
in other respects, too. The only difference was the teeth in its mouth. This
showed that birds with teeth did not possess the primitive structure al-
leged by evolutionists. 52 This was stated in an article in Discover "Whence
came the birds? This fossil suggests that it was not from dinosaur stock". 53
Another fossil that refuted the evolutionist claims regarding
Archseopteryx was Eoalulavis. The wing structure of Eoalulavis, which was
said to be some 25 to 30 million years younger than Archseopteryx, was also
observed in modern slow-flying birds. This proved that 120 million years
ago, there were birds indistinguishable from modern birds in many re-
spects flying in the skies. 54

These facts once more indicate for certain that neither Archseopteryx
nor other ancient birds similar to it were transitional forms. The fossils do
not indicate that different bird species evolved from each other. On the
contrary, the fossil record proves that today's modern birds and some ar-
chaic birds such as Archseopteryx actually lived together at the same time. It
is true that some of these bird species, such as Archseopteryx and Confuciu-
sornis, have become extinct, but the fact that only some of the species that
once existed have been able to survive down to the present day does not in
itself support the theory of evolution.

In brief, several features of Archseopteryx indicate that this creature
was not a transitional form. The overall anatomy of Archseopteryx imply
stasis, not evolution. Paleontologist Robert Carroll has to admit that:

The geometry of the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx is identical with that of
modern flying birds, whereas nonflying birds have symmetrical feathers. The
way in which the feathers are arranged on the wing also falls within the
range of modern birds... According to Van Tyne and Berger, the relative size
and shape of the wing of Archaeopteryx are similar to that of birds that move
through restricted openings in vegetation, such as gallinaceous birds, doves,
woodcocks, woodpeckers, and most passerine birds... The flight feathers
have been in stasis for at least 150 million years... 55

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

Prof. Alan Feduccia

The Imaginary Bird-Dinosaur Link

The claim of evolutionists trying to present
Archaeopteryx as a transitional form is that birds
have evolved from dinosaurs. However, one of
the most famous ornithologists in the world,
Alan Feduccia from the University of North
Carolina, opposes the theory that birds are re-
lated to dinosaurs, despite the fact that he is an
evolutionist himself. Feduccia has this to say re-
garding the thesis of reptile-bird evolution:

Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I
don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just

don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the great-
est embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century 56

Larry Martin, a specialist on ancient birds from the University of
Kansas, also opposes the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs.
Discussing the contradiction that evolution falls into on the subject, he
states:

To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with
those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about
it.57

To sum up, the scenario of the "evolution of birds" erected solely on
the basis of Archseopteryx, is nothing more than a product of the prejudices
and wishful thinking of evolutionists.

The bird named Confuciusornis is the same age as Archseopteryx

What is the Origin of Flies?

f\ laiming that
^^ d inosau rs
i transformed into
,, birds, evolution-
ists support their
assertion by say-
ing that some di-
nosaurs who
flapped their front legs to
hunt flies "took wing and
flew" as seen in the picture.
Having no scientific basis
whatsoever and being noth-
ing but a figment of the
imagination, this theory also An exal

entails a very simple logical
contradiction: the example given by evo-
lutionists to explain the origin of flying,
that is, the fly, already has a perfect abil-
ity to fly. Whereas a human cannot open
and close his eyes 10 times a second, an
average fly flutters its wings 500 times a
second. Moreover, it moves both its
wings simultaneously. The slightest dis-
sonance in the vibration of wings would
cause the fly lose its balance but this
never happens.

Evolutionists should first come up
with an explanation as to how the fly ac-
quired this perfect ability to fly. Instead,
they fabricate imaginary scenarios
about how much more clumsy creatures
like reptiles came to fly.

Even the perfect creation of the
housefly invalidates the claim of evolu-
tion. English biologist Robin Wootton
wrote in an article titled "The Mechanical
Design of Fly Wings":

The better we understand the function-
ing of insect wings, the more subtle
and beautiful their designs appear.
Structures are traditionally designed to
deform as little as possible; mecha-
nisms are designed to move compo-

An example from evolutionist scenarios: Dinosaurs that
suddenly took wing while trying to catch flies!

nent parts in predictable ways. Insect
wings combine both in one, using com-
ponents with a wide range of elastic
properties, elegantly assembled to
allow appropriate deformations in re-
sponse to appropriate forces and to
make the best possible use of the air.
They have few if any technological par-
allels-yet. 1

On the other hand, there is not a sin-
gle fossil that can be evidence for the
imaginary evolution of flies. This is what
the distinguished French zoologist
Pierre Grasse meant when he said "We
are in the dark concerning the origin of
insects." 2

1- Robin J. Wootton, "The Mechanical De-
sign of Insect Wings", Scientific American,
v. 263, November 1990, p.120

2- Pierre-P Grasse, Evolution of Living Or-
ganisms, New York, Academic Press, 1977,
p.30

78 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

The Origin of Mammals

As we have stated before, the theory of evolution proposes that some
imaginary creatures that came out of the sea turned into reptiles, and that
birds evolved from reptiles. According to the same scenario, reptiles are
the ancestors not only of birds but also of mammals. However, there are
great differences between these two classes. Mammals are warm-blooded
animals (this means they can generate their own heat and maintain it at a
steady level), they give live birth, they suckle their young, and their bodies
are covered in fur or hair. Reptiles, on the other hand, are cold-blooded
(i.e., they cannot generate heat, and their body temperature changes ac-
cording to the external temperature), they lay eggs, they do not suckle
their young, and their bodies are covered in scales.

One example of the structural barriers between reptiles and mammals
is their jaw structure. Mammal jaws consist of only one mandibular bone
containing the teeth. In reptiles, there are three little bones on both sides of
the mandible. Another basic difference is that all mammals have three
bones in their middle ear (hammer, anvil, and stirrup). Reptiles have but a
single bone in the middle ear. Evolutionists claim that the reptile jaw and
middle ear gradually evolved into the mammal jaw and ear. The question
of how an ear with a single bone evolved into one with three bones, and
how the sense of hearing kept on functioning in the meantime can never be
explained. Not surprisingly, not one single fossil linking reptiles and mam-
mals has been found. This is why evolutionist science writer Roger Lewin
was forced to say, "The transition to the first mammal, which probably
happened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma". 58

George Gaylord Simpson, one of the most popular evolutionary au-
thorities and a founder of the neo-Darwinist theory, makes the following
comment regarding this perplexing difficulty for evolutionists:

The most puzzling event in the history of life on earth is the change from the
Mesozoic, the Age of Reptiles, to the Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtain
were rung down suddenly on the stage where all the leading roles were
taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering va-
riety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely
new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles are
supernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by mammals of sorts
barely hinted at in the preceding acts. 59

Furthermore, when mammals suddenly made their appearance, they

Origin of Birds and Mammals

were already very different from each other. Such dissim-
ilar animals as bats, horses, mice, and whales are all
mammals, and they all emerged during the same geo-
logical period. Establishing an evolutionary rela-
tionship among them is impossible even by the
broadest stretch of the imagination. _^_
The evolutionist zoologist R. Eric
Lombard makes this point in an arti-
cle that appeared in the leading jour-
nal Evolution:

Those searching for specific infor-
mation useful in constructing phy-
togenies of mammalian taxa will
be disappointed. 60

All of these demonstrate that all
living beings appeared on earth sud-
denly and fully formed, without any
evolutionary process. This is concrete
evidence of the fact that they were
created. Evolutionists, however, try
to interpret the fact that living species
came into existence in a particular
order as an indication of evolution.
Yet the sequence by which living
things emerged is the "order of cre-
ation", since it is not possible to
speak of an evolutionary process.
With a superior and flawless cre-
ation, oceans and then lands were
filled with living things and finally
man was created.

Contrary to the "ape man" story that is imposed on the masses with
intense media propaganda, man also emerged on earth suddenly and fully
formed.

volutionists propose that ■
all mammal species evolved
i from a common ancestor.
However, there are great differences
between various mammal species
such as bears, whales, mice,
and bats. Each of these
living beings possesses
specifically designed
systems. For example,
bats are created with a
very sensitive sonar
system that helps them
find their way in dark-
ness. These complex

, . , A bat fossil ac

systems, which mrllion years: ;

modern technology ,erent ,rom ils m

counterpart. {Sc

can only imitate, V o

could not possibly have emerged
as a result of chance coincidence.
The fossil record also demonstrates
that bats came into being in their pre-
sent perfect state all of a sudden and
that they have not undergone any
"evolutionary process".

A bat fossil aged 50
million years: no dif-

ntil recently, an imagi-
nary sequence sup-
posedly showing the
\ evolution of the horse was ad-
/ vanced as the principal fossil
evidence for the theory of evo-
lution. Today, however, many
evolutionists themselves
frankly admit that the scenario
of horse evolution is bankrupt. In 1980, a four-
day symposium was held at the Field Museum
of Natural History in Chicago, with 150 evolu-
tionists in attendance, to discuss the problems
with gradualistic evolutionary theory. In ad-
dressing the meeting, evolutionist Boyce
Rensberger noted that the scenario of the evo-
lution of the horse has no foundation in the
fossil record, and that no evolutionary proc-
cess has been observed that would account
for the gradual evolution of horses:

The popularly told example of horse evolu-
tion, suggesting a gradual sequence of
changes from four-toed fox-sized crea-
tures living nearly 50 million years ago to
today's much larger one-toed horse, has
long been known to be wrong. Instead of
gradual change, fossils of each intermedi-
ate species appear fully distinct, persist
unchanged, and then become extinct.
Transitional forms are unknown. 1

The well-known paleontologist Colin Pat-
terson, a director of the Natural History Mu-
seum in London where "evolution of the
horse" diagrams were on public display at that
time on the ground floor of the museum, said
the following about the exhibition:

There have been an awful lot of stories,
some more imaginative than others, about
what the nature of that history [of life] re-
ally is. The most famous example, still on
exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse
evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago.
That has been presented as the literal truth
in textbook after textbook. Now I think that
is lamentable, particularly when the people
who propose those kinds of stories may
themselves be aware of the speculative na-
ture of some of that stuff. 2

Then what is the basis for the scenario of
the evolution of the horse? This scenario was
formulated by means of the deceitful charts
devised by the sequential arrangement of fos-
sils of distinct species that lived at vastly dif-
ferent periods in India, South Africa, North
America, and Europe solely in accordance
with the rich power of evolutionists' imagina-
tions. More than 20 charts of the evolution of
the horse, which by the way are totally differ-
ent from each other, have been proposed by
various researchers. Thus, it is obvious that
evolutionists have reached no common agree-
ment on these family trees. The only common
feature in these arrangements is the belief that
a dog-sized creature called "Eohippus", which
lived in the Eocene Period 55 million years
ago, was the ancestor of the horse (Equus).
But, the supposed evolutionary lines from Eo-
hippus to Equus are totally inconsistent.

The evolutionist science writer Gordon R.
Taylor explains this little-acknowledged truth
in his book The Great Evolution Mystery:

But perhaps the most serious weakness of
Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists
to find convincing phylogenies or se-
quences of organisms demonstrating
major evolutionary change... The horse is
often cited as the only fully worked-out ex-
ample. But the fact is that the line from Eo-
hippus to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged
to show a continual increase in size, but
the truth is that some variants were smaller
than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from
different sources can be brought together
in a convincing-looking sequence, but
there is no evidence that they were actually
ranged in this order in time. 3

All these facts are strong evidence that the
charts of horse evolution, which are presented
as one of the most solid pieces of evidence for
Darwinism, are nothing but fantastic and im-
plausible tales.

1- Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, November
5, 1980, p.15

2- Colin Patterson, Harper's, February 1984, p.60

3- Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery,
Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p. 230

CHAPTER

Deceptive Fossil
Interpretations

efore going into the details of the myth of human evolution, we
need to mention the propaganda method that has convinced the
general public of the idea that half-man half-ape creatures once
lived in the past. This propaganda method makes use of "reconstructions"
made in reference to fossils. Reconstruction can be explained as drawing a
picture or constructing a model of a living thing based on a single bone-
sometimes only a fragment-that has been unearthed. The "ape-men" we
see in newspapers, magazines, or films are all reconstructions.

Since fossils are usually fragmented and incomplete, any conjecture
based on them is likely to be completely speculative. As a matter of fact,
the reconstructions (drawings or models) made by the evolutionists based
on fossil remains are prepared speculatively precisely to validate the evo-
lutionary thesis. David R. Pilbeam, an eminent anthropologist from Har-
vard, stresses this fact when he says: "At least in paleoanthropology, data
are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories
have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the
actual data". 61 Since people are highly affected by visual information, these
reconstructions best serve the purpose of evolutionists, which is to con-
vince people that these reconstructed creatures really existed in the past.

At this point, we have to highlight one particular point: Reconstruc-
tions based on bone remains can only reveal the most general characteris-
tics of the creature, since the really distinctive morphological features of
any animal are soft tissues which quickly vanish after death. Therefore,
due to the speculative nature of the interpretation of the soft tissues, the re-
constructed drawings or models become totally dependent on the imagi-
nation of the person producing them. Earnst A. Hooten from Harvard
University explains the situation like this:

To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking.

The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip leave no clues on the underlying

bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull

In pictures and reconstructions, evolutionists deliberately give shape to features that
do not actually leave any fossil traces, such as the structure of the nose and lips, the
shape of the hair, the form of the eyebrows, and other bodily hair so as to support
evolution. They also prepare detailed pictures depicting these imaginary creatures
walking with their families, hunting, or in other instances of their daily lives. How-
ever, these drawings are all figments of the imagination and have no counterpart in
the fossil record.

Deceptive Fossil Interpretations

THREE DIFFERENT RECONSTRUCTIONS
BASED ON THE SAME SKULL

Maurice Wilson's
drawing

N.Parker's reconstruction
N. Geographic, September 1960

the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These al-
leged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific
value and are likely only to mislead the public... So put not your trust in re-
constructions. 62

As a matter of fact, evolutionists invent such "preposterous stories"
that they even ascribe different faces to the same skull. For example, the
three different reconstructed drawings made for the fossil named Aus-
tralopithecus robustus (Zinjanthropus), are a famous example of such
forgery.

The biased interpretation of fossils and outright fabrication of many
imaginary reconstructions are an indication of how frequently evolution-
ists have recourse to tricks. Yet these seem innocent when compared to the
deliberate forgeries that have been perpetrated in the history of evolution.

CHAPTER

Evolution Forgeries

There is no concrete fossil evidence to support the "ape-man" image,
which is unceasingly promulgated by the media and evolutionist
academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists pro-
duce imaginary creatures, nevertheless, the fact that these drawings corre-
spond to no matching fossils constitutes a serious problem for them. One
of the interesting methods they employ to overcome this problem is to
"produce" the fossils they cannot find. Piltdown Man, which may be the
biggest scandal in the history of science, is a typical example of this
method.

Piltdown Man: An Orang-utan Jaw and a Human Skull!

In 1912, a well-known doctor and amateur paleoanthropologist
named Charles Dawson came out with the assertion that he had found a
jawbone and a cranial fragment in a pit in Piltdown, England. Even though
the jawbone was more ape-like, the teeth and the skull were like a man's.
These specimens were labelled the "Piltdown man". Alleged to be 500,000
years old, they were displayed as an absolute proof of human evolution in
several museums. For more than 40 years, many scientific articles were
written on "Piltdown man", many interpretations and drawings were
made, and the fossil was presented as important evidence for human evo-
lution. No fewer than 500 doctoral theses were written on the subject. 63
While visiting the British Museum in 1921, leading American paleoanthro-
pologist Henry Fairfield Osborn said "We have to be reminded over and
over again that Nature is full of paradoxes" and proclaimed Piltdown "a
discovery of transcendant importance to the prehistory of man". 64

In 1949, Kenneth Oakley from the British Museum's Paleontology De-
partment, attempted to use "fluorine testing", a new test used for deter-
mining the date of fossils. A trial was made on the fossil of the Piltdown
man. The result was astonishing. During the test, it was realised that the

The fossils are unearthed by
Charles Dawson and given to
Sir Arthur Smith Woodward.

*"1

Pieces are recon-
structed to form the
famous skull.

Pieces from a
human skull

Based on the
reconstructed
skull, various
drawings and
skulptures are
made, numer-
ous articles and
commentaries
are written. The
original skull is
demonstrated
in the British
Museum.

Orangutan
Jaw

After 40 years of
its discovery, the
Piltdown fossil is
shown to be a
hoax by a group of
researchers.

86 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

jawbone of Piltdown Man did not contain any fluorine. This indicated that
it had remained buried no more than a few years. The skull, which con-
tained only a small amount of fluorine, showed that it was not older than
a few thousand years old.

It was determined that the teeth in the jawbone belonging to an
orangutan, had been worn down artificially and that the "primitive" tools
discovered with the fossils were simple imitations that had been sharp-
ened with steel implements. 65 In the detailed analysis completed by
Joseph Weiner, this forgery was revealed to the public in 1953. The skull
belonged to a 500-year-old man, and the jaw bone belonged to a re-
cently deceased ape! The teeth had been specially arranged in a particular
way and added to the jaw, and the molar surfaces were filed in order to re-
semble those of a man. Then all these pieces were stained with potassium
dichromate to give them an old appearance. These stains began to disap-
pear when dipped in acid. Sir Wilfred Le Gros Clark, who was in the team
that uncovered the forgery, could not hide his astonishment at this situa-
tion and said: "The evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang
to the eye. Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked-how
was it that they had escaped notice before?" 66 In the wake of all this, "Pilt-
down man" was hurriedly removed from the British Museum where it
had been displayed for more than 40 years.

Nebraska Man: A Pig's Tooth

In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, the director of the American Mu-
seum of Natural History, declared that he had found a fossil molar tooth
belonging to the Pliocene period in western Nebraska near Snake Brook.
This tooth allegedly bore common characteristics of both man and ape. An
extensive scientific debate began surrounding this fossil, which came to be
called "Nebraska man", in which some interpreted this tooth as belonging
to Pithecanthropus erectus, while others claimed it was closer to human be-
ings. Nebraska man was also immediately given a "scientific name", Hes-
peropithecus haroldcooki.

Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single
tooth, reconstructions of the Nebraska man's head and body were
drawn. Moreover, Nebraska man was even pictured along with his wife
and children, as a whole family in a natural setting.

Evolution Forgeries

The picture on the left was
drawn on the basis of a sin-
gle tooth and it was pub-
lished in the Illustrated
London News magazine on
July 24, 1922. However, the
evolutionists were extremely
disappointed when it was re-
vealed that this tooth be-
longed neither to an ape-like
creature nor to a man, but
rather to an extinct pig
species.

All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolution-
ist circles placed such faith in this "ghost man" that when a researcher
named William Bryan opposed these biased conclusions relying on a sin-
gle tooth, he was harshly criticised.

In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to
these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to
an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of wild Ameri-
can pig called Prosthennops. William Gregory entitled the article published
in Science in which he announced the truth, "Hesperopithecus: Apparently
Not an ape Nor a man". 67 Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus harold-
cooki and his "family" were hurriedly removed from evolutionary litera-
ture.

Ota Benga: The African In The Cage

After Darwin advanced the claim with his book The Descent of Man
that man evolved from ape-like living beings, he started to seek fossils to
support this contention. However, some evolutionists believed that "half-
man half-ape" creatures were to be found not only in the fossil record, but
also alive in various parts of the world. In the early 20th century, these pur-
suits for "living transitional links" led to unfortunate incidents, one of the
cruellest of which is the story of a Pygmy by the name of Ota Benga.

Ota Benga was captured in 1904 by an evolutionist researcher in the
Congo. In his own tongue, his name meant "friend". He had a wife and two
children. Chained and caged like an animal, he was taken to the USA
where evolutionist scientists displayed him to the public in the St Louis
World Fair along with other ape species and introduced him as "the closest

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

transitional link to man". Two

years later, they took him to the
Bronx Zoo in New York and
there they exhibited him under
the denomination of "ancient an-
cestors of man" along with a few
chimpanzees, a gorilla named
Dinah, and an orang-utan called
Dohung. Dr William T. Horna-
day, the zoo's evolutionist direc-
tor gave long speeches on how
proud he was to have this excep-
tional "transitional form" in his
zoo and treated caged Ota Benga
as if he were an ordinary animal.
Unable to bear the treatment he
was subjected to, Ota Benga
eventually committed suicide. 68
Piltdown Man, Nebraska
Man, Ota Benga... These scan-
dals demonstrate that evolutionist scientists do not hesitate to employ any
kind of unscientific method to prove their theory. Bearing this point in
mind, when we look at the other so-called evidence of the "human evolu-
tion" myth, we confront a similar situation. Here there are a fictional story
and an army of volunteers ready to try everything to verify this story.

OTA BENGA:
"The pygmy in the zoo"

CHAPTER

The Scenario of
Human Evolution

n previous chapters, we saw that there are no mechanisms in nature to
lead the living beings to evolve and that living species came into exis-
tence not as the result of an evolutionary process, but rather emerged
all of a sudden in their present perfect structure. That is, they were created
individually. Therefore, it is obvious that "human evolution", too, is a story
that has never taken place.

What, then, do the evolutionists propose as the basis for this story?

This basis is the existence of plenty of fossils on which the evolution-
ists are able to build up imaginary interpretations. Throughout history,
more than 6,000 ape species have lived and most of them have become ex-
tinct. Today, only 120 ape species live on the earth. These approximately
6,000 ape species, most of which are extinct, constitute a rich resource for
the evolutionists.

The evolutionists wrote the scenario of human evolution by arrang-
ing some of the skulls that suited their purpose in an order from the small-
est to the biggest and scattering the skulls of some extinct human races
among them. According to this scenario, men and modern apes have com-
mon ancestors. These creatures evolved in time and some of them became
the apes of today while another group that followed another branch of
evolution became the men of today.

However, all the paleontological, anatomical and biological findings
have demonstrated that this claim of evolution is as fictitious and invalid
as all the others. No sound or real evidence has been put forward to prove
that there is a relationship between man and ape, except forgeries, distor-
tions, and misleading drawings and comments.

The fossil record indicates to us that throughout history, men have
been men and apes have been apes. Some of the fossils the evolutionists
claim to be the ancestors of man, belong to human races that lived until
very recently-about 10,000 years ago-and then disappeared. Moreover,

90 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

many human communities currently living have the same physical appear-
ance and characteristics as these extinct human races, which the evolution-
ists claim to be the ancestors of men. All these are clear proof that man has
never gone through an evolutionary process at any period in history.

The most important of all is that there are numerous anatomical differ-
ences between apes and men and none of them are of the kind to come into
existence through an evolutionary process. "Bipedality" is one of them. As
we will describe later on in detail, bipedality is peculiar to man and it is one
of the most important traits that distinguishes man from other animals.

The Imaginary Family Tree of Man

The Darwinist claim holds that modern man evolved from some kind
of ape-like creature. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is
supposed to have started from 4 to 5 million years ago, it is claimed that
there existed some "transitional forms" between modern man and his an-
cestors. According to this completely imaginary scenario, the following
four basic "categories" are listed:

1. Australopithecines (any of the various forms belonging to the
genus Australopithecus)

2. Homo habilis

3. Homo erectus

4. Homo sapiens

Evolutionists call the genus to which the alleged ape-like ancestors of
man belonged "Australopithecus" , which means "southern ape". Australop-
ithecus, which is nothing but an old type of ape that has become extinct, is
found in various different forms. Some of them are larger and strongly
built (robust), while others are smaller and delicate (gracile).

Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as the genus
Homo, that is "man". According to the evolutionist claim, the living things
in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus, and not very
much different from modern man. The modern man of our day, that is, the
species Homo sapiens, is said to have formed at the latest stage of the evolu-
tion of this genus Homo.

Fossils like "Java Man", "Pekin Man", and "Lucy", which appear in
the media from time to time and are to be found in evolutionist publica-
tions and textbooks, are included in one of the four groups listed above.

A SINGLE JAWBONE AS A SPARK OF INSPIRATION

Each of these groupings is also assumed to branch into species and sub-
species, as the case may be.

Some suggested transitional forms of the past, such as Ramapithecus,
had to be excluded from the imaginary human family tree after it was re-
alised that they were ordinary apes. 69

By outlining the links in the chain as "australopithecines > Homo ha-
bilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens", the evolutionists imply that each of
these types is the ancestor of the next. However, recent findings by pale-
oanthropologists have revealed that australopithecines, Homo habilis and
Homo erectus existed in different parts of the world at the same time. More-
over, some of those humans classified as Homo erectus probably lived up
until very modern times. In an article titled "Latest Homo erectus of Java:
Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia", it was re-
ported in the journal Science that Homo erectus fossils found in Java had
"mean ages of 27 ± 2 to 53.3 ± 4 thousand years ago" and this "raise[s] the
possibility that H. erectus overlapped in time with anatomically modern

92 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

humans (H. sapiens) in Southeast Asia" 70

Furthermore, Homo sapiens neandarthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens
(modern man) also clearly co-existed. This situation apparently indicates
the invalidity of the claim that one is the ancestor of the other.

Intrinsically all findings and scientific research have revealed that the
fossil record does not suggest an evolutionary process as evolutionists pro-
pose. The fossils, which evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of humans, in
fact belong either to different human races, or else to species of ape.

Then which fossils are human and which ones are apes? Is it ever pos-
sible for any one of them to be considered a transitional form? In order to
find the answers, let us have a closer look at each category.

Australopithecus: An Ape Species

The first category, the genus Australopithecus, means "southern ape",
as we have said. It is assumed that these creatures first appeared in Africa
about 4 million years ago, and lived until 1 million years ago. There are a
number of different species among the astralopithecines. Evolutionists as-
sume that the oldest Australopithecus species is A. Afarensis. After that
comes A. Africanus, and then A. Robustus, which has relatively bigger
bones. As for A. Boisei, some researchers accept it as a different species, and
others as a sub-species of A. Robustus.

All of the Australopithecus species are extinct apes that resemble
the apes of today. Their cranial capacities are the same or smaller than the
chimpanzees of our day. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet
which they used to climb trees, just like today's chimpanzees, and their
feet are built for grasping to hold onto branches. They are short (maximum
130 cm. (51 in.)) and just like today's chimpanzees, male Australopithecus is
larger than the female. Many other characteristics-such as the details in
their skulls, the closeness of their eyes, their sharp molar teeth, their
mandibular structure, their long arms, and their short legs-constitute evi-
dence that these creatures were no different from today's ape.

However, evolutionists claim that, although australopithecines have
the anatomy of apes, unlike apes, they walked upright like humans.

This claim that australopithecines walked upright is a view that has
been held by paleoanthropologists such as Richard Leakey and Donald C.
Johanson for decades. Yet many scientists who have carried out a great deal

The Scenario of Human Evolution 93

of research on the skeletal structures of australopithecines have proved the
invalidity of that argument. Extensive research done on various Australop-
ithecus specimens by two world-renowned anatomists from England and
the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, showed that
these creatures did not walk upright in human manner. Having studied the
bones of these fossils for a period of 15 years thanks to grants from the
British government, Lord Zuckerman and his team of five specialists
reached the conclusion that australopithecines were only an ordinary ape
genus and were definitely not bipedal, although Zuckerman is an evolu-
tionist himself. 71 Correspondingly, Charles E. Oxnard, who is another evo-
lutionist famous for his research on the subject, also likened the skeletal
structure of australopithecines to that of modern orang-utans. 72

Briefly, Australopithecines have no link with humans and they are
merely an extinct ape species.

Homo Habilis: The Ape that was Presented as Human

The great similarity between the skeletal and cranial structures of aus-
tralopithecines and chimpanzees, and the refutation of the claim that these
creatures walked upright, have caused great difficulty for evolutionist pa-
leoanthropologists. The reason is that, according to the imaginary evolu-
tion scheme, Homo erectus comes after Australopithecus. As the genus name
Homo (meaning "man") implies, Homo erectus is a human species and its
skeleton is straight. Its cranial capacity is twice as large as that of Australo-
pithecus. A direct transition from Australopithecus, which is a chimpanzee-
like ape, to Homo erectus, which has a skeleton no different from modern
man's, is out of the question even according to evolutionist theory. There-
fore, "links"-that is, "transitional forms"-are needed. The concept of Homo
habilis arose from this necessity.

The classification of Homo habilis was put forward in the 1960s by the
Leakeys, a family of "fossil hunters". According to the Leakeys, this new
species, which they classified as Homo habilis, had a relatively large cranial
capacity, the ability to walk upright and to use stone and wooden tools.
Therefore, it could have been the ancestor of man.

New fossils of the same species unearthed in the late 1980s, were to
completely change this view. Some researchers, such as Bernard Wood and
C. Loring Brace, who relied on those newly-found fossils, stated that Homo

Australopithecus Aferensis: An Extinct Ape

The first fossil found in
Ethiopia, Hadar, which is
to be supposed to belong
to Australopithecus afer-
ensis species: AL 288-1 or
"Lucy". For a long time,
evolutionists struggled to
prove that Lucy could
walk upright; but the latest
research has definitely es-
tablished that this animal
was an ordinary ape with a
bent stride.

The Australopithecus aferen-
sis AL 333-105 fossil seen
below belongs to a young
member of this species. This is
why the protrusion has not yet
formed on his skull.

•<n*.-

:fl

AUSTRALOPITHECUS

Above is seen the
skull of Australop-
ithecus aferensis AL
444-2 fossil, and
below is the skull of a
contemporary ape.
The obvious similar-
ity verifies that A.
aferensis is an ordi-
nary ape species
without any "human-
like" features.

MODERN CHIMP

96 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

habilis (which means "skillful man", that is, man capable of using tools)
should be classified as Australopithecus habilis, or "skillful southern ape", be-
cause Homo habilis had a lot of characteristics in common with the australop-
ithecine apes. It had long arms, short legs and an ape-like skeletal structure
just like Australopithecus. Its fingers and toes were suitable for climbing.
Their jaw was very similar to that of today's apes. Their 600 cc average cra-
nial capacity is also an indication of the fact that they were apes. In short,
Homo habilis, which was presented as a different species by some evolution-
ists, was in reality an ape species just like all the other australopithecines.

Research carried out in the years since Wood and Brace's work has
demonstrated that Homo habilis was indeed no different from Australopithe-
cus. The skull and skeletal fossil OH62 found by Tim White showed that
this species had a small cranial capacity, as well as long arms and short
legs which enabled them to climb trees just like modern apes do.

The detailed analyses conducted by American anthropologist Holly
Smith in 1994 indicated that Homo habilis was not Homo, in other words,
"human", at all, but rather unequivocally an "ape". Speaking of the analy-
ses she made on the teeth of Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus
and Homo neanderthalensis, Smith stated the following;

Restricting analysis of fossils to specimens satisfying these criteria, patterns
of dental development of gracile australopithecines and Homo Habilis re-
main classified with African apes. Those of Homo erectus and Neanderthals
are classified with humans. 73

Within the same year, Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood and Frans Zonn-
eveld, all specialists on anatomy, reached a similar conclusion through a
totally different method. This method was based on the comparative
analysis of the semi-circular canals in the inner ear of humans and apes
which provided for sustaining balance. Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld con-
cluded that:

Among the fossil hominids the earliest species to demonstrate the modern
human morphology is Homo erectus. In contrast, the semi-circular canal di-
mensions in crania from southern Africa attributed to Australopithecus and
Paranthropus resemble those of the extant great apes. 74

Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld also studied a Homo habilis specimen,
namely Stw 53, and found out that "Stw 53 relied less on bipedal behavior
than the australopithecines." This meant that the H. habilis specimen was
even more ape-like than the Australopithecus species. Thus they concluded

Another Exti

?.£

For a long time, evo-
lutionists argued that
the creatures they
called Homo habilis
could walk upright.
They thought that
they had found a link
stretching from ape
to man. Yet, the new
Homo habilis fossils
Tim White unearthed
in 1986 and named
as OH 62 disproved
this assertion. These
fossil fragments
showed that Homo
habilis had long
arms and short legs
just like contempo-
rary apes. This fossil
put an end to the as-
sertion proposing
that Homo habilis
was a bipedal being
able to walk upright.
In truth, Homo ha-
bilis was nothing but
another ape species.

' • v*>

-'*:•■

#*? f*

^ * f .

"OH 7 Homo /ia/;///s"

seen on the down left

has been the fossil

which best defined the

mandibular features of

the Homo habilis

species. This mandible

fossil has big incisory

teeth. Its molar teeth

are small. The shape of

the mandible is square.

All these qualities

make this mandible

look very similar to

that of today's apes. In

other words, Homo

habilis' mandible once

more confirms that

this being is actually

an ape.

98 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

that "Stw 53 represents an unlikely intermediate between the morpholo-
gies seen in the australopithecines and H. erectus."
This finding yielded two important results:

1. Fossils referred to as Homo habilis did not actually belong to the
genus Homo, i.e. humans, but to that of Australopithecus, i.e. apes.

2. Both Homo habilis and Australopithecus were creatures that walked
stooped forward-that is to say they had the skeleton of an ape. They have
no relation whatsoever to man.

Homo Rudolfensis: The Face Wrongly Joined

The term Homo rudolfensis is the name given to a few fossil fragments
unearthed in 1972. The species supposedly represented by this fossil was
designated Homo rudolfensis because these fossil fragments were found in
the vicinity of Lake Rudolf in Kenya. Most of the paleoanthropologists ac-
cept that these fossils do not belong to a distinct species, but that the crea-
ture called Homo rudolfensis is in fact indistinguishable from Homo habilis.

Richard Leakey, who unearthed the fossils, presented the skull desig-
nated "KNM-ER 1470", which he said was 2.8 million years old, as the
greatest discovery in the history of anthropology. According to Leakey, this
creature, which had a small cranial capacity like that of Australopithecus to-
gether with a face similar to that of present-day humans, was the missing
link between Australopithecus and humans. Yet, after a short while, it was
realised that the human-like face of the KNM-ER 1470 skull, which fre-
quently appeared on the covers of scientific journals and popular science
magazines was the result of the incorrect assembly of the skull fragments,
which may have been deliberate. Professor Tim Bromage, who conducts
studies on human facial anatomy, brought this to light by the help of com-
puter simulations in 1992:

When it [KNM-ER 1470] was first reconstructed, the face was fitted to the cra-
nium in an almost vertical position, much like the flat faces of modern hu-
mans. But recent studies of anatomical relationships show that in life the face
must have jutted out considerably, creating an ape-like aspect, rather like the
faces of Australopithecus. 75

The evolutionist paleoanthropologist J. E. Cronin states the following
on the matter:

... its relatively robustly constructed face, flattish naso-alveolar clivus, (recall-
ing australopithecine dished faces), low maximum cranial width (on the tern-

The Scenario of Human Evolution

porals), strong canine juga and large molars (as indicated by remaining roots)
are all relatively primitive traits which ally the specimen with members of
the taxon A. africanns. 76

C. Loring Brace from Michigan University came to the same conclu-
sion. As a result of the analyses he conducted on the jaw and tooth struc-
ture of skull 1470, he reported that "from the size of the palate and the
expansion of the area allotted to molar roots, it would appear that ER 1470
retained a fully Australopithecus-sized face and dentition". 77

Professor Alan Walker, a paleoanthropologist from Johns Hopkins
University who has done as much research on KNM-ER 1470 as Leakey,
maintains that this creature should not be classified as a member of Homo-
i.e., as a human species-but rather should be placed in the Australopithecus
genus. 78

In summary, classifications like Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis
which are presented as transitional links between the australopithecines
and Homo erectus are entirely imaginary. It has been confirmed by many re-
searchers today that these creatures are members of the Australopithecus
series. All of their anatomical features reveal that they are species of ape.

This fact has been further established by two evolutionist anthropolo-
gists, Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, whose research was published in
1999 in Science magazine. Wood and Collard explained that the Homo ha-
bilis and Homo rudolfensis (Skull 1470) taxa are imaginary, and that the fos-
sils assigned to these categories should be attributed to the genus
Australopithecus:

More recently, fossil species have been assigned to Homo on the basis of ab-
solute brain size, inferences about language ability and hand function, and
retrodictions about their ability to fashion stone tools. With only a few excep-
tions , the definition and use of the genus within human evolution, and the
demarcation of Homo, have been treated as if they are unproblematic. But ...
recent data, fresh interpretations of the existing evidence, and the limitations
of the paleoanthropological record invalidate existing criteria for attributing
taxa to Homo.

...in practice fossil hominin species are assigned to Homo on the basis of one
or more out of four criteria. ... It is now evident, however, that none of these
criteria is satisfactory. The Cerebral Rubicon is problematic because absolute
cranial capacity is of questionable biological significance. Likewise, there is
compelling evidence that language function cannot be reliably inferred from
the gross appearance of the brain, and that the language-related parts of the

100 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

brain are not as well localized as earlier studies had implied...

...In other words, with the hypodigms of H. habilis and H. rudolfensis as-
signed to it, the genus Homo is not a good genus. Thus, H. habilis and H.
rudolfensis (or Homo habilis sensu lato for those who do not subscribe to the
taxonomic subdivision of "early Homo") should be removed from Homo. The
obvious taxonomic alternative, which is to transfer one or both of the taxa to
one of the existing early hominin genera, is not without problems, but we
recommend that, for the time being, both H. Habilis and H. Rudolfensis
should be transferred to the genus Australopithecus. 79

The conclusion of Wood and Collard corroborates the conclusion we
have maintained here:"Primitive human ancestors" do not exist in history.
Creatures that are alleged to be so are actually apes that ought to be as-
signed to the genus Australopithecus. The fossil record shows that there is
no evolutionary link between these extinct apes and Homo, i.e., human
species that suddenly appears in the fossil record.

Homo Erectus and Thereafter: Human Beings

According to the fanciful scheme suggested by evolutionists, the in-
ternal evolution of the Homo genus is as follows: First Homo erectus, then
so-called "archaic" Homo sapiens and Neanderthal man (Homo sapiens nean-
derthalensis), and finally, Cro-Magnon man (Homo sapiens sapiens). How-
ever all these classifications are really only variations and unique races in
the human family. The difference between them is no greater than the dif-
ference between an Inuit and an African or a pygmy and a European.

Let us first examine Homo erectus, which is referred to as the most prim-
itive human species. As the name implies, "Homo erectus" means "man who
walks upright". Evolutionists have had to separate these fossils from earlier
ones by adding the qualification of "erectness", because all the available Homo
erectus fossils are straight to an extent not observed in any of the australop-
ithecines or so-called Homo habilis specimens. There is no difference be-
tween the postcranial skeleton of modern man and that of Homo erectus.

The primary reason for evolutionists' defining Homo erectus as "primi-
tive", is the cranial capacity of its skull (900-1,100 cc), which is smaller than
the average modern man, and its thick eyebrow projections. However,
there are many people living today in the world who have the same cra-
nial capacity as Homo erectus (pygmies, for instance) and other races have
protruding eyebrows (Native Australians, for instance).

HO.

o erectus: An Ancient Human Ra<

Homo erectus means "upright
man". All the fossils included
in this species belong to par-
ticular human races. Since
most of the Homo erectus
fossils do not have a common
characteristic, it is quite hard
to define these men accord-
ing to their skulls. This is the
reason why different evolu-
tionist researchers have
made various classifications
and designations. Above left
is seen a skull which was

found in Koobi Fora, Africa in
1975 which may generally de-
fine Homo erectus. Above
right is a skull, Homo ergaster
KNM-ER 3733, which has the
obscurities in question.
The cranial capacities of all
these diverse Homo erectus
fossils surge between 900-
1100 cc. These figures are
within the limits of the con-
temporary human cranial
capacity.

KNM-WT 15000 or Turkana Child skeleton on the
right, is probably the oldest and the most complete
human fossil ever found. Research made on this fos-
sil which is said to be 1.6 million year old shows that
this belongs to a 12 year old child who would be-
come around 1.80 m. tall if he reached adolescence.
This fossil which very much resembled to the Nean-
derthal race, is one of the most remarkable evidence
invalidating the story of human's evolution.
The evolutionist Donald Johnson describes this fos-
sil as follows: "He was tall and skinny. His body
shape and the proportion of his limbs were the same
as the current Equator Africans. The sizes of his
limbs totally matched with that of the current white
North American adults."

