Part I - The Origin of Life
A person probing the universe he lives in w...
generation”, which was popular since the medieval age, it was believed that living things could easily
arise from non-livi...
organized a living cell really was. They laid bare a complexity and organization that could not be a
product of chance.
A ...
Part II - Imaginary mechanisms of evolution
The evolutionist scenario that “life generated from non-living matter by chanc...
choose from. Subsequently, the theory of evolution as advanced by Darwin has been collapsed early
in the 20th century.
He is Allah the Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner, His are the most excellent names.
Whatever is in the Heavens and in the...
The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the
Cambrian, which has an...
One of the most important of these alleged transitional forms was the fossil of a fish called the
coelacanth. For years, e...
In the face of this fact, evolutionists hypothesized that Australopithecus walked upright on its two
feet differently from...
Another intermediate transitional form fabricated by evolutionists was the “Nebraska Man”. This
was cooked up in 1922 on t...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

Evrimin Cokusu( 생명의 기원-한국어) the collapse of evolution- The Origin of Life 생명의 기원 English


Published on

Published in: Spiritual, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Evrimin Cokusu( 생명의 기원-한국어) the collapse of evolution- The Origin of Life 생명의 기원 English

  1. 1. THE COLLAPSE OF DARWINISM AND THE FACT OF CREATION Part I - The Origin of Life A person probing the universe he lives in will encounter two hundred fifty billion galaxies each the home of about three hundred billion stars. Every one of these magnificent systems operates in accordance with specific laws and in a particular order. There is a plan, a design, and a balance in every part of the universe. The earth occupies a miniscule part of this vast universe and it too has a perfectly-designed system incorporating extremely complex and delicate balances. Unlike any other known heavenly body, its atmosphere and its surface support life. Water, which covers the biggest part of the earth’s surface, is one of the basic elements of life. The temperature range, orbital properties, and surface of the earth all demonstrate that this planet is specifically designed for life. This unique planet of ours is the home of an incredibly complex and comprehensive vitality. Millions of different plant and animal species live on earth in perfect harmony. This harmony is so perfectly established that it is capable of surviving intact unless deliberately intervened in by human beings. But how did these systems and living things originate? When living things on earth are examined, a manifest design is to be observed. Every living thing is furnished with extremely complex systems that enable it to play its role in the overall system to the best of its ability. Since life is planned, designed, and organized, it certainly must have a Creator. And that Creator has been introducing Himself to mankind since the beginnings of the world. He is Allah, the one and only God, Who created the heavens and the earth from nothing and Who fashioned everything therein. The theory of evolution that was advanced in the 19th century denies this evident fact of creation. This theory holds that the species on earth were not created by God but came into being as a result of processes governed entirely by chance. The founder of this theory was an amateur naturalist named Charles Darwin. Darwin expounded this theory in his book The Origin of Species, which was published in 1859. Darwin’s book was an instant success. But its popularity was due more to the ideological implications of the book rather than its scientific worth. Darwin’s ideas provided considerable support for the materialistic philosophy, which denied the existence of God. The founder of dialectical materialism, Karl Marx dedicated his book Das Kapital to Darwin and wrote on the cover: “To Charles Darwin, From a devoted admirer”. Darwin’s theory argued that all species descended from a common ancestor by means of little cumulative changes at long periods of time. Darwin could advance no sound evidence to prove this claim. Indeed he was himself aware of the great many facts that invalidated his theory. He admitted these in his book in a chapter entitled “Difficulties on Theory”. Darwin’s hope was that these difficulties would be overcome by new scientific discoveries. But in fact, advances in science would refute Darwin’s claims one by one. Darwin proposed that all species evolved successively from a common ancestor. But how did that first living thing come into being? Darwin did not address this question at all in his book. He was not even aware that this point was one of the biggest refutations of his theory. The primitive understanding of science in his day assumed that life had a very simple structure. According to a theory called “spontaneous
