HOME ABOUT THIS SITE CONTACT US
Harun Yahya - The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution in 20 Questions
The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution
in 20 Questions
   


11 WHY DOES THE FACT THAT THE EARTH IS FOUR BILLION YEARS OLD NOT SUPPORT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?

1) centriole
2) cytoplasm
3) mitochondria
4) microtubules
5) nucleus
6) vacuole
7) endoplasmic reticulum
8) lysosome
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 natural conditions.

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


Louis Pasteur

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.

Many dentists, 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 no purpose.

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


Charles Darwin

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 evolutionist assumption.

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 today."58


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 Burian.

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

Max Planck

Einstein
Newton

Galileo

Kepler

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 of creation.

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 is lame...61

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, 21: 30)

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 than creation.

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 evolution."

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.

LIVING FOSSILS

The fossil starfish on the left is 100-150 million years old. It is no different from the modern starfish above.

Today's dragonfly is exactly the same as the 135-million-year-old fossil on the left.

The shark, one of the most dangerous creatures in the sea, and the 400-million-year-old fossil below clearly show that there has been no evolutionary process.

All the fossil discoveries that have been made show that living things have undergone no evolutionary process, that they were created millions of years ago in just the same form as they are now, and that they had no evolutionary ancestors. This fact clearly shows that creation by evolution is quite out of the question.

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.

 
 
    

52. Evrim Kurami Konferansi (Conference on the Theory of Evolution), Istanbul Universitesi Fen Fakultesi (University of Istanbul, Faculty of Economics), June 3, 1998
53. Leonard M.S., 1992. Removing third molars: a review for the general practitioner. Journal of the American Dental Association, 123(2):77-82
54. M. Leff, 1993. Hold on to your wisdom teeth. Consumer reports on Health, 5(8):4-85.
55. Daily.T 1996. Third molar prophylactic extraction: a review and analysis of the literature. General Dentistry, 44(4):310-320
56. Evrim Kurami Konferansi (Conference on the Theory of Evolution), Istanbul Universitesi Fen Fakultesi (University of Istanbul, Facul†y of Science), June 3, 1998
57.http://www.icr.org/creationproducts/creationscienceproducts/Variation_and_Fixity_in_Nature.html (emphasis added)
58. David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, January 1979, p. 24
59. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859, p. 313-314, (emphasis added)
60. Derek A. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record," Proceedings of the British Geological Association, vol 87, 1976, p. 133, (emphasis added)
61. Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941, (emphasis added)
62. Max Planck, Where Is Science Going?, Allen & Unwin, 1933, p.214, (emphasis added)