102 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

It is a commonly agreed-upon fact that differences in cranial capacity
do not necessarily denote differences in intelligence or abilities. Intelli-
gence depends on the internal organisation of the brain, rather than on its
volume. 80

The fossils that have made Homo erectus known to the entire world are
those of Peking man and Java man in Asia. However, in time it was realised
that these two fossils are not reliable. Peking Man consists of some elements
made of plaster whose originals have been lost, and Java Man is "composed"
of a skull fragment plus a pelvic bone that was found metres away from it
with no indication that these belonged to the same creature. This is why the
Homo erectus fossils found in Africa have gained such increasing importance.
(It should also be noted that some of the fossils said to be Homo erectus were
included under a second species named "Homo ergaster" by some evolu-
tionists. There is disagreement among the experts on this issue. We will treat
all these fossils under the classification of Homo erectus)

The most famous of the Homo erectus specimens found in Africa is the
fossil of "Narikotome Homo erectus" or the "Turkana Boy" which was found
near Lake Turkana in Kenya. It is confirmed that the fossil was that of a 12-
year-old boy, who would have been 1.83 meters tall in adolescence. The
upright skeletal structure of the fossil is no different from that of modern
man. The American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted
that "the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil
skeleton and that of a modern human." 81 Concerning the skull, Walker
wrote that he laughed when he saw it because "it looked so much like a
Neanderthal." 82 As we will see in the next chapter, Neanderthals are a
modern human race. Therefore, Homo erectus is also a modern human race.
Even the evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differences be-
tween Homo erectus and modern man are no more than racial variance:

One would also see differences in the shape of the skull, in the degree of pro-
trusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences
are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate
geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises
when populations are geographically separated from each other for signifi-
cant lengths of time. 83

Professor William Laughlin from the University of Connecticut made
extensive anatomical examinations of Inuits and the people living on the
Aleut islands, and noticed that these people were extraordinarily similar to

The Scenario of Human Evolution

103

700 THOUSAND YEAR OLD MARINERS

"Early humans were much smarter than we suspected..."

News published in New Scientist on March 14th 1998 tells us that the humans called Homo Erec-
tus by evolutionists were practicing seamanship 700 thousand years ago. These humans, who
had enough knowledge and technology to build a vessel and possess a culture that made use of
sea transport, can hardly be called "primitive".

Homo erectus. The conclusion Laughlin arrived at was that all these distinct
races were in fact different races of Homo sapiens (modern man).

When we consider the vast differences that exist between remote groups
such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong to the single
species of Homo sapiens, it seems justifiable to conclude that Sinanthropus [an
erectus specimen] belongs within this same diverse species. 84

It is now a more pronounced fact in the scientific community that
Homo erectus is a superfluous taxon, and that fossils assigned to the Homo
erectus class are actually not so different from Homo sapiens as to be consid-
ered a different species. In American Scientist, the discussions over this
issue and the result of a conference held on the subject in 2000 were sum-
marised in this way:

Most of the participants at the Senckenberg conference got drawn into a
flaming debate over the taxonomic status of Homo erectus started by Milford
Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, Alan Thorne of the University of Can-
berra and their colleagues. They argued forcefully that Homo erectus had no
validity as a species and should be eliminated altogether. All members of the
genus Homo, from about 2 million years ago to the present, were one highly
variable, widely spread species, Homo sapiens, with no natural breaks or sub-
divisions. The subject of the conference, Homo erectus didn't exist. 85

The conclusion reached by the scientists defending the abovemen-

104

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

tioned thesis can be summarised as "Homo erectus is not a different species
from Homo sapiens, but rather a race within Homo sapiens".

On the other hand, there is a huge gap between Homo erectus, a
human race, and the apes that preceded Homo erectus in the "human evolu-
tion" scenario, (Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, and Homo rudolfensis). This
means that the first men appeared in the fossil record suddenly and with-
out any prior evolutionary history. There can be no clearer indication of
their being created.

Yet, admitting this fact is totally against the dogmatic philosophy and
ideology of evolutionists. As a result, they try to portray Homo erectus, a
truly human race, as a half-ape creature. In their Homo erectus reconstruc-
tions, they tenaciously draw simian features. On the other hand, with sim-
ilar drawing methods, they humanise apes like Australopithecus or Homo
Habilis. With this method, they seek to "approximate" apes and human be-
ings and close the gap between these two distinct living classes.

Neanderthals

Neanderthals were human beings who suddenly appeared 100,000
years ago in Europe, and who disappeared, or were assimilated by mixing
with other races, quietly but quickly 35,000 years ago. Their only differ-
ence from modern man is that their skeletons are more robust and their
cranial capacity slightly bigger.

Neanderthals were a human race, a fact
which is admitted by almost everybody today.
Evolutionists have tried very hard to present
them as a "primitive species", yet all the findings
indicate that they were no different from a "ro-
bust" man walking on the street today. A promi-
nent authority on the subject, Erik Trinkaus, a
paleoanthropologist from New Mexico University
writes:

Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal re-
mains with those of modern humans have shown

that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy

FALSE MASKS: Although no
that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipula- ..„

- r different from modern man,

tive, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to Neanderthals are still depicted
those of modern humans. 86 as ape-like by evolutionists.

The Scenario of Human Evolution 105

Many contemporary researchers define Neanderthal man as a sub-
species of modern man and call him "Homo sapiens neandertalensis" '. The
findings testify that Neanderthals buried their dead, fashioned musical in-
struments, and had cultural affinities with the Homo sapiens sapiens living
during the same period. To put it precisely, Neanderthals are a "robust"
human race that simply disappeared in time.

Homo Sapiens Archaic, Homo Heilderbergensis
and Cro-Magnon Man

Archaic Homo sapiens is the last step before contemporary man in the
imaginary evolutionary scheme. In fact, evolutionists do not have much to
say about these fossils, as there are only very minor differences between
them and modern human beings. Some researchers even state that repre-
sentatives of this race are still living today, and point to native Australians
as an example. Like Homo sapiens (archaic), native Australians also have
thick protruding eyebrows, an inward-inclined mandibular structure, and
a slightly smaller cranial capacity.

The group characterised as Homo heilderbergensis in evolutionist litera-
ture is in fact the same as archaic Homo sapiens. The reason why two differ-
ent terms are used to define the same human racial type is the
disagreements among evolutionists. All the fossils included under the
Homo heidelbergensis classification suggest that people who were anatomi-
cally very similar to modern Europeans lived 500,000 and even 740,000
years ago, first in England and then in Spain.

It is estimated that Cro-Magnon man lived 30,000 years ago. He has a
dome-shaped cranium and a broad forehead. His cranium of 1,600 cc is
above the average for contemporary man. His skull has thick eyebrow pro-
jections and a bony protrusion at the back that is characteristic of both Ne-
anderthal man and Homo erectus.

Although the Cro-Magnon is considered to be a European race, the
structure and volume of Cro-Magnon's cranium look very much like those
of some races living in Africa and the tropics today. Relying on this similar-
ity, it is estimated that Cro-Magnon was an archaic African race. Some other
paleoanthropological finds have shown that the Cro-Magnon and the Nean-
derthal races intermixed and laid the foundations for the races of our day.

As a result, none of these human beings were "primitive species".

- i*

Neanderthals: A Rot

»ust Pet

,p,e

Above is seen Homo sapiens Nean-
derthalensis, Amud 1 skull found in Is-
rael. Neanderthal man is generally
known to be robust yet short. However it
is estimated that the owner of this fossil
had been 1.80 m. high. His cranial ca-
pacity is the largest ever seen: 1740cc.
Because of all these, this fossil is
among the important pieces of evidence
definitely destroying the claims that Ne-
anderthals were a primitive species.

The Scenario of Human Evolution 107

They were different human beings who lived in earlier times and either as-
similated and mixed with other races, or became extinct and disappeared
from history.

Species Living in the Same Age as Their Ancestors

What we have investigated so far forms a clear picture: The scenario
of "human evolution" is a complete fiction. In order for such a family tree
to represent the truth, a gradual evolution from ape to man must have
taken place and a fossil record of this process should be able to be found. In
fact, however, there is a huge gap between apes and humans. Skeletal
structures, cranial capacities, and such criteria as walking upright or bent
sharply forward distinguish humans from apes. (We already mentioned
that on the basis of recent research done in 1994 on the inner ear, Australo-
pithecus and Homo habilis were reclassified as apes, while Homo erectus was
reclassified as a fully modern human.)

Another significant finding proving that there can be no family-tree
relationship among these different species is that species that are presented
as ancestors of others in fact lived concurrently. If, as evolutionists claim,
Australopithecus changed into Homo habilis, which, in turn, turned into
Homo erectus, the periods they lived in should necessarily have followed
each other. However, there is no such chronological order to be seen in the
fossil record.

According to evolutionist estimates, Australopithecus lived from 4 mil-
lion up until 1 million years ago. The creatures classified as Homo habilis,
on the other hand, are thought to have lived until 1.7 to 1.9 million years
ago. Homo rudolfensis, which is said to have been more "advanced" than
Homo habilis, is known to be as old as from 2.5 to 2.8 million years! That is
to say, Homo rudolfensis is nearly 1 million years older than Homo habilis, of
which it is alleged to have been the "ancestor". On the other hand, the age
of Homo erectus goes as far back as 1 .6-1 .8 million years ago, which means
that Homo erectus appeared on the earth in the same time frame as its so-
called ancestor, Homo habilis.

Alan Walker confirms this fact by stating that "there is evidence from
East Africa for late-surviving small Australopithecus individuals that
were contemporaneous first with H. Habilis, then with H. erectus." 87
Louis Leakey has found fossils of Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo

108

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

erectus almost next to each other in the Olduvai Gorge region of Tanzania,

in the Bed II layer. 88

There is definitely no such family tree. Stephen Jay Gould, who was a

paleontologist from Harvard University, explained this deadlock faced by

evolution, although he was an evolutionist himself:

What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of ho-
minids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none
clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolu-
tionary trends during their tenure on earth. 89

When we move on from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens, we again see that
there is no family tree to talk about. There is evidence showing that Homo
erectus and archaic Homo sapiens continued living up to 27,000 years and
even as recently as 10,000 years before our time. In the Kow Swamp in Aus-
tralia, some 13,000-year-old Homo erectus skulls have been found. On the is-
land of Java, Homo erectus remains were found that are 27,000 years old. 90

The Secret History of Homo Sapiens

The most interesting and significant fact that nullifies the very basis of
the imaginary family tree of evolutionary theory is the unexpectedly an-
cient history of modern man. Paleoanthropological findings reveal that
Homo sapiens people who looked exactly like us were living as long as 1 mil-
lion years ago.

It was Louis Leakey, the famous evolutionist paleoanthropologist,
who discovered the first findings on this subject. In 1932, in the Kanjera re-
gion around Lake Victoria in Kenya, Leakey found several fossils that be-
longed to the Middle Pleistocene and that were no different from modern

The Scenario of Human Evolution

109

man. However, the Middle Pleistocene was a million years ago. 91 Since
these discoveries turned the evolutionary family tree upside down, they
were dismissed by some evolutionist paleoanthropologists. Yet Leakey al-
ways contended that his estimates were correct.

Just when this controversy was about to be forgotten, a fossil un-
earthed in Spain in 1995 revealed in a very remarkable way that the history
of Homo sapiens was much older than had been assumed. The fossil in ques-
tion was uncovered in a cave called Gran Dolina in the Atapuerca region of
Spain by three Spanish paleoanthropologists from the University of Madrid.
The fossil revealed the face of an 11 -year-old boy who looked entirely like
modern man. Yet, it had been 800,000 years since the child died. Discover
magazine covered the story in great detail in its December 1997 issue.

This fossil even shook the convictions of Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras,
who lead the Gran Dolina excavation. Ferreras said:

We expected something big, something large, something inflated-you know,
something primitive. Our expectation of an 800,000-year-old boy was some-
thing like Turkana Boy. And what we found was a totally modern face.... To
me this is most spectacular-these are the kinds of things that shake you. Find-
ing something totally unexpected like that. Not finding fossils; finding fossils
is unexpected too, and it's okay. But the most spectacular thing is finding
something you thought belonged to the present,
in the past. It's like finding something like-like a
tape recorder in Gran Dolina. That would be
very surprising. We don't expect cassettes and
tape recorders in the Lower Pleistocene. Find-
ing a modern face 800,000 years ago-it's the
same thing. We were very surprised when we
saw it. 92

The fossil highlighted the fact that the history
of Homo sapiens had to be extended back to 800,000
years ago. After recovering from the initial shock,
the evolutionists who discovered the fossil de-
cided that it belonged to a different species, be-
cause according to the evolutionary family tree,
Homo sapiens did not live 800,000 years ago. There-
fore, they made up an imaginary species called
"Homo antecessor" and included the Atapuerca
skull under this classification.

One of the most popular
periodicals of the evolu-
tionist literature, Discover,
put the 800 thousand-year-
old human face on its cover
with the evolutionists'
question "Is this the face of
our past?".

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

A Hut 1.7 Million Years Old

There have been many findings demon-
strating that Homo sapiens dates back even ear-
lier than 800,000 years. One of them is a
discovery by Louis Leakey in the early 1970s in
Olduvai Gorge. Here, in the Bed II layer, Leakey
discovered that Australopithecus, Homo Habilis
and Homo erectus species had co-existed at the
same time. What is even more interesting was a
structure Leakey found in the same layer (Bed
II). Here, he found the remains of a stone hut.
The unusual aspect of the event was that this
construction, which is still used in some parts of Africa, could only have
been built by Homo sapiensl So, according to Leakey's findings, Australop-
ithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and modern man must have co-existed
approximately 1.7 million years ago. 93 This discovery must surely invali-
date the evolutionary theory that claims that modern men evolved from
ape-like species such as Australopithecus.

Findings of a 1.7 million-year-
old hut shocked the scientific
community. It looked like the
huts used by some Africans
today.

Footprints of Modern Man, 3.6 Million Years Old!

Indeed, some other discoveries trace the origins of modern man back
to 1.7 million years ago. One of these important finds is the footprints
found in Laetoli, Tanzania, by Mary Leakey in 1977. These footprints were
found in a layer that was calculated to be 3.6 million years old, and more
importantly, they were no different from the footprints that a contempo-
rary man would leave.

The footprints found by Mary Leakey were later examined by a num-
ber of famous paleoanthropologists, such as Donald Johanson and Tim
White. The results were the same. White wrote:

Make no mistake about it, ...They are like modern human footprints. If one

were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were

asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there.

He wouldn't be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor

would you. 94

After examining the footprints, Louis Robbins from the University of
North California made the following comments:

The Scenario of Human Evolution

111

The arch is raised-the smaller individual had a higher arch than I do-and the
big toe is large and aligned with the second toe... The toes grip the ground
like human toes. You do not see this in other an-
imal forms. 95

Examinations of the morphological form of
the footprints showed time and again that they
had to be accepted as the prints of a human, and
moreover, a modern human (Homo sapiens).
Russell Tuttle, who also examined the footprints
wrote:

A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have

made them... In all discernible morphological

features, the feet of the individuals that made

the trails are indistinguishable from those of

modern humans. 96

The Laetoli footprints be-
longed to modern humans,
however they were millions
of years old.

Impartial examinations of the footprints re-
vealed their real owners. In reality, these foot-
prints consisted of 20 fossilised footprints of a

10-year-old modern human and 27 footprints of an even younger one.
They were certainly modern people like us.

This situation put the Laetoli footprints at the centre of discussions for
years. Evolutionist paleoanthropologists desperately tried to come up with
an explanation, as it was hard for them to accept the fact that a modern
man had been walking on the earth 3.6 million years ago. During the
1990s, the following "explanation" started to take shape: The evolutionists
decided that these footprints must have been left by an Australopithecus,
because according to their theory, it was impossible for a Homo species to
have existed 3.6 years ago. However, Russell H. Tuttle wrote the following
in an article in 1990:

In sum, the 3.5-million-year-old footprint traits at Laetoli site G resemble
those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest
that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the G foot-
prints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that there
had been made by a member of our genus, Homo... In any case, we should
shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy's
kind, Australopithecus afarensis. 97

To put it briefly, these footprints that were supposed to be 3.6 million
years old could not have belonged to Australopithecus. The only reason

112

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

Another example showing the invalidity
of the imaginary family tree devised by
evolutionists: a modern human {Homo
sapiens) mandible aged 2.3 million
years. This mandible coded A.L. 666-1
was unearthed in Hadar, Ethiopia.
Evolutionist publications seek to gloss
it over by referring to it as "a very star-
tling discovery"... (D. Johanson, Blake
Edgar, From Lucy to Language, p.169)

why the footprints were thought to have been left by members of Australo-
pithecus was the 3.6-million-year-old volcanic layer in which the footprints
were found. The prints were ascribed to Australopithecus purely on the as-
sumption that humans could not have lived so long ago.

These interpretations of the Laetoli footprints demonstrate one im-
portant fact. Evolutionists support their theory not based on scientific find-
ings, but in spite of them. Here we have a theory that is blindly defended
no matter what, with all new findings that cast the theory into doubt being
either ignored or distorted to support the theory.

Briefly, the theory of evolution is not science, but a dogma kept alive
despite science.

The Bipedalism Impasse of Evolution

Apart from the fossil record that we have dealt with so far, unbridge-
able anatomical gaps between men and apes also invalidate the fiction of
human evolution. One of these has to do with the manner of walking.

Human beings walk upright on two feet. This is a very special form of
locomotion not seen in any other mammalian species. Some other animals
do have a limited ability to move when they stand on their two hind feet.
Animals like bears and monkeys can move in this way only rarely, such as
when they want to reach a source of food, and even then only for a short
time. Normally, their skeletons lean forward and they walk on all fours.

Well, then, has bipedalism evolved from the quadrupedal gait of
apes, as evolutionists claim?

Of course not. Research has shown that the evolution of bipedalism

The Scenario of Human Evolution 113

never occurred, nor is it possible for it to have done so. First of all, bipedal-
ism is not an evolutionary advantage. The way in which monkeys move is
much easier, faster, and more efficient than man's bipedal stride. Man can
neither move by jumping from tree to tree without descending to the
ground, like a chimpanzee, nor run at a speed of 125 km per hour, like a
cheetah. On the contrary, since man walks on two feet, he moves much
more slowly on the ground. For the same reason, he is one of the most un-
protected of all species in nature in terms of movement and defence. Ac-
cording to the logic of evolution, monkeys should not have evolved to
adopt a bipedal stride; humans should instead have evolved to become
quadrupedal.

Another impasse of the evolutionary claim is that bipedalism does
not serve the "gradual development" model of Darwinism. This model,
which constitutes the basis of evolution, requires that there should be a
"compound" stride between bipedalism and quadrupedalism. However,
with the computerised research he conducted in 1996, the English paleoan-
thropologist Robin Crompton, showed that such a "compound" stride was
not possible. Crompton reached the following conclusion: A living being
can either walk upright, or on all fours. 98 A type of stride between the two
is impossible because it would involve excessive energy consumption.
This is why a half-bipedal being cannot exist.

The immense gap between man and ape is not limited solely to
bipedalism. Many other issues still remain unexplained, such as brain ca-
pacity, the ability to talk, and so on. Elaine Morgan, an evolutionist pale-
oanthropologist, makes the following confession in relation to this matter:
Four of the most outstanding mysteries about humans are: 1) why do they
walk on two legs? 2) why have they lost their fur? 3) why have they devel-
oped such large brains? 4) why did they learn to speak?

The orthodox answers to these questions are: 1) 'We do not yet know'; 2) 'We
do not yet know'; 3) 'We do not yet know'; 4) 'We do not yet know'. The list of
questions could be considerably lengthened without affecting the monotony
of the answers."

Evolution: An Unscientific Faith

Lord Solly Zuckerman is one of the most famous and respected scien-
tists in the United Kingdom. For years, he studied the fossil record and con-

114

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

Recent researches re-
veal that it is impossible
for the bent ape skeleton
fit for quadrupedal stride
to evolve into upright
human skeleton fit for
bipedal stride.

• -

ducted many detailed investigations. He was elevated to the peerage for his
contributions to science. Zuckerman is an evolutionist. Therefore, his com-
ments on evolution can not be regarded as ignorant or prejudiced. After
years of research on the fossils included in the human evolution scenario
however, he reached the conclusion that there is no truth to the family tree in
that is put forward.

Zuckerman also advanced an interesting concept of the "spectrum of
the sciences", ranging from those he considered scientific to those he con-
sidered unscientific. According to Zuckerman's spectrum, the most "scien-
tific"-that is, depending on concrete data-fields are chemistry and physics.
After them come the biological sciences and then the social sciences. At the
far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to be most "unscien-
tific", are "extra-sensory perception"-concepts such as telepathy and the
"sixth sense"-and finally "human evolution". Zuckerman explains his rea-
soning as follows:

We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of pre-
sumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation
of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and

where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory
things at the same time. 100

Robert Locke, the editor of Discovering Archeology, an important pub-
lication on the origins of man, writes in that journal, "The search for
human ancestors gives more heat than light", quoting the confession of the
famous evolutionist paleoantropologist Tim White:

We're all frustrated by "all the questions we haven't been able to answer." 101

Locke's article reviews the impasse of the theory of evolution on the ori-

The Scenario of Human Evolution 115

gins of man and the groundlessness of the propaganda spread about this sub-
ject:

Perhaps no area of science is more contentious than the search for human ori-
gins. Elite paleontologists disagree over even the most basic outlines of the
human family tree. New branches grow amid great fanfare, only to wither
and die in the face of new fossil finds. 102

The same fact was also recently accepted by Henry Gee, the editor of
the well-known journal Nature. In his book In Search of Deep Time, pub-
lished in 1999, Gee points out that all the evidence for human evolution
"between about 10 and 5 million years ago-several thousand generations
of living creatures-can be fitted into a small box." He concludes that con-
ventional theories of the origin and development of human beings are "a
completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with
human prejudices" and adds:

To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific
hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as
bedtime story-amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific. 103

What, then, is the reason that make so many scientists so tenacious
about this dogma? Why have they been trying so hard to keep their theory
alive, at the cost of having to admit countless conflicts and discarding the
evidence they have found?

The only answer is their being afraid of the fact they will have to face in
case of abandoning the theory of evolution. The fact they will have to face
when they abandon evolution is that God has created man. However, con-
sidering the presuppositions they have and the materialistic philosophy
they believe in, creation is an unacceptable concept for evolutionists.

For this reason, they deceive themselves, as well as the world, by
using the media with which they co-operate. If they cannot find the neces-
sary fossils, they "fabricate" them either in the form of imaginary pictures
or fictitious models and try to give the impression that there indeed exist
fossils verifying evolution. A part of mass media who share their material-
istic point of view also try to deceive the public and instil the story of evo-
lution in people's subconscious.

No matter how hard they try, the truth is evident: Man has come into
existence not through an evolutionary process but by God's creation.
Therefore, he is responsible to Him however unwilling he may be to as-
sume this responsibility.

The Molecular
Impasse of Evolution

-w- n previous sections of this book, we have shown how the fossil record
invalidates the theory of evolution. In point of fact, there was no need
JL for us to relate any of that, because the theory of evolution collapses
long before one gets to any claims about the evidence of fossils. The subject
that renders the theory meaningless from the very outset is the question of
how life first appeared on earth.

When it addresses this question, evolutionary theory claims that life
started with a cell that formed by chance. According to this scenario, four
billion years ago various lifeless chemical compounds underwent a reac-
tion in the primordial atmosphere on the earth in which the effects of thun-
derbolts and atmospheric pressure led to the formation of the first living
cell.

The first thing that must be said is that the claim that inanimate mate-
rials can come together to form life is an unscientific one that has not been
verified by any experiment or observation. Life is only generated from life.
Each living cell is formed by the replication of another cell. No one in the
world has ever succeeded in forming a living cell by bringing inanimate
materials together, not even in the most advanced laboratories.

The theory of evolution claims that a living cell-which cannot be pro-
duced even when all the power of the human intellect, knowledge and
technology are brought to bear-nevertheless managed to form by chance
under primordial conditions of the earth. In the following pages, we will
examine why this claim is contrary to the most basic principles of science
and reason.

The Tale of the "Cell Produced by Chance"

If one believes that a living cell can come into existence by coinci-
dence, then there is nothing to prevent one from believing a similar story
that we will relate below. It is the story of a town:

One day, a lump of clay, pressed between the rocks in a barren land,

The Molecular Impasse of Evolution 117

becomes wet after it rains. The wet clay dries and hardens when the sun
rises, and takes on a stiff, resistant form. Afterwards, these rocks, which
also served as a mould, are somehow smashed into pieces, and then a neat,
well shaped, and strong brick appears. This brick waits under the same
natural conditions for years for a similar brick to be formed. This goes on
until hundreds and thousands of the same bricks have been formed in the
same place. However, by chance, none of the bricks that were previously
formed are damaged. Although exposed to storm, rain, wind, scorching
sun, and freezing cold for thousands of years, the bricks do not crack,
break up, or get dragged away, but wait there in the same place with the
same determination for other bricks to form.

When the number of bricks is adequate, they erect a building by being
arranged sideways and on top of each other, having been randomly
dragged along by the effects of natural conditions such as winds, storms,
or tornadoes. Meanwhile, materials such as cement or soil mixtures form
under "natural conditions", with perfect timing, and creep between the
bricks to clamp them to each other. While all this is happening, iron ore
under the ground is shaped under "natural conditions" and lays the foun-
dations of a building that is to be formed with these bricks. At the end of
this process, a complete building rises with all its materials, carpentry, and
installations intact.

Of course, a building does not only consist of foundations, bricks, and
cement. How, then, are the other missing materials to be obtained? The an-
swer is simple: all kinds of materials that are needed for the construction of
the building exist in the earth on which it is erected. Silicon for the glass, cop-
per for the electric cables, iron for the columns, beams, water pipes, etc. all
exist under the ground in abundant quantities. It takes only the skill of "nat-
ural conditions" to shape and place these materials inside the building. All
the installations, carpentry, and accessories are placed among the bricks
with the help of the blowing wind, rain, and earthquakes. Everything has
gone so well that the bricks are arranged so as to leave the necessary win-
dow spaces as if they knew that something called glass would be formed
later on by natural conditions. Moreover, they have not forgotten to leave
some space to allow the installation of water, electricity and heating systems,
which are also later to be formed by coincidence. Everything has gone so
well that "coincidences" and "natural conditions" produce a perfect design.

sions from Evolutionists

he theory of evo-
lution faces no
greater crisis than
j on the point of explain-
ing the emergence of
life. The reason is that
^L organic molecules are
so complex that their
formation cannot possibly be ex-
plained as being coincidental and it
is manifestly impossible for an or-
ganic cell to have been formed by
chance.

Evolutionists confronted the
question of the origin of life in the
second quarter of the 20th century.
One of the leading authorities of the
theory of molecular evolution, the
Russian evolutionist Alexander I.
Oparin, said this in his book The Ori-
gin of Life, which was published in
1936:

Unfortunately,
the origin of
the cell re-
mains a ques-
tion which is
actually the
darkest point
of the com-
plete evolu- Alexander Oparin:
tion theory. 1

Since Oparin, evolutionists have
performed countless experiments,
conducted research, and made ob-
servations to prove that a cell could
have been formed by chance. How-
ever, every such attempt only made
clearer the complex design of the
cell and thus refuted the evolution-
ists' hypotheses even more. Profes-

sor Klaus Dose, the president of the
Institute of Biochemistry at the Uni-
versity of Johannes Gutenberg,

More than 30 years of experimen-
tation on the origin of life in the
fields of chemical and molecular
evolution have led
to a better percep-
tion of the immen-
sity of the problem
of the origin of life
on Earth rather
than to its solution.
At present all dis-
cussions on princi-
pal theories and Jeffrey i
experiments in the
field either end in stalemate or in
a confession of ignorance. 2

Jeffrey Bada

The following statement by the
geochemist Jeffrey Bada from San
Diego Scripps Institute makes clear
the helplessness of evolutionists
concerning this impasse:

Today as we leave the twentieth
century, we still face the biggest
unsolved problem that we had
when we entered the twentieth
century: How did life originate on
Earth?3

1- Alexander I. Oparin, Origin of Life, (1936)
NewYork: Dover Publications, 1953 (Reprint),
p.196.

2- Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions
Than Answers", Interdisciplinary Science Re-
views, l/o/13, No. 4, 1988, p. 348

3- Jeffrey Bada, Earth, February 1998, p. 40

The Molecular Impasse of Evolution 119

If you have managed to sustain your belief in this story so far, then
you should have no trouble surmising how the town's other buildings,
plants, highways, sidewalks, substructures, communications, and trans-
portation systems came about. If you possess technical knowledge and are
fairly conversant with the subject, you can even write an extremely "scien-
tific" book of a few volumes stating your theories about "the evolutionary
process of a sewage system and its uniformity with the present structures".
You may well be honoured with academic awards for your clever studies,
and may consider yourself a genius, shedding light on the nature of hu-
manity.

The theory of evolution, which claims that life came into existence by
chance, is no less absurd than our story, for, with all its operational sys-
tems, and systems of communication, transportation and management, a
cell is no less complex than a city.

The Miracle in the Cell and the End of Evolution

The complex structure of the living cell was unknown in Darwin's
day and at the time, ascribing life to "coincidences and natural conditions"
was thought by evolutionists to be convincing enough.

The technology of the 20th century has delved into the tiniest parti-
cles of life and has revealed that the cell is the most complex system
mankind has ever confronted. Today we know that the cell contains power
stations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factories manufactur-
ing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all the
necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, com-
plex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and
products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries
for breaking down external raw materials into their useable parts, and spe-
cialised cell membrane proteins to control the incoming and outgoing ma-
terials. And these constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex
system.

W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that "The most
elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more
complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by
man."™

A cell is so complex that even the high level of technology attained

The cell is the most complex and most elegantly designed system man has ever
witnessed. Professor of biology Michael Denton, in his book entitled Evolution: A
Theory in Crisis, explains this complexity with an example:
"To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must
magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter
and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or
New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalelled complexity
and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings,
like port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual
stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings
we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering com-
plexity... (a complexity) beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the
very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the
intelligence of man..."

The Molecular Impasse of Evolution 121

today cannot produce one. No effort to create an artificial cell has ever met
with success. Indeed, all attempts to do so have been abandoned.

The theory of evolution claims that this system-which mankind, with
all the intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal, cannot suc-
ceed in reproducing-came into existence "by chance" under the conditions
of the primordial earth. To give another example, the probability of form-
ing of a cell by chance is about the same as that of producing a perfect copy
of a book following an explosion in a printing-house.

The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a
similar comparison in an interview published in Nature magazine on No-
vember 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the
chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is compara-
ble to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might as-
semble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. 105 This means that it is
not possible for the cell to have come into being by coincidence, and there-
fore it must definitely have been "created".

One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain
how the cell came into existence is the "irreducible complexity" in it. A liv-
ing cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many or-
ganelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot
remain alive. The cell does not have the chance to wait for unconscious
mechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop.
Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all
the required organelles and functions, and this definitely means that this
cell had to have been created.

Proteins Challenge Chance

So much for the cell, but evolution fails even to account for the build-
ing-blocks of a cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of just one
single protein out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making
up the cell is impossible.

Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called "amino
acids" that are arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and
structures. These units constitute the building blocks of a living protein.
The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are some
that contain thousands.

122 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

The crucial point is this. The absence, addition, or replacement of a
single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become
a useless molecular heap. Every amino acid has to be in the right place and
in the right order. The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged
as a result of chance, is quite helpless in the face of this order, since it is too
wondrous to be explained by coincidence. (Furthermore the theory cannot
even substantiate the claim of the accidental formation of amino acids, as
will be discussed later.)

The fact that it is quite impossible for the functional structure of pro-
teins to come about by chance can easily be observed even by simple prob-
ability calculations that anybody can understand.

For instance, an average-sized protein molecule composed of 288
amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can be
arranged in 10 300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number,
consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) Of all these possible sequences, only
one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid
chains that are either totally useless or else potentially harmful to living
things.

In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein
molecule is "1 in 10 300 ". The probability of this "1" to occur is practically nil.
(In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 10 50 are thought of as "zero
probability").

Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is a rather modest
one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands
of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these
giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" is insuffi-
cient to describe the true situation.

When we proceed one step further in the evolutionary scheme of life,
we observe that one single protein means nothing by itself. One of the
smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma hominis H39, contains 600
"types" of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability
calculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600 dif-
ferent types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibil-
ity.

Some people reading these lines who have so far accepted the theory
of evolution as a scientific explanation may suspect that these numbers are

The Molecular Impasse of Evolution

123

Proteins are the most vital ele-
ments for living things. They not
only combine to make up living
cells, but also play key roles in the
body chemistry. From protein syn-
thesis to hormonal communica-
tions, it is possible to see proteins
in action.

exaggerated and do not reflect the true facts. That is not the case: these are
definite and concrete facts. No evolutionist can object to these numbers.
They accept that the probability of the coincidental formation of a single
protein is "as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of
humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes". 106 However, in-
stead of accepting the other explanation, which is creation, they go on de-
fending this impossibility.

This situation is in fact acknowledged by many evolutionists. For ex-
ample, Harold F. Blum, a prominent evolutionist scientist, states that "The
spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest
known proteins seems beyond all probability." 107

Evolutionists claim that molecular evolution took place over a very
long period of time and that this made the impossible possible. Neverthe-
less, no matter how long the given period may be, it is not possible for
amino acids to form proteins by chance. William Stokes, an American geol-
ogist, admits this fact in his book Essentials of Earth History, writing that the
probability is so small "that it would not occur during billions of years on
billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of concentrated watery so-
lution of the necessary amino acids." 108

So what does all this mean? Perry Reeves, a professor of chemistry,
answers the question:

When one examines the vast number of possible structures that could result

124 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

from a simple random combination of amino acids in an evaporating primor-
dial pond, it is mind-boggling to believe that life could have originated in
this way. It is more plausible that a Great Builder with a master plan would
be required for such a task. 109

If the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossi-
ble, it is billions of times "more impossible" for some one million of those
proteins to come together properly by chance and make up a complete cell.
What is more, by no means does a cell consist of a mere heap of proteins. In
addition to the proteins, a cell also includes nucleic acids, carbohydrates,
lipids, vitamins, and many other chemicals such as electrolytes arranged
in a specific proportion, equilibrium, and design in terms of both structure
and function. Each of these elements functions as a building block or co-
molecule in various organelles.

Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University and
a DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation of
the 2000 types of proteins found in a single bacterium (There are 200,000
different types of proteins in a human cell). The number that was found
was 1 over 10 40000 . 110 (This is an incredible number obtained by putting
40,000 zeros after the 1)

A professor of applied mathematics and astronomy from University
College Cardiff, Wales, Chandra Wickramasinghe, comments:

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 intelli-
gence. 111

Sir Fred Hoyle comments on these implausible numbers:

Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvi-
ous that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The
reasons are psychological rather than scientific. 112

The reason Hoyle used the term "psychological" is the self -condition-
ing of evolutionists not to accept that life could have been created. The re-
jection of God's existence is their main goal. For this reason alone, they go
on defending irrational theories which they at the same time acknowledge
to be impossible.

The Molecular Impasse of Evolution 125

Left-handed Proteins

Let us now examine in detail why the evolutionist scenario regarding
the formation of proteins is impossible.

Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enough
for the formation of a functional protein molecule. In addition to these re-
quirements, each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in the
composition of proteins must be left-handed. There are two different types
of amino acids-as of all organic molecules-called "left-handed" and "right-
handed". The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between
their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person's
right and left hands.

Amino acids of either of these two types can easily bond with one an-
other. But one astonishing fact that has been revealed by research is that all
the proteins in plants and animals on this planet, from the simplest organ-
ism to the most complex, are made up of left-handed amino acids. If even
a single right-handed amino acid gets attached to the structure of a pro-
tein, the protein is rendered useless. In a series of experiments, surpris-
ingly, bacteria that were exposed to right-handed amino acids
immediately destroyed them. In some cases, they produced usable left-
handed amino acids from the fractured components.

Let us for an instant suppose that life came about by chance as evolu-
tionists claim it did. In this case, the right- and left-handed amino acids
that were generated by chance should be present in roughly equal propor-
tions in nature. Therefore, all living things should have both right- and
left-handed amino acids in their constitution, because chemically it is pos-
sible for amino acids of both types to combine with each other. However,
as we know, in the real world the proteins existing in all living organisms
are made up only of left-handed amino acids.

The question of how proteins can pick out only the left-handed ones
from among all amino acids, and how not even a single right-handed
amino acid gets involved in the life process, is a problem that still baffles
evolutionists. Such a specific and conscious selection constitutes one of the
greatest impasses facing the theory of evolution.

Moreover, this characteristic of proteins makes the problem facing
evolutionists with respect to "coincidence" even worse. In order for a
"meaningful" protein to be generated, it is not enough for the amino acids

126 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

to be present in a particular number and sequence, and to be combined to-
gether in the right three-dimensional design. Additionally, all these amino
acids have to be left-handed: not even one of them can be right-handed.
Yet there is no natural selection mechanism which can identify that a right-
handed amino acid has been added to the sequence and recognise that it
must therefore be removed from the chain. This situation once more elimi-
nates for good the possibility of coincidence and chance.

The Brittanica Science Encyclopaedia, which is an outspoken defender
of evolution, states that the amino acids of all the living organisms on
earth, and the building blocks of complex polymers such as proteins, have
the same left-handed asymmetry. It adds that this is tantamount to tossing
a coin a million times and always getting heads. The same encyclopaedia
states that it is impossible to understand why molecules become left-
handed or right-handed, and that this choice is fascinatingly related to the
origin of life on earth. 113

If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more
logical to attribute that to chance, or else to accept that there is conscious
intervention going on? The answer should be obvious. However, obvious
though it may be, evolutionists still take refuge in coincidence, simply be-
cause they do not want to accept the existence of "conscious intervention".

A situation similar to the left-handedness of amino acids also exists
with respect to nucleotides, the smallest units of the nucleic acids, DNA
and RNA. In contrast to proteins, in which only left-handed amino acids
are chosen, in the case of the nucleic acids, the preferred forms of their nu-
cleotide components are always right-handed. This is another fact that can
never be explained by coincidence.

In conclusion, it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt by the probabili-
ties we have examined that the origin of life cannot be explained by chance.
If we attempt to calculate the probability of an average-sized protein consist-
ing of 400 amino acids being selected only from left-handed amino acids, we
come up with a probability of 1 in 2 400 , or 10 120 . Just for a comparison, let us
remember that the number of electrons in the universe is estimated at 10 79 ,
which although vast, is a much smaller number. The probability of these
amino acids forming the required sequence and functional form would gen-
erate much larger numbers. If we add these probabilities to each other, and if
we go on to work out the probabilities of even higher numbers and types of
proteins, the calculations become inconceivable.

The Molecular Impasse of Evolution 127

Correct Bond is Vital

The difficulties the theory of evolution is unable to overcome with re-
gard to the development of a single protein are not limited to those we
have recounted so far. It is not enough for amino acids to be arranged in
the correct numbers, sequences, and required three-dimensional struc-
tures. The formation of a protein also requires that amino acid molecules
with more than one arm be linked to each other only in certain ways. Such
a bond is called a "peptide bond". Amino acids can make different bonds
with each other; but proteins are made up of those-and only those-amino
acids which are joined by "peptide" bonds.

A comparison will clarify this point. Suppose that all the parts of a car
were complete and correctly assembled, with the sole exception that one of
the wheels was fastened in place not with the usual nuts and bolts, but
with a piece of wire, in such a way that its hub faced the ground. It would
be impossible for such a car to move even the shortest distance, no matter
how complex its technology or how powerful its engine. At first glance,
everything would seem to be in the right place, but the faulty attachment
of even one wheel would make the entire car useless. In the same way, in a
protein molecule the joining of even one amino acid to another with a
bond other than a peptide bond would make the entire molecule useless.

Research has shown that amino acids combining at random combine
with a peptide bond only 50% of the time, and that the rest of the time dif-
ferent bonds that are not present in proteins emerge. To function properly,
each amino acid making up a protein must be joined to others only with a
peptide bond, in the same way that it likewise must be chosen only from
among left-handed forms.

This probability of this happening is the same as the probability of
each protein's being left-handed. That is, when we consider a protein made
up of 400 amino acids, the probability of all amino acids combining among
themselves with only peptide bonds is 1 in 2 399 .

Zero Probability

As can be seen below, the probability of formation of a protein mole-
cule made up of 500 amino acids is "1" over a number formed by placing
950 zeros next to 1, which is a number incomprehensible for the human
mind. This is a probability only on paper. Practically speaking, there is

128 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

zero chance of its actually happening. As we saw earlier, in mathematics, a
probability smaller than 1 in 10 50 is statistically considered to have a "0"
probability of occurring.

A probability of "1 over 10 950 " is far beyond the limits of this defini-
tion.

While the improbability of the formation of a protein molecule made
up of 500 amino acids reaches such an extent, we can further proceed to
push the limits of the mind with higher levels of improbability. In the
"haemoglobin" molecule, which is a vital protein, there are 574 amino acids,
which is more than the amino acids making up the protein mentioned
above. Now consider this: in only one out of the billions of red blood cells in
your body, there are "280,000,000" (280 million) haemoglobin molecules.

The supposed age of the earth is not sufficient to allow the formation
of even a single protein by a "trial and error" method, let alone that of a red
blood cell. Even if we suppose that amino acids have combined and de-
composed by a "trial and error" method without losing any time since the
formation of the earth, in order to form a single protein molecule, the time
that would be required for something with a probability of 10 950 to happen
would still hugely exceed the estimated age of the earth.