  2. 2. generation”, which was popular since the medieval age, it was believed that living things could easily arise from non-living matter. It was commonly thought that frogs spontaneously arose from mud and bugs from food leftovers. And some curious experiments were designed to prove these theories. A handful of wheat was left on a rag and mice were expected to arise from the mixture. The maggots on meat were also taken as evidence that life could generate from non-living matter. But later it was understood that such maggots did not form spontaneously but that they emerged from microscopic larvae deposited on the meat by flies. And in Darwin’s time, the belief that microbes could emanate easily from non-living materials was very common. But five years after the publication of The Origin of Species, the famous French biologist Louis Pasteur scientifically refuted these myths that lay ground for evolution. Pasteur, after lengthy studies and experiments, reached this very important conclusion Can matter organize itself ? No. Today there is no circumstance known under which one could affirm that microscopic beings have come into the world without parents resembling themselves. (Louis Pasteur, Fox & Dose, Origin of Life, p. 4-5) The first evolutionist to take up the issue of the origin of life in the 20th century was the Russian biologist Alexander Oparin. His aim was to explain how the first living cell, the alleged common ancestor of all living beings according to the theory of evolution, could emerge. In the 1930s, Oparin formulated a number of theories to show how the first living cell could arise from inanimate matter by chance. However, his efforts ended in failure and Oparin himself had to confess: Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question that is actually the murkiest aspect of the whole theory of evolution. (Alexander Oparin, Origin of Life, p. 196) Evolutionists that followed Oparin conducted experiments to find an evolutionist explanation to the origin of life. The most famous of these experiments was conducted by the American chemist Stanley Miller in 1953. Miller obtained a few simple organic molecules by triggering a reaction among gasses that he claimed would have been present in the primitive earth atmosphere. At the time, this experiment was regarded as a scientific proof for evolution. It turned out to be no such thing at all. Later discoveries showed that the gasses used in the experiment were very different from the gasses that had been present in the early atmosphere of the world. Miller himself eventually admitted to the invalidity of his experiment. Every evolutionist attempt in the 20th century to account for the origin of life has ended in failure. Jeffrey Bada, a professor of geochemistry and a leading advocate of the theory of evolution, confesses this fact in the February 1998 issue of Earth, one of the leading periodicals of evolutionist literature: 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? (Jeffrey Bada, Earth, Feb. 1998) The biggest impasse confronting evolution is the incredibly complex structure of the living cell. Every living thing on earth is made up of cells about a hundredth of a millimeter in size. Some living things are made up of a single cell. Yet even these single-celled organisms are remarkably complex in their composition. They have complicated functions to survive and even little motors to move. In Darwin’s time, this complex structure of the cell was unknown. With the primitive microscopes of those days, cells appeared to be little more than featureless stains. However, powerful electron microscopes invented around the middle of the 20th century began revealing just how complex and
  3. 3. organized a living cell really was. They laid bare a complexity and organization that could not be a product of chance. A living cell is comprised of thousands of tiny parts that work in harmony. To make a comparison, within the cell there are power-stations, high-tech factories, a complex databank, huge storage systems, advanced refineries, and a seemingly conscious cell membrane that controls what enters and leaves the cell. In order for the cell to survive, all of these organelles have to exist at the same time. It is impossible that such an intricate and complex system could have emerged as a result of coincidences. Today, not even the most sophisticated laboratory has been able to produce a single living cell from non-living matter. Indeed this is fully acknowledged to be impossible and efforts to produce living cells from non-living matter have been abandoned. But the theory of evolution claims that this system, which man with all the intelligence, knowledge, and technology cannot succeed in reproducing, came into existence by