The November edition of National Geographic magazine
(NG) posed the question "Was Darwin Wrong?" on its front cover.
Natural scientist David Quammen, author of the article by the same name,
replied "No" to that question from his own perspective, and claimed that
Darwin's theory of evolution was today backed up by powerful scientific
evidence. Quammen repeated the main claims from Darwin's book The
Origin of Species, but overlooked one important detail.
Darwin added another chapter to his book, one called "Difficulties
on Theory," and openly admitted the existence of difficulties in these
Such is the sum of the several chief objections and difficulties
which may justly be urged against my theory… I have felt these difficulties
far too heavily during many years to doubt their weight. 1
The fact is, however, that the NG article discussed
not one of the phenomena that Darwin regarded as a problem for his theory,
and even ignored their existence. For example, although Darwin referred
in his book to the way the fossil record failed to back up his theory
and to the complexity in the eye, NG magazine did not even touch
on such subjects which the theory of evolution is unable to account for
as the Cambrian Explosion, biological complexity and the origin of genetic
Quammen, who thus appears to be more of a Darwinist than
Darwin himself, emerged as the defender not of a theory that can account
for difficulties, but of a "dogma" that needs to be shielded from criticism.
In this article, Quammen's so-called evidence is analysed
and the Darwinist propaganda embarked on by NG magazine refuted.
An Example of NG Turkey's Dogmatic Stance
The English language edition of the NG article "Was
Darwin Wrong?" also devoted space to Harun Yahya's works about the theory
of evolution. In the section describing worldwide reactions against evolution
the following words appeared in reference to Harun Yahya:
Their discomfort is paralleled by Islamic creationists
such as Harun Yahya, author of a recent volume titled The Evolution
Deceit, who points to the six-day creation story in the Koran as literal
truth and calls the theory of evolution "nothing but a deception imposed
on us by the dominators of the world system."
Interestingly though, Harun Yahya did not appear in NG's
Turkish version, and this section was altered, assuming the following
form: "This unease displays a parallelism among those who support the
Islamic idea of creation."
As someone who states his primary aim as being that of describing
the philosophy and scientific invalidity of Darwinism, Harun Yahya has
closely monitored Darwinist propaganda in recent years and has responded,
in the light of scientific findings, to the pro-evolutionist writings
and broadcasts of media organisations, of which NG is one. (see
If Darwinism really were supported by a mass of evidence,
as claimed in this NG article, then why is NG Turkey trying
to prevent Harun Yahya's scientific criticisms from being heard? Could
it be that NG Turkey was concerned that Darwinism will be unable
to withstand such scientific criticism? In fact, this attitude by NG's
Turkey desk not only shows that the magazine is unwilling to inform its
readers of the source of effective criticism of evolution, but also confirms
the criticism that it is seeking to keep Darwinism on its feet as an ideology.
NG Is Unwilling to Face the Modern Scientific
There can be no doubt that in order to provide a realistic
response to the question "Was Darwin Wrong?" one needs to look at what
Darwin actually said and to compare this to modern scientific facts. In
his book The Origin of Species, in which he unveiled his theory
of evolution, Darwin provided a very important criterion by which to test
his theory. So concrete is that criterion that in Darwin's own words it
could "absolutely break down" the theory. Darwin wrote:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed,
which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." 2
Darwin maintained that organs evolved during a gradual process.
Thinking of this imaginary process in reverse, it appears that Darwin
assumed that these organs possessed reducibility. However, advances made
in the field of biochemistry, especially over the last 40 years, have
revealed that the cell possesses a superior complexity, the details of
which were unknown in Darwin's time, for which reason it was equated to
a "black box," and that certain structures within the cell actually possess
the feature of "irreducible complexity."
"Irreducible complexity" is a phenomenon based on empirical
evidence and literally constitutes the antithesis of Darwin's theory.
The most important figure to bring this concept onto the agenda of the
scientific world is the biochemist Michael J. Behe from Lehigh University
in the USA. In his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge
to Evolution Behe examines the irreducibly complex natures of the
cell and certain other biological structures, and reveals that these cannot
possibly be accounted for in terms of evolution. Behe sets out the effect
that irreducible complexity has on the claims of Darwinism thus:
"To Darwin, the cell was a 'black box' -- its inner workings
were utterly mysterious to him. Now, the black box has been opened up
and we know how it works. Applying Darwin's test to the ultra-complex
world of molecular machinery and cellular systems that have been discovered
over the past 40 years, we can say that Darwin's theory has 'absolutely
broken down'." 3
Irreducible complexity has demolished Darwinism, and proved
that life is the product of intelligent design, in other words that God
has created all living things. The way that NG seeks to keep this
from its readers constitutes a flight from reality.