The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that evolution falls into a
terrible abyss of improbability even when it comes to the formation of a
single protein.

Is There a Trial and Error Mechanism in Nature?

Finally, we may conclude with a very important point in relation to
the basic logic of probability calculations, of which we have already seen
some examples. We indicated that the probability calculations made above
reach astronomical levels, and that these astronomical odds have no chance
of actually happening. However, there is a much more important and dam-
aging fact facing evolutionists here. This is that under natural conditions, no
period of trial and error can even start, despite the astronomical odds, be-
cause there is no trial-and-error mechanism in nature from which proteins
could emerge.

The calculations we give on page across to demonstrate the probability
of the formation of a protein molecule with 500 amino acids are valid only for
an ideal trial-and-error environment, which does not actually exist in real life.

The Probability of a Protein Being Formed by
Chance is Zero

There are 3 basic conditions for the formation of a useful protein:

First condition: that all the amino acids in the protein chain are of the right type and in the right sequence

Second condition: that all the amino acids in the chain are left-handed

Third condition: that all of these amino acids are united between them by forming a chemical bond called "peptide
bond".

In order for a protein to be formed by chance, all three basic conditions must exist simultaneously. The probability of
the formation of a protein by chance is equal to the multiplication of the probabilities of the realisation of each of
these conditions.

For instance, for an average molecule comprising of 500 amino acids:

1. The probability of the amino acids being in the right sequence:

There are 20 types of amino acids used in the composition of proteins. According to this:

■ The probability of each amino acid being chosen correctly among these 20 types = 1/20

■ The probability of all of those 500 amino acids being chosen correctly = 1/20

= 1/20 500 = 1/10 650

= 1 chance in 10

2. The probability of the amino acids being left-handed:

- The probability of only one amino acid being left-handed

- The probability of all of those 500 amino acids being left-handed at the same time

3. The probability of the amino acids being combined with a "peptide bond":

= 1/2500 = 1/10 150

= 1 chance in 10

Amino acids can combine with each other with different kinds of chemical bonds. In order for a useful protein to be
formed, all the amino acids in the chain must have been combined with a special chemical bond called a "peptide
bond". It is calculated that the probability of the amino acids being combined not with another chemical bond but by
a peptide bond is 50%. In relation to this:

- The probability of two amino acids being combined with a "peptide bond"

- The probability of 500 amino acids all combining with peptide bonds

= 1/2 4 "=1/10 150

= 1 chance in 10

TOTAL PROBABILITY = 1/1<T U x i/io lsu x 1/10 1SU = 1/10
= 1 chance in 10

The probability of an average protein molecule made up of 500 amino
acids being arranged in the correct quantity and sequence in addition
to the probability of all of the amino acids it contains being only left-
handed and being combined with only peptide bonds is "1" over
1q950 we can write this number which is formed by putting
950 zeros next to 1 as follows:

100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That is, the probability of obtaining a useful protein is "1" in 10 950 only if we
suppose that there exists an imaginary mechanism in which an invisible
hand joins 500 amino acids at random and then, seeing that this is not the
right combination, disentangles them one by one, and arranges them again
in a different order, and so on. In each trial, the amino acids would have to
be separated one by one, and be arranged in a new order. The synthesis
should be stopped after the 500 th amino acid has been added, and it must
be ensured that not even one extra amino acid is involved. The trial should
then be stopped to see whether or not a functional protein has yet been
formed, and, in the event of failure, everything should be split up again
and then tested for another sequence. Additionally, in each trial, not even
one extraneous substance should be allowed to become involved. It is also
imperative that the chain formed during the trial should not be separated
and destroyed before reaching the 499 th link. These conditions mean that
the probabilities we have mentioned above can only operate in a con-
trolled environment where there is a conscious mechanism directing the
beginning, the end, and each intermediate stage of the process, and where

The Molecular Impasse of Evolution 131

only "the correct selection of the amino acids" is left to chance. It is clearly
impossible for such an environment to exist under natural conditions.
Therefore the formation of a protein in the natural environment is logically
and technically impossible. In fact, to talk of the probabilities of such an
event is quite unscientific.

Since some people are unable to take a broad view of these matters,
but approach them from a superficial viewpoint and assume protein for-
mation to be a simple chemical reaction, they may make unrealistic deduc-
tions such as "amino acids combine by way of reaction and then form
proteins". However, accidental chemical reactions taking place in an inani-
mate structure can only lead to simple and primitive changes. The number
of these is predetermined and limited. For a somewhat more complex
chemical material, huge factories, chemical plants, and laboratories have
to be involved. Medicines and many other chemical materials that we use
in our daily life are made in just this way. Proteins have much more com-
plex structures than these chemicals produced by industry. Therefore, it is
impossible for proteins, each of which is a wonder of design and engineer-
ing, in which every part takes its place in a fixed order, to originate as a re-
sult of haphazard chemical reactions.

Let us for a minute put aside all the impossibilities we have described
so far, and suppose that a useful protein molecule still evolved sponta-
neously "by accident". Even so, evolution again has no answers, because in
order for this protein to survive, it would need to be isolated from its nat-
ural habitat and be protected under very special conditions. Otherwise, it
would either disintegrate from exposure to natural conditions on earth, or
else join with other acids, amino acids, or chemical compounds, thereby
losing its particular properties and turning into a totally different and use-
less substance.

The Evolutionary Fuss About the Origin of Life

The question of "how living things first appeared" is such a critical
impasse for evolutionists that they usually try not even to touch upon this
subject. They try to pass over this question by saying "the first creatures
came into existence as a result of some random events in water". They are
at a road-block that they can by no means get around. In spite of the pale-
ontological evolution arguments, in this subject they have no fossils avail-

132 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

able to distort and misinterpret as they wish to support their assertions.
Therefore, the theory of evolution is definitely refuted from the very be-
ginning.

Above all, there is one important point to take into consideration: If
any one step in the evolutionary process is proven to be impossible, this
jis sufficient to prove that the whole theory is totally false and invalid.
For instance, by proving that the haphazard formation of proteins is im-
possible, all other claims regarding the subsequent steps of evolution are
also refuted. After this, it becomes meaningless to take some human and
ape skulls and engage in speculation about them.

How living organisms came into existence out of nonliving matter
was an issue that evolutionists did not even want to mention for a long
time. However, this question, which had constantly been avoided, eventu-
ally had to be addressed, and attempts were made to settle it with a series
of experiments in the second quarter of the 20th century.

The main question was: How could the first living cell have appeared
in the primordial atmosphere on the earth? In other words, what kind of
explanation could evolutionists offer?

The answers to the questions were sought through experiments. Evo-
lutionist scientists and researchers carried out laboratory experiments di-
rected at answering these questions but these did not create much interest.
The most generally respected study on the origin of life is the Miller ex-
periment conducted by the American researcher Stanley Miller in 1953.
(The experiment is also known as "Urey-Miller experiment" because of the
contribution of Miller's instructor at the University of Chicago, Harold
Urey)

This experiment is the only "evidence" evolutionists have with which
to allegedly prove the "molecular evolution thesis"; they advance it as the
first stage of the supposed evolutionary process leading to life. Although
nearly half a century has passed, and great technological advances have
been made, nobody has made any further progress. In spite of this, Miller's
experiment is still taught in textbooks as the evolutionary explanation of
the earliest generation of living things. Aware of the fact that such studies
do not support, but rather actually refute, their thesis, evolutionist re-
searchers deliberately avoid embarking on such experiments.

The Molecular Impasse of Evolution 133

Miller's Experiment

Stanley Miller's aim was to demonstrate by means of an experiment
that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, could have come into ex-
istence "by chance" on the lifeless earth billions of years ago.

In his experiment, Miller used a gas mixture that he assumed to have
existed on the primordial earth (but which later proved unrealistic) com-
posed of ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water vapour. Since these
gasses would not react with each other under natural conditions, he added
energy to the mixture to start a reaction among them. Supposing that this
energy could have come from lightning in the primordial atmosphere, he
used an electric current for this purpose.

Miller heated this gas mixture at 100°C for a week and added the elec-
trical current. At the end of the week, Miller analysed the chemicals which
had formed at the bottom of the jar, and observed that three out of the 20
amino acids, which constitute the basic elements of proteins had been syn-
thesised.

This experiment aroused great excitement among evolutionists, and
was promoted as an outstanding success. Moreover, in a state of intoxi-
cated euphoria, various publications carried headlines such as "Miller cre-
ates life". However, what Miller had managed to synthesise was only a few
"inanimate" molecules.

Encouraged by this experiment, evolutionists immediately produced
new scenarios. Stages following the development of amino acids were hur-
riedly hypothesised. Supposedly, amino acids had later united in the cor-
rect sequences by accident to form proteins. Some of these proteins which
emerged by chance formed themselves into cell membrane-like structures
which "somehow" came into existence and formed a primitive cell. The
cells then supposedly came together over time to form multicellular living
organisms. However, Miller's experiment was nothing but make-believe
and has since proven to be false in many aspects.

Miller's Experiment was Nothing but Make-believe

Miller's experiment sought to prove that amino acids could form on
their own in primordial earth-like conditions, but it contains inconsisten-
cies in a number of areas:

134 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

1. By using a mechanism called a "cold trap", Miller isolated the
amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed. Had he

not done so, the conditions in the environment in which the amino acids
were formed would immediately have destroyed these molecules.

Doubtless, this kind of a conscious mechanism of isolation did not
exist on the primordial earth. Without such a mechanism, even if one
amino acid were obtained, it would immediately have been destroyed. The
chemist Richard Bliss expresses this contradiction by observing that "Actu-
ally, without this trap, the chemical products would have been destroyed
by the energy source." 114

And, sure enough, in his previous experiments, Miller had been un-
able to make even one single amino acid using the same materials without
the cold trap mechanism.

2. The primordial atmospheric environment that Miller attempted
to simulate in his experiment was not realistic. In the 1980s, scientists
agreed that nitrogen and carbon dioxide should have been used in this ar-
tificial environment instead of methane and ammonia. After a long period
of silence, Miller himself also confessed that the atmospheric environment
he used in his experiment was not realistic. 115

So why did Miller insist on these gasses? The answer is simple: with-
out ammonia, it was impossible to synthesise any amino acid. Kevin Mc
Kean talks about this in an article published in Discover magazine:

Miller and Urey imitated the ancient atmosphere on the Earth with a mixture
of methane and ammonia. According to them, the Earth was a true homoge-
neous mixture of metal, rock and ice. However in the latest studies, it has
been understood that the Earth was very hot at those times, and that it was
composed of melted nickel and iron. Therefore, the chemical atmosphere of
that time should have been formed mostly of nitrogen (N 2 ), carbon dioxide
(C0 2 ) and water vapour (H 2 0). However these are not as appropriate as
methane and ammonia for the production of organic molecules. 116

The American scientists J. P. Ferris and C.T. Chen repeated Miller's ex-
periment with an atmospheric environment that contained carbon dioxide,
hydrogen, nitrogen, and water vapour, and were unable to obtain even a
single amino acid molecule. 117

3. Another important point that invalidates Miller's experiment is that
there was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmos-
phere at the time when they were thought to have been formed. This fact,

Latest Evolutionist Sources Dispute Miller's Experime

oday, Miller's ex-
periment is totally
disregarded even
by evolutionist scien-
' tists. In the February
j 1998 issue of the fa-
mous evolutionist sci-
ence journal Earth, the
following statements ap-
pear in an article titled
"Life's Crucible":

Geologist now think that the pri-
mordial atmosphere consisted
mainly of carbon dioxide and ni-
trogen, gases that are less reac-
tive than those used in the 1953
experiment. And even if Miller's at-
mosphere could have existed, how
do you get simple molecules such
as amino acids to go through the
necessary chemical changes that
will convert them into more com-
plicated compounds, or polymers,
such as proteins? Miller himself
throws up his hands at that part of
the puzzle. "It's a problem," he
sighs with exasperation. "How do
you make polymers? That's not so
easy." 1

As seen, today even Miller himself
has accepted that his experiment
does not lead to an explanation of the
origin of life. The fact that evolu-
tionist scientists embraced this
experiment so fervently only in-
dicates the difficulties facing
evolution, and the desperation
of its advocates.

In the March 1998 issue of
National Geographic, in an arti-
cle titled "The Emergence of Life
on Earth", the following com-
ments appear:

Many scientists now suspect
that the early atmosphere
was different from what
Miller first supposed. They

think it consisted of carbon diox-
ide and nitrogen rather than hy-
drogen, methane, and ammonia.

That's bad news for chemists.
When they try sparking carbon
dioxide and nitrogen, they get a
paltry amount of organic mole-
cules - the equivalent of dis-
solving a drop of food colouring in
a swimming pool of water. Scien-
tists find it hard to imagine life
emerging from such a diluted
soup. 2

In brief, neither Miller's experi-
ment, nor any other similar one that
has been attempted, can answer the
question of how life emerged on
earth. All of the research that has
been done shows that it is impossible
for life to emerge by chance, and thus
confirms that life is created.

1- Earth, "Life's Crucible", February 1998, p.34

2- National Geographic, "The Rise of Life on
Earth", March 1998, p. 68

136 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

overlooked by Miller, is revealed by the traces of oxidised iron and ura-
nium found in rocks that are estimated to be 3.5 billion years old. 118

There are other findings showing that the amount of oxygen in the at-
mosphere at that time was much higher than originally claimed by evolution-
ists. Studies also show that at that time, the amount of ultraviolet radiation to
which the earth was then exposed was 10,000 times more than evolutionists'
estimates. This intense radiation would unavoidably have freed oxygen by
decomposing the water vapour and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

This situation completely negates Miller's experiment, in which oxygen
was completely neglected. If oxygen had been used in the experiment,
methane would have decomposed into carbon dioxide and water, and am-
monia into nitrogen and water. On the other hand, in an environment where
there was no oxygen, there would be no ozone layer either; therefore, the
amino acids would have immediately been destroyed, since they would have
been exposed to the most intense ultraviolet rays without the protection of
the ozone layer. In other words, with or without oxygen in the primordial
world, the result would have been a deadly environment for the amino acids.

4. At the end of Miller's experiment, many organic acids had been
formed with characteristics detrimental to the structure and function of
living things. If the amino acids had not been isolated, and had been left in
the same environment with these chemicals, their destruction or transfor-
mation into different compounds through chemical reactions would have
been unavoidable.

Moreover, a large number of right-handed amino acids were formed
at the end of the experiment. 119 The existence of these amino acids refuted
the theory even within its own terms because right-handed amino acids
cannot function in the composition of living organisms. To conclude, the
circumstances in which amino acids were formed in Miller's experiment
were not suitable for life. In truth, this medium took the form of an acidic
mixture destroying and oxidising the useful molecules obtained.

All these facts point to one firm truth: Miller's experiment cannot
claim to have proved that living things formed by chance under primor-
dial earth-like conditions. The whole experiment is nothing more than a
deliberate and controlled laboratory experiment to synthesise amino acids.
The amount and types of the gases used in the experiment were ideally de-
termined to allow amino acids to originate. The amount of energy supplied
to the system was neither too much nor too little, but arranged precisely to

The Molecular Impasse of Evolution 137

enable the necessary reactions to occur. The experimental apparatus was
isolated, so that it would not allow the leaking of any harmful, destructive,
or any other kind of elements to hinder the formation of amino acids. No
elements, minerals or compounds that were likely to have been present on
the primordial earth, but which would have changed the course of the re-
actions, were included in the experiment. Oxygen, which would have pre-
vented the formation of amino acids because of oxidation, is only one of
these destructive elements. Even under such ideal laboratory conditions, it
was impossible for the amino acids produced to survive and avoid de-
struction without the "cold trap" mechanism.

In fact, by his experiment, Miller destroyed evolution's claim that "life
emerged as the result of unconscious coincidences". That is because, if the
experiment proves anything, it is that amino acids can only be produced in a
controlled laboratory environment where all the conditions are specifically
designed by conscious intervention. That is, the power that brings about life
cannot be by unconscious chance but rather by conscious creation.

The reason evolutionists do not accept this evident reality is their
blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly
enough, Harold Urey, who organised the Miller experiment with his stu-
dent Stanley Miller, made the following confession on the subject:

All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the
more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as
an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just
that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did. 120

Primordial World Atmosphere and Proteins

Evolutionist sources use the Miller experiment, despite all of its in-
consistencies, to try to gloss over the question of the origin of amino acids.
By giving the impression that the issue has long since been resolved by
that invalid experiment, they try to paper over the cracks in the theory of
evolution.

However, to explain the second stage of the origin of life, evolution-
ists faced an even greater problem than that of the formation of amino
acids-namel, the origin of proteins, the building blocks of life, which are
composed of hundreds of different amino acids bonding with each other in
a particular order.

Claiming that proteins were formed by chance under natural condi-

138 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

tions is even more unrealistic and unreasonable than claiming that amino
acids were formed by chance. In the preceding pages we have seen the
mathematical impossibility of the haphazard uniting of amino acids in
proper sequences to form proteins with probability calculations. Now, we
will examine the impossibility of proteins being produced chemically
under primordial earth conditions.

Protein Synthesis is not Possible in Water

As we saw before, when combining to form proteins, amino acids
form a special bond with one another called the "peptide bond". A water
molecule is released during the formation of this peptide bond.

This fact definitely refutes the evolutionist explanation that primor-
dial life originated in water, because according to the "Le Chatelier princi-
ple" in chemistry, it is not possible for a reaction that releases water (a
condensation reaction) to take place in a hydrous environment. The
chances of this kind of a reaction happening in a hydrate environment is
said to "have the least probability of occurring" of all chemical reactions.

Hence the ocean, which is claimed to be where life began and amino
acids originated, is definitely not an appropriate setting for amino acids to
form proteins. On the other hand, it would be irrational for evolutionists to
change their minds and claim that life originated on land, because the only
environment where amino acids could have been protected from ultravio-
let radiation is in the oceans and seas. On land, they would be destroyed
by ultraviolet rays. The Le Chatelier Principle disproves the claim of the
formation of life in the sea. This is another dilemma confronting evolution.

Another Desperate Effort: Fox's Experiment

Challenged by the above dilemma, evolutionists began to invent un-
realistic scenarios based on this "water problem" that so definitively re-
futed their theories. Sydney Fox was one of the best known of these
researchers. Fox advanced the following theory to solve this problem. Ac-
cording to him, the first amino acids must have been transported to some
cliffs near a volcano right after their formation in the primordial ocean.
The water contained in this mixture that included the amino acids present
on the cliffs, must have evaporated when the temperature increased above
boiling point. The amino acids which were "dried out" in this way, could

The Molecular Impasse of Evolution 139

In his experiment, Fox produced a substance
called "proteinoid". Proteinoids were randomly
assembled combinations of amino acids. Un-
like proteins of living things, these were
useless and non-functional chemicals.
Here is an electron microscope vision of
'proteinoid particles.

* I

then have combined to form proteins.

However this "complicated" way out was not accepted by many peo-
ple in the field, because the amino acids could not have endured such high
temperatures. Research confirmed that amino acids are immediately de-
stroyed at very high temperatures.

But Fox did not give up. He combined purified amino acids in the lab-
oratory "under very special conditions" by heating them in a dry environ-
ment. The amino acids combined, but still no proteins were obtained.
What he actually ended up with was simple and disordered loops of
amino acids, arbitrarily combined with each other, and these loops were
far from resembling any living protein. Furthermore, if Fox had kept the
amino acids at a steady temperature, then these useless loops would also
have disintegrated. 121

Another point that nullified the experiment was that Fox did not
usethe useless end products obtained in Miller's experiment; rather, he
used pure amino acids from living organisms. This experiment, however,
which was intended to be a continuation of Miller's experiment, should
have started out from the results obtained by Miller. Yet neither Fox, nor
any other researcher, used the useless amino acids Miller produced. 122

Fox's experiment was not even welcomed in evolutionist circles, be-
cause it was clear that the meaningless amino acid chains that he obtained
(which he termed "proteinoids") could not have formed under natural con-
ditions. Moreover, proteins, the basic units of life, still could not be pro-
duced. The problem of the origin of proteins remained unsolved. In an
article in the popular science magazine, Chemical Engineering News, which
appeared in the 1970s, Fox's experiment was mentioned as follows:

Sydney Fox and the other researchers managed to unite the amino acids in

the shape of "proteinoids" by using very special heating techniques under

140

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

INANIMATE MATTER CANNOT GENERATE LIFE

number of evolutionist experiments such as the Miller Experiment and the Fox
Experiment have been devised to prove the claim that inanimate matter can or-
ganise itself and generate a complex living being. This is an utterly unscientific
conviction: every observation and experiment has incontrovertibly proven that matter
has no such ability. The famous English astronomer and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle
notes that matter cannot generate life by itself, without deliberate interference:

If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward
life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for in-
stance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals
of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please,
and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed
for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes (proteins produced by living cells)
have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and
expense of actually doing the experiment. You will find nothing at all, except possibly for
a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals. 1

Evolutionist biologist Andrew Scott admits the same fact:

Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis.
The 'fundamental' forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear
forces are presumed to have done the rest... But how much of this neat tale is firmly es-
tablished, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of al-
most every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is
the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment. 2

1- Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, New York, Holt, Rinehard & Winston, 1983, p. 256

2- Andrew Scott, "Update on Genesis", New Scientist, vol. 106, May 2nd, 1985, p. 30

conditions which in fact did not exist at all in the primordial stages of Earth.
Also, they are not at all similar to the very regular proteins present in living
things. They are nothing but useless, irregular chemical stains. It was ex-
plained that even if such molecules had formed in the early ages, they would
definitely be destroyed. 123

Indeed, the proteinoids Fox obtained were totally different from real
proteins both in structure and function. The difference between proteins
and these proteinoids was as huge as the difference between a piece of
high-tech equipment and a heap of unprocessed iron.

Furthermore, there was no chance that even these irregular amino
acid chains could have survived in the primordial atmosphere. Harmful
and destructive physical and chemical effects caused by heavy exposure to

The Molecular Impasse of Evolution 141

ultraviolet light and other unstable natural conditions would have caused
these proteinoids to disintegrate. Because of the Le Chatelier principle, it
was also impossible for the amino acids to combine underwater, where ul-
traviolet rays would not reach them. In view of this, the idea that the pro-
teinoids were the basis of life eventually lost support among scientists.

The Miraculous Molecule: DNA

Our examinations so far have shown that the theory of evolution is in
a serious quandary at the molecular level. Evolutionists have shed no light
on the formation of amino acids at all. The formation of proteins, on the
other hand, is another mystery all its own.

Yet the problems are not even limited just to amino acids and pro-
teins: These are only the beginning. Beyond them, the extremely complex
structure of the cell leads evolutionists to yet another impasse. The reason
for this is that the cell is not just a heap of amino-acid-structured proteins,
but rather the most complex system man has ever encountered.

While the theory of evolution was having such trouble providing a
coherent explanation for the existence of the molecules that are the basis of
the cell structure, developments in the science of genetics and the discov-
ery of nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) produced brand-new problems for
the theory. In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick launched a new age in
biology with their work on the structure of DNA. Soon, many scientists
were directing their attention to the science of genetics. Today, after many
years of research, the structure of DNA has been to a great extent unrav-
elled.

The molecule known as DNA, which is found in the nucleus of each of
the 100 trillion cells in our bodies, contains the complete blueprint for the
construction of the human body. The information regarding all the charac-
teristics of a person, from physical appearance to the structure of the inner
organs, is recorded in DNA within the sequence of four special bases that
make up the giant molecule. These bases are known as A, T, G, and C, ac-
cording to the initial letters of their names. All the structural differences
among people depend on variations in the sequences of these letters. This is
a sort of a data-bank composed of four letters.

The sequential order of the letters in DNA determines the structure of
a human being down to its slightest details. In addition to features such as

142

All information about living beings is
stored in the DNA molecule. This
incredibly efficient information storage
method alone is a clear evidence that life
did not come into being by chance, but
has been purposefully designed, or,
better to say, marvellously created.

height, and eye, hair and skin
colours, the DNA in a single cell
also contains the design of the 206
bones, the 600 muscles, the 100 bil-
lion nerve cells (neurons), 1.000
trillion connections between the
neurons of the brain, 97,000 kilo-
metres of veins, and the 100 trillion cells of the human body. If we were to
write down the information coded in DNA, then we would have to com-
pile a giant library consisting of 900 volumes of 500 pages each. But the
information this enormous library would hold is encoded inside the DNA
molecules in the cell nucleus, which is far smaller than the l/100th-of-a-
millimetre-long cell itself.

Can DNA Come into Being by Chance?

At this point, there is an important detail that deserves attention. An
error in the sequence of the nucleotides making up a gene would render
that gene completely useless. When it is considered that there are 200,000
genes in the human body, it becomes clearer how impossible it is for the
millions of nucleotides making up these genes to have been formed, in the
right sequence, by chance. The evolutionist biologist Frank Salisbury has
comments on this impossibility:

A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene con-
trolling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are
four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could
exist in 4I/OOO forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that
4 1000 =10 600 . Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by
600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension. 124

The number 4 1000 is the equivalent of 10 600 . This means 1 followed by

The Molecular Impasse of Evolution

143

600 zeros. As 1 with 12 zeros after it indicates a trillion, 600 zeros represents
an inconceivable number. The impossibility of the formation of RNA and
DNA by a coincidental accumulation of nucleotides is expressed by the
French scientist Paul Auger in this way:

We have to sharply distinguish the two stages in the chance formation of
complex molecules such as nucleotides by chemical events. The production
of nucleotides one by one - which is possible- and the combination of these
with in very special sequences. The second is absolutely impossible. 125

For many years, Francis Crick believed in the theory of molecular
evolution, but eventually even he had to admit to himself that such a com-
plex molecule could not have emerged spontaneously by coincidence, as
the result of an evolutionary process:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could
only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be
almost a miracle. 126

The Turkish evolutionist Professor Ali Demirsoy was forced to make
the following confession on the issue:

In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-
RNA) is a probability way beyond estimating. Furthermore, the chance of the
emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic. 127

A very interesting paradox emerges at this point: While DNA can
only replicate with the help of special proteins (enzymes), the synthesis of
these proteins can only be realised by the information encoded in DNA. As

Watson and
Crick with a
stick model
of the DNA
\A\ molecule.

144

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

they both depend on each other, either they have to exist at the same time
for replication, or one of them has to be "created" before the other. The
American microbiologist Homer Jacobson comments:

Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of
parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the ef-
fector mechanism translating instructions into growth-all had to be simulta-
neously present at that moment [when life began]. This combination of
events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance, and has often been
ascribed to divine intervention. 128

The quotation above was written two years after the discovery of the
structure of DNA by Watson and Crick. But despite all the developments
in science, this problem for evolutionists remains unsolved. Two German
scientists Junker and Scherer explained that the synthesis of each of the
molecules required for chemical evolution, necessitates distinct conditions,
and that the probability of the compounding of these materials having the-
oretically very different acquirement methods is zero:

Until now, no experiment is known in which we can obtain all the molecules
necessary for chemical evolution. Therefore, it is essential to produce various
molecules in different places under very suitable conditions and then to carry
them to another place for reaction by protecting them from harmful elements
like hydrolysis and photolysis. 129

In short, the theory of evolution is unable to prove any of the evolution-
ary stages that allegedly occur at the molecular level. Rather than providing
answers to such questions, the progress of science ren-
ders them even more complex and inextricable.

Interestingly enough, most evolutionists be-
lieve in this and similar totally unscientific fairy tales
as if they were true, because accepting intelligent de-
sign means accepting creation-and they have condi-
tioned themselves not to accept this truth. One
famous biologist from Australia, Michael Denton,
discusses the subject in his book Evolution: A Theory
in Crisis:

To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic pro-
grammes of higher organisms, consisting of some-
thing close to a thousand million bits of information,

equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of 1,000 volumes, con
taining in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms control

Prof. Francis Crick:
The origin of life ap-
pears to be almost
a miracle."

The Molecular Impasse of Evolution 145

ling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and bil-
lions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely
random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist, the idea
is accepted without a ripple of doubt-the paradigm takes precedence! 130

Another Evolutionist Vain Attempt:
"The RNA World"

The discovery in the 1970s that the gasses originally existing in the
primitive atmosphere of the earth would have rendered amino acid syn-
thesis impossible was a serious blow to the theory of molecular evolution.
Evolutionists then had to face the fact that the "primitive atmosphere ex-
periments" by Stanley Miller, Sydney Fox, Cyril Ponnamperuma and oth-
ers were invalid. For this reason, in the 1980s the evolutionists tried again.
As a result, the "RNA World" hypothesis was advanced. This scenario pro-
posed that, not proteins, but rather the RNA molecules that contained the
information for proteins, were formed first.

According to this scenario, advanced by Harvard chemist Walter
Gilbert in 1986, based on a discovery about "ribozymes" by Thomas Cech ,
billions of years ago an RNA molecule capable of replicating itself formed
somehow by accident. Then this RNA molecule started to produce pro-
teins, having been activated by external influences. Thereafter, it became
necessary to store this information in a second molecule, and somehow the
DNA molecule emerged to do that.

Made up as it is of a chain of impossibilities in each and every stage,
this scarcely credible scenario, far from providing any explanation of the
origin of life, only magnified the problem, and raised many unanswerable
questions:

1. Since it is impossible to accept the coincidental formation of even
one of the nucleotides making up RNA, how can it be possible for these
imaginary nucleotides to form RNA by coming together in a particular se-
quence? Evolutionist John Horgan admits the impossibility of the chance
formation of RNA;

As researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept closely, more
problems emerge. How did RNA initially arise? RNA and its components are
difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less
under really plausible ones. 131

2. Even if we suppose that it formed by chance, how could this RNA,

CONFESSIONS FROM EVOLUTIONISTS

robabilistic calculations make it clear that complex molecules such as pro-
. teins and nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) could not ever have been formed by
chance independently of each other. Yet evolutionists have to face the even
greater problem that all these complex molecules have to coexist simultaneously
in order for life to exist at all. Evolutionary theory is utterly confounded by this re-
quirement. This is a point on which some leading evolutionists have been forced
to confession. For instance, Stanley Miller's and Francis Crick's close associate
from the University of San Diego California, reputable evolutionist Dr. Leslie Orgel
says:

It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are
structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time.
Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first
glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated
by chemical means. 1
The same fact is also admitted by other scientists:

DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of cat-
alytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but nei-
ther can DNA form without proteins. 2

How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribo-
somes and RNA molecules), originate? For the moment, we will have to content
ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer. 3
The New York Times science correspondent, Nicholas Wade made this comment in
an article dated 2000:

Everything about the origin of life on Earth is a mystery, and it seems the more
that is known, the more acute the puzzle get. 4

1- Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth", Scientific American, vol. 271, October 1994, p. 78

2- John Horgan, "In the Beginning", Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1 991 , p. 1 1 9

3- Douglas R. Hofstadter, Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, New York, Vintage
Books, 1980, p. 548

4- Nicholas Wade, "Life's Origins Get Murkier and Messier", The New York Times, June 13, 2000,
pp. D1-D2

consisting of just a nucleotide chain, have "decided" to self-replicate, and
with what kind of mechanism could it have carried out this self -replicating
process? Where did it find the nucleotides it used while self-replicating?
Even evolutionist microbiologists Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel express
the desperate nature of the situation in their book In the RNA World:

This discussion... has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-
replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynu-
cleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current
understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it would strain the credulity of
even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential. 132

3. Even if we suppose that there was self-replicating RNA in the pri-

The Molecular Impasse of Evolution 147

mordial world, that numerous amino acids of every type ready to be used by
RNA were available, and that all of these impossibilities somehow took
place, the situation still does not lead to the formation of even one single
protein. For RNA only includes information concerning the structure of pro-
teins. Amino acids, on the other hand, are raw materials. Nevertheless, there
is no mechanism for the production of proteins. To consider the existence of
RNA sufficient for protein production is as nonsensical as expecting a car to
assemble itself simplyh throwing the blueprint onto a heap of parts piled up
on top of each other. A blueprint cannot produce a car all by itself without a
factory and workers to assemble the parts according to the instructions con-
tained in the blueprint; in the same way, the blueprint contained in RNA
cannot produce proteins by itself without the cooperation of other cellular
components which follow the instructions contained in the RNA.

Proteins are produced in the ribosome factory with the help of many
enzymes and as a result of extremely complex processes within the cell. The
ribosome is a complex cell organelle made up of proteins. This leads, there-
fore, to another unreasonable supposition-that ribosomes, too, should have
come into existence by chance at the same time. Even Nobel Prize winner
Jacques Monod, who was one of the most fanatical defenders of evolution-
and atheism-explained that protein synthesis can by no means be consid-
ered to depend merely on the information in the nucleic acids:

The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell's translating ma-
chinery consists of at least 50 macromolecular components, which are them-
selves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of
translation themselves. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo. When
and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imag-
ine. 133

How could an RNA chain in the primordial world have taken such a
decision, and what methods could it have employed to make protein pro-
duction happen by doing the work of 50 specialized particles on its own?
Evolutionists have no answer to these questions.

Dr. Leslie Orgel, one of the associates of Stanley Miller and Francis
Crick from the University of California at San Diego, uses the term "sce-
nario" for the possibility of "the origination of life through the RNA
World". Orgel described what kind of features this RNA have had to have
and how impossible this would have been in his article "The Origin of Life"
published in American Scientist in October 1994:

148 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

This scenario could have occured, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two prop-
erties not evident today: A capacity to replicate without the help of proteins
and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis. 134

As should by now be clear, to expect these two complex and ex-
tremely essential processes from a molecule such as RNA is only possible
from the evolutionist's viewpoint and with the help of his power of imagi-
nation. Concrete scientific facts, on the other hand, makes it explicit that
the RNA World hypothesis, which is a new model proposed for the chance
formation of life, is an equally implausible fable.

Biochemist Gordon C. Mills from the University of Texas and Molecu-
lar biologist Dean Kenyon from San Francisco State University assess the
flaws of the RNA World scenario, and reach to a brief conclusion in their
article titled " The RNA World: A Critique": "RNA is a remarkable molecule.
The RNA World hypothesis is another matter. We see no grounds for considering
it established, or even promising." 135

Science writer Brig Klyce's 2001 article explains that evolutionist sci-
entists are very persistent on this issue, but the results obtained so far have
already shown that these efforts are all in vain:

Research in the RNA world is a medium-sized industry. This research has
demonstrated how exceedingly difficult it would be for living cells to origi-
nate by chance from nonliving matter in the time available on Earth. That
demonstration is a valuable contribution to science. Additional research will
be valuable as well. But to keep insisting that life can spontaneously emerge
from nonliving chemicals in the face of the newly comprehended difficulties
is puzzling. It is reminiscent of the work of medieval alchemists who persis-
tently tried to turn lead into gold. 136

Life is a Concept Beyond Mere Heaps of Molecules

So far, we have examined how impossible the accidental formation of
life is. Let us again ignore these impossibilities for just a moment. Let us
suppose that a protein molecule was formed in the most inappropriate,
most uncontrolled environment such as the primordial earth conditions.
The formation of only one protein would not be sufficient; this protein
would have to wait patiently for thousands, maybe millions of years in
this uncontrolled environment without sustaining any damage, until an-
other molecule was formed beside it by chance under the same conditions.
It would have to wait until millions of correct and essential proteins were

The Molecular Impasse of Evolution 149

formed side by side in the same setting all "by chance". Those that formed
earlier had to be patient enough to wait, without being destroyed despite
ultraviolet rays and harsh mechanical effects, for the others to be formed
right next to them. Then these proteins in adequate number, which all orig-
inated at the very same spot, would have to come together by making
meaningful combinations and form the organelles of the cell. No extrane-
ous material, harmful molecule, or useless protein chain may interfere
with them. Then, even if these organelles were to come together in an ex-
tremely harmonious and co-operative way within a plan and order, they
must take all the necessary enzymes beside themselves and become covered
with a membrane, the inside of which must be filled with a special liquid to
prepare the ideal environment for them. Now even if all these "highly un-
likely" events actually occurred by chance, would this molecular heap come
to life?

The answer is No, because research has revealed that the mere combi-
nation of all the materials essential for life is not enough for life to get
started. Even if all the essential proteins for life were collected and put in a
test tube, these efforts would not result with producing a living cell. All the
experiments conducted on this subject have proved to be unsuccessful. All
observations and experiments indicate that life can only originate from life.
The assertion that life evolved from non-living things, in other words, "abio-
genesis", is a tale only existing in the dreams of the evolutionists and com-
pletely at variance with the results of every experiment and observation.

In this respect, the first life on earth must also have originated from
other life. This is a reflection of God's epithet of "Hayy" (The Owner of
Life). Life can only start, continue, and end by His will. As for evolution,
not only is it unable to explain how life began, it is also unable to explain
how the materials essential for life have formed and come together.

Chandra Wickramasinghe describes the reality he faced as a scien-
tist who had been told throughout his life that life had emerged as a re-
sult of chance coincidences:

From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to
believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation.
That notion has had to be painfully shed. At the moment, I can't find any ra-
tional argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to
God. We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical an-
swer to life is creation-and not accidental random shuffling. 137

CHAPTER

Thermodynamics
Falsifies Evolution

he second law of thermodynamics, which is accepted as one of the
basic laws of physics, holds that under normal conditions all sys-
tems left on their own tend to become disordered, dispersed, and
corrupted in direct relation to the amount of time that passes. Everything,
whether living or not wears out, deteriorates, decays, disintegrates, and is
destroyed. This is the absolute end that all beings will face one way or an-
other, and according to the law, the process cannot be avoided.

This is something that all of us have observed. For example if you
take a car to a desert and leave it there, you would hardly expect to find it
in a better condition when you came back years later. On the contrary, you
would see that its tires had gone flat, its windows had been broken, its
chassis had rusted, and its engine had stopped working. The same in-
evitable process holds true for living things.

The second law of thermodynamics is the means by which this nat-
ural process is defined with physical equations and calculations.

This famous law of physics is also known as "the law of entropy". In
physics, entropy is the measure of the disorder of a system. A system's en-
tropy increases as it moves from an ordered, organised, and planned state
towards a more disordered, dispersed, and unplanned one. The more dis-
order there is in a system, the higher its entropy is. The law of entropy
holds that the entire universe is unavoidably proceeding towards a more
disordered, unplanned, and disorganised state.

The truth of the second law of thermodynamics, or the law of entropy,
has been experimentally and theoretically established. All foremost scien-
tists agree that the law of entropy will remain the principle paradigm for
the foreseeable future. Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist of our age, de-
scribed it as the "premier law of all of science". Sir Arthur Eddington also
referred to it as the "supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe". 138

Evolutionary theory ignores this fundamental law of physics. The
mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts the second law. The

Thermodynamics Falsifies Evolution

151

theory of evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and lifeless atoms and
molecules spontaneously came together over time, in a particular order, to
form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA,
whereupon millions of different living species with even more complex
structures gradually emerged. According to the the-
ory of evolution, this supposed process-which yields
a more planned, more ordered, more complex and
more organised structure at each stage-was formed
all by itself under natural conditions. The law of en-
tropy makes it clear that this so-called natural
process utterly contradicts the laws of physics.

Evolutionist scientists are also aware of this
fact. J.H. Rush states:

In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a
remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the
Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second
Law expresses an irreversible progression toward in-
creased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually
higher levels of order. 139

The evolutionist author Roger Lewin expresses
the thermodynamic impasse of evolution in an arti-
cle in Science:

One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution
of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time,
giving less, not more, order. 140

Another defender of the theory of evolution, George Stravropoulos
states the thermodynamic impossibility of the spontaneous formation of
life and the impossibility of explaining the existence of complex living
mechanisms by natural laws in the well-known evolutionist journal Amer-
ican Scientist:

Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can ever form
spontaneously but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with the second law.
Indeed, the more complex it is, the more unstable it will be, and the more as-
sured, sooner or later, its disintegration. Photosynthesis and all life processes,
and even life itself, cannot yet be understood in terms of thermodynamics or
any other exact science, despite the use of confused or deliberately confusing
language. 141

As we have seen, the second law of thermodynamics constitutes an

The law of
thermodynamics
holds that
natural
conditions al-
ways lead to dis-
order and loss of
information.
Evolutionary
theory, on the
other hand, is an
unscientific be-
lief that utterly
contradicts with
this law.

152 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

insurmountable obstacle for the scenario of evolution, in terms of both sci-
ence and logic. Unable to offer any scientific and consistent explanation to
overcome this obstacle, evolutionists can only do so in their imagination.
For instance, the well-known evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin notes his belief
that evolution overwhelms this law of physics with a "magical power":

The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall available energy
for life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the exact opposite. We be-
lieve that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and
order on earth. 142

These words well indicate that evolution is a dogmatic belief rather
than a scientific thesis.