chance. Sir Fred Hoyle, a prominent English mathematician and astronomer, explains the impossibility of this with an example: The chance that higher life forms might have emerged by chance is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. (Fred Hoyle, Nature, 12 Nov. 1981) Modern biochemistry has also revealed the unimaginably complex design of the DNA molecule. The structure of the DNA molecule was discovered by two scientists, James Watson and Francis Crick, in 1955. Their discovery demonstrated that life was much more complex than anyone had previously envisioned. Himself a confirmed evolutionist, Francis Crick, who received a Nobel prize for this discovery, came to confess that a structure like DNA could never have emerged by chance. DNA is a giant molecule that exists in the nucleus of the cell. Every detail of a living being’s physical and physiological makeup is coded in this double helix. All the information about our bodies from the color of our eyes to the structure of our internal organs and the shape and functions of our cells are programmed in sections called “genes” in the DNA. The DNA code is made up of the sequence of four different “bases”. If we think of each one of these bases as a letter, DNA can be likened to a databank made up of an alphabet of four letters. All the information about a living thing is stored in this databank. If we attempt to write down the information in the DNA, this would take up approximately a million pages. This is equal to an encyclopaedia forty times bigger than The Encyclopaedia Britannica, which is one of mankind’s greatest single accumulations of information. But this incredible information is stored in the tiny nucleus of our cells measuring about a thousandth of a millimeter in size. It is calculated that a DNA chain small enough to fill a teaspoon has the capacity to store all the information contained in all the books ever written. Of course, such an amazing structure could never have been formed by chance. The theory of evolution which sees life as the result of mere coincidences and haphazard happenings is helpless to explain anything in the face of the incredible complexity of DNA. It is evident that the DNA, the cell, and all living beings are products of an exalted and perfect creation. And since such a creation truly exists, then there must also be a Creator, Who has an eternal power, knowledge, and wisdom. Whatever living being we observe in nature, we behold what great power the Creator has. Each of the millions of living things and species in nature is a work of art. And like every work of art, they introduce to us the artist to whom they owe their existence. That is Allah, the Lord of the earth, the heavens, and all that is in between.
  4. 4. Part II - Imaginary mechanisms of evolution The evolutionist scenario that “life generated from non-living matter by chance” is disproved by science today. In addition, there is no mechanism in nature to carry out the alleged process called “evolution”. There is no natural mechanism whereby a single cell can be transformed into a more complex living creature and then go on and become the ancestor of millions of different living species. Darwin proposed a single concept as his evolutionary mechanism: natural selection. The title of his book clearly reveals the importance he gave in this mechanism: The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection... Natural selection is based on the idea that strong individuals that are well adapted to their habitats will survive. For example in a herd of deer threatened by predators, the ones that can run faster will survive. After a while, the herd will consist mostly of strong, swift individuals as the weaker and slower ones fall prey. However, this mechanism does not cause deer to evolve: it does not transform them into another species, for instance, horses. Natural selection only eliminates weak, disabled, and sick individuals and ensures the permanence and health of a particular species. It has no evolutionary power. Darwin was also aware of this problem. This is why he confessed in The Origin of Species that Natural selection can do nothing until favorable variations chance to occur. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1st. ed., p. 177) About the emergence of favorable traits, Darwin was deeply influenced by one of his contemporaries, the French biologist Lamarck. Lamarck thought that living things passed their acquired traits to future generations. In Lamarck’s view, giraffes evolved from deer like creatures. Their necks extended from generation to generation as they tried to reach higher branches for food. Lamarck also believed that if the arms of the members of a family were cut off for generations, the babies would start to be born armless after a while. Darwin, who was quite influenced by these examples, came up with an even bolder claim. In The Origin of Species, he argued that some bears, while trying to hunt in water, evolved into whales. But both Lamarck and Darwin were wrong. Their ideas were contrary to some fundamental laws of biology. In their day, genetics, microbiology, or biochemistry did not exist at all as branches of science. The laws of inheritance were not known at all. Indeed both Lamarck and Darwin thought that hereditary traits were transferred through the blood. Due to this primitive level of science at the time, the imaginary scenarios of the theory of evolution were not looked upon as odd at all. Darwin’s theses had a great impact on the scientific circles of his day. However, Darwin was still distressed. In the chapter “Difficulties on Theory”, he 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. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1st. ed., p. 189) Darwin’s fears proved to be true soon after his death. The laws of inheritance discovered by an Austrian botanist, Gregor Mendel, caused Lamarck’s and Darwin’s assertions to collapse. The science of genetics that developed at the beginning of the 20th century proved that it was not acquired physical traits but only genes that were transmitted to subsequent generations. This discovery made it clear that a scenario suggesting that acquired traits accumulated from generation to generation and generated different living species was implausible. In other words, there were no inheritable variations for Darwin’s proposed mechanism of natural selection to
  5. 5. choose from. Subsequently, the theory of evolution as advanced by Darwin has been collapsed early in the 20th century. All the other efforts by evolutionists in the 20th century, they did nothing but confirmed natural selection had no evolutionary power. A famous evolutionist, the English paleontologist Colin Patterson, admitted this when he said: No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question. (Colin Patterson, BBC, Cladistics, 4th March 1982) Twentieth-century science has also demonstrated that there are systems and organs with extremely complicated and intricate mechanisms at work in living beings. These systems and organs will not function even if a single component of them is lacking. This characteristic, called the “irreducible complexity” of life is evidence that these structures must have emerged at once and fully formed. This fact definitely demolishes the evolutionist claim that living beings evolved gradually by natural selection through minor changes over time. When it was clear that the mechanism of natural selection proposed by Darwin had no evolutionary power, evolutionists had to make a fundamental change in the theory. In addition to the concept of natural selection, they added a second mechanism called “mutation”. Mutations are alterations or distortions that take place in the DNA of living beings, mostly as a result of external effects, such as radiation or chemical action. The theory of evolution now holds that living things are differentiated from one another and develop as a result of mutations. This cannot be true, for mutations only damage the information in the DNA and give only harm to a living being. No beneficial mutation has yet been observed either in nature or in laboratories. Since mutations do not add new genetic information, it is impossible for living beings to acquire new organs through mutations: no reptile could ever acquire wings nor could an eyeless creature develop eyes by mutations. For decades, evolutionists subjected different living beings to the effects of radiation and chemicals in an attempt to obtain favorable mutations; what they always ended up with were disabled, deficient, or barren creatures. Countless experiments carried out on fruit flies have shown that the effects of mutations are not beneficial but rather destructive or fatal. Mutations disrupt the perfect DNA code of a living thing and turn it into a freak of nature. This is why Professor Richard Dawkins, one of the most renowned advocates of the theory of evolution of our day, hesitates when he is asked to give a single example that increases the genetic information. Interviewer: Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genum? Richard Dawkins: …………. (Silence) The truth is very evident. Life has such a complex design that can never come about by chance. A mechanical watch cannot be formed as a result of the coincidental assembling of cogs, and it proves that there is an intelligent watchmaker. Likewise, life embodies a superior design that proves the existence of a Creator Who has created it from nothing. The whole universe is the outcome of a flawless creation. The exalted wisdom, power and knowledge of the Creator shows itself in everything He has created. Even the creation of man himself is a miracle that discloses a fact that the theory of evolution strives to sweep out of sight.
