Never Plead Ignorance that Evolution is
a Deceit and Allah Creates Everything
Reluctant to acknowledge the existence of Allah, some people advanced
a "theory of coincidences" about how life came into existence. This implausible
theory, wholly contradicting scientific evidence, suggests that all living
beings on earth came into existence as a result of random chance. However,
an examination of these groundless claims reveals that this theory brings
not one single rational explanation about "how life came into existence."
A close look at the flawless systems inherent in living beings eventually
leads us to one obvious fact: all living beings are created. All evolutionist
claims regarding the origin of life are wholly invalid. A process called
evolution has never occurred on earth. The Creator created the universe
in its unique form, and evolution is a hoax. These are the facts.
Despite the fact that all scientific and reasonable evidence pertaining
to the origin of life obviously indicates its CREATION, some people still
insistently advocate evolution. In this chapter, we will review how some
people, claiming to be adherents of science, assert such irrational claims.
We will also witness how this theory, to which people are blindly attached,
has collapsed by means of the major breakthroughs in science made in the
Never make the mistake that these people did, who are making furious
efforts to reject the existence of Allah. Never plead ignorance of the
fact that everything is the creation of Allah and that a process called
evolution never occurred on earth.
claim that living beings evolve through two main mechanisms: "Mutation"
and "Natural Selection".
According to evolutionists, a reason for evolutionary change is random
mutations occurring in the genetic structure of living beings. They claim
that consecutive little mutations create new species. Yet, mutations only
cause damage to the DNA, the structure in which all the information pertaining
to the cell is coded. The effects of mutations are always harmful and
it is implausible that mutation leads to the formation of a new species.
All the mutations that we know of that take place in humans result in
physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, albinism, dwarfism
or cancer. The people exposed to the radiation of the nuclear weapons
dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the recent past are concrete examples
of the mutations occurring in living beings due to radiation.
Natural selection holds that those living things that are more suited
to the natural conditions of their habitats will prevail by having offspring
that will survive, whereas those that are unfit will disappear. However,
this claim has no relation to any evolutionary process. Natural selection
only weeds out the weak individuals of a species and accordingly lead
to a society made up of strong individuals. In other words, natural selection
cannot produce new species.
Evolutionists are also aware of this fact. Colin Patterson, senior palaeontologist
of the Museum of Natural History in England, stresses that natural selection
has never been observed to have the power to make things evolve:
No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection.
No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism
is about this question.
So, never plead ignorance that neither of the mechanisms, behind which
evolutionists hide, are magic wands that transform living organisms into
more advanced and perfect forms.
to the theory of evolution, every living species has sprung from a predecessor.
Yet, if this was the case, then numerous intermediary species should have
existed and lived within this long period of transformation. In other
words, some half-fish, half-reptile creatures should have lived in the
past, exhibiting some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits
they already had. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which
they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms."
If such animals had really existed, there should have been millions and
even billions of them. More importantly, the remains of these strange
creatures should be present in the fossil record. Yet, to our surprise,
extensive research concluded that in the fossil records these "transitional
links" were missing. Fossil records pertaining to other living beings
are quite rich whereas not a single fossil of these imaginary beings is
So, never plead ignorance that the absence of transitional forms invalidates
to the imaginary scenario of evolutionists, some fish felt the necessity
to pass from sea to land for various reasons. Upon this need (!), some
changes occurred in the fish, transforming them in time into amphibians.
This is a brief summary of the evolutionary scenario arguing the transition
from water to land. Now, let's consider this for a moment. What happens
if fish one day decide to pass on to the land? Do fish, gradually approaching
the coast, and finally reaching the sand, have a chance of survival? The
answer is clear: fish moving on to the land would soon die. Other fish
attempting to do the same would also die. The result would still be the
same if billions of fish tried to do the same for millions of years: each
fish reaching the land would die before having the opportunity to do anything.
This is an OBVIOUS fact.
Besides, today it is scientifically shown that it is unlikely for these
living beings, differing greatly from each other anatomically and physiologically,
to have evolved from each other. There are a number of obvious facts that
render such a transition impossible.
The drawing above, the so-called transformation
of starfish into fish, is a mere figment of imagination. There
are numerous fossils both of the starfish and fish seen in this
arrangement, yet, the imaginary creature that is half starfish,
half fish is only a drawing. These drawings of alleged transitional
forms have no evidence in the fossil record.
1. Carrying weight: land-dwelling creatures
consume 40% of their energy just carrying their bodies around. Sea-dwelling
creatures, however, have no problem in carrying their own weights. Land-dwelling
and sea-dwelling creatures have completely different muscular and skeletal
systems and hence are perfectly adapted to their environments.
2. Retention of heat: a land-dwelling creature
has a bodily mechanism that can withstand great temperature fluctuations
on land. However, in the sea, the temperature changes slowly and the change
does not occur within such a wide range. That is why the metabolisms of
land-dwelling and sea-dwelling creatures differ greatly. The chance that
such a transition occurs coincidentally is truly unlikely.