The Myth of the "Open System"

Some proponents of evolution have recourse to an argument that the
second law of thermodynamics holds true only for "closed systems", and
that "open systems" are beyond the scope of this law.

An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy and
matter flow in and out. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open sys-
tem: that it is constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the
law of entropy does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered,
complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and inan-
imate structures.

However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system
has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific
mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car
needs an engine, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to
convert the energy in petrol to work. Without such an energy conversion
system, the car will not be able to use the energy stored in petrol.

The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life de-
rives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted
into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems
in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive sys-
tems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such en-
ergy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is
nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts.

As may be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conver-
sion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open

Thermodynamics Falsifies Evolution 153

or closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms
could have existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth.
Indeed, the real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how
complex energy-converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in plants,
which cannot be duplicated even with modern technology, could have
come into being on their own.

The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to bring
about order on its own. Moreover, no matter how high the temperature
may become, amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. En-
ergy by itself is incapable of making amino acids form the much more com-
plex molecules of proteins, or of making proteins from the much complex
and organised structures of cell organelles. The real and essential source of
this organisation at all levels is intelligent design: in a word, creation.

The Myth of the "Self Organization of Matter"

Quite aware that the second law of thermodynamics renders evolu-
tion impossible, some evolutionist scientists have made speculative at-
tempts to square the circle between the two, in order to be able to claim
that evolution is possible. As usual, even those endeavours show that the
theory of evolution faces an inescapable impasse.

One person distinguished by his efforts to marry thermodynamics and
evolution is the Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine. Starting out from chaos the-
ory, Prigogine proposed a number of hypotheses in which order develops
from chaos (disorder). He argued that some open systems can portray a de-
crease in entropy due to an influx of outer energy and the outcoming "order-
ing" is a proof that "matter can organise itself." Since then, the concept of the
"self -organization of matter" has been quite popular among evolutionists and
materialists. They act like they have found a materialistic origin for the com-
plexity of life and a materialistic solution for the problem of life's origin.

But a closer look reveals that this argument is totally abstract and in
fact just wishful thinking. Moreover, it includes a very naive deception.
The deception lies in the deliberate confusing of two distinct concepts, "or-
dered" and "organised." 143

We can make this clear with an example. Imagine a completely flat
beach on the seashore. When a strong wave hits the beach, mounds of
sand, large and small, form bumps on the surface of the sand.

This is a process of "ordering": The seashore is an open system and the

154 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

energy flow (the wave) that enters it can form simple patterns in the sand,
which look completely regular. From the thermodynamic point of view, it
can set up order here where before there was none. But we must make it
clear that those same waves cannot build a castle on the beach. If we see a
castle there, we are in no doubt that someone has constructed it, because
the castle is an "organised" system. In other words, it possesses a clear de-
sign and information. Every part of it has been made by a conscious entity
in a planned manner.

The difference between the sand and the castle is that the former is an
organised complexity, whereas the latter possesses only order, brought
about by simple repetitions. The order formed from repetitions is as if an
object (in other words the flow of energy entering the system) had fallen on
the letter "a" on a typewriter keyboard, writing "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" hun-
dreds of times. But the string of "a"s in an order repeated in this manner
contains no information, and no complexity. In order to write a complex
chain of letters actually containing information (in other words a meaning-
ful sequence, paragraph or book), the presence of intelligence is essential.

The same thing applies when wind blows into a dusty room. When the
wind blows in, the dust which had been lying in an even layer may gather in
one corner of the room. This is also a more ordered situation than that which
existed before, in the thermodynamic sense, but the individual specks of dust
cannot form a portrait of someone on the floor in an organised manner.

This means that complex, organised systems can never come about as
the result of natural processes. Although simple examples of order can
happen from time to time, these cannot go beyond limits.

But evolutionists point to this self-ordering which emerges through
natural processes as a most important proof of evolution, portray such
cases as examples of "self-organization". As a result of this confusion of
concepts, they propose that living systems could develop their own accord
from occurrences in nature and chemical reactions. The methods and stud-
ies employed by Prigogine and his followers, which we considered above,
are based on this deceptive logic.

The American scientists Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and
Roger L. Olsen, in their book titled The Mystery of Life's Origin, explain this
fact as follows:

...In each case random movements of molecules in a fluid are spontaneously
replaced by a highly ordered behavior. Prigogine, Eigen, and others have

Thermodynamics Falsifies Evolution 155

suggested that a similar sort of self-organization may be intrinsic in organic
chemistry and can potentially account for the highly complex macromole-
cules essential for living systems. But such analogies have scant relevance to
the origin-of-life question. A major reason is that they fail to distinguish be-
tween order and complexity... Regularity or order cannot serve to store the
large amount of information required by living systems. A highly irregular,
but specified, structure is required rather than an ordered structure. This is a
serious flaw in the analogy offered. There is no apparent connection between
the kind of spontaneous ordering that occurs from energy flow through such
systems and the work required to build aperiodic information-intensive
macromolecules like DNA and protein. 144

In fact even Prigogine himself has accepted that the theories he has
produced for the molecular level do not apply to living systems-for in-
stance, a living cell:

The problem of biological order involves the transition from the molecular
activity to the supermolecular order of the cell. This problem is far from
being solved. 145

So why do evolutionists continue to believe in scenarios such as the
"self organization of matter", which have no scientific foundation? Why
are they so determined to reject the intelligence and planning that so
clearly can be seen in living systems? The answer is that they have a dog-
matic faith in materialism and they believe that matter has some mysteri-
ous power to create life. A professor of chemistry from New York
University and DNA expert, Robert Shapiro, explains this belief of evolu-
tionists about the "self-organization of matter" and the materialist dogma
lying at its heart as follows:

Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed to take us across the gap
from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective replicator. This
principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but it is antici-
pated, and given names such as chemical evolution and self-organization of
matter. The existence of the principle is taken for granted in the philosophy of
dialectical materialism, as applied to the origin of life by Alexander Oparin. 146

All this situation clearly demonstrates that evolution is a dogma that is
against emprical science and the origin of living beings can only be ex-
plained by the intervention of a supernatural power. That supernatural
power is the creation of God, who created the entire universe from nothing.
Science has proven that evolution is still impossible as far as thermodynam-
ics is concerned and the existence of life has no explanation but Creation.

CHAPTER

Design and Coincidence

■

In the previous chapter, we have examined how impossible the acci-
dental formation of life is. Let us again ignore these impossibilities for
just a moment. Let us suppose that millions of years ago a cell was
formed which had acquired everything necessary for life, and that it duly
"came to life". Evolution again collapses at this point. For even if this cell
had existed for a while, it would eventually have died and after its death,
nothing would have remained, and everything would have reverted to
where it had started. This is because this first living cell, lacking any ge-
netic information, would not have been able to reproduce and start a new
generation. Life would have ended with its death.

The genetic system does not only consist of DNA. The following
things must also exist in the same environment: enzymes to read the code
on the DNA, messenger RNA to be produced after reading these codes, a
ribosome to which messenger RNA will attach according to this code,
transfer RNA to transfer the amino acids to the ribosome for use in pro-
duction, and extremely complex enzymes to carry out numerous interme-
diary processes. Such an environment cannot exist anywhere apart from aa
totally isolated and completely controlled environment such as the cell,
where all the essential raw materials and energy resources exist.

As a result, organic matter can self-reproduce only if it exists as a fully
developed cell with all its organelles and in an appropriate environment
where it can survive, exchange materials, and get energy from its sur-
roundings. This means that the first cell on earth was formed "all of a sud-
den" together with its incredibly complex structure.

So, if a complex structure came into existence all of a sudden, what
does this mean?

Let us ask this question with an example. Let us liken the cell to a high-
tech car in terms of its complexity. (In fact, the cell is a much more complex
and developed system than a car with its engine and all its technical equip-
ment.) Now let us ask the following question: What would you think if you

Design and Coincidence 157

went out hiking in the depths of a thick forest and ran across a brand-new
car among the trees? Would you imagine that various elements in the forest
had come together by chance over millions of years and produced such a
vehicle? All the parts in the car are made of products such as iron, copper,
and rubber-the raw ingredients for which are all found on the earth-but
would this fact lead you to think that these materials had synthesised "by
chance" and then come together and manufactured such a car?

There is no doubt that anyone with a sound mind would realise that
the car was the product of an intelligent design-in other words, a factory-
and wonder what it was doing there in the middle of the forest. The sud-
den emergence of a complex structure in a complete form, quite out of the
blue, shows that this is the work of an intelligent agent. A complex system
like the cell is no doubt created by a superior will and wisdom. In other
words, it came into existence as a creation of God.

Believing that pure chance can produce perfect designs goes well be-
yond the bounds of reason. Yet, every "explanation put forward by the the-
ory of evolution regarding the origin of life is like that. One outspoken
authority on this issue is the famous French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grasse,
the former president of the French Academy of Sciences. Grasse is a mate-
rialist, yet he acknowledges that Darwinist theory is unable to explain life
and makes a point about the logic of "coincidence", which is the backbone
of Darwinism:

The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to
meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even
more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands
and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become
the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur...
There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it. 147

Grasse summarises what the concept of "coincidence" means for evo-
lutionists: "...Chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the
cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped." 148

The logical failure of evolutionists is an outcome of their enshrining
the concept of coincidence. In the Qur'an, it is written that those who wor-
ship beings other than God are devoid of understanding;

They have hearts wherewith they understand not, eyes wherewith they see
not, and ears wherewith they hear not. They are like cattle - nay more mis-
guided: for they are heedless (of warning). (Surat al-Araf : 179)

158 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

Darwinian Formula!

Besides all the technical evidence we have dealt with so far, let us now
for once, examine what kind of a superstition the evolutionists have with
an example so simple as to be understood even by children:

Evolutionary theory asserts that life is formed by chance. According
to this claim, lifeless and unconscious atoms came together to form the cell
and then they somehow formed other living things, including man. Let us
think about that. When we bring together the elements that are the build-
ing-blocks of life such as carbon, phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium,
only a heap is formed. No matter what treatments it undergoes, this
atomic heap cannot form even a single living being. If you like, let us for-
mulate an "experiment" on this subject and let us examine on the behalf of
evolutionists what they really claim without pronouncing loudly under
the name "Darwinian formula":

Let evolutionists put plenty of materials present in the composition of
living beings such as phosphorus, nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, iron, and
magnesium into big barrels. Moreover, let them add in these barrels any
material that does not exist under normal conditions, but they think as
necessary. Let them add in this mixture as many amino acids-which have
no possibility of forming under natural conditions-and as many proteins-a
single one of which has a formation probability of 10~ 950 -as they like. Let
them expose these mixtures to as much heat and moisture as they like. Let
them stir these with whatever technologically developed device they like.
Let them put the foremost scientists beside these barrels. Let these experts
wait in turn beside these barrels for billions, and even trillions of years. Let
them be free to use all kinds of conditions they believe to be necessary for
a human's formation. No matter what they do, they cannot produce from
these barrels a human, say a professor that examines his cell structure
under the electron microscope. They cannot produce giraffes, lions, bees,
canaries, horses, dolphins, roses, orchids, lilies, carnations, bananas, or-
anges, apples, dates, tomatoes, melons, watermelons, figs, olives, grapes,
peaches, peafowls, pheasants, multicoloured butterflies, or millions of
other living beings such as these. Indeed, they could not obtain even a sin-
gle cell of any one of them.

Briefly, unconscious atoms cannot form the cell by coming together.
They cannot take a new decision and divide this cell into two, then take

Design and Coincidence 159

other decisions and create the professors who first invent the electron mi-
croscope and then examine their own cell structure under that microscope.
Matter is an unconscious, lifeless heap, and it comes to life with God's
superior creation.

Evolutionary theory, which claims the opposite, is a total fallacy com-
pletely contrary to reason. Thinking even a little bit on the claims of tevo-
lutionists discloses this reality, just as in the above example.

Technology In The Eye and The Ear

Another subject that remains unanswered by evolutionary theory is
the excellent quality of perception in the eye and the ear.

Before passing on to the subject of the eye, let us briefly answer the
question of "how we see". Light rays coming from an object fall oppositely
on the retina of the eye. Here, these light rays are transmitted into electric
signals by cells and they reach a tiny spot at the back of the brain called the
centre of vision. These electric signals are perceived in this centre of the
brain as an image after a series of processes. With this technical back-
ground, let us do some thinking.

The brain is insulated from light. That means that the inside of the
brain is solid dark, and light does not reach the location where the brain is
situated. The place called the centre of vision is a solid dark place where no
light ever reaches; it may even be the darkest place you have ever known.
However, you observe a luminous, bright world in this pitch darkness.

The image formed in the eye is so sharp and distinct that even the
technology of the 20th century has not been able to attain it. For instance,
look at the book you read, your hands with which you hold it, then lift
your head and look around you. Have you ever seen such a sharp and dis-
tinct image as this one at any other place? Even the most developed televi-
sion screen produced by the greatest television producer in the world
cannot provide such a sharp image for you. This is a three-dimensional,
coloured, and extremely sharp image. For more than 100 years, thousands
of engineers have been trying to achieve this sharpness. Factories, huge
premises were established, much research has been done, plans and de-
signs have been made for this purpose. Again, look at a TV screen and the
book you hold in your hands. You will see that there is a big difference in
sharpness and distinction. Moreover, the TV screen shows you a two-di-

160

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

mensional image, whereas with your eyes, you watch a three-dimensional
perspective having depth. When you look carefully, you will see that there
is a blurring in the television, is there any blurring in your vision? Surely
there is not.

For many years, ten of thousands of engineers have tried to make a
three-dimensional TV, and reach the vision quality of the eye. Yes, they
have made a three-dimensional television system but it is not possible to
watch it without putting on glasses; moreover, it is only an artificial three-
dimension. The background is more blurred, the foreground appears like a
paper setting. Never has it been possible to produce a sharp and distinct
vision like that of the eye. In both the camera and the television, there is a
loss of image quality.

Evolutionists claim that the mechanism producing this sharp and dis-
tinct image has been formed by chance. Now, if somebody told you that
the television in your room was formed as a result of chance, that all its
atoms just happened to come together and make up this device that pro-
duces an image, what would you think? How can atoms do what thou-
sands of people cannot?

When we compare the eye and the ear
with cameras and sound recorders, we
see that the eye and the ear are far more
complex, functional, and perfect than
those technological products.

Design and Coincidence 161

For nearly a century, tens of thousands of engineers have been re-
searching and striving in high-tech laboratories and great industrial com-
plexes using the most advanced technological devices, and they have been
able to do no more than this.

If a device producing a more primitive image than the eye could not
have been formed by chance, then it is very evident that the eye and the
image seen by the eye could not have been formed by chance. It requires a
much more detailed and wise plan and design than the one in the TV. The
plan and design of the image as distinct and sharp as this one belongs to
God, Who has power over all things.

The same situation applies to the ear. The outer ear picks up the avail-
able sounds by the auricle and directs them to the middle ear; the middle
ear transmits the sound vibrations by intensifying them; the inner ear
sends these vibrations to the brain by translating them into electric signals.
Just as with the eye, the act of hearing finalises in the centre of hearing in
the brain.

The situation in the eye is also true for the ear. That is, the brain is in-
sulated from sound just like it is from light: it does not let any sound in.
Therefore, no matter how noisy is the outside, the inside of the brain is
completely silent. Nevertheless, the sharpest sounds are perceived in the
brain. In your brain, which is insulated from sound, you listen to the sym-
phonies of an orchestra, and hear all the noises in a crowded place. How-
ever, if the sound level in your brain was measured by a precise device at
that moment, it would be seen that a complete silence is prevailing there.

Let us again compare the high quality and superior technology pre-
sent in the ear and the brain with the technology produced by human be-
ings. As is the case with imagery, decades of effort have been spent in
trying to generate and reproduce sound that is faithful to the original. The
results of these efforts are sound recorders, high-fidelity systems, and sys-
tems for sensing sound. Despite all this technology and the thousands of
engineers and experts who have been working in this endeavour, no
sound has yet been obtained that has the same sharpness and clarity as the
sound perceived by the ear. Think of the highest-quality HI-FI systems
produced by the biggest company in the music industry. Even in these de-
vices, when sound is recorded some of it is lost; or when you turn on the
HI-FI you always hear a hissing sound before the music starts. However,

162 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

the sounds that are the products of the technology of the human body are
extremely sharp and clear. A human ear never perceives a sound accompa-
nied by a hissing sound or with atmospherics as a HI-FI does; it perceives
the sound exactly as it is, sharp and clear. This is the way it has been since
the creation of man.

Briefly the technology in our body is far superior to the technology
mankind has produced using its accumulated information, experience,
and opportunities. No one would say that a HI-FI or a camera came into
being as a result of chance. So how can it be claimed that the technologies
that exist in the human body, which are superior even to these, could have
come into being as a result of a chain of coincidences called evolution?

It is evident that the eye, the ear, and indeed all the other parts of the
human body are products of a very superior creation. These are crystal-
clear indications of God's unique and unmatched creation, of His eternal
knowledge and might.

The reason we specifically mention the senses of seeing and hearing
here is the inability of evolutionists to understand evidence of creation so
clear as this. If, one day, you ask an evolutionist to explain to you how this
excellent design and technology became possible in the eye and the ear as
a result of chance, you will see that he will not be able to give you any rea-
sonable or logical reply. Even Darwin, in his letter to Asa Gray on April
3rd 1860, wrote that "the thought of the eye made him cold all over" and
he confessed the desperation of the evolutionists in the face of the excellent
design of living things. 149

The Theory of Evolution is the Most Potent Spell in the World

Throughout this book it has been explained that the theory of evolu-
tion lacks any scientific evidence and that on the contrary, scientific proofs
from such branches of science such as paleontology, microbiology and
anatomy reveal it to be a bankrupt theory. It has been stressed that evolu-
tion is incompatible with scientific discoveries, reason and logic.

It needs to be made clear that anyone free of prejudice and the influ-
ence of any particular ideology, who uses only his reason and logic, will
clearly understand that belief in the theory of evolution, which brings to
mind the superstitions of societies with no knowledge of science or civi-
lization, is quite impossible.

Design and Coincidence 163

As has been explained above, those who believe in the theory of evo-
lution think that a few atoms and molecules thrown into a huge vat could
produce thinking, reasoning professors, university students, scientists
such as Einstein and Galileo, artists such as Humphrey Bogart, Frank Sina-
tra and Pavarotti, as well as antelopes, lemon trees and carnations. More-
over, the scientists and professors who believe in this nonsense are
educated people. That is why it is quite justifiable to speak of the theory of
evolution as "the most potent spell in history." Never before has any other
belief or idea so taken away peoples' powers of reason, refused to allow
them to think intelligently and logically and hidden the truth from them as
if they had been blindfolded. This is an even worse and unbelievable
blindness than the Egyptians worshipping the Sun God Ra, totem worship
in some parts of Africa, the people of Saba worshipping the Sun, the tribe
of the Prophet Abraham worshipping idols they had made with their own
hands or the people of the Prophet Moses worshipping the Golden Calf.

In fact, this situation is a lack of reason God points out in the Qur'an.
He reveals in many verses that some peoples' minds will be closed and
that they will be powerless to see the truth. Some of these verses are as fol-
lows:

As for those who disbelieve, it makes no difference to them whether you
warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe. God has sealed up
their hearts and hearing and over their eyes is a blindfold. They will have
a terrible punishment. (Surat al-Baqara: 6-7)

. . .They have hearts they do not understand with. They have eyes they do not
see with. They have ears they do not hear with. Such people are like cattle.
No, they are even further astray! They are the unaware. (Surat al-A'raf: 179)

Even if We opened up to them a door into heaven, and they spent the day as-
cending through it, they would only say, "Our eyesight is befuddled! Or
rather we have been put under a spell!" (Surat al-Hijr: 14-15)

Words cannot express just how astonishing it is that this spell should
hold such a wide community in thrall, keep people from the truth, and not
be broken for 150 years. It is understandable that one or a few people
might believe in impossible scenarios and claims full of stupidity and il-
logicality. However, "magic" is the only possible explanation for people
from all over the world believing that unconscious and lifeless atoms sud-
denly decided to come together and form a universe that functions with a
flawless system of organization, discipline, reason and consciousness, the

164 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

planet Earth with all its features so perfectly suited to life, and living
things full of countless complex systems.

In fact, God reveals in the Qur'an in the incident of the Prophet Moses
and Pharaoh that some people who support atheistic philosophies actually
influence others by magic. When Pharaoh was told about the true religion,
he told the Prophet Moses to meet with his own magicians. When the
Prophet Moses did so, he told them to demonstrate their abilities first. The
verses continue:

He said, "You throw." And when they threw, they cast a spell on the people's

eyes and caused them to feel great fear of them. They produced an extremely

powerful magic. (Surat al-A'raf: 116)

As we have seen, Pharaoh's magicians were able to deceive everyone,
apart from the Prophet Moses and those who believed in him. However,
the evidence put forward by the Prophet Moses broke that spell, or "swal-
lowed up what they had forged" as the verse puts it.

We revealed to Moses, "Throw down your staff." And it immediately swal-
lowed up what they had forged. So the Truth took place and what they did
was shown to be false. (Surat al-A'raf: 117-119)

As we can see from that verse, when it was realised that what these
people who had first cast a spell over others had done was just an illusion,
they lost all credibility. In the present day too, unless those who under the
influence of a similar spell believe in these ridiculous claims under their
scientific disguise and spend their lives defending them abandon them,
they too will be humiliated when the full truth emerges and the spell is
broken. In fact, Malcolm Muggeridge, an atheist philosopher and sup-
porter of evolution admitted he was worried by just that prospect:

I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to
which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in
the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothe-
sis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has. 150

That future is not far off: On the contrary, people will soon see that
"chance" is not a god, and will look back on the theory of evolution as the
worst deceit and the most terrible spell in the world. That spell is already
rapidly beginning to be lifted from the shoulders of people all over the
world. Many people who see the true face of the theory of evolution are
wondering with amazement how it was that they were ever taken in by it.

CHAPTER

Evolutionist Claims
and the Facts

n previous chapters, we examined the invalidity of the theory of evolu-
tion in terms of the bodies of evidence found in fossils and from the
standpoint of molecular biology. In this chapter, we will address a num-
ber of biological phenomena and concepts presented as theoretical evidence
by evolutionists. These topics are particularly important for they show that
there is no scientific finding that supports evolution and instead reveal the
extent of the distortion and hoodwink employed by evolutionists.

Variations and Species

Variation, a term used in genetics, refers to a genetic event that causes
the individuals or groups of a certain type or species to possess different
characteristics from one another. For example, all the people on earth carry
basically the same genetic information, yet some have slanted eyes, some
have red hair, some have long noses, and others are short of stature, all de-
pending on the extent of the variation potential of this genetic information.

Evolutionists predicate the variations within a species as evidence to
the theory. However, variation does not constitute evidence for evolution
because variations are but the outcomes of different combinations of al-
ready existing genetic information and they do not add any new charac-
teristic to the genetic information. The important thing for the theory of
evolution, however, is the question of how brand-new information to
make a brand-new species could come about.

Variation always takes place within the limits of genetic information.
In the science of genetics, this limit is called the "gene pool". All of the char-
acteristics present in the gene pool of a species may come to light in vari-
ous ways due to variation. For example, as a result of variation, varieties
that have relatively longer tails or shorter legs may appear in a certain

166 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

species of reptile, since information for both long-legged and short-legged
forms may exist in the gene pool that species. However, variations do not
transform reptiles into birds by adding wings or feathers to them, or by
changing their metabolism. Such a change requires an increase in the ge-
netic information of the living thing, which is certainly not possible
through variations.

Darwin was not aware of this fact when he formulated his theory. He
thought that there was no limit to variations. In an article he wrote in 1844
he stated: "That a limit to variation does exist in nature is assumed by
most authors, though I am unable to discover a single fact on which this
belief is grounded". 151 In The Origin of Species he cited different examples
of variations as the most important evidence for his theory.

For instance, according to Darwin, animal breeders who mated differ-
ent varieties of cattle in order to bring about new varieties that produced
more milk, were ultimately going to transform them into a different
species. Darwin's notion of "unlimited variation" is best seen in the follow-
ing sentence from The Origin of Species:

I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection,

more and more aquatic in their habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a

creature was produced as monstrous as a whale. 152

The reason Darwin cited such a far-fetched example was the primi-
tive understanding of science in his day. Since then, in the 20th century, sci-
ence has posited the principle of "genetic stability" (genetic homeostasis),
based on the results of experiments conducted on living things. This prin-
ciple holds that, since all mating attempts carried out to produce new vari-
ations have been inconclusive, there are strict barriers among different
species of living things. This meant that it was absolutely impossible for
animal breeders to convert cattle into a different species by mating differ-
ent variations of them, as Darwin had postulated.

Norman Macbeth, who disproved Darwinism in his book Darwin Re-
tried, states:

The heart of the problem is whether living things do indeed vary to an un-
limited extent... The species look stable. We have all heard of disappointed
breeders who carried their work to a certain point only to see the animals or

Evolutionist Claims and the Facts

167

plants revert to where they had started. Despite strenuous efforts for two or
three centuries, it has never been possible to produce a blue rose or a black
tulip. 153

Luther Burbank, considered the most competent breeder of all time,
expressed this fact when he said, "there are limits to the development pos-
sible, and these limits follow a law." 154 The Danish scientist W. L. Jo-
hannsen sums the matter up this way:

The variations upon which Darwin and Wallace had placed their emphasis

cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such a variability

does not contain the secret of 'indefinite departure. 155

Antibiotic Resistance and DDT Immunity
are not Evidence for Evolution

One of the biological concepts that evolutionists try to present as evi-
dence for their theory is the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. Many evo-
lutionist sources show antibiotic resistance as "an example of the
development of living things by advantageous mutations". A similar claim
is also made for the insects which build immunity to insecticides such as
DDT.

However, evolutionists are mistaken on this subject too.

168 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

Antibiotics are "killer molecules" that are produced by micro-organ-
isms to fight other micro-organisms. The first antibiotic was penicillin, dis-
covered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming realized that mould
produced a molecule that killed the Staphylococcus bacterium, and this dis-
covery marked a turning point in the world of medicine. Antibiotics de-
rived from micro-organisms were used against bacteria and the results
were successful.

Soon, something new was discovered. Bacteria build immunity to an-
tibiotics over time. The mechanism works like this: A large proportion of
the bacteria that are subjected to antibiotics die, but some others, which are
not affected by that antibiotic, replicate rapidly and soon make up the
whole population. Thus, the entire population becomes immune to antibi-
otics.

Evolutionists try to present this as "the evolution of bacteria by adapt-
ing to conditions".

The truth, however, is very different from this superficial interpreta-
tion. One of the scientists who has done the most detailed research into this
subject is the Israeli biophysicist Lee Spetner, who is also known for his
book Not by Chance published in 1997. Spetner maintains that the immu-
nity of bacteria comes about by two different mechanisms, but neither of
them constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution. These two mecha-
nisms are:

1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria.

2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because
of mutation.

Professor Spetner explains the first mechanism in an article published
in 2001:

Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these
antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic mol-
ecule or of ejecting it from the cell... The organisms having these genes can
transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the
resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic
bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting
them resistance to a variety of antibiotics. 156
Spetner then goes on to say that this is not "evidence for evolution":

Evolutionist Claims and the Facts 169

The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that
can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution.
The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add infor-
mation to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the
biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are
already in some species. 157

So, we cannot talk of any evolution here, because no new genetic in-
formation is produced: genetic information that already exists is simply
transferred between bacteria.

The second type of immunity, which comes about as a result of muta-
tion, is not an example of evolution either. Spetner writes:

...A microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through
a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin, which was dis-
covered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is
an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But al-
though the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microor-
ganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the
kind of mutations needed by NDT [Neo Darwinian Theory]. The type of mu-
tation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and
degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule. This change in the
surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule
from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this
degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The
main point is that (Evolution) cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort,
no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumu-
lating mutations that only degrade specificity 158

To sum up, a mutation impinging on a bacterium's ribosome makes
that bacterium resistant to streptomycin. The reason for this is the "decom-
position" of the ribosome by mutation. That is, no new genetic information is
added to the bacterium. On the contrary, the structure of the ribosome is de-
composed, that is to say, the bacterium becomes "disabled". (Also, it has
been discovered that the ribosome of the mutated bacterium is less func-
tional than that of normal bacterium). Since this "disability" prevents the an-
tibiotic from attaching onto the ribosome, "antibiotic resistance" develops.

Finally, there is no example of mutation that "develops the genetic in-
formation".

170 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

The same situation holds true for the immunity that insects develop
to DDT and similar insecticides. In most of these instances, immunity
genes that already exist are used. The evolutionist biologist Francisco
Ayala admits this fact, saying, "The genetic variants required for resistance
to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every
one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds." 159 Some
other examples explained by mutation, just as with the ribosome mutation
mentioned above, are phenomena that cause "genetic information deficit"
in insects.

In this case, it cannot be claimed that the immunity mechanisms in
bacteria and insects constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. That is
because the theory of evolution is based on the assertion that living things
develop through mutations. However, Spetner explains that neither antibi-
otic immunity nor any other biological phenomena indicate such an exam-
ple of mutation:

The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No
random mutations that could represent the mutations required by Neo-Dar-
winian Theory that have been examined on the molecular level have added
any information. The question I address is: Are the mutations that have been
observed the kind the theory needs for support? The answer turns out to be
NO! 160

The Fallacy of Vestigial Organs

For a long time, the concept of "vestigial organs" appeared frequently
in evolutionist literature as "evidence" of evolution. Eventually, it was
silently put to rest when this was proved to be invalid. But some evolu-
tionists still believe in it, and from time to time someone will try to ad-
vance "vestigial organs" as important evidence of evolution.

The notion of "vestigial organs" was first put forward a century ago.
As evolutionists would have it, there existed in the bodies of some crea-
tures a number of non-functional organs. These had been inherited from
progenitors and had gradually become vestigial from lack of use.

The whole assumption is quite unscientific, and is based entirely on
insufficient knowledge. These "non-functional organs" were in fact organs
whose "functions had not yet been discovered". The best indication of this
was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists' long list of vesti-

Evolutionist Claims and the Facts

171

gial organs. S.R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact
in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" pub-
lished in the journal Evolutionary Theory:

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and
since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude
that "vestigial organs" provide no special evidence for the theory of evolu-
tion.! 61

The list of vestigial organs that was made by the German Anatomist
R. Wiedersheim in 1895 included approximately 100 organs, including the
appendix and coccyx. As science progressed, it was discovered that all of
the organs in Wiedersheim's list in fact had very important functions. For
instance, it was discovered that the appendix, which was supposed to be a
"vestigial organ", was in fact a lymphoid organ that fought against infec-
tions in the body. This fact was made clear in 1997: "Other bodily organs
and tissues-the thymus, liver, spleen, appendix, bone marrow, and small
collections of lymphatic tissue such as the tonsils in the throat and Peyer's
patch in the small intestine-are also part of the lymphatic system. They too
help the body fight infection." 162

It was also discovered that the tonsils, which were included in the
same list of vestigial organs, had a significant role in protecting the throat
against infections, particularly until adolescence. It was found that the coc-
cyx at the lower end of the vertebral col-
umn supports the bones around the pelvis
and is the convergence point of some small
muscles and for this reason, it would not be
possible to sit comfortably without a coc-
cyx. In the years that followed, it was re-
alised that the thymus triggered the
immune system in the human body by acti-
vating the T cells, that the pineal gland
was in charge of the secretion of some im-
portant hormones, that the thyroid gland
was effective in providing steady growth in
babies and children, and that the pituitary
gland controlled the correct functioning of
many hormone glands. All of these were
once conside-red to be "vestigial organs".

All instances of vestigial organs
have been disproved in time. For
example the semicircular fold in
the eye, which was mentioned in
the Origins as a vestigial struc-
ture, has been shown to be fully
functional in our time, though its
function was unknown in Dar-
win's time. This organ lubricates
the eyeball.

172 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

Finally, the semi-lunar fold in the eye, which was referred to as a vestigial
organ by Darwin, has been found in fact to be in charge of cleansing and
lubricating the eyeball.

There was a very important logical error in the evolutionist claim re-
garding vestigial organs. As we have just seen, this claim was that the ves-
tigial organs in living things were inherited from their ancestors. However,
some of the alleged "vestigial" organs are not found in the species alleged
to be the ancestors of human beings! For example, the appendix does not
exist in some ape species that are said to be ancestors of man. The famous
biologist H. Enoch, who challenged the theory of vestigial organs, ex-
pressed this logical error as follows:

Apes possess an appendix, whereas their less immediate relatives, the lower
apes, do not; but it appears again among the still lower mammals such as
the opossum. How can the evolutionists account for this? 163

Simply put, the scenario of vestigial organs put forward by evolution-
ists contains a number of serious logical flaws, and has in any case been
proven to be scientifically untrue. There exists not one inherited vestigial
organ in the human body, since human beings did not evolve from other
creatures as a result of chance, but were created in their current, complete,
and perfect form.

The Myth of Homology

Structural similarities between different species are called "homol-
ogy" in biology. Evolutionists try to present those similarities as evidence
for evolution.

Darwin thought that creatures with similar (homologous) organs had
an evolutionary relationship with each other, and that these organs must
have been inherited from a common ancestor. According to his assump-
tion, both pigeons and eagles had wings; therefore, pigeons, eagles, and in-
deed all other birds with wings were supposed to have evolved from a
common ancestor.

Homology is a deceptive argument, advanced on the basis of no other
evidence than an apparent physical resemblance. This argument has never
once been verified by a single concrete discovery in all the years since Dar-
win's day. Nowhere in the world has anyone come up with a fossil remain
of the imaginary common ancestor of creatures with homologous struc-
tures. Furthermore, the following issues make it clear that homology pro-

Evolutionist Claims and the Facts 173

vides no evidence that evolution ever occurred.

1. One finds homologous organs in creatures belonging to completely
different phyla, among which evolutionists have not been able to establish
any sort of evolutionary relationship;

2. The genetic codes of some creatures that have homologous organs
are completely different from one another.

3. The embryological development of homologous organs in different
creatures is completely different.

Let us now examine each of these points one by one.

Similar Organs in Entirely Different Living Species

There are a number of homologous organs shared by different groups
among which evolutionists cannot establish any kind of evolutionary rela-
tionship. Wings are one example. In addition to birds, we find wings on
bats, which are mammals, and on insects and even on some dinosaurs,
which are extinct reptiles. Not even evolutionists posit an evolutionary re-
lationship or kinship among those four different groups of animals.

Another striking example is the amazing resemblance and the struc-
tural similarity observed in the eyes of different creatures. For example, the
octopus and man are two extremely different species, between which no
evolutionary relationship is likely even to be proposed, yet the eyes of both
are very much alike in terms of their structure and function. Not even evolu-
tionists try to account for the similarity of the eyes of the octopus and man
by positing a common ancestor. These and numerous other examples show
that the evolutionist claim based on resemblances is completely unscientific.
In fact, homologous organs should be a great embarrassment for evo-
lutionists. The famous evolutionist Frank Salisbury's confessions revealed
in his statements on how extremely different creatures came to have very
similar eyes underscores the impasse of homology:

Even something as complex as the eye has appeared several times; for ex-
ample, in the squid, the vertebrates, and the arthropods. It's bad enough ac-
counting for the origin of such things once, but the thought of producing
them several times according to the modern synthetic theory makes my
head swim. 164

There are many creatures which, despite their very similar physical
make-up, do not permit any claims of evolutionary relationship. Two large
mammal categories, placentals and marsupials, are an example. Evolution-

174 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

ists consider this distinction to have come about when mammals first ap-
peared, and that each group lived its own evolutionary history totally in-
dependent of the other. But it is interesting that there are "pairs" in
placentals and marsupials which are nearly the same. The American biolo-
gists Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis make the following comment:

According to Darwinian theory, the pattern for wolves, cats, squirrels,
ground hogs, anteaters, moles, and mice each evolved twice: once in placen-
tal mammals and again, totally independently, in marsupials. This amounts
to the astonishing claim that a random, undirected process of mutation and
natural selection somehow hit upon identical features several times in widely
separated organisms. 165

Extraordinary resemblances and similar organs like these, which evo-
lutionist biologists cannot accept as examples of "homology," show that
there is no evidence for the thesis of evolution from a common ancestor.

The Genetic and Embryological Impasse of Homology

In order for the evolutionist claim concerning "homology" to be taken
seriously, similar (homologous) organs in different creatures should also
be coded with similar (homologous) DNA codes. However, they are not.
Similar organs are usually governed by very different genetic (DNA)
codes. Furthermore, similar genetic codes in the DNA of different creatures
are often associated with completely different organs.

Michael Denton, an Australian professor of biochemistry, describes in
his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis the genetic impasse of the evolution-
ist interpretation of homology: "Homologous structures are often speci-
fied by non-homologous genetic systems and the concept of homology
can seldom be extended back into embryology." 166

A famous example on this subject is the "five digit skeletal structure"
of quadrupeds which is quoted in almost all evolutionist textbooks.
Quadrupeds, i.e., land-living vertebrates, have five digits on their fore-
and hindlimbs. Although these do not always have the appearance of five
digits as we know them, they are all counted as pentadactyl due to their
bone structure. The fore- and hindlimbs of a frog, a lizard, a squirrel or a
monkey all have this same structure. Even the bone structures of birds and
bats conform to this basic design.

Evolutionists claim that all living things descended from a common
ancestor, and they have long cited pentadactyl limb as evidence of this.

Evolutionist Claims and the Facts 175

This claim was mentioned in almost all basic sources on biology through-
out the 20th century as very strong evidence for evolution. Genetic find-
ings in the 1980s refuted this evolutionist claim. It was realised that the
pentadactyl limb patterns of different creatures are controlled by totally
different genes. Evolutionist biologist William Fix describes the collapse of
the evolutionist thesis regarding pentadactylism in this way:

The older text-books on evolution make much of the idea of homology, point-
ing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of dif-
ferent animals. Thus the "pentadactyl" limb pattern is found in the arm of a
man, the wing of a bird, and the flipper of a whale, and this is held to indicate
their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by
the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted
upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfor-
tunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be pro-
duced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The
concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common
ancestor has broken down... 167

Another point is that in order for the evolutionary thesis regarding
homology to be taken seriously the periods of similar structures' embry-
ological development-in other words, the stages of development in the egg
or the mother's womb-would need to be parallel, whereas, in reality, these
embryological periods for similar structures are quite different from each
other in every living creature.

To conclude, we can say that genetic and embryological research has
proven that the concept of homology defined by Darwin as "evidence of
the evolution of living things from a common ancestor" can by no means
be regarded as any evidence at all. In this respect, science can be said to
have proven the Darwinist thesis false time and time again.

Invalidity of the Claim of Molecular Homology

Evolutionists' advancement of homology as evidence for evolution is
invalid not only at the morphological level, but also at the molecular level.
Evolutionists say that the DNA codes, or the corresponding protein struc-
tures, of different living species are similar, and that this similarity is evi-
dence that these living species have evolved from common ancestors, or
else from each other.