  6. 6. He is Allah the Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner, His are the most excellent names. Whatever is in the Heavens and in the earth declares His glory, and He is the Mighty, the Wise. (The Qur’an, 59/24) Part III - The Fossil Record In the 20th century, the theory of evolution was refuted not only by molecular biology but also by paleontology, that is, fossil science. No fossil remains supporting evolution have ever been unearthed in excavations conducted in every corner of the world. Fossils are the remains of living beings that have lived in the past. The skeletal structures of living beings whose bodies are rapidly insulated from air can survive intact. These remains give us information about the history of life on earth. Thus, it is the fossil record that provides scientific answers to the question of the origin of living beings. The theory of evolution claims that all living things descend from a common ancestor. According to the theory, the origination of such diverse living beings took place through minor and successive variations over a very long period of time. The theory argues that first the unicellular living beings were formed which then in hundreds of millions of years turned into marine invertebrates and fish respectively. These fish later had supposedly emerged onto land and turned into reptiles. The story goes further and says that birds and mammals evolved from reptiles. For this claim to be true, there ought to have been numerous “intermediary species” linking one living species to another. For instance, if reptiles truly had evolved into birds, then countless halfbird half-reptile creatures ought to have lived at one time or another. And these intermediary creatures ought to have incomplete, half developed organs. Darwin called these hypothetical creatures “transitional forms”. He knew that in order to support his theory, the remains of such intermediate forms had to be found in the fossil record. In The Origin of Species he wrote: If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1st. ed., p. 179) However, Darwin was aware that the fossil record did not contain any of these hypothetical intermediate forms. This is why he devoted a special chapter to this in his book and posed these troubled questions: Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1st. ed., p. 172) Darwin had supposed that such transitional forms would be discovered when the fossil record was inspected more carefully. Subsequently, evolutionists that followed him examined geological layers all around the world for a 140 years and looked for these missing fossils. All these efforts ended with great despair. The transitional forms imagined by Darwin remained just that: figments of imagination. English paleontologist Derek Ager admits this fact 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 another. (Derek Ager, Proceedings of the British Geological Association, Vo. 87, p. 133)
  7. 7. 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 to 530 million years. In strata older than the Cambrian, no fossils of any creatures except a few unicellular organisms are to be seen. In the Cambrian period however, many diverse species appear quite abruptly. More than thirty invertebrate species such as jellyfish, starfish, trilobites, and snails emerge all of a sudden. These living beings have complex body systems such as the circulatory system and also very complex organs. For instance, the eye of the trilobite is made up of hundreds of honeycomb-like cells each having a double-lens system. It is a wonder of design. This is the first eye that appeared on the earth and it definitely refutes the Darwinist claim that life evolved from the very primitive towards the complex. Moreover, the honeycomb eye structure of trilobites has survived since 530 million years without a single change; modern insects such as bees and dragonflies have the same eye structure as did the trilobite. According to the theory of evolution, species must have evolved from pre-existing forms. However, there is no other complex life form known to have existed before the trilobites and other species of the Cambrian period. The Cambrian species came into existence all of a sudden, without any ancestors. A well-known advocate of the theory of evolution, the English zoologist Richard Dawkins, makes the following confession on the subject: It is as though the species of the Cambrian were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p. 229) This situation refutes the theory of evolution for sure, because Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species: 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. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1st. ed., p. 302) This fatal stroke that frightened Darwin comes from the Cambrian period, right at the outset of the fossil record. In all fossil layers after the Cambrian, living species always appear abruptly and fully formed. The main taxa such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals and the hundreds of thousands of different species within them all appeared suddenly in distinct structures. There is not even a single transitional form between any groups as evolutionists imagine. This fact is the clear evidence that all basic kinds were created separately by God. Evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki confesses this fact as follows: A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record… 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. (Mark Czarnecki, McLean’s, 19 January 1981, p. 56) Moreover, there is no difference between fossils hundreds of millions of years old and their modern descendants. For instance, a 400 million year old shark and a modern shark have exactly the same structure. Similarly, there is no difference between a 100 million year old ant and a modern ant, a 135 million year old dragonfly and a modern dragonfly, a 100 million year old turtle and a modern turtle, or a 55 million year old bat and a modern bat. That is, all living kinds were created by God and did not undergo any evolution after their creation. On the other hand, there had been a few fossils that were touted as transitional forms by evolutionists but later turned out to be nothing of the sort.