NG's biogeographical tales
In his article in NG, Quammen begins his account of
the so-called evidence for Darwinism with biogeography, and it may be
of use to provide a description of this concept at this point. Biogeography
is a branch of science that investigates the geographical distribution
of species and seeks an answer to the question of how they came by these
habitat regions by drawing up maps of their locations on the Earth.
Most books in the field of biogeography are full of facts
that say nothing, neither in favour nor against, the theory of evolution:
such as maps of living species' habitat areas, the features of those areas,
questions regarding the spread of organisms, and the grouping together
of species on the basis of geographical area ... 4
When their distribution on the Earth is examined it can be
seen that species do not generally exhibit a global distribution. Species
have rather spread in large groups in areas possessing specific climatic
and environmental conditions. Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have sought
to portray this spread as evidence for evolution, though with regard to
the "fundamental" living categories of geographical distribution their
efforts have failed to come up with a consistent evolutionary scenario.
In their book Systematics and Biogeography, G. Nelson
and N. Platnick of the New York American Museum of Natural History analysed
the studies performed in this field and set out their conclusion:
We conclude, therefore, that biogeography (or geographical
distribution of organisms) has not been shown to be evidence for or
against evolution in any sense. 5
If evolutionists really wish to offer evidence for their
theory then what they need to do is to abandon their fairy tales about
"if this living thing is found here then it must have evolved here, and
if that living thing is found there then it must have evolved there,"
and instead scientifically document their own responses to the question
of how living things came into being in the first place. (It is an indisputable
fact that the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection cannot
account for the origin of species.)
The fact that evolutionist claims based on biogeography are
myths devoid of any scientific evidence clearly emerge on inspection of
NG's claims about palaeontology. The fossil record clearly reveals
that the idea that living things spread by evolving is a myth.
NG's palaeontology deception
NG makes a generalisation about the fossil strata,
telling its readers that so-called closely related species are generally
found side by side in consecutive strata, and that a life form going back
millions of years in one stratum is followed by a similar, though not
identical, one in the subsequent stratum. As an example of this generalisation
it cites the equine sequence that even evolutionists abandoned years ago;
it maintains that the modern-day horse emerged at the end of the sequence
Hyracotherium, Orohippus, Epihippus and Mohippus, fossils of which are
found in consecutive strata.
What NG is doing here consists of a blatant deception.
The equine sequence is an unfounded one, the invalidity of which has now
been demonstrated. That being the case, putting it forward as a generalisation
regarding the fossil record cannot be described as anything else than
an attempt to verify that generalisation with a deceptive example.
Life forms emerged with no evolutionary progenitors,
but in a single moment, and with flawless bodily structures
Darwin, who maintained that living things emerged through
graduated evolution and who hoped that the fossil record to confirm that
claim would be obtained in future excavations, was mistaken.
The fossils obtained in endless excavations carried out by palaeontologists
all over the world have produced findings that openly refute the idea
of gradual change in consecutive strata. These facts concern the phenomena
of sudden appearance and stasis.
Species emerge suddenly, with no evolutionary progenitors
but with flawless bodily structures. In his 1999 book Fossils and
Evolution, Tom Kemp, Curator of the Zoological Collections in Oxford
University Museum of Natural History, admits this:
In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first
time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present,
and practically no known stem-group forms. 6
Fossils hundreds of millions of years old that bear no
trace of evolution invalidate neo-Darwinism
Furthermore, species exhibit no gradual change as suggested
in the NG generalisation. Species with natural histories of hundreds
of millions of years exhibit a "stability" demonstrating a permanency
throughout geological strata. The shark, coelacanth, ant, salamander and
many other species, fossils of which have been found and which have remained
unchanged for hundreds of millions of years, have led to palaeontologists
accepting stasis as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record.
This phenomenon refutes Darwinism's prediction of gradual change and invalidates
the theory. Professor of Geology Peter J. Williamson describes this in
The principal problem is morphological stasis. A theory
is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism,
which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process,
has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis
now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record.
In short, NG's claim of graduated change throughout
geological strata is a myth supported in the face of the science of palaeontology.
The way that NG seeks to support that myth with the equine sequence
only makes matters worse.
The truth in the equine sequence that NG seeks
to conceal from its readers
The equine sequence is based on various hoofed fossils unearthed
in North America. Darwinists set these out in such a way as to establish
a sequence, according to the fossils' dental characteristics and numbers
of toes, and for years put this forward as evidence for Darwinism. Continuing
palaeontological excavations, however, definitively revealed the inconsistencies
within that series. NG, known for its blind devotion to Darwinism,
has no qualms about concealing this development from its readers and writing
that the alleged evolutionary ancestors of the horse follow one another
in consecutive geological strata.