In truth, however, the results of molecular comparisons do not work
in favour of the theory of evolution at all. There are huge molecular differ-

176 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

ences between creatures that appear to be very similar and related. For in-
stance, the cytochrome-C protein, one of the proteins vital to respiration, is
incredibly different in living beings of the same class. According to re-
search carried out on this matter, the difference between two different rep-
tile species is greater than the difference between a bird and a fish or a fish
and a mammal. Another study has shown that molecular differences be-
tween some birds are greater than the differences between those same birds
and mammals. It has also been discovered that the molecular difference be-
tween bacteria that appear to be very similar is greater than the difference
between mammals and amphibians or insects. 168 Similar comparisons have
been made in the cases of haemoglobin, myoglobin, hormones, and genes
and similar conclusions are drawn. 169

Concerning these findings in the field of molecular
biology, Dr. Michael Denton comments:

Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and
unlinked by intermediates. Thus, molecules, like fos-
sils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so
long sought by evolutionary biology... At a molecular
level, no organism is "ancestral" or "primitive" or "ad-
vanced" compared with its relatives... There is little
doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available Professor Michael

a century ago... the idea of organic evolution might Denton: "Evolution
never have been accepted.™ is a theor V in crisis "

In the 1990s, research into the genetic codes of living things worsened
the quandary faced by the theory of evolution in this regard. In these ex-
periments, instead of the earlier comparisons that were limited to protein
sequences, "ribosomal RNA" (rRNA) sequences were compared. From
these findings, evolutionist scientists sought to establish an "evolutionary
tree". However, they were disappointed by the results. According to a 1999
article by French biologists Herve Philippe and Patrick Forterre, "with
more and more sequences available, it turned out that most protein pyhlo-
genies contradict each other as well as the rRNA tree." 171

Besides rRNA comparisons, the DNA codes in the genes of living
things were also compared, but the results have been the opposite of the
"tree of life" presupposed by evolution. Molecular biologists James A.
Lake, Ravi Jain and Maria C. Rivera elaborated on this in an article in 1999:

"Scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and

Evolutionist Claims and the Facts 177

found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree
of life derived from rRNA analysis alone." 172

Neither the comparisons that have been made of proteins, nor those
of rRNAs or of genes, confirm the premises of the theory of evolution. Carl
Woese, a highly reputed biologist from the University of Illinois admits
that the concept of "phylogeny" has lost its meaning in the face of molecu-
lar findings in this way:

No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individ-
ual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be
seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings
within and among the various (groups) to the makeup of the primary group-
ings themselves." 173

The fact that results of molecular comparisons are not in favour of,
but rather opposed to, the theory of evolution is also admitted in an article
called "Is it Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" published in Science in 1999.
This article by Elizabeth Pennisi states that the genetic analyses and com-
parisons carried out by Darwinist biologists in order to shed light on the
"tree of life" actually yielded directly opposite results, and goes on to say
that "new data are muddying the evolutionary picture":

A year ago, biologists looking over newly sequenced genomes from more
than a dozen microorganisms thought these data might support the accepted
plot lines of life's early history. But what they saw confounded them. Com-
parisons of the genomes then available not only didn't clarify the picture of
how life's major groupings evolved, they confused it. And now, with an ad-
ditional eight microbial sequences in hand, the situation has gotten even
more confusing.... Many evolutionary biologists had thought they could
roughly see the beginnings of life's three kingdoms... When full DNA se-
quences opened the way to comparing other kinds of genes, researchers ex-
pected that they would simply add detail to this tree. But "nothing could be
further from the truth," says Claire Fraser, head of The Institute for Genomic
Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland. Instead, the comparisons have
yielded many versions of the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and
conflict with each other as well... 174

In short, as molecular biology advances, the homology concept loses
more ground. Comparisons that have been made of proteins, rRNAs and
genes reveal that creatures which are allegedly close relatives according to
the theory of evolution are actually totally distinct from each other. A 1996
study using 88 protein sequences grouped rabbits with primates instead of

178

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

rodents; a 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins
among the chordates; and another 1998 study based on 12 proteins put
cows closer to whales than to horses. Molecular biologist Jonathan Wells
sums up the situation in 2000 in this way:

Inconsistencies among trees based on different molecules, and the bizarre
trees that result from some molecular analyses, have now plunged molecular
phylogeny into a crisis. 175

The Myth of Embryological Recapitulation

What used to be called the "recapitulation theory" has long been elim-
inated from scientific literature, but it is still being presented as a scientific
reality by some evolutionist publications. The term "recapitulation" is a
condensation of the dictum "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", put for-
ward by the evolutionist biologist Ernst Haeckel at the end of the 19th cen-
tury.

This theory of Haeckel's postulates that living embryos re-experience
the evolutionary process that their pseudo-ancestors underwent. He theo-
rised that during its development in its mother's womb, the human em-
bryo first displayed the characteristics of a fish,
and then those of a reptile, and finally those of a
human.

It has since been proven that this theory is
completely bogus. It is now known that the "gills"
that supposedly appear in the early stages of the
human embryo are in fact the initial phases of the
middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus. The
part of the embryo that was likened to the "egg
yolk pouch" turns out to be a pouch that produces
blood for the infant. The part that had been identi-
fied as a "tail" by Haeckel and his followers is in
fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only be-
cause it takes shape before the legs do.

These are universally acknowledged facts in
the scientific world, and are accepted even by
evolutionists themselves. George Gaylord Simp-
son, one of the founders of neo-Darwinism,
writes:

Haeckel was an evolutionist
even more ardent than Dar-
win in many respects. For
this reason, he did not hesi-
tate to distort the scientific
data and devise various
forgeries.

Evolutionist Claims and the Facts

179

HUMAN EMBRYOS DO NOT HAVE GILL SLITS

Once defined as an

inheritance from

past ancestors, the folds

on the human embryos

are now redefined. It has

been shown that human

embryos do not

recapitulate evolutionary

history of man.

Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly es-
tablished that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny. 176

In an article published in American Scientist, we read:
Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised
from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry
it was extinct in the twenties... 177

Another interesting aspect of "recapitulation" was Ernst Haeckel him-
self, a faker who falsified his drawings in order to support the theory he
advanced. Haeckel's forgeries purported to show that fish and human em-
bryos resembled one another. When he was caught out, the only defence
he offered was that other evolutionists had committed similar offences:

After this compromising confession of "forgery" I should be obliged to
consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of
seeing side by side with me in the prisoners' dock hundreds of fellow cul-
prits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed bi-
ologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological
textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge
of "forgery", for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored,
schematised and constructed. 178

There are indeed "hundreds of fellow culprits, among them many of
the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists" whose studies
are full of prejudiced conclusions, distortions, and even forgeries. This is
because they have all conditioned themselves to champion evolutionary
theory although there is not a shred of scientific evidence supporting it.

The Theory of Evolution:
A Materialistic Liability

he information we have considered throughout this book has
shown us that the theory of evolution has no scientific basis, and
that, on the contrary, evolutionist claims conflict with scientific
facts. In other words, the force that keeps evolution alive is not science.
Evolution may be maintained by some "scientists", but behind it there is
another influence at work.

This other influence is materialist philosophy.

Materialist philosophy is one of the oldest beliefs in the world, and as-
sumes the existence of matter as its basic principle. According to this view,
matter has always existed, and everything that exists consists of matter.
This makes belief in a Creator impossible, of course, because if matter has
always existed, and if everything consists of matter, then there can be no
suprematerial Creator who created it. Materialism has therefore long been
hostile to religious beliefs of every kind that have faith in God.

So the question becomes one of whether the materialist point of view
is correct. One method of testing whether a philosophy is true or false is to
investigate the claims it makes about science by using scientific methods.
For instance, a philosopher in the 10th century could have claimed that
there was a divine tree on the surface of the moon and that all living things
actually grew on the branches of this huge tree like fruit, and then fell off
onto the earth. Some people might have found this philosophy attractive
and believed in it. But in the 20th century, at a time when man has man-
aged to walk on the moon, it is no longer possible to seriously hold such a
belief. Whether such a tree exists there or not can be determined by scien-
tific methods, that is, by observation and experiment.

We can therefore investigate by means of scientific methods the mate-
rialist claim: that matter has existed for all eternity and that this matter can
organise itself without a supramaterial Creator and cause life to begin.
When we do this, we see that materialism has already collapsed, because

The Theory of Evolution: A Materialistic Liability 181

the idea that matter has existed since beginning of time has been over-
thrown by the Big Bang theory which shows that the universe was cre-
ated from nothingness. The claim that matter organised itself and created
life is the claim that we call "the theory of evolution" -which this book has
been examining-and which has been shown to have collapsed.

However, if someone is determined to believe in materialism and
puts his devotion to materialist philosophy before everything else, then he
will act differently. If he is a materialist first and a scientist second, he will
not abandon materialism when he sees that evolution is disproved by sci-
ence. On the contrary, he will attempt to uphold and defend materialism
by trying to support evolution, no matter what. This is exactly the predica-
ment that evolutionists defending the theory of evolution find themselves
in today.

Interestingly enough, they also confess this fact from time to time. A
well-known geneticist and outspoken evolutionist, Richard C. Lewontin
from Harvard University, confesses that he is "a materialist first and a sci-
entist second" in these words:

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us ac-
cept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary,
that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an
apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material expla-
nations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the
uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a
Divine Foot in the door. 179

The term "a priori" that Lewontin uses here is quite important. This
philosophical term refers to a presupposition not based on any experimen-
tal knowledge. A thought is "a priori" when you consider it to be correct
and accept it as so even if there is no information available to confirm it. As
the evolutionist Lewontin frankly states, materialism is an "a priori" com-
mitment for evolutionists, who then try to adapt science to this preconcep-
tion. Since materialism definitely necessitates denying the existence of a
Creator, they embrace the only alternative they have in hand, which is the
theory of evolution. It does not matter to such scientists that evolution has
been belied by scientific facts, because they have accepted it "a priori" as
true.

This prejudiced behaviour leads evolutionists to a belief that "uncon-
scious matter composed itself", which is contrary not only to science, but

182 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

also to reason. Professor of chemistry from New York University and a
DNA expert Robert Shapiro, as we have quoted before, explains this belief
of evolutionists and the materialist dogma lying at its base as follows:

Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed to take us across the gap
from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective replicator.
This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but it is
anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and self-organiza-
tion of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for granted in the
philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied to the origin of life by
Alexander Oparin. 180

Evolutionist propaganda, which we constantly come across in the
Western media and in well-known and "esteemed" science magazines, is
the outcome of this ideological necessity. Since evolution is considered to
be indispensable, it has been turned into a sacred cow by the circles that set
the standards of science.

Some scientists find themselves in a position where they are forced
to defend this far-fetched theory, or at least avoid uttering any word
against it, in order to maintain their reputations. Academics in the West-
ern countries have to have articles published in certain scientific journals
to attain and hold onto their professorships. All of the journals dealing
with biology are under the control of evolutionists, and they do not allow
any anti-evolutionist article to appear in them. Biologists, therefore, have
to conduct their research under the domination of this theory. They, too,
are part of the established order, which regards evolution as an ideological
necessity, which is why they blindly defend all the "impossible coinci-
dences" we have been examining in this book.

Materialist Confessions

The German biologist Hoimar von Ditfurth, a prominent evolutionist,
is a good example of this bigoted materialist understanding. After Ditfurth
cites an example of the extremely complex composition of life, this is what
he says concerning the question of whether it could have emerged by
chance or not:

Is such a harmony that emerged only out of coincidences possible in reality?
This is the basic question of the whole of biological evolution. Answering this
question as "Yes, it is possible" is something like verifying faith in the modern
science of nature. Critically speaking, we can say that somebody who accepts

The Theory of Evolution: A Materialistic Liability

183

DARWINISM AND MATERIALISM

he only reason that Darwin's theory is still defended despite its obvious refuta-
tion by science is the close link between that theory and materialism. Darwin ap-
plied materialist philosophy to the natural sciences and the advocates of this
philosophy, Marxists being foremost among them, go on defending Darwinism no mat-
ter what.

One of the most famous contemporary champions of the theory of evolution, the
biologist Douglas Futuyma, wrote: "Together with Marx's materialistic theory of his-
tory... Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism
and materialism." This is a very clear admission of why the theory of evolution is really
so important to its defenders. 1

Another famous evolutionist, the paleontologist Stephen J. Gould said: "Darwin
applied a consistent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature". 2 Leon
Trotsky, one of the masterminds of the Russian Communist Revolution along with
Lenin, commented: "The discovery by Darwin was the highest triumph of the dialectic
in the whole field of organic matter." 3 However, science has shown that Darwinism
was not a victory for materialism but rather a sign of that philosophy's overthrow.

1- Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., Sunderland, MA: Sinauer, 1986, p. 3

2- Alan Woods and Ted Grant, "Marxism and Darwinism", Reason in Revolt: Marxism and
Modern Science, London, 1993

3- Alan Woods and Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism", London, 1993

the modern science of nature has no other alternative than to say "yes", be-
cause he aims to explain natural phenomena by means that are understand-
able and tries to derive them from the laws of nature without reverting to
supernatural interference. However, at this point, explaining everything by
means of the laws of nature, that is, by coincidences, is a sign that he has
nowhere else to turn. Because what else could he do other than believe in co-
incidences? 181

Yes, as Ditfurth states, the materialist scientific approach adopts as its
basic principle explaining life by denying "supernatural interference", i.e.
creation. Once this principle is adopted, even the most impossible scenar-
ios are easily accepted. It is possible to find examples of this dogmatic

184 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

mentality in almost all evolutionist literature. Professor Ali Demirsoy, the
well-known advocate of evolutionary theory in Turkey is just one of many.
As we have already pointed out, according to Demirsoy: the probability of
the coincidental formation of cythochrome-C, an essential protein for life,
is "as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of hu-
manity on a typewriter without making any mistakes". 182

There is no doubt that to accept such a possibility is actually to reject
the basic principles of reason and common sense. Even one single correctly
formed letter written on a page makes it certain that it was written by a
person. When one sees a book of world history, it becomes even more cer-
tain that the book has been written by an author. No logical person would
agree that the letters in such a huge book could have been put together "by
chance".

However, it is very interesting to see that the "evolutionist scientist"
Professor Ali Demirsoy accepts this sort of irrational proposition:

In essence, 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 must have acted in its for-
mation. To accept the latter is not appropriate for the scientific goal. We
thus have to look into the first hypothesis. 183

Demirsoy writes that he prefers the impossible, in order "not to have
to accept supernatural forces"-in other words, the existence of a Creator. It
is clear that this approach has no relation whatsoever with science. Not
surprisingly, when Demirsoy cites another subject-the origins of the mito-
chondria in the cell-he openly accepts coincidence as an explanation, even
though it is "quite contrary to scientific thought".

The heart of the problem is how the mitochondria have acquired this feature,
because attaining this feature by chance even by one individual, requires ex-
treme probabilities that are incomprehensible... The enzymes providing res-
piration and functioning as a catalyst in each step in a different form make up
the core of the mechanism. A cell has to contain this enzyme sequence com-
pletely, otherwise it is meaningless. Here, despite being contrary to biologi-
cal thought, in order to avoid a more dogmatic explanation or speculation,
we have to accept, though reluctantly, that all the respiration enzymes com-
pletely existed in the cell before the cell first came in contact with oxygen. 184

The conclusion to be drawn from such pronouncements is that evolu-
tion is not a theory arrived at through scientific investigation. On the con-

«^\ onstituting as it does the
^^ philosophical underpinnings
of the theory of evolution, 19th-
century materialism suggested
■ that the universe existed since
eternity, that it was not created,
and that the organic world could
be explained in terms of the inter-
actions of matter. The discoveries
of 20th-century science however have com-
pletely invalidated these hypotheses.

The supposition that the universe has ex-
isted since eternity was blown away by the
discovery that the universe originated from a
great explosion (the so-called "Big Bang") that
took place nearly 15 billion years ago. The Big
Bang shows that all physical substances in
the universe came into being out of nothing: in
other words, they were created. One of the
foremost advocates of materialism, the atheist
philosopher Anthony Flew concedes:

Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I
will therefore begin by confessing that the
Stratonician atheist has to be embarressed
by the contemporary cosmological consen-
sus (Big Bang). For it seems that the cosmol-
ogists are providing a scientific proof ... that
the universe had a beginning. 1

The Big Bang also shows that at each stage,
the universe was shaped by a controlled cre-
ation. This is made clear by the order that
came about after the Big Bang, which was too
perfect to have been formed from an uncon-
trolled explosion. The famous physician Paul
Davies explains this situation:

It is hard to resist the impression that the pre-
sent structure of the universe, apparently so
sensitive to minor alterations in the numbers,
has been rather carefully thought out... The
seeming miraculous concurrence of numeri-
cal values that nature has assigned to her
fundamental constants must remain the most
compelling evidence for an element of cos-
mic design. 2

The same reality makes an American pro-
fessor of astronomy, George Greenstein, say:

As we survey all the evidence, the thought in-
sistently arises that some supernatural
agency -or rather Agency- must be involved. 3

Thus, the materialistic hypothesis that life
can be explained solely in terms of the interac-
tions of matter also collapsed in the face of the
the discoveries of science. In particular, the
origin of the genetic information that deter-
mines all living things can by no means be ex-
plained by any purely material agent. One of
the leading defenders of the theory of evolu-
tion, George C. Williams, admits this fact in an
article he wrote in 1995:

Evolutionist biologists have failed to realize
that they work with two more or less incom-
mensurable domains: that of information and
that of matter... the gene is a package of infor-
mation, not an object... This dearth descrip-
tors makes matter and information two
separate domains of existence, which have to
be discussed separately, in their own terms. 4

This situation is evidence for the existence
of a supra-material Wisdom that makes ge-
netic information exist. It is impossible for
matter to produce information within itself.
The director of the German Federal Institute of
Physics and Technology, Proffessor Werner
Gitt, remarks:

All experiences indicate that a thinking being
voluntarily exercising his own free will, cog-
nition, and creativity, is required. There is no
known law of nature, no known process and
no known sequence of events which can
cause information to originate by itself in
matter. 5

All these scientific facts illustrate that a Cre-
ator Who has external power and knowledge,
that is, God, creates the universe and all living
things. As for materialism, Arthur Koestler,
one of the most renowned philosophers of our
century says: "It can no longer claim to be a
scientific philosophy" 6

1- Henry Margenau, Roy A. Vargesse. Cosmos, Bios, Theos.
La Salle IL: Open Court Publishing, 1992, p. 241

2- Paul Davies. God and the New Physics. New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1983, p. 189

3- Hugh Ross. The Creator am
Springs, CO: Nav-Press, 1993, pp. 114-15

4- George C. Williams. The Third Culture: Beyond the
Scientific Revolution, New York. Simon & Schuster, 1995.
pp. 42-43

5- Werner Gitt. In the Beginning Was Information. CLV,
Bielefeld, Germany, p. 107, 141

6- Arthur Koestler, Janus: A Summing Up, New York, Vintage
Books, 1978, p. 250

186 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

trary, the form and substance of this theory were dictated by the require-
ments of materialistic philosophy. It then turned into a belief or dogma in
spite of concrete scientific facts. Again, we can clearly see from evolution-
ist literature that all of this effort has a "purpose"-and that purpose pre-
cludes any belief that all living things were not created no matter what the
price.

Evolutionists define this purpose as "scientific". However, what they
refer to is not science but materialist philosophy. Materialism absolutely
rejects the existence of anything "beyond" matter (or of anything supernat-
ural). Science itself is not obliged to accept such a dogma. Science means
exploring nature and deriving conclusions from one's findings. If these
findings lead to the conclusion that nature is created, science has to accept
it. That is the duty of a true scientist; not defending impossible scenarios
by clinging to the outdated materialist dogmas of the 19th century.

Materialists, False Religion and True Religion

So far, we have examined how the circles devoted to materialist phi-
losophy derange science, how they deceive people for the sake of the evo-
lutionist fables that they blindly believe, and how they veil realities. That
said, we also have to admit that these materialist circles perform a signifi-
cant "service", though unintentionally.

They carry out this "service", by which they seek to justify their own
untrue and atheist thoughts, by exposing all the senselessness and incon-
sistencies of the traditionalist and bigoted thought that poses in the name
of Islam. The offences of the materialist-atheist circle have helped reveal
the false religion which has no relation whatsoever with the Qur'an or
Islam; which depends on hearsay, superstition, and idle talk; and which
has no consistent argument to put forth. Thus, all the inconsistencies, dis-
crepancies, and illogic of the false religion defended by those insincere cir-
cles that wrongly act in the name of Islam without relying on valid
evidence are exposed.

Thus materialists help many people realise the gloom of the bigoted
and traditional mentality and encourage them to seek the essence and real
source of religion by referring to and adhering to the Qur'an. Although un-
intentionally, they obey God's command and serve His religion. Further-
more, they disclose all the simplicity of the mentality that presents a false

The Theory of Evolution: A Materialistic Liability 187

religion invented in the name of God and proffered as Islam to all and they
help weaken the sway of this bigoted system that threatens the bulk of so-
ciety.

Thus willy-nilly and in accordance with their fate, they become the
means whereby the decree of God about His upholding His true religion
by causing the antagonists of religion counteract against each other is
made true. God's law is stated in the Qur'an as follows;

And did not God check one set of people by means of another, the earth
would indeed be full of mischief. (Surat al-Baqara, 251)
At this point, we think it necessary to leave an open door for some ad-
vocates of the evolutionist materialist thought. These people might once
have set out on an honest quest, yet have been driven away from the true
religion under the influence of the idle talk produced in the name of Islam,
falsehoods fabricated in the name of the Prophet, and hearsay stories to
which they have been subject since their childhood and thus never have
had the chance to discover the truth themselves. They might have learned
religion from books by opponents of religion who try to identify Islam
with falsehoods and fallacies that are not present in the Qur'an, and with
the traditionalism and bigotry. The essence and origin of Islam are quite
different and, moreover, completely incompatible with all that has been
taught to them. For this reason, we suggest they get a Qur'an as soon as
possible and read God's book with an open heart and a conscientious and
unprejudiced view and learn the original religion from its true source. If
they need assistance, they can refer to the books written by the author of
this book, Harun Yahya, on the basic concepts in the Qur'an.

CHAPTER

Media: Fertile Ground for

Evolution

a s what we have examined so far has demonstrated, the theory of
/\ evolution rests on no scientific basis. However most people
JL JL around the world are unaware of this and assume that evolution
is a scientific fact. The biggest reason for this deception is the systematic in-
doctrination and propaganda conducted by the media about evolution.
For this reason, we also have to mention the particular characteristics of
this indoctrination and propaganda.

When we look at the Western media carefully, we frequently come
across news dwelling on the theory of evolution. Leading media organisa-
tions, and well-known and "respectable" magazines periodically bring this
subject up. When their approach is examined, one gets the impression that
this theory is an absolutely proven fact leaving no room for discussion.

Ordinary people reading this kind of news naturally start to think
that the theory of evolution is a fact as certain as any law of mathematics.
News of this sort that appears in the prominent media engines is also
picked up by local media. They print headlines in big fonts: "According to
Time magazine, a new fossil that completes the gap in the fossil chain has
been found"; or "Nature" indicates that scientists have shed light on the
final issues of evolutionary theory". The finding of "the last missing link of
the evolution chain" means nothing because there is not a single thing
proven about evolution. Everything shown as evidence is false as we have
described in the previous chapters. In addition to the media, the same
holds true for scientific resources, encyclopaedias, and biology books.

In short, both the media and academic circles, which are at the dis-
posal of anti-religionist power-centres, maintain an entirely evolutionist
view and they impose this on society. This imposition is so effective that it
has in time turned evolution into an idea that is never to be rejected. Deny-
ing evolution is seen as being contradictory to science and as disregarding
fundamental realities. This is why, notwithstanding so many deficiencies

Media: Fertile Ground for Evolution

189

that have so far been revealed (especially since the 1950s) and the fact that
these have been confessed by evolutionist scientists themselves, today it is
all but impossible to find any criticism of evolution in scientific circles or in
the media.

Widely accepted as the most "respected" publishing vehicles on biol-
ogy and nature in the West, magazines such as Scientific American, Nature,
Focus, and National Geographic adopt the theory of evolution as an official
ideology and try to present this theory as a proven fact.

FABLES FROM EVOLUTIONISTS

■ volution is, as once noted by a prominent scientist, a fairy tale for adults. It is a
totally irrational and unscientific scenario, which suggests that non-living mat-

' ter has some sort of a magical power and intelligence to create complex life
forms. This long tale has some very interesting fables on some particular subjects. One
of these curious evolutionary fables is the one about the "evolution of whale" that was
published in National Geographic, widely respected as one of the most scientific and
serious publications in the world:

The Whale's ascendancy to sovereign size apparently began sixty million years ago
when hairy, four-legged mammals, in search of food or sanctuary, ventured into
water. As eons passed, changes slowly occurred. Hind legs disappeared, front legs
changed into flippers, hair gave way to a thick smooth blanket of blubber, nostrils
moved to the top of the head, the tail broadened into flukes, and in the buoyant
water world the body became enormous. 1

Besides the fact that there is not a single scientific basis for any of this, such an oc-
currence is also contrary to the principles of nature. This fable published in National
Geographic is noteworthy for being indicative of the extent of the fallacies of seemingly
serious evolutionist publications.

Another fable from evolutionists worth noting is on the origin of mammals. Evolu-
tionists argue that mammals originated from a reptilian ancestor. But when it comes to
explain the details of this alleged transformation, interesting narratives arise. Here is
one of them:

Some of the reptiles in the colder regions began to develop a method of keeping
their bodies warm. Their heat output increased when it was cold and their heat loss
was cut down when scales became smaller and more pointed, and evolved into fur.
Sweating was also an adaptation to regulate the body temperature, a device to cool
the body when necessary by evaporation of water. But incidentally the young of
these reptiles began to lick the sweat of the mother for nourishment. Certain sweat
glands began to secrete a richer and richer secretion, which eventually became
milk. Thus the young of these early mammals had a better start in life. 2
The idea that a well-designed food like milk could originate from sweat glands and
all the other details above are just bizarre productions of evolutionary imagination, with
no scientific basis.

1- Victor B. Scheffer, "Exploring the Lives of Whales", National Geographic, vol. 50, December 1 976, p. 752

2- George Gamow, Martynas Yeas, Mr, Tompkins Inside Himself, London: Allen & Unwin, 1968, p. 149

Wrapped-up Lies

Evolutionists make great use of the advantage given to them by the
"brain-washing" program of the media. Many people believe in evolution
so unconditionally that they do not even bother to ask "how" and "why".
This means that evolutionists can package their lies so as to be easily per-
suasive.

For instance, even in the most "scientific" evolutionist books the "tran-
sition from water to land", which is one of the greatest unaccounted-for
phenomena of evolution, is "explained" with ridiculous simplicity. Accord-
ing to evolution, life started in water and the first developed animals were

Media: Fertile Ground for Evolution 191

fish. The theory has it that one day these fish started to fling themselves on
to the land for some reason or other, (most of the time, drought is said to be
the reason), and the fish that chose to live on land, happened to have feet
instead of fins, and lungs instead of gills.

Most evolutionist books do not tell the "how" of the subject. Even in
the most "scientific" sources, the absurdity of this assertion is concealed be-
hind sentences such as "the transfer from water to land was achieved".

How was this "transfer" achieved? We know that a fish cannot live for
more than a few minutes out of water. If we suppose that the alleged
drought occurred and the fish had to move towards the land, what would
have happened to the fish? The response is evident. All of the fish coming
out of the water would die one by one in a few minutes. Even if this process
had had lasted for a period of ten million years, the answer would still be the
same: fish would die one by one. The reason is that such a complex organ as
a complete lung cannot come into being by a sudden "accident", that is, by
mutation; but half a lung, on the other hand, is of no use at all.

But this is exactly what the evolutionists propose. "Transfer from
water to land", "transfer from land to air" and many more alleged leaps
are "explained" in these illogical terms. As for the formation of really com-
plex organs such as the eye and ear, evolutionists prefer not to say any-
thing at all.

It is easy to influence the man on the street with the package of "sci-
ence". You draw an imaginary picture representing transfer from water to
land, you invent Latin words for the animal in the water, its "descendant"
on land, and the "transitional intermediary form" (which is an imaginary
animal), and then fabricate an elaborate lie: "Eusthenopteron transformed
first into Rhipitistian Crossoptergian, then Ichthyostega in a long evolutionary
process". If you put these words in the mouth of a scientist with thick
glasses and a white coat, you would succeed in convincing many people,
because the media, which dedicates itself to promoting evolution, would
announce the good news to the world with great enthusiasm.

CHAPTER

Conclusion:
Evolution Is a Deceit

here is much other evidence, as well as scientific laws, invalidating
evolution, but in this book we have only been able to discuss some
of them. Even those should be enough to reveal a most important
truth: Although it is cloaked in the guise of science, the theory of evolution
is nothing but a deceit: a deceit defended only for the benefit of materialis-
tic philosophy; a deceit based not on science but on brainwashing, propa-
ganda, and fraud.

We can summarise what we have noted so far as follows:

The Theory of Evolution has Collapsed

The theory of evolution is a theory that fails at the very first step. The
reason is that evolutionists are unable to explain even the formation of a
single protein. Neither the laws of probability nor the laws of physics and
chemistry offer any chance for the fortuitous formation of life.

Does it sound logical or reasonable when not even a single chance-
formed protein can exist, that millions of such proteins combined in an
order to produce the cell of a living thing; and that billions of cells man-
aged to form and then came together by chance to produce living things;
and that from them generated fish; and that those that passed to land
turned into reptiles, birds, and that this is how all the millions of different
species on earth were formed?

Even if it does not seem logical to you, evolutionists do believe this
fable.

However, it is merely a belief-or rather a faith-because they do not
have even a single piece of evidence to verify their story. They have never
found a single transitional form such as a half-fish/ half -reptile or half-rep-
tile/half-bird. Nor have they been able to prove that a protein, or even a
single amino acid molecule composing a protein, could have formed
under what they call primordial earth conditions; not even in their elabo-

Conclusion: Evolution Is a Deceit 193

rately-equipped laboratories have they succeeded in doing that. On the
contrary, with their every effort, evolutionists themselves have demon-
strated that no evolutionary process has ever occurred nor could ever have
occurred at any time on earth.

Evolution Can Not Be Verified in the Future Either

Seeing this, evolutionists can only console themselves by dreaming
that science will somehow resolve all these dilemmas in time. However,
that science should ever verify such an entirely groundless and illogical
claim is out of the question no matter how many years may pass by. On the
contrary, as science progresses it only makes the nonsense of evolutionists'
claims clearer and plainer.

That is how it has been so far. As more details on the structure and
functions of the living cell were discovered, it became abundantly clear
that the cell is not a simple, randomly-formed composition, as was thought
to be the case according to the primitive biological understanding of Dar-
win's time.

With the situation being so self-evident, denying the fact of creation
and basing the origins of life on extremely unlikely coincidences, and then
defending these claims with insistence, may later become a source of great
humiliation. As the real face of the evolution theory comes more and more
into view and as public opinion comes to see the truth, it may not be long
before the purblind fanatic advocates of evolution will not be able to show
their faces.

The Biggest Obstacle to Evolution: Soul

There are many species in the world that resemble one another. For
instance, there may be many living beings resembling a horse or a cat and
many insects may look like one another. These similarities do not surprise
anyone.

The superficial similarities between man and ape somehow attract
too much attention. This interest sometimes goes so far as to make some
people believe the false thesis of evolution. As a matter of fact, the superfi-
cial similarities between men and apes do signify nothing. The rhinoceros
beetle and the rhinoceros also share certain superficial resemblances but it
would be ludicrous to seek to establish some kind of an evolutionary link

194 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

between these two creatures, one being an insect and the other a mammal,
on the grounds of that resemblance.

Other than superficial similarity, apes cannot be said to be closer to
man than to other animals. Actually, if level of intelligence is considered,
then the honeybee producing the geometrically miraculous structure of the
honeycomb or the spider building up the engineering miracle of the spider
web can be said to be closer to man. They are even superior in some aspects.

There is a very big difference between man and ape regardless of a
mere outward resemblance. An ape is an animal and is no different from a
horse or a dog considering its level of consciousness. Yet man is a con-
scious, strong-willed being that can think, talk, understand, decide, and
judge. All of these features are the functions of the soul that man possesses.
The soul is the most important difference that interposes a huge gap be-
tween man and other creatures. No physical similarity can close this gap
between man and any other living being. In nature, the only living thing
that has a soul is man.

God Creates According to His Will

Would it matter if the scenario proposed by evolutionists really had
taken place? Not a bit. The reason is that each stage advanced by evolu-
tionary theory and based on coincidence could only have occurred as a re-
sult of a miracle. Even if life did come about gradually through such a
succession of stages, each progressive stage could only have been brought
about by a conscious will. It is not just implausible that those stages could
have occurred by chance, it is impossible.

If is said that a protein molecule had been formed under the primor-
dial atmospheric conditions, it has to be remembered that it has been al-
ready demonstrated by the laws of probability, biology, and chemistry that
this could not have been by chance. But if it must be posited that it was
produced, then there is no alternative but to admit that it owed its exis-
tence to the will of a Creator. The same logic applies to the entire hypothe-
sis put forward by evolutionists. For instance, there is neither
paleontological evidence nor a physical, chemical, biological, or logical
justification proving that fish passed from water to land and formed the
land animals. But if one must have it that fish clambered onto the land and
turned into reptiles, the maker of that claim should also accept the exis-

Conclusion: Evolution Is a Deceit

195

tence of a Creator capable of making whatever He wills come into being
with the mere word "be". Any other explanation for such a miracle is in-
herently self-contradictory and a violation of the principles of reason.

The reality is clear and evident. All life is the product of a perfect de-
sign and a superior creation. This in turn provides concrete evidence for
the existence of a Creator, the Possessor of infinite power, knowledge, and
intelligence.

That Creator is God, the Lord of the heavens and of the earth, and of
all that is between them.

■ ft ■■■*!

4 3 9

s, %

V^=

.^S&*

i i V ■ -.:*:i . Vv .-5. " .-.

PS ^ a

i%i

fl?

r k mJWT'

'fa

-•.Tl

i*-*

The Fact of Creation

■

-w- n the previous sections of the book, we examined why the Theory of
Evolution, which proposes that life was not created, is a fallacy com-
JL pletely contrary to scientific facts. We saw that modern science has re-
vealed a very explicit fact through certain branches of science such as
paleontology, biochemistry, and anatomy. This fact is that God creates all liv-
ing beings.

In fact, to notice this fact one does not necessarily need to appeal to the
complicated results obtained in biochemistry laboratories or geological exca-
vations. The signs of an extraordinary wisdom are discernible in whatever
living being one observes. There is a great technology and design in the
body of an insect or a tiny fish in the depths of the sea never attained by
human beings. Some living beings which even do not have a brain perfectly
perform so complicated tasks as not to be accomplished even by human be-
ings.

This great wisdom, design and plan that prevails overall in nature, pro-
vides solid evidence for the existence of a supreme Creator dominating over
the whole of nature, and this Creator is God. God has furnished all living be-
ings with extraordinary features and showed men the evident signs of His
existence and might.

In the following pages, we will examine only a few of the countless ev-
idences of Creation in nature.

Honey Bees and the Architectural Wonders of Honeycombs

Bees produce more honey than they actually need and store it in honey-
combs. The hexagonal structure of the honeycomb is well-known to every-
one. Have you ever wondered why bees construct hexagonal honeycombs
rather than octagonal, or pentagonal?

Mathematicians looking for answer to this question reached an interest-
ing conclusion: "A hexagon is the most appropriate geometric form for the
maximum use of a given area."

The Fact of Creation

197

A hexagonal cell requires the minimum amount of
wax for construction while it stores the maximum amount
of honey. So the bee uses the most appropriate form possi-
ble.

The method used in the construction of the honeycomb
is also very amazing: bees start the construction of the hive
from two-three different places and weave the honeycomb simultaneously
in two-three strings. Though they start from different places, the bees, great
in number, construct identical hexagons and then weave the honeycomb by
combining these together and meeting in the middle. The junction points of
the hexagons are assembled so deftly that there is no sign of their being sub-
sequently combined.

In the face of this extraordinary performance, we, for sure, have to
admit the existence of a superior will that ordains these creatures. Evolution-
ists want to explain away this achievement with the concept of "instinct" and
try to present it as a simple attribute of the bee. However, if there is an in-
stinct at work, if this rules over all bees and provides that all bees work in
harmony though uninformed of one another, then it means that there is an
exalted Wisdom that rules over all these tiny creatures.

To put it more explicitly, God, the creator of these tiny creatures, "in-
spires" them with what they have to do. This fact was declared in the Qur'an
fourteen centuries ago:

And your Sustainer has inspired the honey bee: "Prepare for yourself
dwellings in mountains and in trees, and in what (men) build; and then eat
of all manner of fruit, and find with skill the spacious paths of your Sus-

198

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

tainer". There issues from within their bodies a
drink of varying colours, wherein is healing
for men: verily in this is a Sign for those
who give thought. (Surat an-Nahl, 68-69)

Amazing Architects: Termites

No one can help being taken by sur-
prise upon seeing a termite nest erected
on the ground by termites. This is because
the termite nests are architectural wonders
that rise up as high as 5-6 meters. Within this
nest are sophisticated systems to meet all the
needs of termites that can never appear in sunlight be-
cause of their body structure. In the nest, there are ventilation systems,
canals, larva rooms, corridors, special fungus production yards, safety exits,
rooms for hot and cold weather; in brief, everything. What is more astonish-
ing is that the termites which construct these wondrous nests are blind. 185

Despite this fact, we see, when we compare the size of a termite and its
nest, that termites successfully overcome an architectural project by far 300
times bigger than themselves.

Termites have yet another amazing characteristic: if we di-
vide a termite nest into two in the first stages of its con-
struction, and then reunite it after a certain while,
we will see that all passage-ways, canals and
roads intersect with each other. Termites carry on
with their task as if they were never separated from
each other and ordained from a single place.

The Woodpecker

Everyone knows that woodpeckers build their
nests by pecking tree trunks. The point many people
do not consider is how woodpeckers undergo no
brain haemorrhage when they so strongly tattoo with
their head. What the woodpecker does is in a way simi-
lar to a human driving a nail in the wall with his head. If
a human ventured to do something like that, he would

The Fact of Creation

199

probably undergo a brain shock followed by a brain haemorrhage. A wood-
pecker, however, can peck a hard tree trunk 38-43 times between 2.10 and
2.69 seconds and nothing happens to it.

Nothing happens because the head structure of woodpeckers are cre-
ated as fit for this job. The woodpecker's skull has a "suspension" system that
reduces and absorbs the force of the strokes. There are special softening tis-
sues between the bones in its skull. 186

The Sonar System of Bats

Bats fly in pitch dark without trouble and they have a very interesting
navigation system to do this. It is what we call "sonar" system, a system
whereby the shapes of the surrounding objects are determined according to
the echo of the sound waves.

A young person can barely detect a sound with a frequency of 20,000 vi-
brations per second. A bat furnished with a specially designed "sonar sys-
tem", however, makes use of sounds having a frequency of between 50,000
and 200,000 vibrations per second. It sends these sounds in all directions 20
or 30 times each second. The echo of the sound is so powerful that the bat not
only understands the existence of objects in its path, but also detects the lo-
cation of its swift-flying prey 187

Whales

Mammals regularly need to breathe and for this reason water is not a
very convenient environment for them.
In a whale, which is a sea mam-
mal, however, this problem is han-
dled with a breathing system far
more efficient than that of many land-
dwelling animals. Whales breathe
out one at a time discharging 90% of
the air they use. Thus, they need to
breathe only at very long intervals. At
the same time, they have a highly con-
centrated substance called "myoglobin"
that helps them store oxygen in their
muscles. With the help of these systems,

200

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

finback whale, for instance, can dive as deep as 500 meters and swim for 40
minutes without breathing at all. 188 The nostrils of the whale, on the other
hand, are placed on its back unlike land-dwelling mammals so that it can
easily breathe.

The Design in The Gnat

We always think of the gnat as a flying animal. In fact, the gnat spends
its developmental stages under water and gets out from under water
through an exceptional "design" being provided with all the organs it needs.
The gnat starts to fly with special sensing systems at its disposal to de-
tect the place of its prey. With these systems, it resembles a war plane loaded
with detectors of heat, gas, dampness and odour. It even has an ability to
"see in conformity with the temperature" that helps it find its prey even in
pitch dark.

The "blood-sucking" technique of the gnat comes with an incredibly
complex system. With its six-bladed cutting system, it cuts the skin like a
saw. While the cutting process goes on, a secretion secreted on the wound
benumbs the tissues and the person does not even realise that his blood is

being sucked. This secretion, at the
same time, prevents the clotting of
the blood and secures the continu-
ance of the sucking process.

With even one of these ele-
ments missing, the gnat will not be
able to feed on blood and carry on
its generation. With its exceptional
design, even this tiny creature is an
evident sign of Creation on its own.
In the Qur'an, the gnat is accentu-
ated as an example displaying the existence of God to the men of under-
standing:

Surely God disdains not to set forth any parable - (that of) a (female) gnat or
any thing above that; then as for those who believe, they know that it is the
truth from their Lord, and as for those who disbelieve, they say: What is it
that God means by this parable: He causes many to err by it and many He
leads aright by it! but He does not cause to err by it (any) except the trans-
gressors, (Surat al-Baqara, 26)

The Fact of Creation

201

Hunting Birds with Keen Eyesight

Hunting birds have keen eyes that enable them to make perfect dis-
tance adjustments while they attack their prey. In addition their large eyes
contain more vision cells, which means better sight. There are more than one
million vision cells in the eye of a hunting bird.

Eagles that fly at thousands of meters high have such sharp eyes that
they can scan the earth perfectly at that distance. Just as war planes detect
their targets from thousands of
meters away, so do eagles spot
their prey, perceiving the slightest
colour shift or the slightest move-
ment on the earth. The eagle's eye
has an angle of vision of three hun-
dred degrees and it can magnify a
given image around six to eight
times. Eagles can scan an area of
30,000 hectares while flying 4,500
meters above it. They can easily
distinguish a rabbit hidden among

grasses from an altitude of 1,500 meters. It is evident that this extraordinary
eye structure of the eagle is specially designed for this creature.

The Thread of the Spider

The spider named Dinopis has a great skill for hunting. Rather than
weaving a static web and waiting for its prey, it weaves a small yet highly
unusual web that it throws on its prey. Afterwards, it tightly wraps up its
prey with this web. The entrapped insect can do nothing to extricate itself.
The web is so perfectly constructed that the insect gets even more entangled
as it gets more alarmed. In order to store its food, the spider wraps the prey
with extra strands, almost as if it were packaging it.