3. Use of Water: essential to metabolism,
water and moisture need to be used restrictively due to scarce sources
of water on land. For instance, the skin is designed to permit loss of
water to a certain extent while also preventing excessive evaporation.
Land-dwelling creatures have a sense of thirst, something that sea-dwelling
organisms do not have. Besides, the skins of sea-creatures are not suitable
for a non-aquatic habitat.
4. Kidneys: sea-creatures can easily
discharge waste materials in their bodies by filtering them, since there
is plenty of water in their habitat. However, on land water has to be
used economically. This is why land creatures have a kidney system. It
is improbable that the kidney, a complex structure, comes into existence
What happens to a fish if one day it crosses on to the land?
This is surely something that is imagined by people without
giving it thought. Claiming that a fish remained on land for
decades without dying and one day decided to live as a reptile
is surely unreasonable and unscientific.
5. Respiratory System: fish breathe by
taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills.
Land-dwelling animals, on the other hand, have a complete lung system.
Fish have always been fish and reptiles have
always been reptiles. So, never plead ignorance of the fact that fish
can never evolve into snakes or lizards, and that such a scenario can
only be narrated in stories.
to explain how the perfect structure of bird feathers occurred, evolutionists
claim that birds evolved from reptiles. This is surely a groundless claim.
The fossil record reveals that birds have always been birds and reptiles
have always been reptiles.
Due to several physiological and anatomical differences, such a transition
is implausible. To cite a few examples;
- Birds have a totally different lung structure from reptiles.
- Their skeletal structure is totally different from reptiles; for instance
the bones of birds are lighter than the bones of reptiles.
- Birds have feathers, whereas reptiles are covered with scales.
In brief, the scenarios that the forelegs of a reptile transformed into
wings and that then they started flying has no scientific basis whatsoever.
Never plead ignorance of the fact that a reptile can never transform into
An imaginary drawing: dinosaurs that suddenly took wing while
trying to catch flies.
fact invalidates the theory of evolution. Evolutionists fail to bring
an explanation of how life originated on earth.
All living beings are made up of cells. For instance, there are 100 trillion
cells in a human organism. Proteins are the basic building blocks of the
cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of but one single protein,
out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell,
is not possible.
Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called "amino-acids",
the simplest of which is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are some
that are composed of thousands of amino acids. The crucial point is that
the absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino in the structure
of a protein would transform it into a useless molecular heap. Every amino
acid has to be at the right place and in the right order.
The fact that the functional structure of proteins absolutely cannot
come about by chance can easily be understood even from simple probability
calculations that anybody can understand.
An average sized protein molecule is composed of 288 amino acids of which
there are twelve different types. These can be arranged in 10300 different
ways. In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein
molecule is "1 out of 10300 ". The probability of this "1" to occur is
therefore practically impossible.
So, never plead ignorance of the fact that it is implausible for proteins,
the building blocks of the cell, to occur through chance and that consequently
life could not have originated as alleged by evolutionists.
the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible,
it is billions of times more impossible for about one million of those
proteins to come together properly by chance and make up a complete human
Robert Shapiro, professor of chemistry at New York University
and a DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation
of the 200 types of proteins found in single bacteria. (There are 200,000
different types of proteins in a human cell) The number that was found
was 1 over 1040.000. 1
A professor of applied mathematics and astronomy from University College
(Cardiff, Wales), Chandra Wickramasinghe, comments on this incredible
The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life
from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40.000 noughts after it…
it is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There
was no primeval soup, either on this planet or on any other, and if
the beginning of life was not by chance, it must therefore have been
the creation of purposeful intelligence.2
So, never plead ignorance of the fact that
even a single bacteria could not have come into existence coincidentally
or by accident. That implies the collapse of the theory of evolution.
Is it probable that all the information compiled in thousands
of books in a library is written by chance? The answer is "No".
So, it is evident that DNA, the molecule in which all the information
of a living being is stored, cannot come into existence by chance.
molecule called DNA, which is found in the nucleus of each of the 100
trillion cells in our body, contains the complete construction plan of
the human body. Information regarding all characteristics of a person,
from physical appearance to the structure of the internal organs, is encoded
in the DNA by means of a special system. If we were to write down the
information encoded in DNA, then we would need to compile a giant library
consisting of 900 encyclopædic volumes of 500 pages each.
This incredibly voluminous information is encoded in the components of
DNA called "genes". At this point, there is an important detail that deserves
attention. An error in the sequence of nucleotides making up a gene would
render the gene completely useless. When we consider that there are 200
thousand genes in the human body, it becomes more evident how impossible
it is for the millions of nucleotides making up these genes to be formed
in the right sequence by coincidence.
So, never plead ignorance of the fact that this complex structure of
DNA is a special design. This is concrete evidence that DNA is created
assert that all living beings evolved from the primitive forms to the
advanced. According to this groundless assertion, human beings, too, evolved
from half-man, half-ape beings called "primitive human beings". However,
today we know that there is not a concept of "primitive man." Men have
always been men and apes have always been apes. This is a fact that has
been proved. Fossils, alleged to be the ancestors of men, belong to human
races that lived until very recently - about 10,000 years ago - and then
disappeared. Moreover, many human communities currently living have the
same physical appearance and characteristics as these extinct human races,
which the evolutionists claim to be pre-human ancestors of men.
