11 WHY DOES THE FACT THAT
THE EARTH IS FOUR BILLION YEARS OLD NOT SUPPORT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?
7) endoplasmic reticulum
9) golgi apparaturs
There are serious doubts concerning evolutionists' reason and
judgement, as they believe that the living cell, which cannot
be synthesised in the most modern laboratories with the most sophisticated
technology, could have come about in primitive and uncontrolled
EVOLUTIONISTS base their scenarios on natural effects and chance. One
of the concepts they most shelter behind while doing so is that of "considerable
time." For instance, the German scientist Ernst Haeckel, who supported
Darwin, claimed that a living cell could originate from simple mud.
With the realisation in the twentieth century of how complex the living
cell actually is, the silliness of that claim became apparent, but evolutionists
continued to mask the truth with the "considerable time" concept.
By doing this, they are trying to free themselves
from the problem by plunging it into a quandary instead of answering
the question of how life could have come about by chance. By giving
the impression that the passage of a long period of time could be useful
from the point of view of the emergence of life and increase in variety,
they present time as something that is always beneficial. For example,
the Turkish evolutionist Professor Yaman Örs says: "If you want to test
the theory of evolution, place an appropriate mixture into water, wait
a few million years, and you will see that some cells emerge."52
This claim is utterly illogical. There is no evidence to suggest that
such a thing could happen. The idea that animate matter could emerge
from inanimate is actually a superstition dating back to the Middle
Ages. At that time, people assumed that the sudden appearance of some
living things was the result of "spontaneous generation." According
to this belief, people considered that geese emerged from trees, lambs
from watermelons, and even tadpoles from patches of water formed in
clouds, falling to Earth as rain. In the 1600s, people began to believe
that mice could be born in a mixture of wheat and a dirty piece of cloth,
and that flies formed when dead flies were mixed with honey.
However, the Italian scientist Francesco Redi, proved that mice did
not form in a mixture of wheat and a dirty piece of cloth, nor living
flies from a mixture of dead flies and honey. These living things did
not originate from those lifeless substances, they merely used them
as vehicles. For example, a living fly would deposit its eggs on a dead
one, and a short while later a number of new flies would emerge. In
other words, life emerged from life, not inanimate matter. In the nineteenth
century, French scientist Louis Pasteur proved that germs did not come
from inanimate matter, too. This law, that "life only comes from life,"
is one of the bases of modern biology.
The fact that the peculiar claims we have been discussing above were
actually believed may be excused on the grounds of the lack of knowledge
of seventeenth century scientists, bearing in mind the conditions at
the time. Nowadays, however, at a time when science and technology have
progressed so far, and the fact that life cannot emerge from inanimate
matter has been demonstrated by experiment and observation, it is really
surprising that evolutionists such as Yaman Örs should still be defending
such a claim.
Modern scientists have demonstrated many times that it is impossible
for that claim to actually happen. They have carried out controlled
experiments in the most advanced laboratories, reproducing the conditions
at the time when life first emerged, but these have all been in vain.
When phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, oxygen, iron, and carbon atoms,
which are all essential for life, are brought together, all that emerges
is a mass of inanimate matter. Evolutionists, however, suggest that
a mass of atoms came together and organised themselves, over time, in
the ideal proportions, at the appropriate time and place, and with all
the necessary links between them. They further claim that as a result
of the perfect organization of these inanimate atoms, and the fact that
all these processes went ahead undisturbed, there duly emerged human
beings capable of seeing, hearing, speaking, feeling, laughing, rejoicing,
suffering, feeling pain and joy, laughing, loving, feeling compassion,
perceiving musical rhythms, enjoying food, founding civilisations, and
carrying out scientific research.
However, it is perfectly clear that even if all the conditions evolutionists
insist on are realised, and even if millions of years are allowed to
pass, such an experiment will be doomed to failure.
Evolutionists try to conceal this fact, however, with deceptive explanations
such as "All things are possible with time." The invalidity of this
claim, which is based on introducing an element of bluff into science,
is also obvious. This invalidity can be quite clearly seen when the
subject is considered from different points of view. In one simple example,
let us consider when the passing of time is useful, and when it is harmful.
Imagine, if you will, a wooden boat on the seashore, and a captain who
at first maintains that boat, repairing, cleaning, and painting it.
As long as the captain takes an interest in it, the boat will become
ever more attractive, safe, and well-maintained.