Former BBC science editor Gordon Rattray Taylor describes
how the equine sequence constitutes no evidence for Darwinism:
But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the
failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences
of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change... The horse is
often cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that
the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It
is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that
some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from
different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence,
but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order
in time. 8
At a meeting in November 1980 at the Chicago Museum of Natural
History, attended by 150 evolutionists, one speaker, Boyce Rensberger,
stated that there was no basis in the fossil record for the scenario of
equine evolution, and that no gradual equine evolution ever took place:
The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting
a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living
nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has
long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each
intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then
become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown. 9
Discoveries that living things included in the imaginary
sequence of equine evolution actually lived at the same time, and even
together, totally refute Quammen. One of the most striking examples of
this came to light in 1981. Fossils of thousands of living things, 10
million years old, that had been buried under lava as the result of a
volcanic eruption and whose skeletons had been preserved down to the present
day, were dug up in the US state of Nebraska. With that discovery it emerged
that three- and single-toed equines assumed to have lived at different
periods and to have ancestral relationships with one another in the framework
of evolutionists' imaginary equine sequence, actually lived side by side.
Interestingly the source of this information is NG magazine. 10
The myth of whale evolution
I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered,
by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits,
with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous
as a whale. 11
From watching bears fishing along a river bank, Darwin set
out his ideas on the origin of whales in these words in his book The
Origin of Species, though he elected to remove that section from subsequent
editions of the book. Yet evolutionists who came after Darwin had no hesitation
over adopting this myth, with various minor amendments, that came down
as a monument to the unrestricted nature of his imagination. They continued
to propagate the myth that the whale evolved not from the bear but from
other land mammals, as if this were a scientific fact.
It can now be seen that NG, one of the main representatives
of Darwinian mythology, is behaving no differently, and is seeking to
portray this great myth, supported for the sake of the dogma of evolution,
as representing evidence for evolution.
There are enormous differences, in terms of such basic physiological
characteristics as water conservation, sight and communication, between
whales and the land mammals alleged to have been their progenitors. Let
us now consider the scientific dilemma facing the myth of evolution by
examining the design in whales:
The special water conservation design in whales' bodies
Although they live in water, whales are unable to meet their
water requirements from salty sea water. They need fresh water to live.
Although it is not known exactly how they meet their water needs, it is
thought that a large part of it is obtained by eating sea creatures that
contain levels of salt that are 30% lower than those of the ocean water.In
such an environment, where fresh water is exceedingly scarce, the maximum
conservation of water in living things' bodies and minimum consumption
thereof are critical. Water levels are of great importance to whales,
for which reason, just like camels, whales do not perspire. Their kidneys
regulate urine concentration in such a way as to supply water.
Why is whale milk fatty?
Another delicate balance with regard to water needs appears
in the fat level in the female whale's milk. The mother whale feeds her
young with a very thick milk, of the consistency of cheese. This milk
is ten times fattier than human milk. There is a chemical reason why this
milk contains such a high level of fat. Water is produced as a side product
as fat is processed after being consumed by the baby. In this way the
mother meets her offspring's need for water with minimal water loss.
The design in whales' eyes
There are complex arrangements in the design of the whale
eye and its communication systems, no examples of which are to be found
in terrestrial mammals. Land mammals have eyelids to protect against dust
and impact. Whales, on the other hand, have a hard layer to protect against
a different danger, the pressure under the sea. Moreover, the refractive
index in the design of the whale eye makes it possible for a killer whale
to leap up and catch a fish six metres above the water level in an amusement
park with considerable accuracy. In addition, whales' eyes are on either
side of the head, unlike terrestrial mammals, thus protecting them from
the current. Thanks to the levels of rod and cone cells in the eye, their
sensitivity levels to light, colour and other details are very high. In
addition to that ratio, the presence of phosphorus in the eyes is a design
that facilitates their ability to see in the dark depths of the oceans.