  8. 8. One of the most important of these alleged transitional forms was the fossil of a fish called the coelacanth. For years, evolutionists claimed that this creature, which was only known in the fossil record, had characteristics similar to those of land-dwelling animals. It had, they argued, primitive legs and a primitive lung. These evolutionist claims about the coelacanth were advanced as a scientific fact and imaginary drawings picturing the animal crawling onto land from water made their way even to textbooks. It came as a great shock to evolutionists when a living example of the supposedly “extinct” coelacanth was caught in the Indian Ocean in 1938. It was then seen that the fish was no different from the fish of our day. Contrary to the claims of evolutionists, coelacanths had neither legs nor primitive lungs. What was worse, the coelacanth, supposedly a creature readying itself to make the leap from sea to land, was in reality a fish that lived only in the deep waters of the oceans, never approaching to within a hundred eighty meters of the surface. Another alleged transitional form has been a fossil bird called archaeopteryx. For decades, evolutionists argued that this creature was an intermediary between reptiles and birds. However the seventh archaeopteryx fossil, discovered in 1992, revealed that the creature had a sternum, that is, the chest-bone essential for flight muscles. This proved that the animal was a perfect flying bird. The evolutionist claims about the claw-like nails on the wings of the Archaeopteryx also failed, since similar structures were also discovered in modern birds like the Hoatzin. Because of such reasons, one of the foremost defenders of the theory of evolution, the Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had to admit that Archaeopteryx could not be considered as a transitional form. When we examine the structures of different animal groups, we can see that it is impossible for an evolutionary process to have occurred between them. For instance, it is impossible for fish that have their respiratory systems, excretory systems, muscle structures, and metabolisms completely designed to live in water to have transformed into land-dwelling animals by stepping out of the water. Living groups on land are also all very different from one another. Evolutionists claim that birds evolved from reptiles by random mutations. However, reptiles are cold blooded whereas birds are warm blooded. The bodies of birds are covered with complexly-structured feathers whereas the bodies of reptiles are covered with scales that bear no similarity to feathers. Birds have a lung system that is unlike that of any other land-dwelling animal. The aerodynamic properties of the bird wings cannot be explained by evolution at all. It is impossible for wings to have gradually developed as evolutionists claim, because a half developed wing is not an advantage but a fatal disadvantage. Evolutionists also claim that some reptiles transformed into mammals. However, these two living groups are also very distinct from each other. Reptiles lay eggs while mammals give birth to their offspring. As opposed to the scales of reptiles, the bodies of mammals are covered with fur. The lactation mechanism is peculiar to mammals and evolutionists can never explain its origin. Faced with these realities made clear by the fossil record, evolutionists directed all their attention to the claim that man evolved from ape-like creatures. Six thousand five hundred different ape species have lived so far and the majority of them are extinct. The skulls of these extinct apes, both big and small, constituted a great resource for evolutionists on which to exercise their imaginations freely. Arranging the skulls of these extinct ape species from the smallest to the biggest and adding some skulls of vanished human races to this series, evolutionists concocted the scenario of human evolution. The most important role of this scenario is given to the extinct ape species called Australopithecus. The first Australopithecus fossil was found in 1924 by a paleontologist named Raymond Dart. Since then, evolutionists argue that this ape species, the name of which means “Southern Ape”, is a “manlike” creature. However, when Australopithecus and chimpanzee skeletons are compared, it is seen that there is no important difference between the two.