It is not possible for a car left
all alone in natural conditions to turn into a more developed
model with the passage of time. On the contrary, the bodywork
will rust, the paint will fall off, the windows will break, and
it will soon turn into a heap of scrap. The same inevitable process
occurs even faster in organic molecules and living things.
Then let us imagine that the boat is left abandoned. This time, the
effects of the sun, rain, wind, sand, and storms will cause the boat
to decay, age, and eventually become unusable.
The only difference between these two scenarios is that in the former
there is an intelligent, knowledgeable, and powerful intervention. The
passing of time can only bring benefits with it when it is controlled
by an intelligent force. If it is not, time has destructive effects,
not constructive ones. In fact, this is a scientific law. The law of
entropy, known as the "Second Law of Thermodynamics," states that all
systems in the universe tend directly towards disorder, dispersion,
and decay when left to themselves and to natural conditions.
This fact demonstrates that the long life of the Earth is a factor
that destroys knowledge and order and increases chaos-the exact opposite
of what evolutionists claim. The emergence of an ordered system based
on knowledge can only be the product of an intelligent intervention.
When the proponents of evolution relate the fairy tale of the transformation
of one species into another, they take refuge in the idea of it happening
"over a long period of time." In that way, they propose that things
somehow happened in the past which have never been confirmed by any
experiment or observation. However, everything in the world and in the
universe happens in accordance with fixed laws. These do not change
over time. For example, things fall to Earth because of the force of
gravity. They do not start to fall upwards with the passage of time.
Neither will they do so even if trillions of years go by. Lizard offspring
are always lizards. That is because the genetic information to be passed
on is always that of a lizard, and no supplementary information can
be added to it with natural causes. Information may diminish, or even
decay, but it is quite impossible for anything to be added to it. That,
in turn, is because the adding of information to a system requires knowledgeable
and intelligent external intervention and control. Nature itself does
not possess such properties.
Repetitions that occur over time, and the fact that they take place
often, change nothing. Even if trillions of years are allowed to go
by, a bird will never hatch out of a lizard's egg. A long lizard may,
or a short one-a stronger one or a weaker one-but it will always be
a lizard. A different species will never emerge. The concept of "a considerable
time" is a deception designed to take the matter out of the realm of
experiment and observation. It makes no difference whether 4 billion
years go by, or 40, or even 400. That is because there is no natural
law or tendency to make the impossibilities described in the theory
of evolution actually possible.
12 WHY ARE WISDOM TEETH
NOT EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION?
ONE of the theory of evolution's important deceptions is its claim
regarding "vestigial organs." Evolutionists claim that some organs in
living things lose their original function over time, and that such
organs then disappear. Taking that as a starting point, they then try
to send out the message, "If the living body had really been created,
it would have no functionless organs in it."
Evolutionist publications at the start of the twentieth century announced
that the human body contained up to a hundred organs that no longer
served any purpose, including the appendix, the coccyx, the tonsils,
the pineal gland, the external ear, the thymus, and wisdom teeth. However,
the decades that followed saw major advances in medical science. Our
knowledge of the organs and systems in the human body increased. As
a result of this, it was seen that the idea of vestigial organs was
just a superstition. The long list drawn up by evolutionists rapidly
shrank. It was discovered that the thymus is an organ which produces
important immune system cells, and that the pineal gland is responsible
for the production of important hormones. It also emerged that the coccyx
supports the bones around the pelvis, and that the external ear plays
an important role in identifying where sounds come from. In short, it
emerged that ignorance was the only foundation on which the idea of
"vestigial organs" rested.
Wisdom tooth problems stem from the
contemporary diet, not because they are vestigial organs
Modern science has many times demonstrated the error of the concept
of such organs. Yet some evolutionists still try to make use of this
claim. Although medical science has proved that almost all of the organs
that evolutionists claim are vestigial actually serve a purpose, evolutionary
speculation still surrounds one or two organs.