The mathematical calculation employed by whales
The sense used by whales in the location of sources of food
and of one another is not actually sight, but rather hearing. Many whales
hunt at the dark regions at the bottom of the sea thanks to a form of
natural "sonar." The whale's brain emits clicking sounds, in a way not
yet fully understood by scientists. The distance of an object is determined
by means of a mathematical calculation. The whale brain multiplies the
speed at which the sounds it emits strike an object and bounce back by
the time necessary for this, and divides the result by two. The result
is the distance of the object from itself. Furthermore, the whale also
possesses the ability to focus the sound waves with its brain on a specific
point and to emit these like a light impulse. The returning waves are
analysed and interpreted in the animal's brain. This interpretation determines
the shape of the body in front of it, its size, speed and position. The
animal's skull is sound-proofed to protect it from the bombardment of
powerful sound waves it constantly emits and which could even seriously
damage the brain itself. The sonic system in the animal is unbelievably
sensitive, so much so that the US Navy imitates the sonar design in sea
mammals in developing its own technology. 12
Special designs for whale calves
The perfect designs in whales are by no means limited to
these. The shape of a whale calf's mouth has been designed in such a way
as to be ideally suited to fit its mother's teats, so that the calf is
able to suckle without losing a drop of milk and without taking in a drop
of sea water. Moreover, they possess lungs capable of storing high levels
of oxygen for protracted dives and an ear membrane designed to protect
them from high pressure.
These arrangements, every one of which indicates an evident
design, are particular to whales and are not to be found in any terrestrial
mammal. NG, however, expects it readers to set reason aside and
believe that these all came about by chance. NG denies that whales
were intelligently designed, maintaining instead that one fine day a land
mammal decided to live in the sea, and that the whale evolved as the result
of unconscious mechanisms such as random mutations and natural selection.
Yet what mutation could possibly produce sonar in a mammal
that was allegedly the progenitor of the whale? Bearing in mind the effect
of mutations and the importance of the brain to the whale's survival,
it is clear that mutations would damage the brain, crippling or killing
the whale. Could the brain, that produces sound waves, be able to focus
these on a particular point and determine the location of objects using
a mathematical calculation, acquire a perfect sonar in an area that would
be damaged during this random process? By what coincidence could it produce
sonar of such a high quality that even the US Navy's technology development
units have been unable to match it? What mutations could turn a land mammal's
feet into fins and a tail capable of propelling several tons of weight?
There is no doubt that these questions may also be asked
with regard to the systems that make it possible to use water so productively,
the suckling system and the protective systems in the eye and ear. However,
NG has no reasonable response to give to these questions. There
is but one answer. Whales were created fully formed in a single moment.
God created whales to be flawless, endowed with all the systems for their
needs, just as He did all other living things. In one verse of the Qur'an
it is revealed that:
Mankind! remember God's blessing to you. Is there any
creator other than God providing for you from heaven and earth? There
is no god but Him. So how have you been perverted? (Qur'an, 35: 3)
(For a more detailed reply to NG's fantastical whale
story see http://www.harunyahya.com/70national_geographic_sci29.php)
NG's error regarding embryology
Another error in Quammen's article in NG is the repetition
of a myth once known as the "law of recapitulation." This belonged to
the German biologist Ernst Haeckel and in his claim regarding embryology
Darwin was to a large extent "inspired" by Haeckel. The law of recapitulation
maintains that the embryological development of living things repeats
the imaginary stages undergone during the descent of the alleged evolutionary
The fact that Quammen devotes space to this in his article
reveals a wide gap of knowledge on his part. Objections along the lines
that Haeckel's claims were devoid of any scientific justification and
that the evidence he offered was forged began 136 years ago13,
and the end of the law of recapitulation as the subject of scientific
debate came as far back as 80 years ago 14.
Even George Gaylord Simpson, one of the founders of neo-Darwinism, admitted
this fact 42 years ago in the words:
Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved.
It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.
Moreover, the myth of recapitulation, which NG has
no qualms over recapitulating itself, involves what one British embryologist
referred to in 1997 as "the best known fraud in the history of biology."
In his book Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (The History of Natural
Creation), written in 1868, Haeckel deliberately distorted the pictures
of human, monkey and dog embryos in such a way as to support his claim.
One striking aspect of this fraud is that it also constitutes
a "centennial monument" to Darwinist dogmatism. Until recently, a number
of Darwinist sources, including text books, continued either to use the
counterfeit drawings as they were, or else to repeat the myth of recapitulation.
The Harvard University professor and evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould displayed
great common sense and offered the following criticism:
… [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished
and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the
persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority,
of modern textbooks! 16
NG has not used counterfeit drawings. Yet it has no
hesitations over using recapitulation, the invalidity of which emerged
at least 80 years ago, as support for Darwinism.
We urge NG to consider Stephen Jay Gould's words.
NG's errors with regard to morphology
Quammen exhibits a most thought-provoking attitude in that
section in which he deals with Darwin's claims on the subject of morphology.