WHAT HAPPENS TO A CAR LEFT IN THE DESERT
FOR A DECADE?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is accepted as one of
the basic laws of physics, holds that under normal conditions,
all systems left on their own will tend to become disordered,
dispersed, and corrupted to an extent that is in direct relation
to the amount of time that passes. In our daily lives, we also
observe that everything, animate or inanimate, wears out, deteriorates,
decays, disintegrates, and is destroyed. For instance, if we
leave a car in the desert and then check up on it after months,
we would hardly expect to find it in a better condition. On
the contrary, we would find that its tyres were flat, its windows
broken, its chassis rusted and its motor non-functional. The
theory of evolution, however, says that disordered, dispersed,
and lifeless atoms and molecules spontaneously come together
in time in a certain order and plan to form extremely complex
structures. This is another contradictory and unscientific point
of view of evolutionary theory.
There are numerous anatomical differences between
apes and men and none of them are of the kind to come into existence through
an evolutionary process. This is an OBVIOUS fact.
A few examples indicating this are the following:
In 1995, an 800 thousand-year-old human face fossil was found in Atapuerca,
Spain. This fossil is important in the sense that it is no different from
modern man. This reveals an undeniable fact: the human beings who lived
800,000 years ago and modern man are the same.
- An item published in New Scientist on March 14th 1998 tells us that
humans called by evolutionists Homo Erectus were practising seamanship
700 thousand years ago. These humans who had enough knowledge and technology
to build a vessel and possess a culture that made use of sea transport,
can hardly be called primitive.
- Near Lake Turkana, Kenya,
a fossil of a child with an upright skeletal structure has been found
which is no different from that of modern man. Concerning this fossil
of a Homo Erectus specimen, paleoanthropologists share a common view.
American paleontologist Alan Walker stated that he doubted that "the average
pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and
that of a modern human."3
An item published in the New Scientist
on March 14th 1998 tells us that the species called by evolutionists
Homo Erectus were practising seamanship 700 thousand years ago.
- Neanderthals were a human race yet evolutionists
present them as "a primitive species." Nevertheless, all findings, including
a sewing needle fossil dated 26 thousand years belonging to this race
testify that Neanderthals, ten thousands of years ago, had knowledge of
Never plead ignorance of the fact that these men, who lived hundreds
of thousands of years ago, practised seamanship and had knowledge of clothing,
and had a skeletal structure no different from modern man, are presented
as "primitive men" and that these efforts are vain.
the origin of man, evolutionists arrange ape-like "transitional forms"
and call the resulting sequence "the imaginary family tree of man." According
to evolutionists, the origin of man was from an ape who later acquired
the traits of man.
This family tree of man is completely imaginary. To have a better understanding
of the imaginary nature of this arrangement, it is sufficient to examine
evolutionists' alleged basis for this story.
"Turkana Boy" fossil that belongs to
the Homo Erectus race. Almost no different from modern man.
Sometimes a skull, jaw-bone or single tooth has been the spark of inspiration
for evolutionists to arrange these "transitional forms." Relying on a
bone, it is nevertheless not possible to picture the physical appearance
of a living being, and certainly not the family tree of the same living
being. That is however exactly what evolutionists dare to do. Relying
on a single bone, they put forth imaginary yet quite detailed scenarios
about living beings and from them form family trees.
Apart from these imaginary family trees, evolutionists develop incomprehensible
scenarios from a single bone. For instance, pictures of ape-like men with
their ape-like spouses and children sitting next to a fire have been published
in various publications for decades. These publications are all products
of evolutionists' subjective interpretation. This is the way to indoctrinate
people into believing the existence of half-ape, half-human creatures
in history. Detailed pictures depicting these imaginary creatures walking
with their families, hunting, or in other moments of their daily lives
are surely figments of the imagination and have no counterpart in the
So far, we have examined that the theory of evolution has no scientific
ground. Yet, there is another fact that is more obvious than the rest.
This OBVIOUS fact is the following:
The living being we call "the human being" is a composition of atoms
of phosphate, magnesium, carbon and calcium, among others. These atoms
have no individual will or conscience. Yet, to our surprise, these inanimate
atoms come together to form a living human being. Moreover, this "composition
of atoms" decided to attend a university, make a career and become, say,
a professor. This professor, made up of atoms, decided to be an expert
on microbiology and examine his own cell structure under the electron
microscope. He may have decided to become an expert on medicine and treat
diseases caused by viruses, also made up of atoms.
This is what evolutionists assert. They know exactly that the atom has
no consciousness, yet, they further claim that atoms are assembled into
beings which have feelings and which think.
Man is a being who has will and consciousness. He takes decisions, speaks
and arrives at conclusions. All these features and functions of the "soul"
make man different.
Never PLEAD IGNORANCE of the fact that even if all the parts making up
a person could come together coincidentally, such a heap of atoms would
not form the "spirit."