The most noteworthy of these is our wisdom teeth. The claim that these
teeth are a part of the human body that has lost all purpose still appears
in evolutionist sources. As evidence for this, it is stated that these
teeth give a great many people a lot of trouble, and that chewing is
not impaired when they are surgically removed.
influenced by the evolutionists' claim that wisdom teeth serve no purpose,
have come to see their extraction as a routine matter, and do not make
the same kind of effort to protect them as they do for other teeth.53
However, research in recent years has shown that wisdom teeth have the
same chewing function as other teeth. Studies have also been carried
out to show that the belief that wisdom teeth damage the position of
other teeth in the mouth is completely unfounded.54
Scientific criticism is now amassing ways in which problems with wisdom
teeth which could be solved in other ways are instead solved by extracting
them.55 In fact, the scientific consensus is that
wisdom teeth have a chewing function just like all the others, and that
there is no scientific justification for the belief that they serve
So, why do wisdom teeth cause a substantial number of people problems?
Scientists who have researched the subject have discovered that wisdom
tooth difficulties have manifested themselves in different ways among
human communities at different times. It is now understood that the
problem was seldom seen in pre-industrial societies. It has been discovered
that the way in which soft foodstuffs have come to be preferred to harder
ones, over the last few hundred years in particular, has negatively
affected the way the human jaw develops. It has thus been realised that
most wisdom tooth troubles emerge as a result of jaw development problems
relating to dietary habits.
It is also known that society's nutritional habits also have negative
effects on our other teeth. For instance, the increasing consumption
of foodstuffs high in sugar and acid has increased the rate that other
teeth decay. However, that fact does not make us think that all our
teeth have somehow "atrophied." The same principle applies to wisdom
teeth. Problems with these teeth stem from contemporary dietary customs,
not from any evolutionary "atrophy."
13 HOW DO THE COMPLEX
STRUCTURES OF THE MOST ANCIENT CREATURES DEMOLISH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?
LIVING things form a chain in the fossil record. When we look at these
from the oldest to the more recent, they emerge in the form of micro
organisms, invertebrate sea creatures, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds,
and mammals. Proponents of the theory of evolution describe this chain
in a prejudiced manner, and try to present it as proof of the theory
of evolution. They claim that living things developed from simple to
complex forms, and that during this process a wide variety in living
species came about. For example, evolutionists suggest that the fact
that no human fossils are to be found when 300-million-year-old fossil
beds are examined is in some way proof of this. The Turkish evolutionist
Professor Aykut Kence says:
A trilobite fossil.
Do you wish to invalidate the theory of evolution?
Then go and find some human fossils from the Cambrian Age! Anyone who
does that will disprove the theory of evolution, and even win the Nobel
Prize for his discovery.56
Development from the primitive to the complex
is an imaginary concept
Let us examine the evolutionist logic that pervades
Professor Kence's words. The statement that living things developed
from primitive forms to complex ones is an evolutionist prejudice that
in no way reflects the truth. The American professor of biology Frank
L. Marsh, who considered that evolutionist claim, maintains in his book
Variation and Fixity in Nature, that living things cannot be arranged
in a continuous, unbroken series from simple to complex.57
The fact that almost all known animal phyla suddenly emerged in the
Cambrian period is strong evidence against evolutionist claims in this
regard. Furthermore, those creatures which suddenly emerged possessed
complex bodily structures, not simple ones-the exact opposite of the
Trilobites belonged to the Arthropoda phylum, and
were very complicated creatures with hard shells, articulated bodies,
and complex organs. The fossil record has made it possible to carry
out very detailed studies of trilobites' eyes. The trilobite eye is
made up of hundreds of tiny facets, and each one of these contains two
lens layers. This eye structure is a real wonder of design. David Raup,
a professor of geology at 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 engineer to develop
In Darwin's time, the Cambrian Age was included
in the Silurian Age, and Darwin remained silent in the face of the
complex structures of the living things that suddenly emerged at
that time. In the succeeding 150 years, Darwinism's dilemma on this
matter has grown even greater. Above: The Silurian Age by Zdenek
Another interesting aspect of the matter is that flies in our day
possess the same eye structure. In other words, the same structure has
existed for the last 520 million years.
The Origin of Species
Very little was known about this extraordinary situation in the Cambrian
Age when Charles Darwin was writing The Origin of Species. Only since
Darwin's time has the fossil record revealed that life suddenly emerged
in the Cambrian Age, and that trilobites and other invertebrates came
into being all at once. For this reason, Darwin was unable to treat
the subject fully in the book. But he did touch on the subject under
the heading "On the sudden appearance of groups of allied species in
the lowest known fossiliferous strata," where he wrote the following
about the Silurian Age (a name which at that time encompassed what we
now call the Cambrian):
For instance, I cannot doubt that all the Silurian
trilobites have descended from some one crustacean, which must have
lived long before the Silurian age, and which probably differed greatly
from any known animal… Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable
that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods
elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval
from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast,
yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.