The way that a zoo is organised into birds, monkeys, big cats, crocodiles
or fish in the aquarium is interpreted as evidence for evolution. According
to Quammen, the fact that living things can be classified under a hierarchical
system in families, orders and kingdoms must be the product of an evolutionary
However, Quammen's portrayal of hierarchical classification
as evidence for evolution is nonsensical. That is because the fact that
forms of life can be classified hierarchically is not a prediction first
put forward by evolutionists and then subsequently confirmed. The Swedish
scientist Carl Linnaeus, the father of the modern system of classification,
was a scientist who believed in creation from nothing and regarded that
classification as the product of intelligent design. That is compatible
with what we see with our own eyes and is grounded in common sense. The
ability to be hierarchically classified is a well known hallmark of intelligent
design. Means of transport, for example, can be classified as land, air
and sea vehicles, and may be broken down into subcategories and even smaller
subgroups. Yet this classification does not show that the modes of transport
in question came into being through evolution.
Indeed, in an article published in the magazine New Scientist,
the prominent evolutionist Mark Ridley makes the following statement:
The simple fact that species can be classified hierarchically
into genera, families, and so on, is not an argument for evolution.
It is possible to classify any set of objects into a hierarchy whether
their variation is evolutionary or not. 17
In the same way that what Quammen writes on this subject
are far from supporting his claim, it also reveals how he relies on preconceptions
rather than scientific evidence:
Such a pattern of tiered resemblances?groups of similar
species nested within broader groupings, and all descending from a single
source?isn't naturally present among other collections of items. You
won't find anything equivalent if you try to categorize rocks, or musical
instruments, or jewelry. Why not? Because rock types and styles of jewelry
don't reflect unbroken descent from common ancestors. Biological diversity
does. The number of shared characteristics between any one species and
another indicates how recently those two species have diverged from
a shared lineage. (p. 13)
Quammen placed the hierarchical categorisation in living
things in a separate place, on the grounds that it reflects a continual
chain of descent from a common ancestor. That term, however, is helpless
labelling in Quammen's desperate attempts to prove Darwin right.
As is made clear above, there is no fossil record capable
of being proposed as evidence of any evolutionary link between living
categories. The words of the prominent evolutionary palaeontologist Stephen
Jay Gould that "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data
only at the tips and nodes of their branches" are an admission of the
fact that there is actually no evidence for the evolutionary links assumed
to exist among living things. 18
In short, the origin of the evolutionary chain of descent
that Quammen claims exists among living categories is not scientific fact
such as the fossil record, but rather his own dogmatic mentality.
The five-digit skeletal structure error
Quammen maintains that the way that various vertebrates such
as the bat, the dolphin and human beings all share the feature of having
five digits stems from descent from a common ancestor. This claim rests
on the fact that although there is the same basic plan in the front and
rear legs of the living things in question, these can still be easily
differentiated (the homological claim). This claim of Quammen's can of
course only deceive those readers who are unaware of the facts of modern
science. Advances in the field of molecular biology definitively invalidate
this morphology-based claim. One striking discovery that led to this is
that the production of these organs, assumed to be a legacy from a common
ancestor, is in fact controlled by different genes in different creatures.
The evolutionary biologist William Fix describes the collapse
of the evolutionary thesis concerning pentadactylism (having five digits)
in this area in the face of this discovery:
The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea
of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons
of the limbs of different animals. Thus the `pentadactyl' limb pattern
is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale,
and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various
structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time
to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the
theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous
organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes
in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar
genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down. 19
NG's vestigial Darwinism
Quammen displays a striking determination not to grasp the
fact that Darwin's claims have been demolished by modern science. One
of the indications of this is his repetition of the claim regarding vestigial
organs, a claim which is utterly illusory. It is maintained in the article
that organs such as the male nipple, structures claimed to be the vestiges
of rear legs in certain snakes, or the covered wings in coleoptera that
are not actually used, are redundant, functionless organs left over from
the evolutionary process. Quammen is clearly ignoring the definitive results
from scientific developments:
The list of up to 180 supposed vestigial organs at the beginning
of the 20th century eventually shrank to almost none in the
face of discoveries from scientific research. One by one it emerged that
a great many organs, such as the appendix and the plica semilunaris, once
supposed to be vestigial organs, do actually have functions.20
"Science" is in any case the process by which human beings come to know
what was previously unknown. The gradual emergence of the functions of
organs that were once regarded as vestigial shows that, logically, the
functions of the last few remaining organs whose functions are still unknown
will soon be revealed.
Indeed, a great many present-day evolutionists have admitted
that the myth of "vestigial organs" is an argument rooted in ignorance.
