us for a moment think of an aspirin; you will immediately recall the mark
in the middle. This mark is designed to help those who take a half dose.
Every product that we see around us, even if not as simple as the aspirin,
is of a certain design, from the vehicles we use to go to work, to TV
Design, in brief, means a harmonious assembling of various parts in an
orderly form designed for a common goal. Going by this definition, one
has no difficulty in guessing that a car is a design. This is because
there is a certain goal, which is to transport people and cargo. In realisation
of this goal, various parts such as the engine, tires and body are planned
and assembled in a factory.
However, what about living creatures? Can a bird and the mechanics of
its flight be a design as well? Before giving an answer, let us repeat
the evaluation we did in the example of the car. The goal, in this case,
is to fly. For this purpose, hollow, light-weight bones and the strong
breast muscles that move these bones are utilised together with feathers
capable of suspension in the air. Wings are formed aerodynamically, and
the metabolism is in tune with the bird's need for high levels of energy.
It is obvious that the bird is a product of a certain design.
If we leave aside the bird and examine other forms of life, we encounter
the same truth. In every creature, there are examples of extremely well-conceived
design. If we continue further on this quest, we discover that we ourselves
are also a part of this design. Your hands that hold these pages are functional
as no robot hands could ever be. Your eyes that read these lines are making
vision possible with such focus that the best camera on earth simply cannot
Hence one arrives at this important conclusion; all creatures in nature,
including us, are of a design. This, in turn, shows the existence of a
Creator, Who designs all creatures at will, sustains the entire creation
and holds absolute power and wisdom.
However, this truth is rejected by the theory of evolution that was formed
in the middle of the 19th century. The theory set forth in Charles Darwin's
book On the Origin of Species asserts that all creatures evolved
by chains of coincidences and mutated from one another.
According to the fundamental premise of this theory, all life forms go
through minute random changes. If these random changes improve a life
form, then it gains an advantage over the others, which in turn is carried
onto following generations.
This scenario has been passed around for 140 years as if it is very scientific
and convincing. When scrutinised under a larger microscope and when compared
against the examples of the design in creatures, Darwin's theory paints
a very different picture, i.e. Darwinism's explanation of life is nothing
more than a self-contradictory vicious circle.
Let us first focus on the random changes. Darwin could not provide a
comprehensive definition of this concept due to lack of knowledge of genetics
in his time. The evolutionists who followed him suggested the concept
of "mutation". Mutation is arbitrary disconnections, dislocations or shifts
of genes in living things. Most importantly, there is not one single mutation
in history that has been shown to improve the condition of a creature's
genetic information. Nearly all the known cases of mutations disable or
harm these creatures and the rest are neutral in effect. Therefore, to
think that a creature can improve through mutation is the same as shooting
at a crowd of people hoping that the injuries will result in healthier
improved individuals. This is clearly nonsense.
As importantly, and contrary to all the scientific data, even if one
assumes that a certain mutation could actually improve a being's condition,
Darwinism still cannot be delivered from inevitable collapse. The reason
for this is a concept called "irreducible complexity." The implication
of this concept is that the majority of systems and organs in living things
function as a result of various independent parts working together, the
elimination or disabling of even one of which would be enough to disable
the entire system or organ.
For example, an ear perceives sounds only through a sequence of smaller
organs. Take out or deform one of these, e.g. one of the bones of the
middle ear, and there would be no hearing whatsoever. In order for an
ear to perceive, a variety of components - such as external auditory canal,
tympanic membrane, bones in the middle ear, that is, the hammer, anvil
and stirrup, fluid-filled cochlea, hearing receptors or hair cells, the
cilia which help these cells to sense the vibrations, the net of nerves
that connect to the brain and hearing centre in the brain - have to work
together without exception. The system could not have developed in segments
because none of the segments could possibly function alone.
Hence, the concept of irreducible complexity demolishes the theory of
evolution at its foundations. Interestingly, Darwin also worried about
these very prospects. He wrote in On The Origin of Species:
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.1
Darwin could not, or might not have wanted to, find such an organ at
the premature levels of 19th century science. However the science of the
20th century did study nature in minute details and proved that the majority
of living structures embody irreducible complexity. Therefore, Darwin's
theory has "absolutely" collapsed just as he feared.