How does this spider make a web so excellent in its mechanical design
and chemical structure? It is impossible for the spider to have acquired such
a skill by coincidence as is claimed by evolutionists. The spider is devoid of
faculties such as learning and memorising and does not have even a brain to
perform these things. Obviously, this skill is bestowed on the spider by its
creator, God, Who is Exalted in Power.

202

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

Very important miracles are hidden in
the thread of the spiders. This thread, with a
diameter of less than one thousandth of a
millimetre, is 5 times stronger than a steel
wire having the same thickness. This thread

has yet another characteristic of being extremely light. A length of this
thread long enough to encircle the world would weigh only 320 grams. 189
Steel, a substance specially produced in industrial works, is one of the
strongest materials manufactured by mankind. However, the spider can pro-
duce in its body a far firmer thread than steel. While man produces steel, he
makes use of his centuries-old knowledge and technology; which knowl-
edge or technology, then, does the spider use while producing its thread?

As we see, all technological and technical means at the disposal
mankind lag behind those of a spider.

Hibernating Animals

Hibernating animals can go on living although their body temperature
falls to the same degree as the cold temperature outside. How do they man-
age this?

Mammals are warm-blooded. This means that under normal condi-
tions, their body temperature always remains constant because the natural
thermostat in their body keeps on regulating this temperature. However,
during hibernation, the normal body heat of small mammals, like the squir-
rel rat with a normal body heat of 40 degrees, drops down to a little bit above
the freezing point as if adjusted by some kind of a key. The body metabolism
slows down to a great extent. The animal starts breathing very slowly and its
normal heartbeat, which is 300 times a minute, falls to 7-10 beats a minute.

The Fact of Creation 203

Its normal body reflexes stop and the electrical activities in its brain slow
down almost to undetectability.

One of the dangers of motionlessness is the freezing of tissues in very
cold weather and their being destroyed by ice crystals. Hibernating animals
however are protected against this danger thanks to the special features they
are endowed with. The body fluids of hibernating animals are retained by
chemical materials having high molecular masses. Thus, their freezing point
is decreased and they are protected from harm. 190

Electrical Fish

Certain species of some fish types such as electric eel and electric ray
utilise the electricity produced in their bodies either to protect themselves
from their enemies or to paralyse their prey. In every living being - including
man - is a little amount of electricity. Man, however, cannot direct this elec-
tricity or take it under control to use it for his own benefit. The above-men-
tioned creatures, on the other hand, have an electrical current as high as
500-600 volts in their bodies and they are able use this against their enemies.
Furthermore, they are not adversely affected by this electricity.

The energy they consume to defend themselves is recovered after a cer-
tain time like the charging of a battery and electrical power is once again
ready for use. Fish do not use the high- voltage electricity in their small bod-
ies only for defence purposes. Besides providing the means for finding their
way in deep dark waters, electricity also helps them sense objects without
seeing them. Fish can send signals by using the electricity in their bodies.
These electric signals reflect back after hitting solid objects and these reflec-
tions give the fish information about the object. This way, fish can determine
the distance and size of the object. 191

An Intelligent Plan on Animals: Camouflage

One of the features that animals possess in order to keep living is the art
of hiding themselves-that is, "camouflage".

Animals feel the necessity of hiding themselves for two main reasons:
for hunting and for protecting themselves from predators. Camouflage dif-
fers from all other methods with its particular involvement of utmost intelli-
gence, skill, aesthetics and harmony.

The camouflage techniques of animals are truly amazing. It is almost

204

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

Above: Tree louse imitating tree thorns. Right above: A snake concealing itself by suspend-
ing itself among leaves. Right below: A caterpillar settled right in the middle of a leaf to go un-
noticed.

impossible to identify an insect that is hidden in a tree trunk or another crea-
ture hidden under a leaf.

Leaf louse that suck the juices of plants feed themselves on plant stalks
by pretending to be thorns. By this method, they aim to trick birds, their
biggest enemies, and ensure that birds will not perch on these plants.

Cuttlefish

Under the skin of the cuttlefish is arrayed a dense layer of elastic pig-
ment sacs called chromatophores. They come mainly in yellow, red, black
and brown. At a signal, the cells expand and flood the skin with the appro-
priate shade. That is how the cuttlefish takes on the colour of the rock it
stands on and makes a perfect camouflage.

This system operates so effectively that the cuttlefish can also create a
complex zebra-like striping. 192

The Fact of Creation

205

Left: A cuttlefish that makes itself look like the sandy surface. Right: The bright yellow colour the
same fish turns in case of danger, such as when it is seen by a diver.

Different Vision Systems

For many sea-dwelling animals, seeing is extremely important for hunt-
ing and defence. Accordingly, most of the sea-dwelling animals are
equipped with eyes perfectly designed for underwater.

Under water, the ability to see becomes more and more limited with
depth, especially after 30 meters. Organisms living at this depth, however,
have eyes created according to the given conditions.

Sea-dwelling animals, unlike land-dwelling animals, have spherical
lenses in perfect accordance with the needs of the density of the water they
inhabit. Compared to the wide elliptical eyes of land-dwelling animals, this
spherical structure is more serviceable for sight under water; it is adjusted to
see objects in close-up. When an object at a greater distance is focused upon,
the whole lens system is pulled backwards by the help of a special muscle
mechanism within the eye.

One other reason why the eyes of the fish are spherical is the refraction
of light in water. Because the eye is filled with a liquid having almost the
same density as water, no refraction occurs while an image formed outside is
reflected on the eye. Consequently, the eye lens fully focuses the image of the
outside object on the retina. The fish, unlike human beings, sees very sharply
in water.

Some animals like octopus have rather big eyes to compensate for the
poor light in the depths of water. Below 300 meters, big-eyed fish need to
capture the flashes of the surrounding organisms to notice them. They have
to be especially sensitive to the feeble blue light penetrating into the water.
For this reason, there are plenty of sensitive blue cells in the retina of their
eyes.

206 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

As is understood from these examples, every living being has distinc-
tive eyes specially designed to meet its particular needs. This fact proves that
they are all created just the way they have to be by a Creator Who has eternal
wisdom, knowledge and power.

Special Freezing System

A frozen frog embodies an unusual biological structure. It shows no
signs of life. Its heartbeat, breathing and blood circulation have come com-
pletely to a halt. When the ice melts, however, the same frog returns to life as
if it is has woken up from sleep.

Normally, a living being in the state of freezing confronts many fatal
risks. The frog, however, does not face any of them. It has the main feature of
producing plenty of glucose while it is in that state. Just like a diabetic, the
blood sugar level of the frog reaches very high levels. It can sometimes go as
high as 550 milimol/ liter. (This figure is normally between 1-5 mmol/litre
for frogs and 4-5 mmol/litre for human body). This extreme glucose concen-
tration may cause serious problems in normal times.

In a frozen frog, however, this extreme glucose keeps water from leav-
ing cells and prevents shrinkage. The cell membrane of the frog is highly
permeable to glucose so that glucose finds easy access to cells. The high level
of glucose in the body reduces the freezing temperature causing only a very
small amount of the animal's inner body liquid to turn to ice in the cold. Re-
search has showed that glucose can feed frozen cells as well. During this pe-
riod, besides being the natural fuel of the body, glucose also stops many
metabolic reactions like urea synthesis and thus prevents different food
sources of the cell from being exhausted.

How does such a high amount of glucose in the frog's body come about
all of a sudden? The answer is quite interesting: this living being is equipped
with a very special system in charge of this task. As soon as ice appears on
the skin, a message travels to the liver making the liver convert some of its
stored glycogen into glucose. The nature of this message travelling to the
liver is still unknown. Five minutes after the message is received, the sugar
level in the blood steadily starts to increase. 193

Unquestionably the animal's being equipped with a system that en-
tirely changes its metabolism to meet all of its needs just when it is required
can only be possible through the flawless plan of the All-Mighty Creator. No
coincidence can generate such a perfect and complex system.

The Fact of Creation „„

Albatrosses

Migratory birds minimise
energy consumption by using different
"flight techniques". Albatrosses are also
observed to have such a flight style. These
birds, which spend 92% of their lives on the sea, have wing
spans of up to 3,5 meters. The most important characteristic of
albatrosses is their flight style: they can fly for hours without
beating their wings at all. To do so, they glide along in the air keep-
ing their wings constant by making use of the wind.

It requires a great deal of energy to keep wings with a wing span of 3.5
meters constantly open. Albatrosses, however, can stay in this position for
hours. This is due to the special anatomical system they are bestowed with
from the moment of their birth. During flight, the wings of the albatross are
blocked. Therefore, it does not need to use any muscular power. Wings are
lifted only by muscle layers. This greatly helps the bird during its flight. This
system reduces the energy consumed by the bird during flight. The albatross
does not use energy because it does not beat its wings or waste energy to
keep its wings outstretched. Flying for hours by making exclusive use of
wind provides an unlimited energy source for it. For instance, a 10-kilo-alba-
tross loses only 1% of its body weight while it travels for 1,000 kms. This is
indeed a very small rate. Men have manufactured gliders taking albatrosses
as a model and by making use of their fascinating flight technique. 194

An Arduous Migration

Pacific salmon have the exceptional characteristic of returning to the
rivers in which they hatched to reproduce. Having spent part of their lives in
the sea, these animals come back to fresh water to reproduce.

When they start their journey in early summer, the colour of the fish is
bright red. At the end of their journey, however, their colour turns black. At
the outset of their migration, they first draw near to the shore and try to
reach rivers. They perseveringly strive to go back to their birthplace. They
reach the place where they hatched by leaping over turbulent rivers, swim-
ming upstream, surmounting waterfalls and dykes. At the end of this 3,500-
4,000 km. journey, female salmon readily have eggs just as male salmons
have sperm. Having reached the place where they hatched, female salmon

208

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

lay around 3 to 5 thousand eggs as male salmon fertilise them. The fish suf-
fer much damage as a result of this migration and hatching period. Females
that lay eggs become exhausted; their tail fins are worn down and their skin
starts to turn black. The same is true also for males. The river soon overflows
with dead salmon. Yet another salmon generation is ready to hatch out and
make the same journey.

How salmon complete such a journey how they reach the sea after they
hatch, and how they find their way are just some of the questions that re-
main to be answered. Although many suggestions are made, no definite so-
lution has yet been reached. What is the power that makes salmon
undertake a return of thousands of kilometres back to a place unknown to
them? It is obvious that there is a superior Will ruling over and controlling
all these living beings. It is God, the Sustainer of all the worlds.

Koalas

The oil found in eucalyptus leaves is poisonous to many mammals.
This poison is a chemical defence mechanism used by eucalyptus trees
against their enemies. Yet there is a very special living being that gets the
better of this mechanism and feeds on poisonous eucalyptus leaves: a mar-
supial called the koala. Koalas make their homes in eucalyptus trees while
they also feed on them and obtain
their water from them.

Like other mammals, koalas also
cannot digest the cellulose present in
the trees. For this, it is dependent on
cellulose-digesting micro-organisms .
These micro-organisms are heavily
populated in the convergence point
of small and large intestines, the cae-
cum which is the rear extension of the
intestinal system. The caecum is the
most interesting part of the digestion
system of the koala. This segment
functions as a fermentation chamber
where microbes are made to digest
cellulose while the passage of the

The Fact of Creation

209

leaves is delayed. Thus, the koala can neutralise the poisonous effect of the
oils in the eucalyptus leaves. 195

Hunting Ability in Constant Position

The South African sundew plant entraps insects with its viscous hairs.
The leaves of this plant are full of long, red hairs. The tips of these hairs are
covered with a fluid that has a smell that attracts insects. Another feature of
the fluid is its being extremely viscous. An insect that makes its way to the
source of the smell gets stuck in these viscous hairs. Shortly afterwards the
whole leaf is closed down on the insect that is already entangled in the hairs
and the plant extracts the protein essential for itself from the insect by di-
gesting it. 196

The endowment of a plant with no possibility of moving from its place
with such a faculty is no doubt the evident sign of a special design. It is im-
possible for a plant to have developed such a hunting style out of its own
consciousness or will, or by way of coincidence. So, it is all the more impos-
sible to overlook the existence and might of the Creator Who has furnished it
with this ability.

The Design In Bird Feathers

At first glance, bird feathers seem to have a very simple structure.
When we study them closer, however, we come across the very complex
structure of feathers that are light yet extremely strong and waterproof.

Birds should be as light as possible in order to fly easily. The feathers are

Left: An open Sundew. Right: A closed one.

210

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

made up of keratin proteins
keeping with this need. On both
sides of the stem of a feather are
veins and on each vein are
around 400 tiny barbs. On these
400 barbs are a total of tinier 800
barbs, two on each. Of the 800
tinier barbs which are crowded
on a small bird feather, those lo-
cated towards the front part
have another 20 barbs on each
of them. These barbs fasten two
feathers to one another just like
two pieces of cloth tacked up on
each other. In a single feather
are approximately 300 million
tiny barbs. The total number of
barbs in all the feathers of a bird
is around 700 billion.

There is a very significant
reason for the bird feather
being firmly interlocked with
each other with barbs and clasps. The feathers should hold tightly on the
bird so as not to fall out in any movement whatsoever. With the mechanism
made up of barbs and clasps, the feathers hold so tightly on the bird that nei-
ther strong wind, nor rain, nor snow cause them to fall out.

Furthermore, the feathers in the abdomen of the bird are not the same
as the feathers in its wings and tail. The tail is made up of relatively big
feathers to function as rudder and brakes; wing feathers are designed so as
to expand the area surface during the bird's wing beating and thus increase
the lifting force.

Basilisk: The Expert of Walking on Water

Few animals are able to walk on the surface of water. One such rarity is
basilisk, which lives in Central America and is seen below. On the sides of
the toes of basilisk's hind feet are flaps that enable them to splash water.

The Fact of Creation

211

The basilisk
lizard is one
of those rare
animals that
can move
establishing a
balance be-
tween water
and air.

These are rolled up when the animal walks on land. If the animal faces dan-
ger, it starts to run very fast on the surface of a river or a lake. Then the flaps
on its hind feet are opened and thus more surface area is provided for it to
run on water. 197

This unique design of basilisk is one of the evident signs of conscious
Creation.

Photosynthesis

Plants unquestionably play a major role in making the universe a habit-
able place. They clean the air for us, keep the temperature of the planet at a
constant level, and balance the proportions of gases in the atmosphere. The
oxygen in the air we breathe is produced by plants. An important part of our
food is also provided by plants. The nutritional value of plants comes from
the special design in their cells to which they also owe their other features.

The plant cell, unlike human and animal cells, can make direct use of
solar energy. It converts the solar energy into chemical energy and stores it in
nutrients in very special ways. This process is called "photosynthesis". In
fact, this process is carried out not by the cell but by chloroplasts, organelles
that give plants their green colour. These tiny green organelles only observ-
able by microscope are the only laboratories on earth that are capable of stor-
ing solar energy in organic matter.

The amount of matter produced by plants on the earth is around 200
billion tons a year. This production is vital to all living things on the earth.

212

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

The production made by plants is realised through a very complicated
chemical process. Thousands of "chlorophyll" pigments found in the chloro-
plast react to light in an incredibly short time, something like one thou-
sandth of a second. This is why many activities taking place in the
chlorophyll have still not been observed.

Converting solar energy into electrical or chemical energy is a very re-
cent technological breakthrough. In order to do this, high-tech instruments
are used. A plant cell so small as to be invisible to the naked human eye has
been performing this task for millions of years.

This perfect system displays Creation once more for all to see. The very
complex system of photosynthesis is a consciously-designed mechanism
that God creates. A matchless factory is squeezed in a minuscule unit area in
the leaves. This flawless design is only one of the signs revealing that God,
the Sustainer of all worlds, creates all living things.

PART II

THE REFUTATION

MATERIALISM

WARNING !

The chapter you are now about to read

reveals a crucial secret of your life. You

should read it very attentively and thoroughly

for it is concerned with a subject that is liable to

make a fundamental change in your outlook

to the external world. The subject of this

chapter is not just a point of view, a different

approach, or a traditional philosophical

thought: it is a fact which everyone, believing

or unbelieving, must admit and which is also

proven by science today.

CHAPTER

The Real Essence of

Matter

eople who contemplate their surroundings conscientiously and
wisely realise that everything in the universe-both living and non-
living-must have been created. So the question becomes that of
"Who is the creator of all these things?"

It is evident that "the fact of creation", which reveals itself in every as-
pect of the universe, cannot be an outcome of the universe itself. For exam-
ple, a bug could not have created itself. The solar system could not have
created or organised itself. Neither plants, humans, bacteria, erythrocytes
(red-blood corpuscles), nor butterflies could have created themselves. The
possibility that these all could have originated "by chance" is not even
imaginable.

We therefore arrive at the following conclusion: Everything that we
see has been created. But nothing that we see can be "creators" themselves.
The Creator is different from and superior to all that we see with our eyes,
a superior power that is invisible but whose existence and attributes are re-
vealed in everything that exists.

This is the point at which those who deny the existence of God demur.
These people are conditioned not to believe in His existence unless they
see Him with their eyes. These people, who disregard the fact of "creation",
are forced to ignore the actuality of "creation" manifested all throughout
the universe and falsely prove that the universe and the living things in it
have not been created. Evolutionary theory is a key example of their vain
endeavours to this end.

The basic mistake of those who deny God is shared by many people
who in fact do not really deny the existence of God but have a wrong per-
ception of Him. They do not deny creation, but have superstitious beliefs
about "where" God is. Most of them think that God is up in the "sky". They
tacitly imagine that God is behind a very distant planet and interferes with

216 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

"worldly affairs" once in a while. Or perhaps that He does not intervene at
all: He created the universe and then left it to itself and people are left to
determine their fates for themselves.

Still others have heard that in the Qur'an it is written that God is
"everywhere" but they cannot perceive what this exactly means. They tac-
itly think that God surrounds everything like radio waves or like an invis-
ible, intangible gas.

However, this notion and other beliefs that are unable to make clear
"where" God is (and maybe deny Him because of that) are all based on a
common mistake. They hold a prejudice without any grounds and then are
moved to wrong opinions of God. What is this prejudice?

This prejudice is about the nature and characteristics of matter. We are
so conditioned to suppositions about the existence of matter that we never
think about whether or not it does exist or is only created as an image.
Modern science demolishes this prejudice and discloses a very important
and imposing reality. In the following pages, we will try to explain this
great reality to which the Qur'an points.

The World Of Electrical Signals

All the information that we have about the world we live in is con-
veyed to us by our five senses. The world we know of consists of what our
eye sees, our hand feels, our nose smells, our tongue tastes, and our ear
hears. We never think that the "external" world can be other than what our
senses present to us as we have been dependent only on those senses since
the day of our birth.

Modern research in many different fields of science however points to
a very different understanding and creates serious doubt about our senses
and the world that we perceive with them.

The starting-point of this approach is that the notion of an "external
world" shaped in our brain is only a response formed in our brain by elec-
trical signals. The redness of the apple, the hardness of the wood, more-
over, your mother, father, your family, and everything that you own, your
house, your job, and the lines of this book, are comprised only of electrical
signals.

Frederick Vester explains the point that science has reached on this
subject:

The Real Essence of Matter

217

Stimulations coming
from an object are con-
verted into electrical
signals and cause an
effect in the brain.
When we "see", we in
fact view the effects of
these electrical signals
in our mind.

Statements of some scientists posing that "man is an image, everything expe-
rienced is temporary and deceptive, and this universe is a shadow", seems to
be proven by science in our day 198

The famous philosopher George Berkeley's comment on the subject is
as follows:

We believe in the existence of objects just because we see and touch them,
and they are reflected to us by our perceptions. However, our perceptions are
only ideas in our mind. Thus, objects we captivate by perceptions are nothing
but ideas, and these ideas are essentially in nowhere but our mind. . . Since all
these exist only in the mind, then it means that we are beguiled by deceptions
when we imagine the universe and things to have an existence outside the
mind. So, none of the surrounding things have an existence out of our
mind. 199

In order to clarify the subject, let us consider our sense of sight, which
provides us with the most extensive information about the external world.

How Do We See, Hear, And Taste?

The act of seeing is realised in a very progressive way. Light clusters
(photons) that travel from the object to the eye pass through the lens in
front of the eye where it is broken and falls reversely on the retina at the
back of the eye. Here, the impinging light is turned into electrical signals
that are transmitted by neurons to a tiny spot called the centre of vision in
the back part of the brain. This electrical signal is perceived as an image in
this centre in the brain after a series of processes. The act of seeing actually

218 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

takes place in this tiny spot at the posterior part of the brain which is pitch-
dark and completely insulated from light.

Now, let us reconsider this seemingly ordinary and unremarkable
process. When we say that "we see", we are in fact seeing the effects of the
impulses reaching our eye and induced in our brain after they are trans-
formed into electrical signals. That is, when we say that "we see", we are
actually observing electrical signals in our mind.

All the images we view in our lives are formed in our centre of vision,
which makes up only a few cubic centimetres of the volume of the brain.
Both the book you are now reading and the boundless landscape you see
when you gaze at the horizon fit into this tiny space. Another point that
has to be kept in mind is that as we have noted before, the brain is insu-
lated from light; its inside is absolutely dark. The brain has no contact with
light itself.

We can explain this interesting situation with an example. Let us sup-
pose that there is a burning candle in front of us. We can sit across from this
candle and watch it at length. However, during this period of time, our
brain never has any direct contact with the candle's original light. Even as
we see the light of the candle, the inside of our brain is solid dark. We
watch a colourful and bright world inside our dark brain.

R.L. Gregory makes the following explanation about the miraculous
aspect of seeing, an action that we take so very much for granted:

We are so familiar with seeing, that it takes a leap of imagination to realise
that there are problems to be solved. But consider it. We are given tiny dis-
torted upside-down images in the eyes, and we see separate solid objects in
surrounding space. From the patterns of simulation on the retinas we per-
ceive the world of objects, and this is nothing short of a miracle. 200

The same situation applies to all our other senses. Sound, touch, taste
and smell are all transmitted to the brain as electrical signals and are per-
ceived in the relevant centers in the brain.

The sense of hearing takes place in the same manner. The outer ear
picks up available sounds by the auricle and directs them to the middle
ear; the middle ear transmits the sound vibrations to the inner ear by in-
tensifying them; the inner ear sends these vibrations to the brain by trans-
lating them into electrical signals. Just as with the eye, the act of hearing
finalises in the centre of hearing in the brain. The brain is insulated from

The Real Essence of Matter

219

sound just like it is from light. Therefore, no matter how noisy it is outside,
the inside of the brain is completely silent.

Nevertheless, even the subtlest sounds are perceived in the brain.
This is such a precision that the ear of a healthy person hears everything
without any atmospheric noise or interference. In your brain, which is in-
sulated from sound, you listen to the symphonies of an orchestra, hear all

220

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

the noises in a crowded place, and perceive all the sounds within a wide
frequency ranging from the rustling of a leaf to the roar of a jet plane.
However, if the sound level in your brain were to be measured by a sensi-
tive device at that moment, it would be seen that a complete silence is pre-
vailing there.

Our perception of odour forms in a similar way. Volatile molecules
emitted by things such vanilla or a rose reach the receptors in the delicate
hairs in the epithelium region of the nose and become involved in an in-
teraction. This interaction is transmitted to the brain as electrical signals
and perceived as smell. Everything that we smell, be it nice or bad, is
nothing but the brain's perceiving of the interactions of volatile molecules
after they have been transformed into electrical signals. You perceive the
scent of a perfume, a flower, a food that you like, the sea, or other odors
you like or dislike in your brain. The molecules themselves never reach
the brain. Just as with sound and vision, what reaches your brain is sim-
ply electrical signals. In other words, all the odours that you have as-
sumed to belong to external
objects since you were born
are just electrical signals that
you feel through your sense
organs.

Similarly, there are four
different types of chemical
receptors in the front part of
a human's tongue. These
pertain to the tastes of salty,
sweet, sour, and bitter. Our
taste receptors transform
these perceptions into elec-
trical signals after a chain of
chemical processes and
transmit them to the brain.
These signals are perceived
as taste by the brain. The
taste you get when you eat a
chocolate bar or a fruit that

We see everything around us as
coloured inside the darkness of our
brains, just as this garden looks
coloured from the window of a dark-
ened room.

The Real Essence of Matter

221

you like is the interpretation of electrical signals by the brain. You can
never reach the object in the outside; you can never see, smell or taste the
chocolate itself. For instance, if taste nerves that travel to your brain are
cut, nothing you eat at the moment will reach your brain; you will com-
pletely lose your sense of taste.

At this point, we come across with another fact: We can never be sure
that what we feel when we taste a food and what another person feels
when he tastes the same food, or what we perceive when we hear a voice
and what another person perceives when he hears the same voice are the
same. On this fact, Lincoln Barnett says that no one can know that another
person perceives the colour red or hears the C note the same way as he
himself does. 201

Our sense of touch is no different than the others. When we touch an
object, all information that will help us recognise the external world and
objects are transmitted to the brain by the sense nerves on the skin. The
feeling of touch is formed in our brain. Contrary to general belief, the place
where we perceive the sense of touch is not at our finger tips or skin but at
the centre of touch in our brain. As a result of the brain's assessment of

222 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

electrical stimulations coming from objects to it, we feel different senses
pertaining to those objects such as hardness or softness, or heat or cold. We
derive all details that help us recognise an object from these stimulations.
Concerning this important fact, the thoughts of two famous philosophers,
B. Russell and L. J. J. Wittgeinstein are as follows;

For instance, whether a lemon truly exists or not and how it came to exist
cannot be questioned and investigated. A lemon consists merely of a taste
sensed by the tongue, an odor sensed by the nose, a colour and shape sensed
by the eye; and only these features of it can be subject to examination and as-
sessment. Science can never know the physical world. 202

It is impossible for us to reach the physical world. All objects around
us are a collection of perceptions such as seeing, hearing, and touching. By
processing the data in the centre of vision and in other sensory centres, our
brain, throughout our lives, confronts not the "original" of the matter ex-
isting outside us but rather the copy formed inside our brain. It is at this
point that we are misled by assuming that these copies are instances of real
matter outside us.

"The External World" Inside Our Brain

As a result of the physical facts described so far, we may conclude the
following. Everything we see, touch, hear, and perceive as matter", "the
world" or "the universe" is nothing but electrical signals occurring in our
brain.

Someone eating a fruit in fact confronts not the actual fruit but its per-
ception in the brain. The object considered to be a "fruit" by the person ac-
tually consists of an electrical impression in the brain concerning the
shape, taste, smell, and texture of the fruit. If the sight nerve travelling to
the brain were to be severed suddenly, the image of the fruit would sud-
denly disappear. Or a disconnection in the nerve travelling from the sen-
sors in the nose to the brain would completely interrupt the sense of smell.
Simply put, the fruit is nothing but the interpretation of electrical signals
by the brain.

Another point to be considered is the sense of distance. Distance,
which is to say the distance between you and this book, is only a feeling of
emptiness formed in your brain. Objects that seem to be distant in that per-
son's view also exist in the brain. For instance, someone who watches the

The Real Essence of Matter

223

As a result of artificial stimulations, a physical
world as true and realistic as the real one can be
formed in our brain without the existence of
physical world. As a result of artificial stimula-
tions, a person may think that he is driving in his
car, while he is actually sitting in his home.

stars in the sky assumes that they are millions of light-years away from
him. Yet what he "sees" are really the stars inside himself, in his centre of
vision. While you read these lines, you are, in truth, not inside the room
you assume you are in; on the contrary, the room is inside you. Your seeing
your body makes you think that you are inside it. However, you must re-
member that your body, too, is an image formed inside your brain.

The same applies to all your other perceptions. For instance, when
you think that you hear the sound of the television in the next room, you
are actually experiencing the sound inside your brain. You can neither
prove that a room exists next to yours, nor that a sound comes from the
television in that room. Both the sound you think to be coming from me-
ters away and the conversation of a person right near you are perceived in
a few centimetre-square centre of hearing in your brain. Apart from this
centre of perception, no concept such as right, left, front or behind exists.
That is, sound does not come to you from the right, from the left or from
the air; there is no direction from which the sound comes.

The smells that you perceive are like that too; none of them reach you
from a long distance. You suppose that the end-effects formed in your cen-
tre of smell are the smell of the objects in the outside. However, just as the

224

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

image of a rose is in your centre of vision, so the smell of this rose is in your
centre of smell; you can never know whether the original of that rose or
smell really exists outside.

The "external world" presented to us by our perceptions is merely a
collection of the electrical signals reaching our brain. Throughout our lives,
these signals are processed by our brain and we live without recognising
that we are mistaken in assuming that these are the original versions of
matter existing in the "external world". We are misled because we can
never reach the matter itself by means of our senses.

Moreover it is again our brain that interprets and attributes meaning
to the signals that we assume to be the "external world". For example, let
us consider the sense of hearing. It is in fact our brain that transforms the
sound waves in the "external world" into a symphony. That is to say, music
is also a perception created by our brain. In the same manner, when we see
colours, what reaches our eyes are merely electrical signals of different
wavelengths. It is again our brain that trans-
forms these signals into colours. There are no
colours in the "external world". Neither is the
apple red nor is the sky blue nor the trees
green. They are as they are just because we
perceive them to be so. The "external world"
depends entirely on the perceiver.

Even a slightest defect in the retina of the
eye causes colour blindness. Some people per-
ceive blue as green, some red as blue, and
some all colours as different tones of grey. At
this point, it does not matter whether the ob-
ject outside is coloured or not.

The prominent thinker Berkeley also ad-
dresses this fact:

NewScientist

BEYOND REALITY

r. ItK .nwrsn re illy a Iroic tt prmai
iifarmflui ■.'".' - -if,- ' i -r b nwBfH*

At the beginning, it was believed that colours,
odours, etc., "really exist", but subsequently
such views were renounced, and it was seen
that they only exist in dependence on our
sensations. 203

In conclusion, the reason we see objects
coloured is not because they are coloured or

The findings of modern physics show
that the universe is a collection of per-
ceptions. The following question ap-
pears on the cover of the well-known
American science magazine New Sci-
entist which dealt with this fact in its
30 January 1999 issue: "Beyond Real-
ity: Is the Universe Really a Frolic of
Primal Information and Matter Just a
Mirage?"

The Real Essence of Matter 225

because they have an independent material existence outside ourselves.
The truth of the matter is rather that all the qualities we ascribe to objects
are inside us and not in the "external world".

So what remains of the "external world"?

Is The Existence Of The "External World" Indispensable?

So far we have been speaking repeatedly of an "external world" and a
world of perceptions formed in our brain, the latter of which is the one we
see. However since we can never actually reach the "external world", how
can we be sure that such a world really exists?

Actually we cannot. Since each object is only a collection of percep-
tions and those perceptions exist only in the mind, it is more accurate to
say that the only world that we deal with is the world of perceptions. The
only world we know of is the world that exists in our mind: the one that is
designed, recorded, and made vivid there; the one, in short, that is created
within our mind. This is the only world we can be sure of.

We can never prove that the perceptions we observe in our brain have
material correlates. Those perceptions may well be coming from an "artifi-
cial" source.

It is possible to observe this. False stimulations can produce in our
brain an entirely imaginary "material world". For example, let us think of a
very developed recording instrument where all kinds of electrical signals
can be recorded. First, let us transmit all the data related to a setting (in-
cluding body image) to this instrument by transforming them into electrical
signals. Second, let us imagine that you can have your brain survive apart
from your body. Lastly, let us connect the recording instrument to the brain
with electrodes that will function as nerves and send the pre-recorded data
to the brain. In this state, you will feel yourself as if you are living in this ar-
tificially created setting. For instance, you can easily believe that you are
driving fast on a highway. It never becomes possible to understand that you
consist of nothing but your brain. This is because what is needed to form a
world within your brain is not the existence of a real world but rather the
availability of stimulations. It is perfectly possible that these stimulations
could be coming from an artificial source, such as a recorder.

In that connection, distinguished science philosopher Bertrand Rus-
sell wrote;

226 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

As to the sense of touch when we press the table with our fingers, that is an
electric disturbance on the electrons and protons of our fingertips, produced,
according to modern physics, by the proximity of the electrons and protons
in the table. If the same disturbance in our finger-tips arose in any other
way, we should have the sensations, in spite of there being no table. 204

It is indeed very easy for us to be deceived into deeming perceptions
without any material correlates as real. We often experience this feeling in
our dreams. In our dreams, we experience events, see people, objects and
settings that seem completely real. However, they are all nothing but mere
perceptions. There is no basic difference between the dream and the "real
world"; both of them are experienced in the brain.

Who Is The Perceiver?

As we have related so far, there is no doubt of the fact that the world
we think we are inhabiting and that we call the "external world" is created
inside our brain. However, here arises the question of primary importance.
If all the physical events that we know of are intrinsically perceptions,
what about our brain? Since our brain is a part of the physical world just
like our arm, leg, or any other object, it also should be a perception just like
all other objects.

An example about dreams will illuminate the subject further. Let us
think that we see the dream within our brain in accordance with what has
been said so far. In the dream, we will have an imaginary body, an imagi-
nary arm, an imaginary eye, and an imaginary brain. If during our dream
we were asked "where do you see?", we would answer "I see in my brain".
Yet, actually there is not any brain to talk about, but an imaginary head
and an imaginary brain. The seer of the images is not the imaginary brain
in the dream, but a "being" that is far "superior" to it.

We know that there is no physical distinction between the setting of a
dream and the setting we call real life. So when we are asked in the setting
we call real life the above question of "where do you see", it would be just
as meaningless to answer "in my brain" as in the example above. In both
conditions, the entity that sees and perceives is not the brain, which is after
all only a hunk of meat.

When the brain is analysed, it is seen that there is nothing in it but
lipid and protein molecules, which also exist in other living organisms.
This means that within the piece of meat we call our "brain", there is noth-

The Real Essence of Matter 227

ing to observe the images, to constitute consciousness, or to create the
being we call "myself".

R.L. Gregory refers to a mistake people make in relation to the per-
ception of images in the brain:

There is a temptation, which must be avoided, to say that the eyes produce
pictures in the brain. A picture in the brain suggests the need of some kind of
internal eye to see it - but this would need a further eye to see its picture...
and so on in an endless regress of eyes and pictures. This is absurd. 205

This is the very point which puts the materialists, who do not hold
anything but the matter as true, in a quandary. To whom belongs "the eye
inside" that sees, that perceives what it sees and reacts?

Karl Pribram also focused on this important question in the world of
science and philosophy about who the perceiver is:

Philosophers since the Greeks have speculated about the "ghost" in the ma-
chine, the "little man inside the little man" and so on. Where is the I -the en-
tity that uses the brain? Who does the actual knowing? Or, as Saint Francis of
Assisi once put it, "What we are looking for is what is looking." 206

Now, think of this: The book in your hand, the room you are in, in
brief, all the images in front of you are seen inside your brain. Is it the
atoms that see these images? Blind, deaf, unconscious atoms? Why did
some atoms acquire this quality whereas some did not? Do our acts of
thinking, comprehending, remembering, being delighted, being unhappy,
and everything else consist of the electrochemical reactions between these
atoms?

When we ponder these questions, we see that there is no sense in
looking for will in atoms. It is clear that the being who sees, hears, and feels
is a supra-material being. This being is "alive" and it is neither matter nor
an image of matter. This being associates with the perceptions in front of it
by using the image of our body.

This being is the "soul".

The aggregate of perceptions we call the "material world" is a dream
observed by this soul. Just as the body we possess and the material world
we see in our dreams have no reality, the universe we occupy and the body
we possess also have no material reality.

The real being is the soul. Matter consists merely of perceptions

228

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

The brain is a heap of cells made up of protein and fat molecules. It is formed of nerve cells called
neurons. There is no power in this piece of meat to observe the images, to constitute conscious-
ness, or to create the being we call "myself".

viewed by the soul. The intelligent being that writes and reads these lines
is not a heap of atoms and molecules-and the chemical reactions between
them-but a "soul".

The Real Absolute Being

All these facts bring us face to face with a very significant question. If
the thing we acknowledge to be the material world is merely comprised of
perceptions seen by our soul, then what is the source of these perceptions?

In answering this question, we have to take the following fact into
consideration: matter does not have a self-governing existence by itself.
Since matter is a perception, it is something "artificial". That is, this percep-
tion must have been caused by another power, which means that it must in
fact have been created. Moreover, this creation should be continuous. If
there was not a continuous and consistent creation, then what we call mat-
ter would disappear and be lost. This may be likened to a television on
which a picture is displayed as long as the signal continues to be broad-
cast. So, who makes our soul watch the stars, the earth, the plants, the peo-
ple, our body and all else that we see?

It is very evident that there exists a supreme Creator, Who has created
the entire material universe, that is, the sum of perceptions, and Who con-
tinues His creation ceaselessly. Since this Creator displays such a magnifi-
cent creation, he surely has eternal power and might. This Creator
describes us Himself, the universe and the reason of our existence through
the book He has sent down.

The Real Essence of Matter 229

This Creator is God and the name of His Book is the Qur'an.

The facts that the heavens and the earth, that is, the universe is not
stable, that their presence is only made possible by God's creation and that
they will disappear when He ends this creation, are all explained in a verse
as follows:

It is God Who sustains the heavens and the earth, lest they cease (to func-
tion): and if they should fail, there is none -not one- can sustain them there-
after: Verily He is Most Forbearing, Oft-Forgiving. (Surah Fatir, 41)

As we mentioned at the beginning, some people have no genuine un-
derstanding of God and so they imagine Him as a being present some-
where in the heavens and not really intervening in worldly affairs. The
basis of this logic actually lies in the thought that the universe is an assem-
bly of matter and God is "outside" this material world, in a far away place.
In some false religions, belief in God is limited to this understanding.

However, as we have considered so far, matter is composed only of
sensations. And the only real absolute being is God. That means that it is
only God that exists: everything except Him are images. Consequently, it
is impossible to conceive God as a separate being outside this whole mass
of matter. God is surely "everywhere" and encompasses all. This reality is
explained in the Qur'an as follows;

God! There is no god but He, the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No
slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on
earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permits? He
knows what (appears to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor
shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He wills. His Throne
extends over the heavens and the earth, and He feels no fatigue in guarding
and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory). (Surat
al-Baqara, 255)

The fact that God is not bound with space and that He encompasses
everything roundabout is stated in another verse as follows:

To God belong the east and the west: Whithersoever you turn, there is the

presence of God. For God is all-Pervading, all-Knowing. (Surat al-Baqara, 115)

Since material beings are each a perception, they cannot see God; but
God sees the matter He created in all its forms. In the Qur'an, this fact is
stated thus: "No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision"
(Surat al-Anaam, 103)

230 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

That is, we cannot perceive God with our eyes, but God has thor-
oughly encompassed our inside, outside, looks and thoughts. We cannot
utter any word but with His knowledge, nor can we even take a breath.

While we watch these sensory perceptions in the course of our lives,
the closest being to us is not any one of these sensations, but God Himself.
The secret of the following verse in the Qur'an is concealed in this reality:
"It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his
soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his)
jugular vein." (Surah Qaf: 16) When a person thinks
that his body is made up of "matter", he cannot com-
prehend this important fact. If he takes his brain to be
"himself", then the place he accepts to be the outside
will be 20-30 cms away from him. However, when he
conceives that everything he knows as matter, is imagi-
nation, notions such as outside, inside, or near lose
meaning. God has encompassed him and He is "infi-
nitely close" to him.

God informs men that He is "infinitely close" to
them with the verse "When My servants ask you con-
cerning Me, I am indeed close (to them)" (Surat al-Baqara, 186). Another
verse relates the same fact: "We told you that your Lord encompasses
mankind round about." (Surat al-Isra, 60).

Man is misled by thinking that the being that is closest to him is him-
self. God, in truth, is closer to us even more than ourselves. He has called
our attention to this point in the verse "Why is it not then that when it
(soul) comes up to the throat, and you at that time look on, We are nearer
to him than you, but you see not." (Surat al-Waqia, 83-85). As informed in
the verse, people live unaware of this phenomenal fact because they do not
see it with their eyes.

On the other hand, it is impossible for man, who is nothing but an
image, to have a power and will independent of God. The verse "But God
has created you and your handwork!" (Surat as-Saaffat, 96) shows that
everything we experience takes place under God's control. In the Qur'an,
this reality is stated in the verse "When you threw, it was not your act, but
God's." (Surat al-Anfal, 17) whereby it is emphasised that no act is inde-
pendent of God. Since a human being is an image, it cannot be itself which

The Real Essence of Matter

231

If one ponders deeply on all that is said here, he will soon realise this amazing, extraor-
dinary situation by himself: that all the events in the world are but mere imagination...

performs the act of throwing. However, God gives this image the feeling of
the self. In reality, it is God Who performs all acts. So, if one takes the acts
he does as his own, he evidently means to deceive himself.