In an article headed "Do Vestigial Organs Represent Evidence for Evolution?"
published in the journal Evolutionary Theory, the evolutionary
biologist S. R. Scadding admits this fact:
Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless
structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically
valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence
for the theory of evolution. 21
Evolutionists' claim on the subject of vestigial organs stem
not from any vestigialism in these organs, but from the vestigial nature
of their own perspectives. The existence of any living thing proves only
the existence of God, its creator. The way that inanimate and unconscious
atoms combine to produce a hearing, smelling, touching and seeing human
being is proof of God's flawless creation. That it is because it is impossible
for atoms, which cannot smell, hear or see, to wish to have perception
and to combine together for that purpose. For a collection of matter to
stand and look at itself in front of a mirror, or for matter to taste
and touch itself, has no place in evolutionary logic. These feelings can
only be explained in terms of a superior creation, in other words the
existence of God and His flawless creation. Despite this self-evident
truth, evolutionists hold to the irrational and blind belief that they
themselves are the product of matter and blind chance, which shows that
their claim regarding vestigial organs is one based on this prejudiced
and dogmatic perspective.
The realisation that the organs regarded by evolutionists
as vestigial do actually have functions is a proof of this. For example,
the structures portrayed as the vestiges of rear legs in certain species
of snake are now known to help them to grip one another during mating.
To regard the male nipple as the product of an evolutionary process also
rests on a distorted logic. If the male nipple were a leftover from an
evolutionary process then males must have evolved from a population consisting
solely of females, which is a scenario so unimaginable that no evolutionist
has felt able to accept it. Coleoptera, another example cited by Quammen,
also constitute no evidence for evolution. Insect species which do not
develop a functional wing are generally seen in open habitats with strong
winds, such as ocean islands. In an environment where strong winds blow
and surrounded by large masses of water, insects' being able to fly is
by no means an advantage, and may even represent a danger. That is because
insects flying in the air are exposed to the effects of the wind and can
be hurled into trees or rocks, ending up crippled or dead. There may,
therefore, have been a tendency for them to move towards a ground-based
lifestyle. Over time, the insect population that lives near the ground
comes to consist of individuals that do not develop fully fledged wings.
That is because, unlike flying insects, mutations that prevent insects
that live near to ground level developing wings may not be damaging to
the insect (on the provision that they do not cause a total interruption
in its physiology).
A mutation that prevented wing development in a flying insect
living in a habitat uninfluenced by winds would be harmful and maybe even
lethal. That is because normally an insect that uses its wings to feed
and to avoid predators would possess functionless wings because of that
mutation and would be unable to survive and thus eliminated from the population.
On the other hand, in insects living in a habitat affected
by winds and that used their feet to move about in the same way as non-flying
insects, a mutation in the wings might not have lethal consequences. That
is because the insect will already have grown accustomed to a life style
in which it does not use wings, and it will make no difference whether
its wings are healthy or else lose their function due to mutation (as
long as the mutation in question is not one that affects the insect's
general physiology). In short, a destructive mutation leading to the loss
of an insect's wings may not be lethal in an environment where wings are
in any case of no consequence.
However, it cannot be said that the coleoptera that are assumed
to have undergone such a process represent evidence of evolution. The
theory of evolution proposes that organs gradually assume a more complex
form. The genetic change proposed in support of this claim must be of
such a kind as to add new genetic information to creatures' DNA.
It is evident, however, that coleoptera do not gain any new genetic
information during this process and that, on the contrary, they suffer
a loss of information in the genes that control wing development.
Can this acquisition of genetic information, which is not
seen in coleoptera, be observed in any other living thing? Definitely
not. Evolutionists have been unable to show the emergence of a new organ,
or even a new protein, by means of random mutations.
In short, the theory of evolution maintains that living things
acquire new organs with the addition of new genetic information to their
DNA, but the vestigial organ argument is one that concerns a loss of function,
in other words a loss of genetic data. Therefore, vestigial organs provide
no scientific support for the theory of evolution. The reason for evolutionists'
determination to place this claim on the scientific agenda is psychological
rather than scientific. Their display of blind devotion to materialism
leads them to adopt a vestigial perspective towards the evident truth
of creation. (You can read Harun Yahya's article that demolishes evolutionists'
vestigial viewpoint here. http://www.darwinism-watch.com/hurriyet_science0407.php)
James P. Gills, M.D., founder of St. Luke's Cataract and
Laser Institute in Tarpon Springs, Florida, is a creationist scientist.