In this book, we are going to explore various examples of systems in
living beings that demolish Darwin's theory. These mechanisms will be
found anywhere from in the wings of a bird to inside a bat's skull. As
we examine these examples we will not only see the immense error Darwinism
makes but also witness the greatness of the wisdom with which these systems
Hence, we will see the indisputable evidence of God's flawless creation.
An Example of Irreducible Complexity: The Eye of the Lobster
There are many different types of eye in the living world. We are accustomed
to the camera-type eye found in vertebrates. This structure works on the
principle of the refraction of light, which falls onto the lens and is
focused on a point behind the lens inside the interior of the eye.
However, the eyes possessed by other creatures work by different methods.
One example is the lobster. A lobster's eye works on a principle of reflection
rather than that of refraction.
The most outstanding characteristic of the lobster eye is its surface,
which is composed of numerous squares. As shown in the picture on the
next page, these squares are positioned most precisely.
The eye of a lobster shows a remarkable geometry not
found elsewhere in nature - it has tiny facets that are perfectly square,
so it "looks like perfect graph paper."2
These well-arranged squares are in fact the ends of
tiny square tubes forming a structure resembling a honeycomb. At first
glance, the honeycomb appears to be made up of hexagons, although these
are actually the front faces of hexagonal prisms. In the lobster's eye,
there are the squares in place of hexagons.
Even more intriguing is that the sides of each one of these square tubes
are like mirrors that reflect the incoming light. This reflected light
is focused onto the retina flawlessly. The sides of the tubes inside the
eye are lodged at such perfect angles that they all focus onto a single
The extraordinary nature of the design of this system is quite indisputable.
All of these perfect square tubes have a layer that works just like a
mirror. Furthermore, each one of these cells is sited by means of precise
geometrical alignments so that they all focus the light at a single point.
It is obvious that the design in the lobster eye presents a great difficulty
for the theory of evolution. Most importantly, it exemplifies the concept
of "irreducible complexity." If even one of its features - such as the
facets of the eye, which are perfect squares, the mirrored sides of each
unit, or the retina layer at the back - were eliminated, the eye could
never function. Therefore, it is impossible to maintain that the eye evolved
step-by-step. It is scientifically unjustifiable to argue that such a
perfect design as this could have come about haphazardly. It is quite
clear that the lobster eye was created as a miraculous system.
The lobster eye is composed
of numerous squares. These well-arranged squares are in fact the
ends of tiny square tubes. The sides of each one of these square
tubes are like mirrors that reflect the incoming light. This reflected
light is focused onto the retina flawlessly. The sides of the tubes
inside the eye are lodged at such perfect angles that they all focus
onto a single point.
One can find further traits in the lobster's eye that nullify the assertions
of evolutionists. An interesting fact emerges when one looks at creatures
with similar eye structures. The reflecting eye, of which the lobster's
eye was one example, is found in only one group of crustaceans, the so-called
long-bodied decapods. This family includes the lobsters, the prawns and
other members of the crustacea class display the "refracting type eye
structure", which works on completely different principles from those
of the reflecting type. Here, the eye is made up of hundreds of cells
like a honeycomb. Unlike the square cells in a lobster eye, these cells
are either hexagonal or round. Furthermore, instead of reflecting light,
small lenses in the cells refract the light onto the focus on the retina.
The majority of crustaceans have the refracting eye structure. On the
contrary, only one group of the crustaceans, namely the long-bodied decapods,
have reflecting eyes. According to evolutionist assumptions, all the creatures
within the class Crustacea should have evolved from the same ancestor.
Therefore, evolutionists claim that reflecting eye evolved from a refracting
eye, which is far more common among the crustacea and of a fundamentally
However, such reasoning is impossible, because both eye structures function
perfectly within their own systems and have no room for any "transitional"
phase. A crustacean would be left sightless and would be eliminated by
natural selection if the refracting lens in its eye were to diminish and
be replaced by reflecting mirrored surfaces.
It is, therefore, certain that both of these eye structures were designed
and created separately. There is such superb geometric precision in these
eyes that entertaining the possibility of "coincidence" is simply ludicrous.
Just like the rest of the miracles of creation, the lobster's eye structure
is an open testimony to the Creator's boundless power to create flawlessly.
This is nothing but a manifestation of God's endless knowledge, wisdom
and might. We can encounter such miracles as these regardless of what
we examine in the world of creation.