This is the reality. A person may not want to concede this and may
think of himself as a being independent of God; but this does not change a
thing. Of course his unwise denial is again within God's will and wish.

Everything That You Possess Is Intrinsically Illusory

As it may be seen clearly, it is a scientific and logical fact that the "ex-
ternal world" has no materialistic reality and that it is a collection of im-
ages God perpetually presents to our soul. Nevertheless, people usually
do not include, or rather do not want to include, everything in the concept
of the "external world".

232 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

If you think on this issue sincerely and boldly you come to realise that
your house, your furniture in it, your ear-perhaps recently bought, your of-
fice, your jewels, your bank account, your wardrobe, your spouse, your
children, your colleagues, and all else that you possess are in fact included
in this imaginary external world projected to you. Everything you see,
hear, or smell-in short-perceive with your five senses around you is a part
of this "imaginary world" the voice of your favourite singer, the hardness
of the chair you sit on, a perfume whose smell you like, the sun that keeps
you warm, a flower with beautiful colours, a bird flying in front of your
window, a speedboat moving swiftly on the water, your fertile garden, the
computer you use at your job, or your hi-fi that has the most advanced
technology in the world . . .

This is the reality, because the world is only a collection of images cre-
ated to test man. People are tested all through their limited lives with per-
ceptions bearing no reality. These perceptions are intentionally presented
as appealing and attractive. This fact is mentioned in the Qur'an:

Fair in the eyes of men is the love of things they covet: Women and sons;
Heaped-up hoards of gold and silver; horses branded (for blood and excel-
lence); and (wealth of) cattle and well-tilled land. Such are the possessions of
this world's life; but in nearness to God is the best of the goals (to return to).
(Surat Aal-e Imran, 14)

Most people cast their religion away for the lure of property, wealth,
heaped-up hoards of gold and silver, dollars, jewels, bank accounts, credit
cards, wardrobe-full clothes, late-model cars, in short, all forms of prosper-
ity they either possess or strive to possess and they concentrate only on
this world while forgetting the hereafter. They are deceived by the "fair
and alluring" face of the life of this world, and fail to keep up prayer, give
charity to the poor, and perform worship that will make them prosper in
the hereafter by saying "I have things to do", "I have ideals", "I have re-
sponsibilities", "I do not have enough time", "I have things to complete", "I
will do them in the future". They consume their lives by trying to prosper
only in this world. In the verse, "They know but the outer (things) in the
life of this world: but of the End of things they are heedless." (Surat ar-
Room, 7), this misconception is described.

The fact we describe in this chapter, namely the fact that everything is
an image, is very important for its implication that it renders all the lusts

The Real Essence of Matter 233

and boundaries meaningless. The verification of this fact makes it clear
that everything people possess and toil to possess, their wealth made with
greed, their children with whom they boast, their spouses who they con-
sider to be closest to them, their friends, their dearest bodies, their rank
which they hold to be a superiority, the schools they have attended, the
holidays they have been are nothing but mere illusion. Therefore, all the ef-
forts put, the time spent, and the greed felt prove to be in unavailing.

This is why some people unwittingly make fools of themselves when
they boast of their wealth and properties or of their "yachts, helicopters,
factories, holdings, manors and lands" as if they ever really existed. Those
well-to-do people who ostentatiously saunter up and down in their yachts,
show off with their cars, keep talking about their wealth, suppose that
their post rank them higher than everyone else and keep thinking that they
are successful because of all this, should actually think what kind of a state
they would find themselves in once they realise that their success is noth-
ing but an illusion.

In fact, these scenes are many times seen in dreams as well. In their
dreams, they also have houses, fast cars, extremely precious jewels, rolls of
dollars, and loads of gold and silver. In their dreams, they are also posi-
tioned in a high rank, own factories with thousands of workers, possess
power to rule over many people, put on clothes that make every one ad-
mire them... Just as boasting about one's possessions in one's dream
causes a person to be ridiculed, he is sure to be equally ridiculed for boast-
ing of images he sees in this world. After all, both what he sees in his
dreams and what he relates to in this world are mere images in his mind.

Similarly the way people react to the events they experience in the
world is to make them feel ashamed when they realise the reality. Those
who fiercely fight with each other, those who rave furiously, who swindle,
who take bribes, who commit forgery, who lie, who covetously withhold
their money, who do wrong to people, who beat and curse others, raging
aggressors, those who are full of passion for office and rank, who practice
envy, who try to show off, who try to sanctify themselves and all others
will be disgraced when they realise that they have committed all of these
deeds in a dream.

Since it is God Who creates all these images, the Ultimate Owner of
everything is God alone. This fact is stressed in the Qur'an:

234

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

But to God belong all things in the heavens and on earth: And He it is that
Encompasses all things. (Surat an-Nisa, 126)

It is a great foolishness to cast religion away at the cost of imaginary
passions and thus lose the eternal life.

At this stage, one point should be well grasped: it is not said here that
the fact you face predicates that "all the possessions, wealth, children,
spouses, friends, rank you have with which you are being stingy will van-
ish sooner or later, and therefore they do not have any meaning". It is
rather said that "all the possessions you seem to have in fact do not exist at
all, but they are merely a dream and composed of images God shows to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_ test you". As you see, there is a big differ-
ence between the two statements.

Although one does not want to ac-
knowledge this fact right away and
would rather deceive himself by assum-
ing everything he has truly exists, he is fi-
nally to die and in the hereafter
everything is to become clear when he is
recreated. On that day "sharp is one's
sight" (Surah Qaf, 22) and he is apt to see
everything much more clearly. However,
if he has spent his life chasing after imagi-
nary aims, he is going to wish he had
never lived his life and say "Ah! Would that (Death) had made an end of
me! Of no profit to me has been my wealth! My power has perished from
me!" (Surat al-Haqqaa, 27-29)

What a wise man should do, on the other hand, is to try to understand
the greatest reality of the universe here on this world, while he still has
time. Otherwise, he is to spend all his life running after dreams and face a
grievous penalty in the end. In the Qur'an, the final state of those people
who run after illusions (or mirages) on this world and forget their Creator,
is stated as follows;

But the Unbelievers, their deeds are like a mirage in sandy deserts, which
the man parched with thirst mistakes for water; until when he comes up to it,
he finds it to be nothing: But he finds God (ever) with him, and God will pay
him his account: and God is swift in taking account. (Surat an-Noor, 39)

The Real Essence of Matter

235

But the Unbelievers,
their deeds are like a
mirage in sandy
deserts, which the
man parched with
thirst mistakes for
water; until when he
comes up to it, he
finds it to be nothing:
But he finds God
(ever) with him, and
God will pay him his
account: and God is
swift in taking ac-
count.
(Surat an-Noor, 39)

Logical Deficiencies Of The Materialists

Since the beginning of this chapter, it is clearly stated that matter is
not an absolute being as the materialists claim but rather a collection of
senses God creates. Materialists resist in
an extremely dogmatic manner this evi-
dent reality which destroys their philoso-
phy and bring forward baseless
anti-theses.

For example, one of the biggest ad-
vocates of the materialist philosophy in
the 20th century, an ardent Marxist,
George Politzer, gave the "bus example"
as the "greatest evidence" for the exis-
tence of matter. According to Politzer,
philosophers who think that matter is a
perception also run away when they see
a bus and this is the proof of the physical
existence of matter. 207

When another famous materialist,
Johnson, was told that matter is a collection of perceptions, he tried to
"prove" the physical existence of stones by giving them a kick. 208

A similar example is given by Friedrich Engels, the mentor of Politzer
and the founder of dialectic materialism along with Marx, who wrote "if
the cakes we eat were mere perceptions, they would not stop our
hunger". 20 "

There are similar examples and impetuous sentences such as "you un-
derstand the existence of matter when you are slapped in the face" in the
books of famous materialists such as Marx, Engels, Lenin, and others.

The disorder in comprehension that gives way to these examples of
the materialists is their interpreting the explanation of "matter is a percep-
tion" as "matter is a trick of light". They think that the concept of percep-
tion is only limited to sight and that perceptions like touching have a
physical correlate. A bus knocking a man down makes them say "Look, it
crashed, therefore it is not a perception". What they do not understand is
that all perceptions experienced during a bus crash such as hardness, colli-
sion, and pain are formed in the brain.

236 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

The Example Of Dreams

The best example to explain this reality are dreams. A person can ex-
perience very realistic events in his dream. He can roll down the stairs and
break his leg, have a serious car accident, get stuck under a bus, or eat a
cake and be satiated. Similar events to those experienced in our daily lives
are also experienced in dreams with the same persuasiveness and rousing
the same feelings in us.

A person who dreams that he is knocked down by a bus can open his
eyes in a hospital again in his dream and understand that he is disabled,
but this all would be a dream. He can also dream that he dies in a car crash,
angels of death take his soul, and his life in the hereafter begins. (This
event is experienced in the same manner in this life, which is a perception
just like the dream.)

This person very sharply perceives the images, sounds, feeling of
hardness, light, colours, and all other feelings pertaining to the event he
experiences in his dream. The perceptions he perceives in his dream are as
natural as the ones in "real" life. The cake he eats in his dream satiates him
although it is a mere perception, because being satiated is also a percep-
tion. However, in reality, this person is lying in his bed at that moment.
There are no stairs, no traffic, no buses to consider. The dreaming person
experiences and sees perceptions and feelings that do not exist in the ex-
ternal world. The fact that in our dreams, we experience, see, and feel
events with no physical correlates in the "external world" very clearly re-
veals that the "external world" absolutely consists of mere perceptions.

Those who believe in the materialist philosophy, and particularly the
Marxists, are enraged when they are told about this reality, the essence of
matter. They quote examples from the superficial reasoning of Marx, En-
gels, or Lenin and make emotional declarations.

However, these persons must think that they can also make these de-
clarations in their dreams. In their dream, they can also read "Das Kapital",
participate in meetings, fight with the police, get hit on the head, and
moreover, feel the pain of their wounds. When they are asked in their
dreams, they will think that what they experience in their dreams also con-
sists of "absolute matter"-just as they assume the things they see when they
are awake are "absolute matter". However, be it in their dream or in their
daily lives, all that they see, experience, or feel consists only of perceptions.

THE WORLD IN DREAMS

or you, reality is all that can be touched with the hand and seen with
the eye. In your dreams you can also "touch with your hand and see
with your eye", but in reality, you have neither hand nor eye, nor is
there anything that can be touched or seen. There is no material reality that
makes these things happen except your brain. You are simply being de-
ceived.

What is it that separates real life and the dreams from one another? Ulti-
mately, both forms of life are brought into being within the brain. If we are
able to live easily in an unreal world during our dreams, the same thing can
equally be true for the world we live in. When we wake up from a dream,
there is no logical reason for not thinking that we have entered a longer
dream that we call "real life". The reason we consider our dream to be fancy
and the world as real is nothing but a product of our habits and prejudices.
This suggests that we may well be awoken from the life on earth which we
think we are living right now, just as we are awoken from a dream.

The Example Of Connecting The Nerves In Parallel

Let us consider the car crash example of Politzer: In this accident, if
the crushed person's nerves travelling from his five senses to his brain,
were connected to another person's, for instance Politzer's brain, with a
parallel connection, at the moment the bus hit that person, it would also hit
Politzer, who is sitting at his home at that moment. Better to say, all the
feelings experienced by that person having the accident would be experi-

238 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

enced by Politzer, just like the same song is listened from two different
loudspeakers connected to the same tape recorder. Politzer will feel, see,
and experience the braking sound of the bus, the touch of the bus on his
body, the images of a broken arm and shedding blood, fracture aches, the
images of his entering the operation room, the hardness of the plaster cast,
and the feebleness of his arm.

Every other person connected to the man's nerves in parallel would
experience the accident from beginning to end just like Politzer. If the man
in the accident fell into a coma, they would all fall into a coma. Moreover,
if all the perceptions pertaining to the car accident were recorded in a de-
vice and if all these perceptions were transmitted to a person, the bus
would knock this person down many times.

So, which one of the buses hitting those people is real? The materialist
philosophy has no consistent answer to this question. The right answer is
that they all experience the car accident in all its details in their own minds.

The same principle applies to the cake and stone examples. If the
nerves of the sense organs of Engels, who felt the satiety and fullness of the
cake in his stomach after eating a cake, were connected to a second per-
son's brain in parallel, that person would also feel full when Engels ate the
cake and was satiated. If the nerves of Johnson, who felt pain in his foot
when he delivered a sound kick to a stone, were connected to a second per-
son in parallel, that person would feel the same pain.

So, which cake or which stone is the real one? The materialist philosophy
again falls short of giving a consistent answer to this question. The correct and
consistent answer is this: both Engels and the second person have eaten the
cake in their minds and are satiated; both Johnson and the second person
have fully experienced the moment of striking the stone in their minds.

Let us make a change in the example we gave about Politzer: let us
connect the nerves of the man hit by the bus to Politzer's brain, and the
nerves of Politzer sitting in his house to that man's brain, who is hit by the
bus. In this case, Politzer will think that a bus has hit him although when
he is sitting in his house; and the man actually hit by the bus will never feel
the impact of the accident and think that he is sitting in Politzer's house.
The very same logic may be applied to the cake and the stone examples.

As is to be seen, it is not possible for man to transcend his senses and
break free of them. In this respect, a man's soul can be subjected to all kinds

The Real Essence of Matter 239

of representations although it has no physical body and no material exis-
tence and lacks material weight. It is not possible for a person to realise this
because he assumes these three-dimensional images to be real and is ab-
solutely certain of their existence because everybody depends on percep-
tions that are caused to be felt by his sensory organs.

The famous British philosopher David Hume expresses his thoughts
on this fact:

Frankly speaking, when I include myself in what I call "myself", I always
come across with a specific perception pertaining to hot or cold, light or
shadow, love or hatred, sour or sweet or some other notion. Without the exis-
tence of a perception, I can never capture myself in a particular time and I
can observe nothing but perception. 210

The Formation Of Perceptions In The Brain
Is Not Philosophy But Scientific Fact

Materialists claim that what we have been saying here is a philosoph-
ical view. However, to hold that the "external world", as we call it, is a col-
lection of perceptions is not a matter of philosophy but a plain scientific
fact. How the image and feelings form in the brain is taught in all medical
schools in detail. These facts, proven by the 20th-century science, and par-
ticularly by physics, clearly show that matter does not have an absolute re-
ality and that everyone in a sense is watching the "monitor in his brain".

Everyone who believes in science, be he an atheist, Buddhist, or any-
one who holds another view has to accept this fact. A materialist might
deny the existence of a Creator yet he cannot deny this scientific reality.

The inability of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Georges Politzer and
others in comprehending such a simple and evident fact is still startling al-
though the level of scientific understanding and possibilities of their times
were insufficient. In our time, science and technology are highly advanced
and recent discoveries make it easier to comprehend this fact. Materialists,
on the other hand, are flooded with the fear of both comprehending this
fact, though partially, and realising how definitely it demolishes their phi-
losophy.

The Great Fear Of The Materialists

For a while, no substantial backlash came from the Turkish materialist
circles against the subject brought up in this book, that is, the fact that mat-

240 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

ter is a mere perception. This had given us the impression that our point
was not made so clear and that it needed further explanation. Yet before
long, it was revealed that materialists felt quite uneasy about the popular-
ity of this subject and moreover, felt a great fear all about this.

For a while, materialists have been loudly pronouncing their fear and
panic in their publications, conferences and panels. Their agitated and
hopeless discourse implies that they are suffering from a severe intellec-
tual crisis. The scientific collapse of the theory of evolution, the so-called
basis of their philosophy, had already come as a great shock to them. Now,
they come to realise that they start to lose the matter itself, which is a
greater mainstay for them than Darwinism, and they experience an even
greater shock. They declare that this issue is the "biggest threat" for them
and that it totally "demolishes their cultural fabric".

One of those who expressed this anxiety and panic felt by the materi-
alist circles in the most outspoken way was Renan Pekunlu, an academi-
cian as well as a writer of Bilim ve Utopya (Science and Utopia) periodical
which has assumed the task of defending materialism. Both in his articles
in Bilim ve Utopya and in the panels he attended, Pekunlu presented the
book Evolution Deceit as the number one "threat" to materialism. What dis-
turbed Pekunlu even more than the chapters that invalidated Darwinism
was the part you are currently reading. To his readers and (only a handful
of) audience, Pekunlu delivered the message "do not let yourselves be car-
ried away by the indoctrination of idealism and keep your faith in materi-
alism" and showed Vladimir I. Lenin, the leader of the bloody communist
revolution in Russia, as reference. Advising everyone to read Lenin's cen-
tury-old book titled Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, all Pekunlu did was
to repeat the counsels of Lenin stating "do not think over this issue, or you
will lose track of materialism and be carried away by religion". In an article
he wrote in the aforementioned periodical, he quoted the following lines
from Lenin:

Once you deny objective reality, given us in sensation, you have already lost
every weapon against fideism, for you have slipped into agnosticism or sub-
jectivism-and that is all that fideism requires. A single claw ensnared, and the
bird is lost. And our Machists have all become ensnared in idealism, that is, in
a diluted, subtle fideism; they became ensnared from the moment they took
"sensation" not as an image of the external world but as a special "element". It
is nobody's sensation, nobody's mind, nobody's spirit, nobody's will. 211

The Real Essence of Matter

241

These words explicitly demonstrate that the fact which Lenin alarm-
ingly realised and wanted to take out both from his mind and the minds of
his "comrades" also disturbs contemporary materialists in a similar way.
However, Pekunlu and other materialists suffer a yet greater distress; be-
cause they are aware that this fact is now being put forward in a far more
explicit, certain and convincing way than 100 years ago. For the first time
in world history, this subject is being explained in such an irresistible way,.

Nevertheless, the general picture is that a great number of materialist
scientists still take a very superficial stand against the fact that "matter is
nothing but an illusion". The subject explained in this chapter is one of the
most important and most exciting subjects that one can ever come across
in one's life. It is rather unlikely that they would have faced such a crucial
subject before. Still, the reactions of these scientists or the manner they em-
ploy in their speeches and articles hint how shallow and superficial their
comprehension is.

It is so much so that the reactions of some materialists to the subject
discussed here show that their blind adherence to materialism has caused
some kind of a harm in their logic and for this reason, they are far removed
from comprehending the subject. For instance Alaattin Senel, also an acad-
emician and a writer for Bilim ve Utopya, gave similar messages as Rennan
Pekunlu saying "Forget the collapse of Darwinism, the real threatening
subject is this one", and made demands such as
"so you prove what you tell" sensing that his own
philosophy has no basis. What is more interesting
is that this writer himself has written lines reveal-
ing that he can by no means grasp this fact which
he considers to be a menace.

For instance, in an article where he exclu-
sively discussed this subject, Senel accepts that
the external world is perceived in the brain as an
image. However, he then goes on to claim that im-
ages are divided into two as those having physi-
cal correlates and those that do not, and that
images pertaining to the external world have
physical correlates. In order to support his asser-
tion, he gives "the example of telephone". In sum-

Turkish materialist writer
Rennan Pekunlu says that
"the theory of evolution is
not so important, the real
threat is this subject", be-
cause he is aware that this
subject nullifies matter, the
only concept he has faith in.

242 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

mary, he wrote: "I do not know whether the images in my brain have cor-
relates in the external world or not, but the same thing applies when I
speak on the phone. When I speak on the telephone, I cannot see the per-
son I am speaking to but I can have this conversation confirmed when I
later see him face to face." 212

By saying so, this writer actually means the following: "If we doubt
our perceptions, we can look at the matter itself and check its reality."
However, this is an evident misconception because it is impossible for us
to reach the matter itself. We can never get out of our mind and know
what is "outside". Whether the voice on the phone has a correlate or not
can be confirmed by the person on the phone. However, this confirmation
is also imagery experienced by the mind.

As a matter of fact, these people also experience the same events in
their dreams. For instance, Senel may also see in his dream that he speaks
on the phone and then have this conversation confirmed by the person he
spoke to. Or, Pekunlu may in his dream feel as facing "a serious threat" and
advise people to read century-old books of Lenin. However, no matter
what they do, these materialists can never deny the fact that the events
they have experienced and the people they have talked to in their dreams
were nothing but perceptions.

By whom, then, will one confirm whether the images in the brain
have correlates or not? By the images in his brain again? Without doubt, it
is impossible for materialists to find a source of information that can yield
data concerning the outside of the brain and confirm it.

Conceding that all perceptions are formed in the brain but assuming
that one can step "out" of this and have the perceptions confirmed by the
real external world reveals that the perceptive capacity of the person is
limited and that he has a distorted reasoning.

However, the fact told here can easily be captured by a person with a
normal level of understanding and reasoning. Each unbiased person
would know, in relation to all that we have said, that it is not possible for
him to test the existence of the external world with his senses. Yet, it ap-
pears that blind adherence to materialism distorts the reasoning capability
of people. For this reason, contemporary materialists display severe logical
flaws just like their mentors who tried to "prove" the existence of matter by
kicking stones or eating cakes.

The Real Essence of Matter 243

It also has to be stated that this is not an astonishing situation; be-
cause, inability to understand is a common trait of all unbelievers. In the
Qur'an, God particularly states that they are "a people without under-
standing" (Surat al-Baqara 171)

Materialists Have Fallen Into The Biggest Trap In History

The atmosphere of panic sweeping through the materialist circles in
Turkey of which we have mentioned only a few examples here shows that
materialists face an utter defeat such as they have never met in history. The
fact that matter is simply a perception has been proven by modern science
and it is put forward in a very clear, straightforward and forceful way. It
only remains for the materialists to see the collapse of the entire material
world they blindly believe and rely on.

Throughout the history of humanity, materialist thought always ex-
isted. Being very assured of themselves and the philosophy they believe
in, materialists revolted against God who has created them. The scenario
they formulated maintained that matter had no beginning or end, and that
none of it could possibly have a Creator. While they denied God just be-
cause of their arrogance, they took refuge in matter which they held to
have a real existence. They were so confident of this philosophy that they
thought it would never be possible to put forth an argument disproving it.

That is why the facts told in this book regarding the real nature of
matter surprised these people so much. What has been told here destroyed
the very basis of their philosophy and left no ground for further discus-
sion. Matter, upon which they based all their thoughts, lives, arrogance
and denial, vanished all of a sudden. How can materialism exist when
matter does not?

One of the attributes of God is His plotting against the unbelievers.
This is stated in the verse "They plot and plan, and God too plans; but the
best of planners is God." (Surat al- Anfal, 30)

God entrapped materialists by making them assume that matter ex-
ists and so doing, humiliated them in an unseen way. Materialists deemed
their possessions, status, rank, the society they belong, the whole world
and everything else to be existing and moreover, grew arrogant against
God by relying on these. They revolted against God by being boastful and
added to their unbelief. While so doing, they totally relied on matter. Yet,

244 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

they are so lacking in understanding that they fail to think that God com-
passes them round about. God announces the state to which the unbeliev-
ers are led as a result of their thick-headedness:

Or do they intend a plot (against you)? But those who defy God are them-
selves involved in a Plot! (Surat At- Tur, 42)

This is most probably the biggest defeat in history. While growing ar-
rogant of their own accord, materialists have been tricked and suffered a
serious defeat in the war they waged against God by bringing up some-
thing monstrous against Him. The verse "Thus have We placed leaders in
every town, its wicked men, to plot (and burrow) therein: but they only
plot against their own souls, and they perceive it not" announces how
unconscious these people who revolt against their Creator are, and how
they will end up (Surat al- Anaam, 123). In another verse the same fact is
related as:

Fain would they deceive God and those who believe, but they only deceive
themselves, and realise (it) not! (Surat al- Baqara, 9)

While the unbelievers try to plot, they do not realise a very important
fact as stressed by the words "they only deceive themselves, and realise (it)
not!" in the verse. This is the fact that everything they experience is an im-
agery designed to be perceived by them, and all plots they devise are sim-
ply images formed in their brain just like every other act they perform.
Their folly has made them forget that they are all alone with God and,
hence, they are entrapped in their own devious plans.

No less than those unbelievers who lived in the past, those living
today too face a reality that will shatter their devious plans from its basis.
With the verse "...feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan" (Surat An-Nisa,
76), God has stated that these plots were doomed to end with failure the
day they were hatched, and gave the good tidings to believers with the
verse "...not the least harm will their cunning do to you". (Surat Aal-E-
Imran, 120)

In another verse God states: "But the Unbelievers,- their deeds are
like a mirage in sandy deserts, which the man parched with thirst mis-
takes for water; until when he comes up to it, he finds it to be nothing"
(Surat an- Noor 39). Materialism, too, becomes a "mirage" for the rebellious
just like it is stated in this verse; when they have recourse to it, they find it
to be nothing but an illusion. God has deceived them with such a mirage,

The Real Essence of Matter 245

and beguiled them into perceiving this whole collection of images as real.
All those "eminent" people, professors, astronomers, biologists, physicists,
and all others regardless of their rank and post are simply deceived like
children, and are humiliated because they took matter as their god. As-
suming a collection of images to be absolute, they based their philosophy
and ideology on it, got involved in serious discussions, and adopted a so-
called "intellectual" discourse. They deemed themselves to be wise enough
to offer an argument about the truth of the universe and, more impor-
tantly, dispute about God with their limited intelligence. God explains
their situation in the following verse:

And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and God too planned, and the

best of planners is God. (Surat Aal-E-Imran 54)

It may be possible to escape from some plots; however, this plan of
God against the unbelievers is so firm that there is no way of escape from
it. No matter what they do or to whom they appeal, they can never find a
helper other than God. As God informs in the Qur'an, "they shall not find
for them other than God a patron or a help." (Surat an-Nisa, 173)

Materialists never expected to fall into such a trap. Having all the
means of the 20th centry at their disposal, they thought that they could
grow obstinate in their denial and drag people to disbelief. This ever-last-
ing mentality of unbelievers and their end are described as follows in the
Qur'an:

They plotted and planned, but We too planned, even while they perceived
it not. Then see what was the end of their plot!- this, that We destroyed them
and their people, all (of them). (Surat an- Naml 50-51)

This, in another sense, is what the fact stated in the verses comes to
mean: materialists are made to realise that everything they own is but an
illusion, and therefore everything they possess has been destroyed. As
they witness their possessions, factories, gold, dollars, children, spouses,
friends, rank and status, and even their own bodies, all of which they
deem to exist, slipping away from their hands, they are "destroyed" in the
words of the 51st verse of Surat an-Naml. At this point, they are no more
matter but souls.

No doubt, realising this truth is the worst possible thing for the mate-
rialists. The fact that everything they possess is but an illusion, is tanta-
mount, in their own words, to "death before dying" in this world.

246 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

This fact leaves them all alone with God. With the verse, "Leave Me
alone, (to deal) with the (creature) whom I created (bare and) alone!",

God has called us to attention that each human being is, in truth, all alone
in His presence. (Surat Al-Muddaththir, 11) This remarkable fact is re-
peated in many other verses:

"And behold! you come to us bare and alone as We created you for the first
time: you have left behind you all (the favors) which We bestowed on you..."
(Surat al-Anaam, 94)

And each one of them will come unto Him on the Day of Resurrection, alone.
(Surat Maryam, 95)

This, in another sense, is what the fact stated in the verses comes to
mean: Those who take matter as their god have come from God and re-
turned to Him. They have submitted their wills to God whether they want
it or not. Now they wait for the Day of Judgment on which every one of
them will be called to account. Though however unwilling they may be to
understand it...

Conclusion

The subject we have explained so far is one of the greatest truths that
will ever be told to you in your lifetime. Proving that the whole material
world is in reality a "image", this subject is the key to comprehending the
existence of God and His creations and of understanding that He is the
only absolute being.

The person who understands this subject realises that the world is not
the sort of place it is surmised to be by most people. The world is not an ab-
solute place with a true existence as supposed by those who wander aim-
less about the streets, who get into fights in pubs, who show off in
luxurious cafes, who brag about their property, or who dedicate their lives
to hollow aims. The world is only a collection of perceptions, an illusion.
All of the people we have cited above are only images who watch these
perceptions in their minds: yet they are not aware of this.

This concept is very important for it undermines the materialist phi-
losophy that denies the existence of God and causes it to collapse. This is
the reason why materialists like Marx, Engels, and Lenin felt panic, be-
came enraged, and warned their followers "not to think over" this concept
when they were told about it. As a matter of fact, such people are in such a

The Real Essence of Matter 247

state of mental deficiency that they cannot even comprehend the fact that
perceptions are formed inside the brain. They assume that the world they
watch in their brain is the "external world" and they cannot comprehend
the obvious evidence to the contrary.

This unawareness is the outcome of the lack of wisdom God gives to
disbelievers. As it is said in the Qur'an, the unbelievers "have hearts
wherewith they understand not, eyes wherewith they see not, and ears
wherewith they hear not. They are like cattle-nay more misguided: for
they are heedless (of warning)." (Surat al-Araf, 179)

You can explore beyond this point by using the power of your per-
sonal reflection. For this, you have to concentrate, devote your attention,
and ponder on the way you see the objects around you and the way you
feel their touch. If you think heedfully, you can feel that the wise being that
sees, hears, touches, thinks, and reads this book at this moment is only a
soul and watches the perceptions called "matter" on a screen. The person
who comprehends this is considered to have moved away from the do-
main of the material world that deceives a major part of humanity and to
have entered the domain of true existence.

This reality has been understood by a number of theists or philoso-
phers throughout history. Islamic intellectuals such as Imam Rabbani,
Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi and Mevlana Cami realised this fact from the signs
of the Qur'an and by using their reason. Some Western philosophers like
George Berkeley have grasped the same reality through reason. Imam Rab-
bani wrote in his Mektubat (Letters) that the whole material universe is an
"illusion and supposition (perception)" and that the only absolute being is
God:

God... The substance of these beings which He created is but nothingness...
He created all at the sphere of senses and illusions... The existence of the
universe is at the sphere of senses and illusions, and it is not material... In
real, there is nothing in the outside except the Glorious Being, (who is
God). 2 "

Imam Rabbani explicitly stated that all images presented to man are
but an illusion, and that they have no originals in the "outside".

This imaginary cycle is portrayed in imagination. It is seen to the extent that
it is portrayed. Yet with the mind's eye. In the outside, it seems as if it is seen
with the head's eye. However, the case is not so. It has neither a designation
nor a trace in the outside. There is no circumstance to be seen. Even the face

248 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

of a person reflecting on a mirror is like that. It has no constancy in the out-
side. No doubt, both its constancy and image are in the IMAGINATION.
God is He Who knows Best. 214

Mevlana Cami stated the same fact which he discovered following the
signs of the Qur'an and by using his wit: "Whatever there is in the uni-
verse are senses and illusions. They are either like reflections in mirrors
or shadows".

However, the number of those who have understood this fact
throughout history has always been limited. Great scholars such as Imam
Rabbani have written that it might have been inconvenient to tell this fact
to the masses and that most people would not be able to grasp it.

In the age in which we live, this fact has been made empirical by the
body of evidence put forward by science. The fact that the universe is an
image is described in such a concrete, clear, and explicit way for the first
time in history.

For this reason, the 21st century will be a historical-turning point
when people will generally comprehend the divine realities and be led in
crowds to God, the only Absolute Being. In the 21st century, it is the mate-
rialistic creeds of the 19th century that will be relegated to the trash-heaps
of history, God's existence and creation will be grasped, such facts as
spacelessness and timelessness will be understood, humanity will break
free of the centuries-old veils, deceits and superstitions enshrouding them.

It is not possible for this unavoidable course to be impeded by any
image.

CHAPTER

Relativity of Time
and the Reality of Fate

verything related above demonstrates that a "three-dimensional
space" does not exist in reality, that it is a prejudice completely in-
spired by perceptions and that one leads one's whole life in "space-
lessness". To assert the contrary would be to hold a superstitious belief
removed from reason and scientific truth, for there is no valid proof of the
existence of a three-dimensional material world.

This fact refutes the primary assumption of the materialist philoso-
phy that underlies evolutionary theory. This is the assumption that matter
is absolute and eternal. The second assumption upon which the materialis-
tic philosophy rests is the supposition that time is absolute and eternal.
This is as superstitious as the first one.

The Perception Of Time

The perception we call time is, in fact, a method by which one mo-
ment is compared to another. We can explain this with an example. For in-
stance, when a person taps an object, he hears a particular sound. When he
taps the same object five minutes later, he hears another sound. The person
perceives that there is an interval between the first sound and the second
and he calls this interval "time". Yet at the time he hears the second sound,
the first sound he heard is no more than an imagination in his mind. It is
merely a bit of information in his memory. The person formulates the per-
ception of "time" by comparing the moment in which he lives with what
he has in his memory. If this comparison is not made, there cannot be
perception of time either.

Similarly, a person makes a comparison when he sees someone enter-
ing a room through its door and sitting down in an armchair in the middle
of the room. By the time this person sits in the armchair, the images related
to the moments he opens the door, walks into the room, and makes his
way to the armchair are compiled as bits of information in the brain. The

250

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

The perception of time comes with comparing one mo-
ment to another. For example, we think that a period of
time elapses between two people holding out their
hands and then shaking them.

perception of time occurs when one compares the man sitting on the arm-
chair with those bits of information he has.

In brief, time comes to exist as a result of the comparison made be-
tween some illusions stored in the brain. If man did not have memory,
then his brain would not be making such interpretations and therefore the
perception of time would never have been formed. The reason why one
determines himself to be thirty years old is only because he has accumu-
lated information pertaining to those thirty years in his mind. If his mem-
ory did not exist, then he would not be thinking of the existence of such a
preceding period of time and he would only be experiencing the single
"moment" he was living in.

The Scientific Explanation Of Timelessness

Let us try to clarify the subject by quoting explanations by various
scientists and scholars on the subject. Regarding the subject of time flow-

Relativity of Time and the Reality of Fate

251

ing backwards, the famous intellectual and Nobel laureate professor of ge-
netics, Francois Jacob, states the following in his book Le Jeu des Possibles
(The Possible and the Actual):

Films played backwards, make it possible for us to imagine a world in which
time flows backwards. A world in which milk separates itself from the coffee
and jumps out of the cup to reach the milk-pan; a world in which light rays
are emitted from the walls to be collected in a trap (gravity center) instead of
gushing out from a light source; a world in which a stone slopes to the palm
of a man by the astonishing cooperation of innumerable drops of water mak-
ing the stone possible to jump out of water. Yet, in such a world in which time
has such opposite features, the processes of our brain and the way our mem-
ory compiles information, would similarly be functioning backwards. The
same is true for the past and future and the world will appear to us exactly as
it currently appears. 215

Since our brain is accustomed to a certain sequence of events, the
world operates not as it is related above and we assume that time always
flows forward. However, this is a decision reached in the brain and there-

252 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

fore is completely relative. In reality, we can never know how time flows or
even whether it flows or not. This is an indication of the fact that time is
not an absolute fact but just a sort of perception.

The relativity of time is a fact also verified by the most important
physicist of the 20th century Albert Einstein. Lincoln Barnett, writes in his
book The Universe and Dr. Einstein:

Along with absolute space, Einstein discarded the concept of absolute time-
of a steady, unvarying inexorable universal time flow, streaming from the in-
finite past to the infinite future. Much of the obscurity that has surrounded
the Theory of Relativity stems from man's reluctance to recognize that sense
of time, like sense of color, is a form of perception. Just as space is simply a
possible order of material objects, so time is simply a possible order of
events. The subjectivity of time is best explained in Einstein's own words.
"The experiences of an individual" he says, "appear to us arranged in a series
of events; in this series the single events which we remember appear to be
ordered according to the criterion of 'earlier' and 'later'. There exists, there-
fore, for the individual, an I-time, or subjective time. This in itself is not mea-
surable. I can, indeed, associate numbers with the events, in such a way that
a greater number is associated with the later event than with an earlier
one. 216

Einstein himself pointed out, as quoted from Barnett's book: "space
and time are forms of intuition, which can no more be divorced from con-
sciousness than can our concepts of colour, shape, or size." According to
the Theory of General Relativity: "time has no independent existence
apart from the order of events by which we measure it." 217

Since time consists of perception, it depends entirely on the perceiver
and is therefore relative.

The speed at which time flows differs according to the references we
use to measure it because there is no natural clock in the human body to in-
dicate precisely how fast time passes. As Lincoln Barnett wrote: "Just as
there is no such thing as color without an eye to discern it, so an instant or
an hour or a day is nothing without an event to mark it." 218

The relativity of time is plainly experienced in dreams. Although
what we see in our dream seems to last for hours, in fact, it only lasts for a
few minutes, and even a few seconds.

Let us think on an example to clarify the subject further. Let us as-
sume that we were put into a room with a single window that was specifi-
cally designed and we were kept there for a certain period of time. Let

Relativity of Time and the Reality of Fate 253

there be a clock in the room by which we can see the amount of time that
has passed. During this time, we see the sun setting and rising at certain
intervals from the room's window. A few days later, the answer we would
give to the question about the amount of time we had spent in the room
would be based both on the information we had collected by looking at the
clock from time to time and on the computation we had done by referring
to how many times the sun had set and risen. For example, we estimate
that we had spent three days in the room. However, if the person who put
us in that room comes up to us and says that we spent only two days in the
room and that the sun we had been seeing from the window was falsely
produced by a simulation machine and that the clock in the room was es-
pecially regulated to move slower, then the calculation we had done
would bear no meaning.

This example confirms that the information we have about the rate of
the passage of time is based on relative references. The relativity of the
time is a scientific fact also proven by scientific methodology. Einstein's
Theory of General Relativity maintains that the speed of time changes de-
pending on the speed of the object and its distance from the centre of grav-
ity. As speed increases, time is shortened, compressed; and slows down as
if it comes to the point of "stopping".

Let us explain this with an example given by Einstein himself. Imag-
ine two twins, one of whom stays on earth while the other goes travelling
in space at a speed close to the speed of light. When he comes back, the
traveller will see that his brother has grown much older than he has. The
reason is that time flows much slower for the person who travels at speeds
near the speed of light. If the same example were applied to a space-travel-
ling father and his son staying back on earth, it would look like that: If the
father was 27 years old when he set out and his son was 3, the father will,
when he comes back to the earth 30 years later (earth time), be only 30,
whereas the son will be 33 years old. 219

It should be pointed out that this relativity of time is caused not by the
slowing down or running fast of clocks or the slow running of a mechani-
cal spring. It is rather the result of the differentiated operation periods of
the entire material system which goes as deep as sub-atomic particles. In
other words, the shortening of time is not like acting in a slow-motion pic-
ture for the person experiencing it. In such a setting where time shortens,

254 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

one's heartbeats, cell replications, and brain functions, and so on all oper-
ate slower than those of the slower-moving person on Earth. The person
goes on with his daily life and does not notice the shortening of time at all.
Indeed the shortening does not even become apparent until the compari-
son is made.

Relativity In The Qur'an

The conclusion to which we are led by the findings of modern science
is that time is not an absolute fact as supposed by materialists, but only a
relative perception. What is more interesting is that this fact, undiscov-
ered until the 20th century by science, was imparted to mankind in the
Qur'an 14 centuries ago. There are various references in the Qur'an to the
relativity of time.

It is possible to see the scientifically-proven fact that time is a psycho-
logical perception dependent on events, setting, and conditions in many
verses of the Qur'an. For instance, the entire life of a person is a very short
time as we are informed by the Qur'an;

On the Day when He will call you, and you will answer (His Call) with
(words of) His Praise and Obedience, and you will think that you have
stayed (in this world) but a little while! (Surat al-Isra, 52)

And on the Day when He shall gather them together, (it will seem to them) as
if they had not tarried (on earth) longer than an hour of a day: they will
recognise each other. (Surah Yunus, 45)

In some verses, it is indicated that people perceive time differently
and that sometimes people can perceive a very short period of time as a
very lengthy one. The following conversation of people held during their
judgement in the Hereafter is a good example of this:

He will say: "What number of years did you stay on earth?" They will say:
"We stayed a day or part of a day: but ask those who keep account." He will
say: "You stayed not but a little, if you had only known!" (Surat al-Mu-
menoon, 112-114)

In some other verses it is stated that time may flow at different paces
in different settings:

Yet they ask you to hasten on the Punishment! But God will not fail in His
Promise. Verily a Day in the sight of your Lord is like a thousand years of
your reckoning. (Surat al-Hajj, 47)

Relativity of Time and the Reality of Fate 255

The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a day the measure whereof is
(as) fifty thousand years. (Surat al-Maarij, 4)

These verses are all manifest expressions of the relativity of time. The
fact that this result only recently understood by science in the 20th century
was communicated to man 1,400 years ago by the Qur'an is an indication
of the revelation of the Qur'an by God, Who encompasses the whole time
and space.