To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial
periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.59
The number of chromosomes is not
directly related to the complex structures of living things. This
is a fact that invalidates the claims of the theory of evolution.
Darwin said "If my theory be true, it is indisputable that the world
swarmed with living creatures before the Silurian Age." As for the question
of why there were no fossils of these creatures, he tried to supply
an answer throughout his book, using the excuse that "the fossil record
is very lacking." But nowadays the fossil record is quite complete,
and it clearly reveals that creatures from the Cambrian Age did not
have ancestors. This means that we have to reject that sentence of Darwin's
which begins "If my theory be true." Darwin's hypotheses were invalid,
and for that reason, his theory is mistaken.
Another example demonstrating that life did not develop from primitive
forms to complex ones and that life was already exceedingly complex
from the moment when it first emerged is the shark, which the fossil
record shows to have emerged some 400 million years ago. This animal
possesses superior features not even seen in animals created millions
of years after it, such as the way it can regenerate lost teeth. Another
example is the astonishing resemblances between mammals' eyes and those
of octopuses which lived on Earth millions of years before mammals.
These examples make it clear that living species cannot be neatly
arranged from the primitive to the complex.
This fact also emerged as the result of analyses of studies of living
things' forms, functions, and genes. For instance, when we examine the
very lowest levels of the fossil record from the point of view of shape
and size, we see many creatures that were much larger than those which
came later (such as dinosaurs).
When we look at the functional properties of living things, we see
exactly the same thing. As regards structural development, the ear is
an example that disproves the claim of "development from the primitive
to the complex." Amphibians possess a middle-ear space, yet reptiles,
which emerged after them, have a much simpler system, based on a single
small bone, and have no middle-ear space at all.
Genetic studies have produced similar results. Research has demonstrated
that the number of chromosomes has no relation to animals' complexity.
For example, human beings possess 46 chromosomes, the copepode six,
and the microscopic creature called radiolaria exactly 800.
Living things were created at the most
"appropriate" time for them
The real fact that emerges from examination of the fossil record is
that living things emerged in the periods most suitable for them. God
has designed all creatures superbly, and has made them well-suited to
meet their needs at the times when they emerged on the Earth.
Let us consider one example of this: the Earth at the time when the
oldest bacteria fossils emerge, some 3.5 billion years ago. Atmospheric
and temperature conditions at the time were not at all suited to support
complex creatures or human beings. That also applies to the Cambrian
Age, the finding of human fossils from which, according to the evolutionist
Kence, would invalidate the theory of evolution. This period, which
refers to some 530 million years ago, was definitely unsuitable for
human life. (There were no land animals at all at that time.)
The situation is the same in the great majority of succeeding periods.
Examination of the fossil record shows that conditions able to support
human life have only existed for the last few million years. The same
applies to all other living things. Each living group emerged when the
appropriate conditions for it had been arrived at-in other words, "when
the time was right."
Evolutionists make an enormous contradiction in the face of that fact,
trying to explain it as if these appropriate conditions themselves had
created living things, whereas the coming about of "appropriate conditions"
only meant that the right time had come. Living things can only emerge
with a conscious intervention-in other words, a supernatural creation.
For this reason, the emergence of living things by stages is evidence
not of evolution, but of the infinite knowledge and wisdom of God, Who
created them. Every living group created established the appropriate
conditions for the next group to emerge, and an ecological balance with
all living things was set up for us over a long period of time.
On the other hand, we must be aware that this long period of time is
only long to us. For God it is but a single "moment." Time is a concept
that only applies to created things. As the creator of time itself,
God is not bound by it. (For more details see Harun Yahya: Timelessness
and the Reality of Fate.)
If evolutionists wish to show that one species turned
into another, then showing that living things emerged step by step on
the Earth is no good. The evidence they have to come up with is fossils
of the intermediate forms that link these different species together.
A theory that maintains that invertebrates turned into fish, fish into
reptiles, and reptiles into birds and mammals has to find the fossils
to prove it. Darwin accepted that, and wrote that countless examples
of these would have to be found, even though none were so far available.