  9. 9. In the face of this fact, evolutionists hypothesized that Australopithecus walked upright on its two feet differently from other apes. However, two world-renowned anatomists, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Professor Charles Oxnard refuted this allegation. Simply put, Australopithecus advanced as the ancestor of man by evolutionists is merely an extinct ape species. On the other hand, fossils that are included by evolutionists under imaginary classifications such as Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, or Homo sapiens archaic in fact belong to different human races. When these fossils are inspected, it is seen that their skeletons are essentially the same as those of people living today. The only dissimilarities are a few structural differences in their skulls. But differences like these are to be found in different human races alive on earth today. The famous evolutionist paleontologist Richard Leakey admits that the difference between the skulls classified as Homo erectus and those of modern men is only racial: These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. (Richard Leakey, The Making of Mankind, 1981, p. 62) The only defense left to evolutionists against all these scientific facts is just one thing: propaganda. The baseless scenario of the human evolution is imposed on the public by means of imaginary drawings that appear in evolutionist publications. In these drawings, creatures with hairy bodies and simian features are decked out with overtones of human-like motifs. The given impression is that these half-man half-ape transitional forms did live once. From time to time, drawings that present “snapshots” from the social life of these creatures are made. These misleading drawings are introduced in a particular sequence to engrave the scenario of the human evolution on the subconscious of society. Even in the most famous scientific publications, there frequently appear such window-dressings called “reconstructions” and imaginary family tree drawings made by their inspiration. The imaginative power of evolutionists is not limited to fictional drawings and models. They go even further and shoot movies in which imaginary half-man half-ape creatures act. However, all of these are pure deception. The only evidence at hand is generally nothing more than a few skull fragments or a tibia. The hair, skin, nose, ears, lips, or other facial features of a living being cannot be determined from its bone remains. Evolutionists shape these soft tissues, which leave no trace in the fossil, to suit the purposes of their theory and produce imaginary reconstructions in their workshops. Earnst Hooten from Harvard University states that these drawings have no scientific value: You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public. (Earnst Hooten, Up From the Ape, 1931, p. 332) Evolutionists go so far in this subject that they can even invent very different faces for the same skull. The three entirely different reconstructions made for the fossil called Zinjantropus is a famous example showing how persistent evolutionists are in producing these false masks. Evolutionists engage not only in drawing and modeling tricks. Sometimes they commit deliberate forgeries. The most famous of these frauds is the Piltdown fossil introduced in England in 1912 by an evolutionist named Charles Dawson. This fossil was presented as the most important transitional form between ape and man and was displayed in museums for more than thirty years. Experts who reexamined the fossil in 1949 discovered that it was a forgery that had been produced by attaching an orangutan’s jaw to a human skull.
  10. 10. Another intermediate transitional form fabricated by evolutionists was the “Nebraska Man”. This was cooked up in 1922 on the basis of a single fossil tooth. The evolutionists did not neglect to give it an ostentatious Latin name–“Hesperopithecus Haroldcooki”–or to make imaginary drawings related to it. It was soon revealed that the tooth that had been the source of inspiration for Nebraska Man in fact belonged to a wild pig. Many other fossil skulls have been presented as great evidence for evolution failed one by one. Neanderthal Man was advanced as evidence in 1856, dismissed in 1960. Piltdown Man was advanced as evidence in 1912, dismissed in 1953. Hesperopithecus was advanced as evidence in 1922, dismissed in 1927. Zinjantropus was advanced as evidence in 1959, dismissed in 1960. Ramapithecus was advanced as evidence in 1964, dismissed in 1979. Despite all these facts, these skulls are still presented to the public through the media and in some evolutionist textbooks as if they were scientific facts. In many countries, an important part of the society supposes that evolution is a proven fact. A great deal of this so-called “evidence of evolution”, much of which has been dismissed by evolutionists themselves, is still presented to school-children in their textbooks where they are depicted as the ancestors of man. In fact, the truth that the evolutionists try so hard to deny and conceal is there for all to see. Species appeared all of a sudden and perfectly on the earth: that is, they were created. The Divine Creator ruling over the whole of nature created all kinds with their unique and perfect traits. That Divine Creator is Allah, the One and Only God. He is the Lord of the heavens, the earth, and all that is between them. O man! what has deluded you in respect of your Noble Lord? He Who created you and formed you and proportioned you and assembled you in whatever way He willed. (The Qur’an: 82/6-8)