The narration in many other verses of the Qur'an reveals that time is a
perception. This is particularly evident in the stories. For instance, God has
kept the Companions of the Cave, a believing group mentioned in the
Qur'an, in a deep sleep for more than three centuries. When they were
awoken, these people thought that they had stayed in that state but a little
while, and could not figure out how long they slept:

Then We draw (a veil) over their ears, for a number of years, in the Cave, (so
that they heard not). Then We raised them up that We might know which of
the two parties would best calculate the time that they had tarried. (Surat al-
Kahf, 11-12)

Such (being their state), we raised them up (from sleep), that they might
question each other. Said one of them, "How long have you stayed (here)?"
They said, "We have stayed (perhaps) a day, or part of a day." (At length) they
(all) said, "God (alone) knows best how long you have stayed here... (Surat al-
Kahf, 19)

The situation told in the below verse is also evidence that time is in
truth a psychological perception.

Or (take) the similitude of one who passed by a hamlet, all in ruins to its
roofs. He said: "Oh! how shall God bring it (ever) to life, after (this) its death?"
but God caused him to die for a hundred years, then raised him up (again).
He said: "How long did you tarry (thus)?" He said: (Perhaps) a day or part of
a day." He said: "Nay, you have tarried thus a hundred years; but look at your
food and your drink; they show no signs of age; and look at your donkey:
And that We may make of you a sign unto the people, Look further at the
bones, how We bring them together and clothe them with flesh." When this
was shown clearly to him, he said: "I know that God has power over all
things." (Surat al-Baqara, 259)

The above verse clearly emphasises that God Who created time is un-
bound by it. Man, on the other hand, is bound by time that God ordains. As
in the verse, man is even incapable of knowing how long he stayed in his

256 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

sleep. In such a state, to assert that time is absolute (just like the materialists
do in their distorted mentality), would be very unreasonable.

Destiny

This relativity of time clears up a very important matter. The relativity
is so variable that a period of time appearing billions of years' duration to
us, may last only a second in another dimension. Moreover, an enormous
period of time extending from the world's beginning to its end may not
even last a second but just an instant in another dimension.

This is the very essence of the concept of destiny- a concept that is not
well understood by most people, especially materialists, who deny it com-
pletely. Destiny is God's perfect knowledge of all events past or future. A
majority of people question how God can already know events that have
not yet been experienced and this leads them to fail in understanding the
authenticity of destiny. However, "events not yet experienced" are not yet
experienced only for us. God is not bound by time or space for He Himself
has created them. For this reason, the past, the future, and the present are
all the same to God; for Him, everything has already taken place and fin-
ished.

Lincoln Barnett explains how the Theory of General Relativity leads
to this fact in The Universe and Dr. Einstein: According to Barnett, the uni-
verse can be "encompassed in its entire majesty only by a cosmic intel-
lect". 220 The will that Barnett calls "the cosmic intellect" is the wisdom and
knowledge of God, Who prevails over the entire universe. Just as we eas-
ily see a ruler's beginning, middle, and end, and all the units in between as
a whole, God knows the time we are subjected to like a single moment
right from its beginning to the end. People experience incidents only when
their time comes and they witness the fate God has created for them.

It is also important to draw attention to the shallowness of the dis-
torted understanding of destiny prevalent in society. This distorted convic-
tion of fate holds a superstitious belief that God has determined a "destiny"
for every man but that these destinies can sometimes be changed by peo-
ple. For instance, for a patient who returns from death's door people make
superficial statements like "He defeated his destiny". Yet, no one is able to
change his destiny. The person who turns from death's door does not die
because he is destined not to die then. It is again the destiny of those peo-

Relativity of Time and the Reality of Fate 257

pie who deceive themselves by saying "I defeated my destiny" to say so
and maintain such a mindset.

Destiny is the eternal knowledge of God and for God, Who knows
time like a single moment and Who prevails over the whole time and
space, everything is determined and finished in a destiny. We also under-
stand from what is related in the Qur'an that time is one for God: some in-
cidents that appear to happen to us in the future are related in the Qur'an
in such a way that they already took place long before. For instance, the
verses that describe the account that people are to give to God in the here-
after are related as events which already occurred long ago:

And the trumpet is blown, and all who are in the heavens and all who are in
the earth swoon away, save him whom God willeth. Then it is blown a sec-
ond time, and behold them standing waiting! And the earth shineth with the
light of her Lord, and the Book is set up, and the prophets and the witnesses
are brought, and it is judged between them with truth, and they are not
wronged... And those who disbelieve are driven unto hell in troops... And
those who keep their duty to their Lord are driven unto the Garden in
troops..." (Surat az-Zumar, 68-73)

Some other verses on this subject are:

And every soul came, along with it a driver and a witness. (Surat al-Qaf, 21)

And the heaven is cloven asunder, so that on that day it is frail. (Surat al-
Haaqqa, 16)

And because they were patient and constant, He rewarded them with a Gar-
den and (garments of) silk. Reclining in the (Garden) on raised thrones, they
saw there neither the sun's (excessive heat) nor excessive cold. (Surat al-
Insan, 12-13)

And Hell is placed in full view for (all) to see. (Surat an-Naziat, 36)

But on this Day the Believers laugh at the Unbelievers (Surat al-Mutaffifin, 34)

And the Sinful saw the fire and apprehended that they have to fall therein:
no means did they find to turn away therefrom. (Surat al-Kahf, 53)

As may be seen, occurrences that are going to take place after our
death (from our point of view) are related as already experienced and past
events in the Qur'an. God is not bound by the relative time frame that we
are confined in. God has willed these things in timelessness: people have
already performed them and all these events have been lived through and
ended. It is imparted in the verse below that every event, be it big or small,

258 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

is within the knowledge of God and recorded in a book:

In whatever business thou may be, and whatever portion you may be recit-
ing from the Qur'an, and whatever deed you (mankind) may be doing, We
are witnesses thereof when you are deeply engrossed therein. Nor is hidden
from your Lord (so much as) the weight of an atom on the earth or in heaven.
And not the least and not the greatest of these things but are recorded in a
clear record. (Surah Jonah, 61)

The Worry Of The Materialists

The issues discussed in this chapter, namely the truth underlying
matter, timelessness, and spacelessness, are indeed extremely clear. As ex-
pressed before, these are absolutely not any sort of a philosophy or a way
of thought, but crystal-clear truths impossible to deny. In addition to its
being a technical reality, the rational and logical evidence also admits no
other alternatives on this issue: the universe is an illusory entirety with all
the matter composing it and all the people living on it. It is a collection of
perceptions.

Materialists have a hard time in understanding this issue. For in-
stance, if we return to Politzer's bus example: although Politzer technically
knew that he could not step out of his perceptions he could only admit it
for certain cases. That is, for Politzer, events take place in the brain until the
bus crash, but as soon as the bus crash takes place, things go out of the
brain and gain a physical reality. The logical defect at this point is very
clear: Politzer has made the same mistake as the materialist philosopher
Johnson who said "I hit the stone, my foot hurts, therefore it exists" and
could not understand that the shock felt after bus impact was in fact a mere
perception as well.

The subliminal reason why materialists cannot comprehend this sub-
ject is their fearing the fact they will face when they comprehend it. Lin-
coln Barnett informs us that this subject was "discerned" by some
scientists:

Along with philosophers' reduction of all objective reality to a shadow-world
of perceptions, scientists have become aware of the alarming limitations of

man s senses

221

Any reference made to the fact that matter and time is a perception
arouses great fear in a materialist, because these are the only notions he re-

Relativity of Time and the Fact of Fate 259

lies on as absolute beings. He, in a sense, takes these as idols to worship;
because he thinks that he is created by matter and time (through evolu-
tion).

When he feels that the universe he thinks he is living in, the world, his
own body, other people, other materialist philosophers whose ideas he is
influenced by, and in short, everything, is a perception, he feels over-
whelmed by the horror of it all. Everything he depends on, believes in, and
take recourse to vanishes suddenly. He feels the despair which he, essen-
tially, will experience on Judgment Day in its real sense as described in the
verse "That Day shall they (openly) show (their) submission to God; and
all their inventions shall leave them in the lurch." (Surat an-Nahl, 87)

From then on, this materialist tries to convince himself of the reality of
matter, and makes up "evidence" for this end; hits his fist on the wall, kicks
stones, shouts, yells, but can never escape from the reality.

Just as they want to dismiss this reality from their minds, they also
want other people to discard it. They are also aware that if the true nature of
matter is known by people in general, the primitiveness of their own philos-
ophy and the ignorance of their worldview will be bared for all to see, and
there will be no ground left on which they can rationalise their views. These
fears are the reason why they are so disturbed of the fact related here.

God states that the fears of the unbelievers will be intensified in the
hereafter. On Judgement Day, they will be addressed thus:

One day shall We gather them all together: We shall say to those who as-
cribed partners (to Us): "Where are the partners whom you (invented and)
talked about?" (Surat al-Anaam, 22)

After that, unbelievers will bear witness to their possessions, children
and close circle whom they had assumed to be real and ascribed as part-
ners to God leaving them and vanishing. God stated this fact in the verse
"Behold! how they lie against their own souls! But the (lie) which they
invented will leave them in the lurch" (Surat al-Anaam, 24).

The Gain Of Believers

While the fact that matter and time is a perception alarms material-
ists, just the opposite holds true for true believers. People of faith become
very glad when they have perceived the secret behind matter because this
reality is the key to all questions. With this key, all secrets are unlocked.

260 THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

One comes to easily understand many issues that he previously had diffi-
culty in understanding.

As said before, the questions of death, paradise, hell, the hereafter,
changing dimensions, and important questions such as "Where is God?",
"What was before God?", "Who created God?", "How long will the life in
cemetery last?", "Where are heaven and hell?", and "Where do heaven and
hell currently exist?" will be easily answered. It will be understood with
what kind of a system God created the entire universe from nothingness.
So much so that, with this secret, the questions of "when", and "where"
become meaningless because there will be no time and no place left.
When spacelessness is comprehended, it will be understood that hell,
heaven and earth are all actually in the same place. If timelessness is un-
derstood, it will be understood that everything takes place at a single mo-
ment: nothing is waited for and time does not go by, because everything
has already happened and finished.

When this secret is delved into, the world becomes like heaven for a
believer. All distressful material worries, anxieties, and fears vanish. The
person grasps that the entire universe has a single Sovereign, that He
changes the entire physical world as He pleases and that all he has to do is
to turn unto Him. He then submits himself entirely to God "to be devoted
to His service". (Surat Aal-e Imran, 35)

To comprehend this secret is the greatest gain in the world.

With this secret, another very important reality mentioned in the
Quran is unveiled: the fact that "God is nearer to man than his jugular
vein" (Surah Qaf, 16). As everybody knows, the jugular vein is inside the
body. What could be nearer to a person than his inside? This situation can
be easily explained by the reality of spacelessness. This verse can also be
much better comprehended by understanding this secret.

This is the plain truth. It should be well established that there is no
other helper and provider for man than God. There is nothing but God;
He is the only absolute being Whom one can seek refuge in, appeal for
help, and count on for reward.

Wherever we turn, there is the countenance of God.

CHAPTER

SRF Conferences:

Activities for Informing the

Public About Evolution

Evolution propaganda, which has gained acceleration lately, is a seri-
ous threat to national beliefs and moral values. The Science Re-
search Foundation, which is quite aware of this fact, has
undertaken the duty of informing Turkish public about the scientific truth
of the matter.

First Conference-Istanbul

The first of the series of international conferences organised by Sci-
ence Research Foundation (SRF) took place in 1998. Entitled "The Collapse
of the Theory of Evolution: The Fact of Creation", it was held in Istanbul on
April 4, 1998. The conference, which was a great success, was attended by
recognised experts from around the world and provided a platform on
which the theory of evolution was for the first time questioned and refuted
scientifically in Turkey. People from all segments of Turkish society at-
tended the conference, which drew a great deal of attention. Those who
could not find place in the hall followed the conference live from the
closed -circuit television system outside.

The conference included famous speakers from Turkey and from
abroad. Following the speeches of SRF members, which revealed the ulte-
rior ideological motives underlying the theory of evolution, a video docu-
mentary prepared by SRF was presented.

i -

^■V- ^m ■BT.n .-1*l|Ut M-m7_ V: ==,-

r\K

BJIJMARASTIRMAWI

Dr Duane Gish and Dr Kenneth Cumming, two world-renowned sci-
entists from the Institute for Creation Research in the USA are authorities
on biochemistry and paleontology. They demonstrated with substantial
proof that the theory of evolution has no validity whatsoever. During the
conference, one of the most esteemed Turkish scientists today Dr Cevat
Babuna illustrated the miracles in each phase of a human being's creation
with a slide show that shook the "coincidence hypothesis" of evolution to
its roots.

Second Conference-Istanbul

The second international conference in the same series was held three
months after the first on July 5, 1998 in Cemal Resit Rey Conference Hall
again in Istanbul. The speakers-six Americans and one Turk-gave talks
demonstrating how Darwinism had been invalidated by modern science.
Cemal Resit Rey Conference Hall, with a seating capacity of a thousand,
was filled to overflowing by an audience of rapt listeners.

The speakers and their subjects at this conference are summarised
below.

Professor Michael P. Girouard: In his speech, "Is it Possible for Life to
Emerge by Coincidences?", Michael Girouard, a professor of biology at
Southern Louisiana University, explained through various examples the
complexity of proteins, the basic units of life, and concluded that they
could only have come into existence as a result of skilled design.

Dr Edward Boudreaux: In his speech, "The Design in Chemistry", Ed-

SRF Conferences

263

ward Boudreaux, a professor of chemistry at the University of New Or-
leans, noted that some chemical elements must have been deliberately
arranged by creation in order for life to exist.

Professor Carl Fliermans: A widely-known scientist in the USA and a
microbiology professor at Indiana University conducting a research on
"the neutralisation of chemical wastes by bacteria" supported by the US
Department of Defence, Carl Fliermans refuted evolutionist claims at the
microbiological level.

Professor Edip Keha: A professor of biochemistry, Edip Keha, was the
only Turkish speaker of the conference. He presented basic information on
the cell and stressed through evidence that the cell could only have come
into being as a result of conscious design.

Professor David Menton: A professor of anatomy at Washington Uni-
versity, David Menton, in a speech that was accompanied by a very inter-
esting computer display, examined the differences between the anatomies
of the feathers of birds and the scales of reptiles, thus proving the invalid-
ity of the hypothesis that birds evolved from reptiles.

Professor Duane Gish: Famous evolutionist expert Professor Gish, in
his speech entitled "The Origin of Man", refuted the thesis of man's evolu-
tion from apes.

ICR President Professor John Morris: Professor Morris, the president
of the Institute for Creation Research and a famous geologist, gave a
speech on the ideological and philosophical commitments lying behind
evolution. He further explained
that this theory has been turned
into a dogma and that its de-
fenders believe in Darwinism
with a religious fervour.

Having listened to all these
speeches, the audience wit-
nessed that evolution is a dog-
matic belief that is invalidated
by science in all aspects. In addi-
tion, the poster exhibition enti-
tled "The Collapse of the Theory World-renowned evolution expert Dr Duane Gish,

receiving his SRF plaque from Dr
of Evolution: The Fact of Cre- Nevzat Yalcintas, A member of Turkish

Parliament.

264

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

"T %JiT''

PROF. CARL
FLIERMANS: "Modern
biochemistry proves
that organisms are
marvelously designed
and this fact alone
proves the existance of
the Creator."

PROF. DUANE GISH:
"The fossil record
refutes the

evolutionary theory and it
demonstrates that species
appeared on Earth fully
formed and well designed.
This is a concrete evidence
for that they were created
by God."

PROF. DAVID
MENTON: "I am
examining the
anatomical features
of living things for 30
years. What I saw has
always been the
evidence of God's
creation."

PROF. EDWARD
BOUDREAUX:
"The world we live
in, and its natural
laws are very pre-
cisely set up by the
Creator for the
benefit of us, hu-

ation" organised by the Science Research Foundation and displayed in the
lobby of CRR Conference Hall attracted considerable interest. The exhibi-
tion consisted of 35 posters, each highlighting either a basic claim of evolu-
tion or a creation evidence.

Third Conference-Ankara

The third international conference of the series was held on July 12,
1998 at the Sheraton Hotel in Ankara. Participants in the conference- three
Americans and one Turk-put forward explicit and substantial evidence
that Darwinism has been invalidated by modern science.

Although the conference hall at the Ankara Sheraton Hotel was de-
signed to hold an audience of about a thousand, the number of attendees
at the conference exceeded 2,500. Screens were set up outside the confer-
ence hall for those who could not find place inside. The poster exhibition
entitled "The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution: The Fact of Creation"
held next to the conference hall also attracted considerable attention. At

Scenes from National Conferences of SRF

£t

s»w

Sanliurfa

Balikesir

Kayseri

I <

266

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

the end of the conference, the speakers received a standing ovation, which
proved how much the public craved enlightenment on the scientific reali-
ties regarding the evolution deceit and the fact of creation.

Following the success of these international conferences, the Science
Research Foundation began organising similar conferences all over Turkey.
Between August 98 and end 2002 alone, over 500 conferences were held in
Turkey's all of 80 cities and towns. SRF continues to conduct its confer-
ences in different parts of the country. SRF has also held conferences in
England, Holland, Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Azerbaijan, the
United States and Canada.

Glory be to You!

We have no knoiuledge except ivhat

You have taught us. You are

the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.

(Surat al-Baqara, 32)

NOTES

1 Cliff, Conner, "Evolution vs. Creationism:
In Defense of Scientific Thinking", Interna-
tional Socialist Review (Monthly Magazine
Supplement to the Militant), November
1980.

2 Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance
and Evolution), Ankara: Meteksan Publish-
ing Co., 1984, p. 61.

3 Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, New
York: Free Press, 1996, pp. 232-233.

4 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker,
London: W. W. Norton, 1986, p. 159.

5 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or
Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About
Evolution is Wrong, Regnery Publishing,
2000, pp. 235-236

6 Dan Graves, Science of Faith: Forty-Eight Bi-
ographies of Historic Scientists and Their
Christian Faith, Grand Rapids, MI, Kregel
Resources.

7 Science, Philosophy, And Religion: A Sympo-
sium, 1941, CH. 13.

8 Max Planck, Where is Science Going?,
www.websophia.com/aphorisms/sci-
ence.html.

9 H. S. Lipson, "A Physicist's View of Dar-
win's Theory", Evolution Trends in Plants,
Vol 2, No. 1, 1988, p. 6.

10 Although Darwin came up with the claim
that his theory was totally independent
from that of Lamarck's, he gradually started
to rely on Lamarck's assertions. Especially
the 6th and the last edition of The Origin of
Species is full of examples of Lamarck's "in-
heritance of acquired traits". See Benjamin
Farrington, What Darwin Really Said, New
York: Schocken Books, 1966, p. 64.

11 Michael Ruse, "Nonliteralist Antievolu-
tion", AAAS Symposium: "The New
Antievolutionism," February 13, 1993,
Boston, MA

12 Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern
and Process, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman
and Co. 1979, pp. 35, 159.

13 Colin Patterson, "Cladistics", Interview with
Brian Leek, Peter Franz, March 4, 1982,
BBC.

14 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or
Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About
Evolution is Wrong, Regnery Publishing,
2000, p. 141-151

15 Jerry Coyne, "Not Black and White", a re-
view of Michael Majerus's Melanism: Evo-
lution in Action, Nature, 396 (1988), p. 35-36

16 Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful
Monsters", Natural History, Vol 86, July- Au-
gust 1977, p. 28.

1 7 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Fac-
simile of the First Edition, Harvard Univer-
sity Press, 1964, p. 189.

18 Ibid, p. 177.

19 B. G Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania:
The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988.

20 Warren Weaver, "Genetic Effects of Atomic
Radiation", Science, Vol 123, June 29, 1956,
p. 1159.

21 Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mys-
tery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48.

22 Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, Lon-
don: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70.

23 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Fac-
simile of the First Edition, Harvard Univer-
sity Press, 1964, p. 179.

24 Ibid, pp. 172, 280.

Notes

269

25 Derek V. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil
Record", Proceedings of the British Geolog-
ical Association, Vol 87, 1976, p. 133.

26 Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Cre-
ationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19,
1981, p. 56.

27 R. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991, p. 45

28 David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin
and Paleontology", Bulletin, Field Museum
of Natural History, Vol 50, January 1979, p.
24.

29 Richard Monastersky, "Mysteries of the
Orient", Discover, April 1993, p. 40.

30 Richard Fortey, "The Cambrian Explosion
Exploded?", Science, vol 293, No 5529, 20
July 2001, p. 438-439.

31 Ibid.

32 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker ,
London: W. W. Norton 1986, p. 229.

33 Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, New
York: Pantheon Books, 1983, p. 197.

34 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Tac-
simile of the Tirst Edition, Harvard Univer-
sity Press, 1964, p. 302.

35 Stefan Bengston, Nature, Vol. 345, 1990, p.
765.

36 The New Animal Phylogeny: Reliability
And Implications, Proc. of Nat. Aca. of Sci.,
25 April 2000, vol 97, No 9, p. 4453-4456.

37 Ibid.

38 Gerald T. Todd, "Evolution of the Lung and
the Origin of Bony Fishes: A Casual Rela-
tionship", American Zoologist, Vol 26, No. 4,
1980, p. 757.

39 R. L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and
Evolution, New York: W. H. Freeman and
Co. 1988, p. 4.; Robert L. Carroll, Patterns

and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cam-
bridge University Press, 1997, p. 296-97

40 Edwin H. Colbert, M. Morales, Evolution of
the Vertebrates, New York: John Wiley and
Sons, 1991, p. 99.

41 Jean-Jacques Hublin, The Hamlyn Ency-
clopaedia of Prehistoric Animals, New York:
The Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd., 1984,
p. 120.

42 Jacques Millot, "The Coelacanth", Scientific
American, Vol 193, December 1955, p. 39.

43 Bilim ve Teknik Magazine, November 1998,
No: 372, p. 21.

44 Robert L. Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and
Evolution, New York: W. H. Freeman and
Co., 1988, p. 198.

45 Engin Korur, "Gozlerin ve Kanatlarm Sirri"
(The Mystery of the Eyes and the Wings),
Bilim ve Teknik, No. 203, October 1984, p. 25.

46 Nature, Vol 382, August, 1, 1996, p. 401.

47 Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, New
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1961, p. 310.

48 L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, K. N. Whet-
stone, The Auk, Vol 98, 1980, p. 86.

49 Ibid, p. 86; L. D. Martin, "Origins of Higher
Groups of Tetrapods", Ithaca, New York:
Comstock Publising Association, 1991, pp.
485, 540.

50 S. Tarsitano, M. K. Hecht, Zoological Journal
of the Einnaean Society, Vol 69, 1985, p. 178;
A. D. Walker, Geological Magazine, Vol 177,
1980, p. 595.

51 Pat Shipman, "Birds do it... Did Dinosaurs?",
New Scientist, February 1, 1997, p. 31.

52 "Old Bird", Discover, March 21, 1997.

53 Ibid.

54 Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Di-
nosaurs?", p. 28.

270

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

55 Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of
Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University
Press, 1997, p. 280-81.

56 Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It... Did Di-
nosaurs?", p. 28.

57 Ibid.

58 Roger Lewin, "Bones of Mammals, Ances-
tors Fleshed Out", Science, vol 212, June 26,
1981, p. 1492.

59 George Gaylord Simpson, Life Before Man,
New York: Time-Life Books, 1972, p. 42.

60 R. Eric Lombard, "Review of Evolutionary
Principles of the Mammalian Middle Ear,
Gerald Fleischer", Evolution, Vol 33, Decem-
ber 1979, p. 1230.

61 David R. Pilbeam, "Rearranging Our Fam-
ily Tree", Nature, June 1978, p. 40.

62 Earnest A. Hooton, Up From The Ape, New
York: McMillan, 1931, p. 332.

63 Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christen-
dom, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1980, p. 59.

64 Stephen Jay Gould, "Smith Woodward's
Folly", New Scientist, February 5, 1979, p.
44.

65 Kenneth Oakley, William Le Gros Clark & J.
S, "Piltdown", Meydan Larousse, Vol 10, p.
133.

66 Stephen Jay Gould, "Smith Woodward's
Folly", New Scientist, April 5, 1979, p. 44.

67 W. K. Gregory, "Hesperopithecus Appar-
ently Not An Ape Nor A Man", Science, Vol
66, December 1927, p. 579.

68 Philips Verner Bradford, Harvey Blume,
Ota Benga: The Pygmy in The Zoo, New York:
Delta Books, 1992.

69 David Pilbeam, "Humans Lose an Early
Ancestor", Science, April 1982, pp. 6-7.

70 C C. Swisher III, W. J. Rink, S. C. Anton, H.
P. Schwarcz, G. H. Curtis, A. Suprijo, Widi-
asmoro, "Latest Homo erectus of Java: Po-
tential Contemporaneity with Homo
sapiens in Southeast Asia", Science, Volume
274, Number 5294, Issue of 13 Dec 1996, pp.
1870-1874; also see, Jeffrey Kluger, "Not So
Extinct After All: The Primitive Homo
Erectus May Have Survived Long Enough
To Coexist With Modern Humans, Time,
December 23, 1996

71 Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower,
New York: Toplinger Publications, 1970,
pp. 75-94.

72 Charles E. Oxnard, "The Place of Australop-
ithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for
Doubt", Nature, Vol 258, p. 389.

73 Holly Smith, American Journal of Physical
Antropology, Vol 94, 1994, pp. 307-325.

74 Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood, Frans Zonn-
eveld, "Implication of Early Hominid
Labryntine Morphology for Evolution of
Human Bipedal Locomotion", Nature, vol
369, June 23, 1994, p. 645-648.

75 Tim Bromage, New Scientist, vol 133, 1992,
p. 38-41.

76 J. E. Cronin, N. T. Boaz, C. B. Stringer, Y
Rak, "Tempo and Mode in Hominid Evo-
lution", Nature, Vol 292, 1981, p. 113-122.

77 C. L. Brace, H. Nelson, N. Korn, M. L.
Brace, Atlas of Human Evolution, 2.b. New
York: Rinehart and Wilson, 1979.

78 Alan Walker, Scientific American, vol 239
(2), 1978, p. 54.

79 Bernard Wood, Mark Collard, "The
Human Genus", Science, vol 284, No 5411,
2 April 1999, p. 65-71.

Notes

271

80 Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention,
Grand Rapids, Baker, 1992, p. 83.

81 Boyce Rensberger, The Washington Post,
November 19, 1984.

82 Ibid.

83 Richard Leakey, The Making of Mankind,
London: Sphere Books, 1981, p. 62.

84 Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention,
Grand Rapids, Baker, 1992. p. 136.

85 Pat Shipman, "Doubting Dmanisi", Ameri-
can Scientist, November- December 2000,
p. 491.

86 Erik Trinkaus, "Hard Times Among the
Neanderthals", Natural History, vol 87, De-
cember 1978, p. 10; R. L. Holloway, "The
Neanderthal Brain: What Was Primitive",
American Journal of Physical Anthropol-
ogy Supplement, Vol 12, 1991, p. 94.

87 Alan Walker, Science, vol 207, 1980, p. 1103.

88 A. J. Kelso, Physical Antropology, 1st ed.,
New York: J. B. Lipincott Co., 1970, p. 221;
M. D. Leakey, Olduvai Gorge, Vol 3, Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971,
p. 272.

89 S. J. Gould, Natural History, Vol 85, 1976, p.
30.

90 Time, November 1996.

91 L. S. B. Leakey, The Origin of Homo Sapiens,
ed. F. Borde, Paris: UNESCO, 1972, p. 25-
29; L. S. B. Leakey, By the Evidence, New
York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974.

92 "Is This The Face of Our Past", Discover,
December 1997, p. 97-100.

93 A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, l.b.,
1970, pp. 221; M. D. Leakey, Olduvai
Gorge, Vol 3, Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1971, p. 272.

94 Donald C. Johanson & M. A. Edey, Lucy:

The Beginnings of Humankind, New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 250.

95 Science News, Vol 115, 1979, p. 196-197.

96 Ian Anderson, New Scientist, Vol 98, 1983,
p. 373.

97 Russell H. Tuttle, Natural History, March
1990, p. 61-64.

98 Ruth Henke, "Aufrecht aus den Baumen",
Pocus, Vol 39, 1996, p. 178.

99 Elaine Morgan, The Scars of Evolution, New
York: Oxford University Press, 1994, p. 5.

100 Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower,
New York: Toplinger Publications, 1970, p.
19.

101 Robert Locke, "Family Fights", Discovering
Archaeology, July/August 1999, p. 36-39.

102 Ibid.

103 Henry Gee, In Search of Time: Beyond the
Fossil Record to a New History of Life, New
York, The Free Press, 1999, p. 126-127.

104 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited,
Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, pp.
298-99.

105 "Hoyle on Evolution", Nature, Vol 294, No-
vember 12, 1981, p. 105.

106 Ali Demirsoy, Kahtim ve Evrim (Inheritance
and Evolution), Ankara: Meteksan Publish-
ing Co., 1984, p. 64.

107 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited,
Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, p.
304.

108 Ibid, p. 305.

109 J. D. Thomas, Evolution and Faith, Abilene,
TX, ACU Press, 1988. p. 81-82.

110 Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptics Guide to
the Creation of Life on Earth, New York,
Summit Books, 1986. p.127.

111 Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe,

272

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

Evolution from Space, New York, Simon &
Schuster, 1984, p. 148.

112 Ibid, p. 130.

113 Fabbri Britannica Bilim Ansiklopedisi
(Fabbri Britannica Science Encyclopae-
dia), vol 2, No 22, p. 519.

114 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Origin of
Life, California: 1979, p. 14.

115 Stanley Miller, Molecular Evolution of Life:
Current Status of the Prebiotic Synthesis of
Small Molecules, 1986, p. 7.

116 Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik, No 189, p.
7.

117 J. P. Ferris, C. T. Chen, "Photochemistry of
Methane, Nitrogen, and Water Mixture As
a Model for the Atmosphere of the Primi-
tive Earth", Journal of American Chemical
Society, vol 97:11, 1975, p. 2964.

118 "New Evidence on Evolution of Early At-
mosphere and Life", Bulletin of the Ameri-
can Meteorological Society, vol 63,
November 1982, p. 1328-1330.

119 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Origin of
Life, California, 1979, p. 25.

120 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited,
Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, p.
325.

121 Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Origin of
Life, California: 1979, p. 25.

122 Ibid.

123 S. W. Fox, K. Harada, G. Kramptiz, G.
Mueller, "Chemical Origin of Cells", Chem-
ical Engineering Neivs, June 22, 1970, p. 80.

124 Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the
Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution",
American Biology Teacher, September 1971,
p. 336.

125 Paul Auger, De La Physique Theorique a la

Biologie,1970,p. 118.

126 Francis Crick, Life Itself: It's Origin and Na-
ture, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1981, p.
88.

127 Ali Demirsoy, Kahtim ve Evrim (Inheritance
and Evolution), Ankara: Meteksan Publish-
ing Co., 1984, p. 39.

128 Homer Jacobson, "Information, Reproduc-
tion and the Origin of Life", American Sci-
entist, January 1955, p. 121.

129 Reinhard Junker & Siegfried Scherer,
"Entstehung und Geschichte der Lebewe-
sen", Weyel, 1986, p. 89.

130 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Cri-
sis, London: Burnett Books, 1985, p. 351.

131 John Horgan, "In the Beginning", Scientific
American, vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119.

132 G.F Joyce, L. E. Orgel, "Prospects for Un-
derstanding the Origin of the RNA
World", In the RNA World, New York: Cold
Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993, p.
13.

133 Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity, New
York: 1971, p.143.

134 Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the
Earth", Scientific American, October 1994,
vol. 271, p. 78.

135 Gordon C. Mills, Dean Kenyon, "The RNA
World: A Critique", Origins & Design,
17:1,1996

136 Brig Klyce, The RNA World, http://www.
panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm

137 Chandra Wickramasinghe, Interview in
London Daily Express, August 14, 1981.

138 Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View,
New York, Viking Press, 1980, p.6

139 J. H. Rush, The Dawn of Life, New York,
Signet, 1962, p 35

273

140 Roger Lewin, "A Downward Slope to
Greater Diversity", Science, vol. 217,
24.9.1982, p. 1239

141 George P. Stravropoulos, "The Frontiers
and Limits of Science", American Scientist,
vol. 65, November-December 1977, p.674

142 Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View,
p.55

143 For further info, see: Stephen C. Meyer,
"The Origin of Life and the Death of Mate-
rialism", The Intercollegiate Review, 32, No.
2, Spring 1996

144 Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley &
Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Ori-
gin: Reassessing Current Theories, 4. edition,
Dallas, 1992. chapter 9, p. 134

145 Ilya Prigogine, Isabelle Stengers, Order
Out of Chaos, New York, Bantam Books,
1984, p. 175

146 Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptics Guide to
the Creation of Life on Earth, Summit Books,
New York: 1986, s. 207

147 Pierre-P Grasse, Evolution of Living Organ-
isms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p.
103.

148 Ibid, p. 107.

149 Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Ap-
peal to Reason, Boston: Gambit, 1971, p. 101.

150 Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christen-
dom, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980, sp. 43.

151 Loren C. Eiseley, The Immense Journey, Vin-
tage Books, 1958, p. 186.

152 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A
Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard Uni-
versity Press, 1964, p. 184.

153 Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Ap-
peal to Reason, Harvard Common Press,
New York: 1971, p. 33.

154 Ibid, p. 36.

155 Loren Eiseley, The Immense Journey, Vin-
tage Books, 1958. p. 227.

156 Dr. Lee Spetner, "Lee Spetner/Edward
Max Dialogue: Continuing an exchange
with Dr. Edward E. Max", 2001,
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.ap

157 Ibid.

158 Ibid.

159 Francisco J. Ayala, "The Mechanisms of
Evolution", Scientific American, Vol. 239,
September 1978, p. 64.

160 Dr. Lee Spetner, "Lee Spetner/Edward Max
Dialogue: Continuing an exchange with Dr.
Edward E. Max", 2001, http://www.tmeo-
rigin.org/spetner2.ap

161 S. R. Scadding, "Do Vestigial Organs' Pro-
vide Evidence for Evolution?", Evolution-
ary Theory, Vol 5, May 1981, p. 173.

162 The Merck Manual of Medical Information,
Home edition, New Jersey: Merck & Co.,
Inc. The Merck Publishing Group, Rail-
way, 1997.

163 H. Enoch, Creation and Evolution, New
York: 1966, p. 18-19.

164 Frank Salisbury, "Doubts About the Mod-
ern Synthetic Theory of Evolution",
American Biology Teacher, September 1971,
p. 338.

165 Dean Kenyon & Percival Davis, Of Pandas
and People: The Central Question of Biological
Origins, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing,
1993), p. 33

166 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Cri-
sis, London, Burnett Books, 1985, p. 145.

167 William Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evo-
lution (New York: Macmillan Publishing
Co., 1984), p. 189

274

THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

168 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited,
Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville: 1991, pp.
98-99; Percival Davis, Dean Kenyon, Of
Pandas and People, Haughton Publishing
Co., 1990, pp. 35-38.

169 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited,
pp. 98-99, 199-202.

170 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in
Crisis, London: Burnett Books, 1985, pp.
290-91.

171 Herve Philippe and Patrick Forterre, "The
Rooting of the Universal Tree of Life is
Not Reliable", journal of Molecular Evolu-
tion, vol 49, 1999, p. 510

172 James Lake, Ravi Jain ve Maria Rivera,
"Mix and Match in the Tree of Life", Sci-
ence, vol. 283, 1999, p. 2027

173 Carl Woese, "The Universel Ancestor",
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-
ences, USA, 95, (1998) p. 6854

174 Ibid.

175 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Regnery
Publishing, 2000, p. 51

176 G. G. Simpson, W. Beck, An Introduction to
Biology , New York, Harcourt Brace and
World, 1965, p. 241.

177 Keith S. Thompson, "Ontogeny and Phy-
logeny Recapitulated", American Scientist,
Vol 76, May/June 1988, p. 273.

178 Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe:
Wl\ere Darwin Went Wrong, New York: Tic-
knor and Fields 1982, p. 204.

179 Richard Lewontin, "The Demon-Haunted
World", The New York Review of Books, Jan-
uary 9, 1997, p. 28.

180 Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptics Guide to
the Creation of Lip on Earth, Summit Books,
New York: 1986, p. 207.

181 Hoimar Von Dithfurt, Im Anfang War Der
Wasserstoff (Secret Night of the Dinosaurs),
Vol 2, p. 64.

182 Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance
and Evolution), Ankara: Meteksan Publish-
ing Co., 1984, p. 61.

183 Ibid, p. 61.

184 Ibid, p. 94.

185 Bilim ve Teknik, July 1989, Vol. 22, No.260,
p.59

186 Grzimeks Tierleben Vogel 3, Deutscher
Taschen Buch Verlag, Oktober 1993, p.92

187 David Attenborough, Life On Earth: A Nat-
ural History, Collins British Broadcasting
Corporation, June 1979, p. 236

188 David Attenborough, Life On Earth: A Nat-
ural History, Collins British Broadcasting
Corporation, June 1979, p.240

189 "The Structure and Properties of Spider
Silk", Endeavour, January 1986, vol. 10,
pp.37-43

190 Gorsel Bilim ve Teknik Ansiklopedisi, pp. 185-
186

191 WalterMetzner, http://cnas.ucr.edu/
~bio/ faculty/Metzner.html

192 National Geographic, September 1995, p.98

193 Bilim ve Teknik, January 1990, pp.10-12

194 David Attenborough, Life of Birds, Prince-
ton Universitye Press, Princeton-New Jer-
sey, 1998, p.47

195 James L.Gould, Carol Grant Gould, Life at
the Edge, W.H. Freeman and Company,
1989, pp.130-136

196 David Attenborough, The Private Life of
Plants, Princeton Universitye Press,
Princeton-New Jersey, 1995, pp. 81-83

197 Encyclopedia of Reptiles and Amphibians ,
Published in the United States by Acade-

275

mic Press, A Division of Harcourt Brace
and Company, p. 35

198 Frederick Vester, Denken, Lernen, Vergessen,
vga, 1978, p.6

199 George Politzer, Principes Fondamentaux de
Philosophie , Editions Sociales, Paris 1954,
pp.38-39-44

200 R.L.Gregory, Eye and Brain: The Psychology
of Seeing, Oxford University Press Inc.
New York, 1990, p.9

201 Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr.Ein-
stein, William Sloane Associate, New York,
1948, p.20

202 Orhan Hancerlioglu, Dii§iince Tarihi (The
History of Thought), Istanbul: Remzi Book-
store, 6.ed., September 1995, p.447

203 V.I.Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-
criticism, Progress Publishers, Moscow,
1970, p.14

204 Bertrand Russell, ABC of Relativity , George
Allen and Unwin, London, 1964, pp. 161-
162

205 R.L.Gregory, Eye and Brain: The Psychology
of Seeing, Oxford University Press Inc.
New York, 1990, p.9

206 Ken Wilber, Holographic Paradigm and
Other Paradoxes, p.20

207 George Politzer, Principes Fondamentaux de
Philosophie, Editions Sociales, Paris 1954,
p.53

208 Orhan Hancerlioglu, Diisiince Tarihi (The
History of Thought), Istanbul: Remzi Book-
store, 6.ed., September 1995, p. 261

209 George Politzer, Principes Fondamentaux de
Philosophie, Editions Sociales, Paris 1954,
p.65

210 Paul Davies, Tanri ve Yeni Fizik, (God and
The New Physics), translated by Murat

Temelli, Im Publishing, Istanbul 1995,
s.180-181

211 Rennan Pekiinlii, "Aldatmacamn Evrimsi-
zligi", (Non-Evolution of Deceit), Bilim ve
Utopya, December 1998 (V.I.Lenin, Materi-
alism and Empirio-criticism, Progress Pub-
lishers, Moscow, 1970, pp.334-335)

212 Alaettin §enel, "Evrim Aldatmacasi mi?,
Devrin Aldatmacasi mi?", (Evolution De-
ceit or Deceit of the Epoch?), Bilim ve
Utopya, December 1998

213 Imam Rabbani Hz. Mektuplari (Letters of
Rabbani), Vol.11, 357, Letter, p.163

214 Imam Rabbani Hz. Mektuplari (Letters of
Rabbani), Vol.11, 470, Letter, p.1432

215 Francois Jacob, Lejeu des Possibles, Univer-
sity of Washington Press, 1982, p.lll

216 Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr.Ein-
stein, William Sloane Associate, New York,
1948, pp. 52-53

217 Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr.Ein-
stein, William Sloane Associate, New York,
1948, p.17

218 Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr.Ein-
stein, William Sloane Associate, New York,
1948, p.58.

219 Paul Strathern, The Big Idea: Einstein and
Relativity , Arrow Books, 1997, p. 57

220 Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr.Ein-
stein, William Sloane Associate, New York,
1948, p.84

221 Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr.Ein-
stein, William Sloane Associate, New York,
1948, pp.17-18

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "THE EVOLUTION DECEIT"

See other formats