In the 150 years that have passed since then, no intermediate forms
have been found. As the evolutionist paleontologist Derek W. Ager has
admitted, the fossil record shows "not gradual evolution, but the sudden
explosion of one group at the expense of another."60
In conclusion, natural history reveals that living things did not come
about by chance, but that they were created, stage by stage, over long
periods over time. This is in complete agreement with the information
about creation given in the Qur'an, in which God reveals that he created
the universe and all living things in "six days":
God is He Who created the heavens and the Earth
and everything between them in six days and then established Himself
firmly upon the Throne. You have no protector or intercessor apart from
Him. So will you not pay heed? (Qur'an, 32: 4)
The word "day" in the verse (yawm in Arabic) also means a long period
of time. In other words, the Qur'an notes that all of nature was created
over different times, not all at once. Modern geological discoveries
paint a picture that confirms this.
14 WHY IS DENYING THE
THEORY OF EVOLUTION PORTRAYED AS REJECTING DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRESS?
Leonardo Da Vinci
THE word "evolution" has been used in several senses in recent times.
A social aspect has been added to it, for instance, and the word has
come to mean human progress and technological development. There is
nothing wrong with the concept of "evolution" when it is used in this
sense. There is no doubt that man will use his intelligence, knowledge,
and strength to develop over time. The sum of human knowledge will grow
from generation to generation. In the same way that this is not evidence
for the theory of evolution itself, which seeks to explain the emergence
of life by chance, neither does it conflict in any way with the fact
Yet evolutionists engage in a facile word game here, and confuse a
true concept with a false one. For example, it is true to state that
"On account of man's long years of living as a social being, his knowledge,
culture, and technology are in a constant state of development." (We
must remember, however, that there can be regression over time as well
as progress. Sociologically speaking, there have been times of progress,
as well as times of stagnation and regression.) However, the claim that
"In the same way as man has developed and progressed, living species
have also advanced and changed over time" is completely false. Although
it is perfectly logical and scientific to say that, as a thinking being,
man's knowledge has increased and been passed on to subsequent generations,
allowing constant progress, it is utterly senseless to claim that living
species developed and evolved by chance and coincidence, in accordance
with uncontrolled and unconscious natural conditions.
The greatest names in the advancement of
science were all creationists
No matter how much evolutionists try to identify themselves with concepts
such as innovation and progress, history has shown that the real initiators
of innovation and progress have always been faithful scientists who
have believed in divine creation.
We see the mark of such believing scientists at every point of scientific
progress. Leonardo da Vinci, Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, who opened
a new era in astronomy, Cuvier, the founder of paleontology, Linnaeus,
the founder of the modern classification system for plants and animals,
Isaac Newton, the discoverer of the law of gravity, Edwin Hubble, who
discovered the existence of the galaxies and the expansion of the universe,
and many others have believed in God and that life and the universe
were created by Him.
One of the greatest scientists of the twentieth century,
Albert Einstein, said:
I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.
The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion
The German Max Planck, who laid the foundations of
modern physics, said:
Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind
realises that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science
are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the
scientist cannot dispense with.62
The history of science reveals that change and progress have been the
work of creationist scientists. On the other hand, of course, scientific
developments in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries especially
have allowed us to come by countless pieces of evidence of creation.
Modern science and technology have allowed us to discover the fact that
the universe came into being from nothing, in other words that it was
"created." It is a fact accepted by the whole scientific world that
the universe came into being and developed as a result of the explosion
of one single point. In this way, the model of the infinite universe,
with no beginning or end, maintained by materialists under the primitive
scientific conditions of the nineteenth century has been destroyed.
It has been realised that the universe was created, as it says in the
Qur'an, and that it has a beginning and frontiers and has expanded over
time. The Qur'an expresses this fact thus:
Do those who disbelieve not see that the heavens
and the Earth were sewn together and then We unstitched them and that
We made from water every living thing? So will they not believe? (Qur'an,
It is We Who have built the universe with (Our
Creative) power, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it.
(Qur'an, 51: 47)
It was again twentieth century scientific progress that allowed us
to discover more evidence of the design in life. The electron microscope
revealed the structure of the cell, the smallest unit of life, as well
as the parts that comprise it. The discovery of DNA demonstrated the
infinite intelligence in the cell. Biochemical and physiological advances
have shown the flawless workings at the molecular level of the body,
and its superior design which cannot be explained by anything other
As opposed to all this, it was the primitive state of science 150 years
ago that prepared the ground for the formation of the theory of evolution.