He is also a world-renowned ophthalmologist. In his book Darwinism
Under the Microscope, Gills cites a great many proofs of creation
that totally undermine evolution, and writes that the only reason why
scientists still insist on evolution is the spiritual cataract of
thinking of themselves as the product of blind chance. 22
The error of thinking that resistance to antibiotics
and DDT is evidence of evolution
The NG article seeks to show that bacterial immunity
to antibiotics and insects' resistance to such pesticides as DDT constitutes
evidence for evolution. On the subject of the resistance that microbes
appear to develop to drugs Quammen confidently states:
There's no better or more immediate evidence supporting
the Darwinian theory than this process of forced transformation among
our inimical germs. (p. 21)
However, Quammen's excitement in portraying bacterial immunity
as evidence for evolution is totally misplaced. It is explained below
why these two phenomena do not represent evidence for Darwinism.
The first of the "deadly molecules" employed against micro-organisms
was penicillin, discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming discovered
a molecule that killed the Staphylococcus mould bacterium, after which
antibiotics taken from micro-organisms were used against various bacteria.
Although it appeared at first that definitive results had been obtained,
the truth later emerged: bacteria gradually acquire resistance to antibiotics.
The great majority of bacteria exposed to antibiotics die, but since a
small minority remain unaffected this rapidly multiply and eventually
come to constitute the entire population. Thus the entire population becomes
resistant to the antibiotic.
However, there is no question of bacteria developing through
mutation here, because the bacteria already possess the characteristics
in question before being exposed to antibiotics. Despite being an evolutionist
publication, Scientific American magazine admitted these facts
in its March 1998 edition:
Many bacteria possessed resistance genes even before commercial
antibiotics came into use. Scientists do not know exactly why these
genes evolved and were maintained. 23
Insects acquire resistance to pesticides such as DDT in
the same way, and, again in the same way, this represents no evidence
The prominent evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala accepts
the truth of this in the words:
The genetic variants required for resistance to the most
diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of
the populations exposed to these man-made compounds. 24
One of those to carry out the most detailed research on this
subject is the Israeli biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner. In his book Not
by Chance, published in 1997, Spetner showed that bacterial immunity
is brought about by two different mechanisms, but that these offer no
support for the theory of evolution. For more detail on this subject see
Another so-called piece of evidence in the NG article,
in addition to the resistance in bacteria and insects, concerns genetic
The deception that evolution can be observed
NG claims that evolution can actually be witnessed
in nature and in the laboratory. This, however, is a fantastical and groundless
claim. In an article titled "How Are New Species Formed?" published in
the 14 June, 2003, edition of New Scientist, George Turner made
the following significant "admission":
Not long ago, we thought we knew how species formed. We
believed that the process almost always started with complete isolation
of populations. It often occurred after a population had gone through
a severe "genetic bottleneck," as might happen after a pregnant female
was swept off to a remote island and her offspring mated with each other.
The beauty of this so-called "founder effect" model was that it could
be tested in the lab. In reality, it just didn't hold up. Despite evolutionary
biologists' best efforts, nobody has even got close to creating a new
species from a founder population. What's more, as far as we know, no
new species has formed as a result of humans releasing small numbers
of organisms into alien environments. 25
As we have seen, evolutionists do not actually know how new
species are formed. In other words, Quammen's claim about being able to
witness evolution in action is totally unfounded. The fact that the long
years of study carried out by the Grants into chaffinch beak lengths on
the Galapagos islands is cited in support is the result of Darwinism misrepresenting
variations to represent evidence for itself. (For further information,
As we have seen, Darwin was wrong. National Geographic's
posing the question whether he was wrong is as ridiculous as asking "Was
Freud wrong?" or "Was Marx wrong?" That is because, like Freudianism and
Marxism, Darwinism is a theory that has come to the end of its life. We
call upon NG magazine to abandon its support for this outdated
myth and to accept that creation is the true origin of life.
What NG needs to do is to set its preconceptions to
one side and cease supporting Darwinism as a dogma, and to face up to
the scientific evidence that undermines this theory. Discoveries in the
last 40 years in particular have definitively revealed the invalidity
of the naturalist philosophy at the heart of Darwinism. If NG does
face up to that fact it will see that the organised complexity of life
and the genetic information on which it depends point to intelligent design,
in other words that life did not evolve on its own through chance and
natural events, but was "created."
NG - and all other Darwinists - have so far avoided
facing up to this, and may therefore have resorted to covering up the
difficulties facing their theory. Yet they must be aware that this avoidance
will be of no use in keeping their theory alive. That is because a major
development in the world of science is serving notice that the age of
sweeping matters under the carpet has come to an end.