In conclusion, it is impossible to consider those who believe in creation,
and who constantly provide new evidence of it, as being opposed to progress,
development, and science. On the contrary, such people are their greatest
supporters. Those who actually oppose progress are those who turn their
backs on all the scientific evidence and defend the theory of evolution,
which is nothing but an unsubstantiated fantasy.
15 WHY IS IT MISTAKEN
TO THINK THAT GOD COULD HAVE CREATED LIVING THINGS BY EVOLUTION?
The Qur'an contains not one verse
about creation being based on evolution.
WHILE it has been scientifically proven that the magnificent design
apparent in all living and non-living things in the universe could not
have come about by the blind forces of nature and chance, some people
nevertheless claim that there is indeed a Creator, but that He created
life through an evolutionary process.
It is evident that God, the Almighty, created the whole universe and
life. It is His decision whether creation should be instantaneous or
by stages. We can only understand how it happened by means of the information
God has given us (in other words, from the verses of the Qur'an), and
the scientific evidence apparent in nature.
When we look at these two sources, we see no case for "creation by
God has revealed many verses in the Qur'an which deal with the creation
of man, life, and the universe. None of these verses contains any information
about creation through evolution. In other words, not one verse indicates
that living things came about by evolving from one another. On the contrary,
it is revealed in those verses that life and the universe were brought
into being by God's command "Be!"
Scientific discoveries have also revealed that "creation by means of
evolution" is out of the question. The fossil record shows that different
species emerged not by evolving from one another, but independently,
suddenly, and with all their individual structures. In other words,
creation is different for every species.
If there were such a thing as "creation by means of evolution," we
should be able to see the proof of it today. God has created everything
in a particular order, within a framework of causes and laws. For instance,
it is most certainly God Who makes ships float on water. However, when
we look for the cause of this, we see that it is the creation of the
supporting power of water. It is nothing other than the might of God
that allows birds to fly. In fact, when we examine how it happens, we
find the laws of aerodynamics. For this reason, if life had been created
by a process of various stages, there would obviously be systems that
provide the laws and advances in genetics to explain it. Furthermore,
other physical, chemical, and biological laws would be known. There
would be proof from laboratory research to show that one living species
could turn into another. Yet again, it should be possible thanks to
that research to develop enzymes, hormones, and similar molecules that
a species lacks in order to bring advantages to it. In addition, it
would be possible to create new organelles and structures that the living
thing in question had never possessed before.
Lobster fossils from the Ordovician
Age: they are no different from living lobsters. (right) 110-million-year-old
fish fossils from the Santana fossil bed in Brazil. (left)
Laboratory studies would be able to show examples of creatures that
had been mutated and actually benefited from the process. We would furthermore
see that these mutations could be passed on to subsequent generations
and actually become a part of the species. Then again, there would be
millions of fossils of intermediate forms that had lived in the past,
and there would be living things in our time that had not yet completed
their transition processes. In short, there should be countless examples
of such a process.
However, there is not a single piece of evidence that one species transmutates
into another. As we have already seen, fossil data show that living
species emerged all at once, with no ancestors behind them. In the same
way as this fact destroys the theory of evolution, which claims that
life came about by chance, it also shows the scientific invalidity of
the claim that God brought life into being and then it evolved by stages.
God created living things in a supernatural way, by the single command
"Be!" Modern science confirms this fact, and proves that living things
emerged suddenly on the Earth.
Those who support the idea that "It is possible that God created living
things by means of evolution" are actually trying to build "reconciliation"
between creation and Darwinism. They are making a fundamental mistake,
however. They are missing the basic logic of Darwinism and the kind
of philosophy it serves. Darwinism does not consist of the concept of
the transmutation of species. It is actually an attempt to explain the
origin of living species by material factors alone. To put it another
way, it tries to gain acceptance for the claim that living things are
the product of nature, by giving it a scientific veneer. There can be
no "common ground" between that naturalistic philosophy and a belief
in God. It is a grave error in an effort to seek to find such common
ground, to cede ground to Darwinism, and to agree with the false claim
that it is a scientific theory. As 150 years of history have shown,
Darwinism is the backbone of materialist philosophy and atheism, and
no search for common ground will ever change the fact.