The way that the intelligent design movement, that has been
sweeping through the USA over the last 10 years, has one by one unmasked
the dogmas of Darwinism, has made it the focus of wide interest. The intellectual
basis of this movement is the "Theory of Intelligent Design." The theory
in question maintains that complex biological structures containing large
amounts of information can only be explained in terms of intelligence-based
causes, and that these causes can be empirically studied in the field
of biology. 26
One indication that the intelligent design movement may represent
the dynamic for major cultural changes is the way it is effectively and
in a widespread manner revealing that the evidence for so long taught
as evidence for Darwinism in schools actually consists of mythology, deception,
misrepresentation and even fraud. California Berkeley University's Professor
Phillip E. Johnson, the leader of the movement, stresses that Darwinism
will pass into the dustbin of history sometime in this century. 27
It will be of use here to remind NG of the damage
from a determined persistence in its policy of uncritical defence of Darwinism.
It will be remembered that NG announced the discovery of the Archaeoraptor
fossil discovered in China as definitive proof that birds evolved from
dinosaurs, without waiting for it to be described in referred scientific
journals. Later, however, it was realised that the fossil did not represent
a missing link at all, but was a counterfeit "produced" by a Chinese peasant.26
Because of its blind devotion to Darwinism NG had no hesitation
in embracing this fossil as "proof" by unscientific methods, and later
found itself in "modern paleontology's greatest embarrassment." 29
According to the ornithologist Dr. Storrs Olson, "National
Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic,
unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism." 30
The portrayal of the claim of recapitulation, which died
at least 80 years ago, as evidence for evolution in NG's article
"Was Darwin Wrong" shows that it is devoid of the seriousness required
by science and is continuing with its "unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism."
NG is not behaving intelligently. Maintaining this approach does
not provide any support for Darwinism. On the contrary, NG is documenting
its own dogmatism in an ever more obvious way.
We invite NG to consider these points and to accept
that creation is the true origin of life.
There is no doubt that the Lord of all living things, on
Earth, in the Sky, and between, is God. In one verse of the Qur'an God
Your God is One God. There is no god but Him, the All-Merciful,
the Most Merciful. (Qur'an, 2: 163)
1. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means
of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle
for Life, Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library.
2. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First
Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.
3. Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996
4. For more information about the evolutionist theses on biogeography,
please see Walter J. Remine, “The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus
Message Theory”, Saint Paul Science; 1st ed edition, 1993. page
5. G. Nelson & N. Platnick, Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics
and Vicariance, Columbia University Press, 1981, p. 223.
6. Fossils and Evolution, Dr TS Kemp - Curator of Zoological Collections,
Oxford University, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 246.
7. Peter G. Williamson, "Morphological stasis and developmental constraint:
real problems for neo-Darwinism," Nature, vol. 294, 19 November 1981,
p. 214; Stephen E. Jones, http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/
8. Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus,
Sphere Books, London, 1984, p. 230.
9. Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, November 5, 1980, p.
10. Voorhies M.R., "Ancient Ashfall Creates a Pompei of Prehistoric
Animals," National Geographic, Vol. 159, No. 1, January
1981, pp.67-68,74 ; "Horse Find Defies Evolution" Creation
Ex Nihilo 5(3):15, January 1983, http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3723.asp
11. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First
Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 184.
12. Spotting Mines With Dolphin Sonar , ScienceNOW 1998: 2
13 L. Rutimeyer, "Referate," Archiv fur Anthropologie, 1868
14 Keith S. Thompson, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated",
American Scientist, vol. 76, May / June 1988, p. 273
15 G. G. Simpson, W. Beck, An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt Brace
and World, New York, 1965, p. 241.
16 Stephen Jay Gould, "Abscheulich! - Atrocious! - the precursor
to the theory of natural selection," Natural History, March 2000,
17 Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?" New Scientist, vol.
90 (25 June 1981), p. 832.
18 Gould S.J, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, May
1977, p. 13-14.
19 William Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution, Macmillan Publishing
Co., New York, 1984, p. 189.
20 J. Bergman & G. Howe, Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional, CRS
Books, Terre Haute, IN, 1990.
21 S. R. Scadding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?,"
Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173.
22 James P.Gills, M.D. & Thomas Woodward, Ph.D., Darwinism under the
Microscope, Charisma House, 2002, p. 39.
23 Stuart B. Levy, "The Challenge of Antibiotic Resistance,"
Scientific American, March 1998, p. 35
24 Francisco J.Ayala, "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific
American, vol. 239, September 1978, p. 64
25 George Turner, "How Are New Species Formed?," New Scientist,
vol. 178, issue 2399, 14 June 2003, p. 36
26 http://www.arn.org , http://www.discovery.org/csc/
27 Phillip E. Johnson, "Mothballed Science," Touchstone Magazine,
28 For more information about Archaeoraptor forgery, please see http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions03.php#q7
29 Tim Friend, "The 'missing link' fossil that wasn't", USA
30 Open Letter to National Geographic Society by Storrs L. Olson, Curator
of Birds, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution