Most Pakistani doctors in US accept evolutionary theory: Survey

[Unicorn]

Hehehe, so you say, it is a THEORY with a few unanswered questions.

Then you say it is more likely to be true.

In a nutshell, your judgement is it is a theory not fact, has unanswered question, but still more likely to be true. And this theory is based on what actually? Survival of the fittest?

I think you missed what I said. I said " in comparison with other theories".

I have not read this theory in a great detail. I am not too sure but I think survival of the fittest is a part of it. Including ability of a living been to change with the change of environment.

I am willing to rule this theory completely out if the questions are quite critical and I don't even know those questions.

 

[crankthskunk]

I think you missed what I said. I said " in comparison with other theories".

I have not read this theory in a great detail. I am not too sure but I think survival of the fittest is a part of it. Including ability of a living been to change with the change of environment.

I am willing to rule this theory completely out if the questions are quite critical and I don't even know those questions.

Unicorn,
this is the problem, this is a theory out of many theories. Theories are theories not facts. another attempt from human to understand how we are here. IT has problems, not minor but major, I say huge problems. But it is not only accepted but taught to children as a fact and science, while religion is purposefully removed.

Such practices are called indoctrination, these efforts are going on for decades to remove religion from the minds of younger generation completely. Therefore, now in the USA the teachers have to teach only this theory, if they try to teach creationism, they are in trouble.

That is my point, teach people both, let them find the truth and reject the falsehood. Why insist on it to be true, when many scientist say it is not only untrue, but it is very difficult for them to publish their work if they go against this theory. It is the worst kind of mind control exercise ever performed by humans on others.

it is even worst than what these same people who are now stopping creationism and religion so forcefully were with the help of the clergy launching major wars in the world, colonising the world with force and then sending the church with the bible in their hands to convert people.


We kill you mercilessly take your land, control your resources, then if you still live we send you people with concocted books to give you lessons and how Jesus was so peaceful that he scarified himself on the cross for our sins, so we can get salvation.

The package was, either you give up your land and resources to us without a fight or we wipe you out, if you lucky then we will convert you so you become passive, after all Jesus was so so peaceful.

Now what they have been teaching and spreading in the world for centuries to control the world is not worth teaching to their kids. We have other weapon to control your mind. We have played Christianity for a long long time, it has lost its value and usefulness to us, lets play a new game.

 

[umarriaz]

this crappy evolution theory is in total contradiction with our beliefs......... a sound minded muslim could never believe it...

Can you tell me how it is against our beliefs?

Evolution happened but with the will of Allah :subhanahu:

Read Dr Israr Ahmed RA lectures. He believed in evolution.

 

[Unicorn]

Unicorn,
this is the problem, this is a theory out of many theories. Theories are theories not facts. another attempt from human to understand how we are here. IT has problems, not minor but major, I say huge problems. But it is not only accepted but taught to children as a fact and science, while religion is purposefully removed.

Such practices are called indoctrination, these efforts are going on for decades to remove religion from the minds of younger generation completely. Therefore, now in the USA the teachers have to teach only this theory, if they try to teach creationism, they are in trouble.

That is my point, teach people both, let them find the truth and reject the falsehood. Why insist on it to be true, when many scientist say it is not only untrue, but it is very difficult for them to publish their work if they go against this theory. It is the worst kind of mind control exercise ever performed by humans on others.

it is even worst than what these same people who are now stopping creationism and religion so forcefully were with the help of the clergy launching major wars in the world, colonising the world with force and then sending the church with the bible in their hands to convert people.


We kill you mercilessly take your land, control your resources, then if you still live we send you people with concocted books to give you lessons and how Jesus was so peaceful that he scarified himself on the cross for our sins, so we can get salvation.

The package was, either you give up your land and resources to us without a fight or we wipe you out, if you lucky then we will convert you so you become passive, after all Jesus was so so peaceful.

Now what they have been teaching and spreading in the world for centuries to control the world is not worth teaching to their kids. We have other weapon to control your mind. We have played Christianity for a long long time, it has lost its value and usefulness to us, lets play a new game.

Theory should be treated as a theory. I don't think there is any problem with telling children about theory of "creationists" except than every religion would want their theories to be taught in the schools.

Either way still theory of creation is really simple it can be explained in less than half an hour and the questions from students can not last more than ten minutes.
It simply involves what God did on first to 6th day on the sixth day he made man out of clay and breathed life into him. Then he took a rib out man and created a women and thats about it and than god rested on the seventh day.

Main question from the students will be which one of these theory is correct?, the answer is, when you grow up you decide.

I believe theory of evolution is a bit complex and will take much longer to explain.

 

[Mullah Omar]

Evolution is not compatible with Islam. If ignorant muslims want to accept this flawed theory then it's their choice.

 

[shamsheer]

Evolution is not compatible with Islam. If ignorant muslims want to accept this flawed theory then it's their choice.

These kind of fatwas goes very well with your name, but a better statement is Islam does not support or completely rejects evolution theory. There is no harm in accepting a theory as long as it is theory and there is a substantial evidence to support it. The truth will ultimately prevail. Although it is wrong to accept it as a fact and use it to refute other facts set forth by our deen. You are a great guy and my advice refrain from issuing fatwas on matter that you are not learned enough or in a position to give a fatwa.

 

[Mullah Omar]

These kind of fatwas goes very well with your name, but a better statement is Islam does not support or completely rejects evolution theory. There is no harm in accepting a theory as long as it is theory and there is a substantial evidence to support it. The truth will ultimately prevail. Although it is wrong to accept it as a fact and use it to refute other facts set forth by our deen. You are a great guy and my advice refrain from issuing fatwas on matter that you are not learned enough or in a position to give a fatwa.

Yes there is harm in accepting a theory that conflicts with islam

 

[shamsheer]

Yes there is harm in accepting a theory that conflicts with islam

13th century christians used to persecute scientists who would dare to discover anything that conflict with their interpretation of Christianity. Check for example life hisotry of Copernicus. Do you see a resemblance?

 

[Mullah Omar]

13th century christians used to persecute scientists who would dare to discover anything that conflict with their interpretation of Christianity. Check for example life hisotry of Copernicus. Do you see a resemblance?

I'm not saying we should persecute anyone. What I am saying is that theory of evolution is in conflict with Islam. If an ignorant MUSLIM decides to accept such a theory then it's their choice.

 

[jujuju]

crankthskunk, i am a student of science with a PhD in applied math and a masters in aerospace engg. i read very many theoretical subjects, but all of them were called theories. Theory of elasticity, quantum field theory, theory of relativity, gravitational theory. i never came across a subject which claimed that it was "Fact of ....". i dont think you know how science works. For e.g. in theory of elasticity (linear theory) it is well known what the limitations are and where it works and where it doesn't. also in our daily life gravity is reality or fact. try and jump of a cliff and check whether it is just theory or fact. but, and its a big BUT, when matter condenses in a collapsed star and becomes a neutron star, gravity does not function the way its taught in theory of gravitation. at those scaled we need a more complex theory which is loosely called quantum gravity and still is not well developed. SO IS GRAVITATION THEORY OR FACT?

A well accepted theory in science is at the same level as a fact as along as you do not come up with a better theory. now if the koran as interpreted by some of you came up with a theory which better explained reality (for e.g. fossil records, biological processes, germ mutations, physiology of species, specieation etc. )than the theory of evolution would be thrown into the Raddi ki Tokri. till then you are fighting a war you are gonno loose.

Unicorn,
this is the problem, this is a theory out of many theories. Theories are theories not facts. another attempt from human to understand how we are here. IT has problems, not minor but major, I say huge problems. But it is not only accepted but taught to children as a fact and science, while religion is purposefully removed.

Such practices are called indoctrination, these efforts are going on for decades to remove religion from the minds of younger generation completely. Therefore, now in the USA the teachers have to teach only this theory, if they try to teach creationism, they are in trouble.

That is my point, teach people both, let them find the truth and reject the falsehood. Why insist on it to be true, when many scientist say it is not only untrue, but it is very difficult for them to publish their work if they go against this theory. It is the worst kind of mind control exercise ever performed by humans on others.

it is even worst than what these same people who are now stopping creationism and religion so forcefully were with the help of the clergy launching major wars in the world, colonising the world with force and then sending the church with the bible in their hands to convert people.


We kill you mercilessly take your land, control your resources, then if you still live we send you people with concocted books to give you lessons and how Jesus was so peaceful that he scarified himself on the cross for our sins, so we can get salvation.

The package was, either you give up your land and resources to us without a fight or we wipe you out, if you lucky then we will convert you so you become passive, after all Jesus was so so peaceful.

Now what they have been teaching and spreading in the world for centuries to control the world is not worth teaching to their kids. We have other weapon to control your mind. We have played Christianity for a long long time, it has lost its value and usefulness to us, lets play a new game.

 

[Ahlulhadees]

I dont understand what these qadyani and parvezi (My ****** of Allah and angels be on all of them) want to prove. Twisting the meanings and interpretation of the holy Quraan will not help them. Allah S.W.T sent down the Holy Quraan and sent Prophet Muhammad S.A.W to explain it. We accept the interpretation of the holy Quraan as taught by the Prophet Muhammad S.A.W. We don,t need qadyani or pervezi Kazzabs Dajjals (Laannat be on them and their followers) explanation of the Quraan. Many people got astray (Gumrah) by not interpreting the holy Quraan according to the teaching of prophet Muhammad S.A.W. If you accept that Allah S.WT is the creator of this universe then what stops you from accepting that he has control over each atom, electron, protons, leptons and quark and even smaller particles. He can make Hud Hud and even stones, plants, air, ants, birds, animals the earth the heaven and anything in it to communicate. He has the power over everything. The Almighty

 

[Doc_uk]

Assalam O alaikum my dear brothers!
First of all, I would like to raise my voice in an opinion which is interesting for me both religiously and professionally. I am a muslim, a doctor and a research officer working in the UK.
I challenge all the people in the world who support evolution to prove one thing which they observed to have shown evolution.

Since Darwin could not present any sane reason for evolution other than the fact that he could not explain how humans evolved so he said this must have been a slow process starting with the very basis elements like water and nitrogen.

secondly, We as muslims believe that Allah (swt) made humans and if you study the human systems, you would consider yourself to be a foolish to believe that such a beautiful fantastic and balanced system could arise out of nowhere. It is just like throwing some silicon and metal into a desert and believe it to be converted into an IPHONE after a couple of million years? is that possible? if you can't believe that silicon and metal could convert into an IPHONE , how in your sane mind can you justify a mindblowing organism like a HUMAN?

Mutation does occur. A virus can mutate into another form of virus but IT CAN NEVER BECOME A BACTERIA. A BACTERIA can become another type of bacteria but it can never become anythingelse. THIS IS A FACT!!

Humans can be of different size, colour because of different genetic arrangements but you would never see a human becoming a bird or a horse.

Since, science is based on facts so even according to science, nobody can prove darwin right because we have never seen a proof.

Allah says in Quran that "We produced pairs of Humans, Jins and everything that Earth produces (plants) and Things that you don't know of" in Surat Yaseen.

At that time, science could not explain males and females in plants. Now science agrees with it as it has progressed. So, science is far behind true religion, my friends :)

A lay man will understand a couple of things. Where he would fail to understand, science will come and explain that...where science fails, philosophy comes, and when philosophy fails to explain something, religion may be able to explain it if its a true religion.

What Quran said 1400 years ago has been slowly disocvered by science, does that make you think? if not, look for the facts. I would explain more if you guys are interested.

That's all about the evolution theory, I explained what I had being a man of science and religion. I would like to hear from people who actually know about science or medicine or research. If you don't know, and don't have interest in knowing, please don't question!

 

[saud491]

http://www.darwinism-watch.com/

http://www.creationofuniverse.com/index.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/scientists.html

 

[saud491]

Darwin's Theory of Evolution Disproved

By Dr. M. Karim Islamabadi

Darwin himself based his book descent of man, on the basis of structural resemblances between man and apes. He did not say that he had proved it. Just like when he was on the voyage of HMS Beagle on the Galapagos Islands he noticed different finches on neighbouring islands having minor differences from each other. He concluded that all these finches had evolved from a common ancestor. Similarly he noticed resemblances between man and monkey and concluded that both had evolved from a common ancestor.
If structural resemblance is the only criterion then we have a good resemblance with many other creatures as well. The wing of a bat, fin of a whale and arm of a man are bone and similar to each other yet these are totally different from each other and cannot be grouped together.
Similarly, as dissection of the frogs body is taught to medical students the human beings have system for system, muscle for muscle nerve for nevre and vessel for vessel a resemblance with the frog. But can they be grouped together?
But are we similar to other creatures in features such as locomotive reproductive, respiratory, endocrine genito-urinary, cardiac and central nervous systems? But this does not mean that man and other creatures can be grouped together with a common ancestor.
The Encyclopedia Britanica has criticised the idea of having a common ancestor on the basis of structural resemblance. It says, In the absence of a fossil record, structural and other adaptations have been projected back as an ancestral condition from living descendent species; but this is a very risky procedure that dismisses morphological transformation and adaptation and assumes stasis without complementary confirmation.
As far as mans resemblance with other creatures is concerned the Holy Quran says, There is not an animal on earth nor a bird that flies on its wings but they are all communities like you.
It is quite easy to understand that man has similarities with other creatures in various body systems although it is at variance with different species, yet man enjoys a unique position. Today there are one million species of animals and two hundred thousand species of plants. Scientists also say that todays existing species are just 0.1 percent of the total species that this earth ever witnessed.
It means that 99.9 per cent of species have already died out and became extinct. So, out of the 2 billion species that ever existed on earth why is man the only species which has such a highly developed brain? Why is he the only one who communicates with each other with the help of a complete verbal language. Why do no other species come closer to man in these characteristics? Darwins theory is based on natural selection, which means that the evolutionary process takes place only when there is a need for it. For example giraffes grew long necks as they needed to eat the leaves of tall trees.
The question is what was the need which made man to develop so fast and evolve in to such a remarkable intellectual and social creature that he is unmatched by the two billion species which ever existed on this earth.
If, according to Darwin, monkeys and apes had the same ancestors as mankind, then why did they not develop into creatures resembling man. Why did they remain so far behind whereas the environmental conditions and rules of evolution apply equally to all species.
In fact, from the evolutionary point of view man has shown some negative trends as compared to these species. For example, if at all man has evolved from a common ancestor of monkeys and apes, why is a new-born human infant so dependent on his parents for a relatively much longer time, as compared to the offspring of monkeys who are up and about in a much shorter time after birth. Remember that evolution is a process which improves the ability of a species to live in a better manner in an environment. It does not take away the already existing good features.
This obviously means that man and monkey have no link with each other as far as their ancestry is concerned. And here we should not forget that scientists hold the opinion that the human DNA is evolving at a much slower pace than in other species.
Then why is it that a specie which, according to scientists, came into being only a few million years ago, became the most prominent creature of the world, whereas those species which have existed for the past 3.5 billion year are still at the stage of development where they had been before and have not shown any social or intellectual improvement?
If we compare the human being with other species one thing becomes clear; Most other species, such as the monkey, exist in sub-species.
Apes, orang-utans, gorillas all having anatomical differences with each other but there is only one specie, homo sapiens, living in the world. Although there are racial differences, anatomically we are all the same. Humans from all continents have the same bones, vessels, muscles, nerves and other anatomical features and there is no sub-species among them.
This is further proof that man did not evolve as suggested by Darwin but came into being by the will of God. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that his arrival on the earth was not a gradual conversion from apes.

 

[Mughal1]

Dear friends, as I see in some of your replies, you are following older generations regardless they were right or wrong. Anyone offers a different perspective you are just judging him as stray because he does not follow your ideas and beliefs even though you are unable to explain them even to yourselves.

If one reads my threads, I made everything very clear by way of rules and explained where rules came from, particularly about tafseer of the quran because it is always tafseer bil raaye. It cannot be any other way.

It seems you people just like arguing rather than arguing thoughtfully to discover the truth. Let me explain to you once more here about laws of nature and rules of wisdom.

There are many religions and scriptures in the world and they each contradict each other as they are interpreted by most of their people. This means only one may be true or none of them may be true. The result is that it is impossible for all of them to be true. This being the case all followers of all the religions are definitely liars save the one that is may be true. The question is which of them is true and why? The very criterion you use to prove your religion true and all others false is the criterion that works. If you fail to produce that criterion then you cannot prove that your religion is true and others are false. This rule of wisdom is of vital importance without which our lives will be in chaos. We have so many disputes and this rule helps us judge things and make our life and death related decisions.

The quran state that if it was from other than Allah then there ought to be great number of contradictions within and in between the quran and the natural world realities. 4/82 etc. The quran is full of verses in praises of wisdom and condemns stupidity. What does this tell us? To be wise or stupid?

Let us for sake of argument say that islam is the only religion that is true then the question is, there are so many sects within islam so which islam is true and why? If you fail to lay down a clear cut criterion then again you prove yourselves wrong. Why? Because if what you claim is true then there has to be a way to prove it true and that way should be known to the one making such a claim or one is talking nonsense.

Arguing with people who talk nonsense is not going to produce any results unless people are willing to learn. If the answer to everything is blind faith then what the hell are you people arguing about with anyone? A christian is ok by this standard and so is a hindu or anyone else for that matter. This explanation proves beyond a shadow of doubt that talking nonsense is nonsense no matter how beautifully you wrap it up.

It also proves that anything that contradicts itself or contradicts any other reality is nonsense. This explains why tafseer of the quran cannot be anything other than peoples' personal opinions. If they were not then there ought not be any contradictions or differences. Even in tafaseer of same sects there are variations and that proves beyond a shadow of doubt that all so called tafaseer are works of individuals. It is therefore deceptive to claim that one person had right to write a tafseer but the other does not. No opinion is wrong unless it fails to work or contradicts another opinion that works. Again I have explained all this in great detail as to what proof is and how it proves the claim.

Unless people have such essential basic knowledge of things I see no point in arguing over things like children in the play ground.

Coming to what jinns may or may not be, one has to use elimination process ie we will have to find out what a jinn cannot be as well as what it might be. Within these possibilities we will end up closer and closer to to answer of the question. Only and only then we can attach meanings to quranic words properly otherwise whatever we say is senseless because it is just not based on anything at all. Just because any past scholar did not disagree with another or the opinion remained constant is not proof of its truth on its own. Only evidence based proof is true. Personality cult is not islam and it never was and it will never be. A silly opinion we know is nonsense because when we try to fit it, it does not work so it does not serve the purpose. Proof of the pudding is in the eating ie if the idea works and makes sense then it is ok regardless how many people say it is wrong or nonsense. Likewise no matter what you put forth as evidence if it fails to make sense or fails to work then it is nonsense no matter how many people say it is very nice or it is ok.

It is for this reason ideas put forth by people like sir seyyed or parwez are right or wrong. The idea that some mulla said this or that is therefore right and because anyone else is not a mulla of the same category therefore whatever he says is wrong in itself is not the proof. This is why I kept repeating that whoever talks sense is sensible and whoever talks nonsense is off the mark.

Jinns as defined by people at large do not exist because the claim of their existence is not consistent with the evidence. Word jin is used by people for people as well in any language.



Coming to evolution, it is again not understood by people in the context it is debated.

I explained in detail as to categories of truth eg real truth, self evident truth, proven truth, probable truth and posssible truth.

1)Real truth is independent of what anyone else thinks about it ie it does not need observer. If we were not born that would not change the fact that world exists.

2)self evident truth is our observation of something by means of five senses and brain=logic and reasoning so whatever we perceive as an external reality is self evident as understood by our brains.

3)proven truth is that which is witness based and the witness proves reliable under cross examination and verification.

4)probable truth, where e have no witness but we have circumstantial evidences or clues that give us reason to think in a certain way as an explanation of things. However, this explanation is such that it is the best possible explanation. This is why it is probably true.

5)possible truth, it means something is possibly true but not necessarily true it may be false but is doubtful.

The evolution theory is probably true not self evidently true nor a witness based proven truth.

The question is, why evolution theory is taken up and why religious people are against it?

Humanity has been at odds within itself due constant struggles as to how people should live as communities because it was impossible for people to exist or live totally independent of each other. As they were forced to live as communities, over time people developed varying interests and used and abused each other.

Claims were raised by some people that they have been chosen to guide others. These claims were tested by some and found safe but not by others, they had other ideas on their minds ie domination and manipulation of others.

Each party used arguments of their choice to promote their ideas and gathered evidences to show they were right and others were wrong. Over time people ended up confused again and again because dominant people managed to cover up the evidence by controlling education and system. Each time people who were interested in knowledge had to start from wherever they could in their time and rise from there. Divine books became another tool for the controlling elements to manipulate people to their advantage. The world is set up such that none can cover the truth 100% ever. The very people who see the need to control others still need their help and need to educate them for their own purposes but as a side effect like in medicine, people who become educated start thinking about other things as well eg what these dominant people are doing to rest of human race. So each time conspiracies of dominant elite become exposed by people with concern for other human beings.


So when scriptural truth becomes muddled up in false explanations and people take it as absence of divine truth they look fpor explanations elsewhere. This is how those who did not accept religious mumbo jumbo ended up with TOE.

We have mad mullas on one end and the mad scientists at the other. Mad mullas buries the divine truth in their baseless false explanations and mad scientists buries the idea of creator in their mad explanations.

The truth lies in the quran and other scriptures and the real world and in explanations of people who know what they are talking about. The out caste and the condemned, especially by the priestly class.

The quran proves to be true only and only the way it is explained in the light of real world and that explanation comes only and only from those who have made discoveries about the real world.

In not too distant future if the trends continue, islam will be the dominant explanation of everything, no matter how much mullas hate scientisits and vice versa. So stop following people, follow clear evidences and look for new explanations of what was never understood by past scholars. No point in believing falsely that they knew everything there was to know. This much is obvious from their own works. So get real and learn, avoid being foolish. May Allah guide us all to what is true and of benefit for us all.

regards and all the best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u0baT-8KjE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIPQGV2m9mo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpJyweOzMcA

 

[jujuju]

I am amazed how sillythese arguments are. lets for the sake of argument agree that darwin's theory is wrong. there are only in the US of A, thousands of departments in thousands of universities who have many more thousands of professors and researchers working on genetic theories, evolutionary biology, evolutionary physiology etc. literally billions of dollars are spent and entire lifetimes of hard work is done by individuals and many thousands of papers are published in journals. do you really think all this is being done to fool muslims into believing in Darwin's theory. REALLY? REALLY? is this really an elaborate conspiracy to fool muslims. why dont you send one of your jamatis to study in one of these universities and let him open the lid of this conspiracy??

Darwin's Theory of Evolution Disproved

By Dr. M. Karim Islamabadi

Darwin himself based his book descent of man, on the basis of structural resemblances between man and apes. He did not say that he had proved it. Just like when he was on the voyage of HMS Beagle on the Galapagos Islands he noticed different finches on neighbouring islands having minor differences from each other. He concluded that all these finches had evolved from a common ancestor. Similarly he noticed resemblances between man and monkey and concluded that both had evolved from a common ancestor.
If structural resemblance is the only criterion then we have a good resemblance with many other creatures as well. The wing of a bat, fin of a whale and arm of a man are bone and similar to each other yet these are totally different from each other and cannot be grouped together.
Similarly, as dissection of the frog’s body is taught to medical students the human beings have system for system, muscle for muscle nerve for nevre and vessel for vessel a resemblance with the frog. But can they be grouped together?
But are we similar to other creatures in features such as locomotive reproductive, respiratory, endocrine genito-urinary, cardiac and central nervous systems? But this does not mean that man and other creatures can be grouped together with a common ancestor.
The Encyclopedia Britanica has criticised the idea of having a common ancestor on the basis of structural resemblance. It says, “In the absence of a fossil record, structural and other adaptations have been projected back as an ancestral condition from living descendent species; but this is a very risky procedure that dismisses morphological transformation and adaptation and assumes stasis without complementary confirmation.”
As far as man’s resemblance with other creatures is concerned the Holy Qur’an says, “There is not an animal on earth nor a bird that flies on its wings but they are all communities like you.”
It is quite easy to understand that man has similarities with other creatures in various body systems although it is at variance with different species, yet man enjoys a unique position. Today there are one million species of animals and two hundred thousand species of plants. Scientists also say that todays’ existing species are just 0.1 percent of the total species that this earth ever witnessed.
It means that 99.9 per cent of species have already died out and became extinct. So, out of the 2 billion species that ever existed on earth why is man the only species which has such a highly developed brain? Why is he the only one who communicates with each other with the help of a complete verbal language. Why do no other species come closer to man in these characteristics? Darwin’s theory is based on natural selection, which means that the evolutionary process takes place only when there is a need for it. For example giraffes grew long necks as they needed to eat the leaves of tall trees.
The question is what was the need which made man to develop so fast and evolve in to such a remarkable intellectual and social creature that he is unmatched by the two billion species which ever existed on this earth.
If, according to Darwin, monkeys and apes had the same ancestors as mankind, then why did they not develop into creatures resembling man. Why did they remain so far behind whereas the environmental conditions and rules of evolution apply equally to all species.
In fact, from the evolutionary point of view man has shown some negative trends as compared to these species. For example, if at all man has evolved from a common ancestor of monkeys and apes, why is a new-born human infant so dependent on his parents for a relatively much longer time, as compared to the offspring of monkeys who are up and about in a much shorter time after birth. Remember that evolution is a process which improves the ability of a species to live in a better manner in an environment. It does not take away the already existing good features.
This obviously means that man and monkey have no link with each other as far as their ancestry is concerned. And here we should not forget that scientists hold the opinion that the human DNA is evolving at a much slower pace than in other species.
Then why is it that a specie which, according to scientists, came into being only a few million years ago, became the most prominent creature of the world, whereas those species which have existed for the past 3.5 billion year are still at the stage of development where they had been before and have not shown any social or intellectual improvement?
If we compare the human being with other species one thing becomes clear; Most other species, such as the monkey, exist in sub-species.
Apes, orang-utans, gorillas all having anatomical differences with each other but there is only one specie, homo sapiens, living in the world. Although there are racial differences, anatomically we are all the same. Humans from all continents have the same bones, vessels, muscles, nerves and other anatomical features and there is no sub-species among them.
This is further proof that man did not evolve as suggested by Darwin but came into being by the will of God. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that his arrival on the earth was not a gradual conversion from apes.

 

[Mughal1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG3rNN_rxL0

 

[biomat]

Why do some Muslims Support the Theory of Evolution?​

Charles Darwin ​

hroughout history, people have thought about the universe and the origin of life, and have put forward various ideas on the subject. We can divide these into two groups: those who explain the universe from a materialist point of view, and those who see that God made the universe out of nothing, namely, the truth of creation.
In the introduction, we saw that the theory of evolution was constructed upon materialist philosophy. The materialist view claims that the universe consists of matter and that matter is the only thing that exists. Therefore, matter has existed for all time and no other power rules over it. Materialists believe that blind coincidence caused the universe to shape itself and life to come about by gradually evolving from non-living substances. In other words, all living things in the world emerged as the result of natural influences and chance.
Materialist philosophy uses the theory of evolution, both of which complement each other, to account for the emergence of life. This unity, which was born in ancient Greece, once again was made public under the primitive scientific conditions of the nineteenth century and, since the theory allegedly backed up materialism, whether or not it had any scientific validity, it was adopted immediately by materialists.
The fact of creation stands in opposition to the theory of evolution. According to the creationist view, matter has not existed for all time and therefore is controlled. God created matter out of nothing and gave it order. All things, living as well as non-living, came into being by God's creation. The amazing design, calculation, equilibrium, and order seen in the universe and in living things are clear evidence of this.

Religion has taught the truth of creation, which all people can grasp through reason and personal observation, since the beginning of time. All divine religions have taught that God created the universe by commanding "Be!," and that its flawless functioning is proof of His great creative power. Many Qur'anic verses also reveal this truth. For example, Allah reveals how He miraculously created the universe from nothing: "The Originator of the heavens and Earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, 'Be!' and it is" (Qur'an, 2:117). He also reveals the following:
He created the heavens and Earth with truth. The day He says "Be!" it is. His speech is Truth. The Kingdom will be His on the Day the Trumpet is blown, the Knower of the Unseen and the Visible. He is the All-Wise, the All-Aware. (Qur'an, 6:73)

Modern science demonstrates the invalidity of the materialist-evolutionist claim and confirms creation. Contrary to the theory of evolution, all the proofs of creation that surround us show that chance had no role in the universe's coming into existence. Every detail that emerges as we observe the sky, Earth, and all living things is intended as evidence of God's great power and wisdom.
This fundamental difference between religion and atheism is that the former believes in God, while the latter believes in materialism. When Allah asks those who deny, He draws attention to the claims that they assert in order to reject creation: "Or were they created out of nothing, or are they the creators?" (Qur'an, 52:35). Ever since the dawn of time, those who deny creation have claimed that humanity and the universe were not created and have sought to justify this irrational and illogical claim. Their greatest support came in the nineteenth century, thanks to Darwin's theory.
Muslims cannot seek a compromise on this issue. Of course people can think as they please and can believe in whatever theories they wish. However, there can be no compromise with a theory that denies Allah and His creation, for this would involve compromising on religion's fundamental element. Of course, doing so is totally unacceptable.
Evolutionists, aware of how such a compromise would damage religion, encourage religious people to try and find such a compromise.
Darwinists Encourage the Creation-by-Evolution View
Scientists who blindly support the theory of evolution are being backed further into a corner by new scientific advances that are becoming more frequent and better known to the public. Given that every new discovery works against the theory and attests to creation's truth, demagogy takes pride of place over scientific evidence in evolutionist literature. On the other hand, even the most prominent evolutionist scientific magazines, like Science, Nature, Scientific American or New Scientist are forced to admit that several aspects of Darwin's theory has reached a dead end. Scientists who defend creation win these scientific debates, thereby exposing the evolutionists' baseless claims.
At this point, the view of creation by evolution comes to the materialists' aid. This is one of the tactics used by the evolutionists to appease the supporters of creation (or "Intelligent Design") and to weaken their intellectual position against the dogma of Darwinism. Although evolutionists do not believe in God, for they have made a deity out of chance and totally oppose the fact of creation, they think that their theory will become more acceptable if they remain silent about the religious evolutionists' idea that God created living things through evolution. In fact, they encourage a compromise between the theory and religion so that evolution will become more acceptable and belief in creation will weaken.
Given this, Muslims must understand that it is totally mistaken to believe that Allah created the universe and yet support the theory of evolution despite the lack of hard scientific evidence. Furthermore, it is just as mistaken to claim that evolution is compatible with the Qur'an by ignoring all the warnings in the Holy Book itself. Muslims who adopt such a position must realize that they are supporting an idea designed to help materialist philosophy and that, given this fact, they must withdraw their support at once.

If they come upon you, they will be your enemies and stretch out their hands and tongues against you with evil intent, and they would dearly love you to disbelieve.
(Qur'an, 60: 2)​

Rejecting Evolution does not Mean Rejecting Science
The number of Muslims who believe that all living things emerged by means of evolution should not be underestimated. Their error is based upon a lack of knowledge and mistaken viewpoints, particularly in regard to scientific matters. Heading the list is the idea that evolution is a scientific and proven fact.

"THE THOUGHT OF THE EYE MADE ME COLD ALL OVER!"

Charles Darwin
One of the most insoluble dilemmas for the theory of evolution is the complex structures in living things. For instance, evolutionists claim that the eye, made up of some 40 different parts, came about by chance. Yet they cannot explain how it did so. In fact, it is impossible that blind chance should have "created" such a magnificent structure. The diagram below shows some of the eye's components.​

Such people do not realize that science has completely eroded the theory of evolution's credibility. Whether on the molecular level or in biology and paleontology, research has invalidated the claims that living things emerged as the result of an evolutionary process. Darwin's theory continues to survive, despite all scientific facts, only because the evolutionists are doing all they can, including deliberately misleading people, to keep it alive. Their writings and speeches are filled with scientific terms that the average person cannot understand. Yet when their words are analyzed, one can find no evidence to support their theory.
A careful examination of Darwinist publications reveals this fact quite clearly. Their accounts are almost never based upon firm scientific proof. The fundamental areas where the theory collapses are glossed over in a few words, and many fantastic scenarios are written about natural history. They never dwell on such essential questions as how life first emerged from inanimate substances, the fossil record's huge gaps, and the complex systems in living things. They do not do so because whatever they might say or write would contradict their aims and reveal the emptiness of their theory.

When Charles Darwin (1809-82), the founder of this theory, considered one of the complex systems in living things, in this case the eye, he realized the danger that this posed to his theory and even admitted that thinking about the eye made him cold all over. Like Darwin, today's evolutionist scientists know that their theory has no answer for such complex systems. But instead of admitting this, they seek to overcome the lack of scientific evidence by writing imaginary scenarios and imposing the theory on people by giving it a scientific mask.
Such methods become obvious during face-to-face debates between evolutionists and those who believe in creation, as well as in evolutionist writings and documentaries. Actually, evolutionists are not bothered by such things as scientific truth or reason, for their sole goal is to make people believe that evolution is a scientific fact.

In this way, evolutionist Muslims are influenced by the theory's supposed "scientific" image. They are particularly alarmed by such Darwinist slogans as: "Anyone who does not believe in the theory of evolution is being dogmatic or unscientific," and so give ground on their true beliefs. Influenced by outdated information or evolutionist writings and arguments, they believe that only evolution can account for the emergence of life. They then try to reconcile religion and evolution, for they are unaware of the latest scientific developments as well as the theory's own internal contradictions and complete loss of credibility.
However, given that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, proving one means disproving the other. In other words, disproving evolution means proving creation.
For these reasons, materialists see debates on evolution as a kind of battleground, a direct ideological struggle rather than a scientific matter. Thus they resort to all possible means to obstruct those who believe in creation.

For example, evolutionist Lerry Flank recommends that the truth of creation be opposed by the following methods:
Creationist watchers must keep a close eye on the composition of state education boards. Ideally, people who are interested in quality education and in keeping the fundamentalists from using the public schools for their sermonizing should constitute the majority of these state boards... If this fails, and creationist textbooks are actually adopted and approved, then legal action becomes necessary.1
It is clear from these words that we are not talking about a scientific debate, but a war of ideas waged by evolutionists in a framework of certain strategies. Muslims who defend evolution must be aware of this. Darwinism is not a scientific thesis; rather, it is a system of thought designed to lead people to deny God. As this theory has no scientific foundation, Muslims must not allow themselves to be misled by its arguments and thereby give it any support, no matter how well-intentioned.
The Effects of Evolutionists Being in the Majority

Prof. Arda Denkel​

The evolutionists' most important ploy to gain widespread acceptance for Darwin's theory is to assert that it is widely accepted within the scientific community. In short, they are claiming validity for their theory based upon the supposed majority of its adherents and the supposed correctness of the majority's view in all cases. By employing such logic, as well as their claim that evolution's truth is further proven by its wide acceptance within the universities, they attempt to use psychological pressure on people, including believers in God, to accept it.
Arda Denkel, an evolutionist professor of philosophy at The Bosphorus University, probably the most prestigious one in Turkey, even admitted the erroneous nature of this method:
Does the fact that many respected people or organizations or bodies believe in it prove the theory of evolution to be true? Could the theory be proved by a court verdict? Does the fact that respected and powerful people believe in something make it true? I would like to recall a historical fact. Did not Galileo stand up before all the respected people, lawyers, and particularly scientists of his time and speak the truth on his own, with no support from anyone? Did not the courts of the Inquisition reveal other, similar situations? Gaining the support of respected and influential circles neither creates the truth nor has anything to do with scientific fact.2

As Denkel noted, wide acceptance of a theory does not prove its truth. In fact, the history of science is full of examples of theories that were first accepted by a minority and then only later came to be accepted as true by the majority.
Moreover, evolution is not accepted by the entire scientific community, as its proponents would have people believe. Over the last 20-30 years, the number of scientists rejecting it has risen enormously. Most of them abandon their dogmatic belief in Darwinism after seeing the flawless design in the universe and living things. They have published countless works demonstrating the theory's invalidity. Even more important, they are members of prominent universities all over the world, especially in the United States and Europe, and experts and career academics in biology, biochemistry, microbiology, anatomy, paleontology, and other scientific fields.3 Therefore it would be very wrong to say that the majority of the scientific community believes in evolution.

Prof. Owen Gingerich​

Prof. Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker ​

Prof. Dr. Donald Chittick ​

Prof.Robert Matthews
​

Prof.Michael J.Behe​

Prof. David Menton

S. Jocelyn Bell Burnell​

William Dembski​

Many contemporary scientists reject evolution and accept that God, the Lord of Infinite Intelligence and Might, created the universe. Some of the scientists who accept the truth of creation are, from left to right, Owen Gingerich, professor of astronomy and history of science at Harvard University; Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker, professor of physics at Germany's Max-Planck-Gesellschaft University; Donald Chittick, professor of chemistry at Oregon State University; Robert Matthews, professor of physics at Oxford University; Michael J. Behe, professor of biology at Lehigh University; David Menton, professor of anatomy at Washington University; S. Jocelyn Bell Burnell, professor of physics at the Open University in England; and William Dembski, associate professor in the conceptual foundations of science at Baylor University.
​

It would thus have no meaning, even if evolutionists are genuinely in the majority. No majority view is definitely right just because it is the majority view. Muslims who believe in evolution need to know that the Qur'an discusses this matter when relating the fate of the many historical communities who held a similar view and ended up denying Allah and His religion by allowing themselves to be led away from the true path. Allah warns believers against following such deceitful people, and informs humanity that going along with the majority can lead to terrible mistakes:

If you obeyed most of those on Earth, they would guide you away from Allah's Way. They follow nothing but conjecture. They are only guessing. (Qur'an, 6:116)

​

He Who created the seven heavens in layers. You will not find any flaw in the creation of the All-Merciful. Look again -do you see any gaps? Then look again and again. Your sight will return to you dazzled and exhausted!
(Qur'an, 67: 3-4)​

1. Lester J. McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Dawinism (1986), p. 99 (quotation from Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), pp. 28-29)
2. Arda Denkel, Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik Eki (Cumhuriyet Science and Technology Supplement), February 27, 1999, p.15 (Emphasis added)
3. Some of the most prominent contemporary critics of Darwinism are Michael Behe (biochemist), Michael Denton (biochemist), Jonathan Wells (biologist), William Dembski (mathematician), Charles Taxton (biochemist), and Dean Kenyon (molecular biologist). Many other scientists arguing against Darwinism can be reached through institutions like The Discovery Institute, The Intelligent Design Network, or The Institution for Creation Research.(For further details, see Harun Yahya's The Qur'an Leads the Way to Science, Nickleodeon Books, Singapore, 2002)
=========================
http://www.qurandeniesdarwinism.com/1.html

 

[biomat]

Important Truths Ignored By Muslim Evolutionists​

n the previous chapter, we discussed how Muslims who have been convinced that evolution is a fact, as opposed to a theory, might be unaware of relevant and recent scientific developments that refute Darwinism. This lack of awareness leads Muslim evolutionists to continue to accept ideas and beliefs disproved by science. Furthermore, they ignore the fact that the underlying foundation of evolution reflects a pagan mentality, ascribes divinity to chance and natural occurrences, and has engendered a great deal of oppression, conflict, war, and other catastrophes.
This chapter will focus on those truths that Muslim evolutionists ignore, and calls upon them to stop supporting the pagan mentality that provides the foundation for materialist-atheist thought.

Evolution Is an Ancient Pagan Greek Idea

A picture showing Thales' (d. 546 bce) idea of a flat Earth floating on water. The picture shows air and fire, two of Earth's four basic elements.​

Contrary to what its supporters claim, evolution is not a scientific theory but a pagan belief. The idea of evolution first appeared in such ancient societies as Egypt, Babylon, and Sumer, after which it passed to ancient Greek philosophers. Pagan Sumerian monuments contain statements denying creation and claiming that living things emerged by themselves as part of a gradual process. According to Sumerian belief, life emerged by itself out of the chaos of water.

As part of their own superstitious religions, the ancient Egyptians believed that "snakes, frogs, worms, and mice emerged from the mud of the Nile floodwaters." Just like the Sumerians, the ancient Egyptians denied the existence of a Creator and thought that "living things emerged by chance from mud."
The most important claim of the Greek philosophers Empedocles (fifth century bce), Thales (d. 546 bce), and Anaximander (d. 547 bce) of Miletus was that the first living things were formed from such inanimate substances as air, fire, and water. This theory posited that the first living things suddenly emerged in water and that later on, some of them left the water, adapted to life on land, and began to live there. Thales believed that water was the root of all life, that plants and animals began to develop in water, and that humanity was the end result of this process.4 Anaximander, a younger contemporary of Thales, held that "man arose from the fishes" and the source of life began with a "primordial mass."5

Some philosophers, such as Empedocles (d. fifth century bce), believed that Earth was composed of four elements: earth, air, fire, and water. In this seventeenth-century illustration, the four elements are symbolized as rings around the sun.​

Anaximander's verse work On Nature is the first available written work based upon the theory of evolution. In that poem, he wrote that creatures arose from slime that had been dried by the sun. He thought that the first animals were covered with prickly scales and lived in the seas. As these fish-like creatures evolved, they moved onto land, shed their scaly coverings and eventually became human beings.6 (For further details, see The Religion of Darwinism by Harun Yahya, Abu'l Qasim Publishers, Jeddah, 2003) His theory can be considered the first foundation of the present-day theory of evolution, for it has many similarities with Darwinism.
Empedocles brought earlier ideas together and suggested that the fundamental elements (i.e., earth, air, fire, and water) came together to create bodies. He also believed that man had developed from plant life, and that only chance played any role in this process.7 As mentioned earlier, this concept of chance and its role in creation form the principle basis upon which the theory of evolution is built.

Heraclitus (d. fifth century bce) claimed that because the universe was in a process of constant change, there was no point in questioning the mythical account of its beginning and maintained that it had no beginning or end. Rather, it simply existed.8 In short, the materialist belief upon which evolution is based also existed in ancient Greece.

The idea of spontaneous development was supported by many other Greek philosophers, particularly Aristotle (384-22 bce). This idea said that animals, in particular certain worms, insects, and plants, came about by themselves in nature and so did not need to undergo any fertilization process. Maurice Manquat, well known for his studies on Aristotle's ideas on natural history, once said:

​

Aristotle was concerned with the origin of life so much that he accepted spontaneous generation (the coming together of inanimate substances to spontaneously form a living thing) in order to explain certain events that could not be accounted for in any other way.9

On careful inspection, one can see considerable similarities between the ideas of past and present evolutionist thinkers. The roots of the materialist idea that the universe has no beginning and no end, as well as the evolutionist view that living things emerged as the result of chance, lie in pagan Sumerian culture and were common among materialist Greek thinkers. The ideas that life emerged from water and a mixture known as "primordial mass," and living things emerge only because of chance, form the bases of these two ideas that are linked despite the passage of so much time.

The Greek philosopher Aristotle​

Thus, Muslim evolutionists support a theory whose roots are embedded in ancient ideas that have been shown to have no scientific basis. Moreover, such ideas were first proposed by ancient materialist thinkers and contain pagan meanings.
Actually, evolution is not restricted to ancient Sumerian culture or ancient Greek philosophers, for it forms the essence of such major contemporary belief systems as Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. In other words, evolution is no more than a theory that is completely opposed to Islamic belief.
Some Muslim evolutionists, despite scientific evidence to the contrary, claim that the Qur'an supports this supposed "creationist theory of evolution" and try to find the source of evolution in the Muslim world. They assert that this idea first emerged from Muslim thinkers and, when their works were translated into foreign languages, evolutionist thought appeared in the West.

However, the few examples given above clearly reveal that evolution is no more than a primitive belief dating back to ancient pagan societies. It would be a great mistake to try and show that evolutionist thought, built upon materialist foundations, can be ascribed to Muslims when there is absolutely no clear scientific and historical basis to support such a claim.

Chance Conflicts with the Truth of Creation
Those who maintain that there is no contradiction between evolution and creation ignore one important point: Such people believe that Darwinism's main claim is that living species emerged by evolving from each other. However, this is not the case, for evolutionists claim that life emerged as the result of chance, by unconscious mechanisms. In other words, life on Earth came about without a Creator and by itself from inanimate substances.
Such a claim rejects the existence of a Creator right from the start, and thus cannot be accepted by any Muslim. However, some Muslims who are unaware of this truth see no harm in supporting evolution on the assumption that God could have used evolution to create living things.

Prof. Fred Hoyle​

Yet they ignore one important danger: Although they are trying to show that evolution is parallel to religion, in reality they are supporting and actually agreeing with an idea that is quite impossible from their own point of view. Meanwhile, evolutionists turn a blind eye to this situation because it furthers their cause of having society accept their ideas.
Looking at the matter as a devout Muslim and thinking about it in the light of the Qur'an, a theory that is fundamentally based upon chance clearly cannot have anything in common with Islam. Evolution sees chance, time, and inanimate matter as divine, and ascribes the title of "creator" to these weak and unconscious concepts. No Muslim can accept such a pagan-based theory, for each Muslim knows that Allah, the sole Creator, created everything from nothing. Therefore, he uses science and reason to oppose all beliefs and ideas that conflict with that fact.
Evolution is a component of materialism and, according to materialism, the universe has no beginning or end, and thus no need for a Creator. This irreligious ideology suggests that the universe, galaxies, stars, planets, sun, and other heavenly bodies, as well as their flawless systems and perfect equilibrium, are the results of chance. In the same way, evolution claims that the first protein and the first cell (the building blocks of life) developed by themselves as the result of a string of blind coincidences. This same ideology claims that the wonders of design in all living things, whether they live on land, in the sea, or in the skies, are the product of chance. Although surrounded on all sides by evidence of creation, starting with the design in their own bodies, evolutionists insist upon ascribing all of that perfection to chance and unconscious processes. In other words, their main characteristic is to see chance as divine in order to deny God's existence. However, such a refusal to accept or to see God's evident existence and greatness changes nothing. God's infinite knowledge and matchless art reveal themselves in everything He creates.
As a matter of fact, recent scientific advances definitively reject the evolutionists' baseless claims that life emerged by itself and by natural processes. The superior design in life shows that a Creator Who has superior wisdom and knowledge created all living things. The fact that even the simplest organisms are irreducibly complex places all evolutionists in an impossible quandary - a fact that they themselves often admit! For example, the world-famous British mathematician and astronomer Fred Hoyle admits that life could not have come about by chance:
Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd�10

Evolutionists claim that the first living cell came about in the conditions of the primitive Earth, from inanimate substances and the chance effects of natural events.​

The evolutionist Pierre-Paul Grass confesses that ascribing a creative force to chance is pure fantasy:
Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur� There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.11
Those words make the evolutionists' ideological dilemma perfectly clear: Even though they see that their theory is untenable and unscientific, they refuse to abandon it because of their ideological obsession. In another statement, Hoyle reveals why evolutionists believe in chance:
Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.12
What Hoyle describes as a "psychological" reason has conditioned evolutionists to deny creation. All of these reasons are sufficient evidence for Muslim evolutionists to consider evolution as nothing more than a theory designed to deny God.

Evolutionists' claim that life formed by itself by chance from inanimate substances is as irrational and illogical as claiming that America's Statue of Liberty was formed by the coincidental coming together of sand and rocks when lightning struck the sea.​

Natural Selection and Mutations Have No Power to Cause Evolution
Muslim evolutionists who ignore the fact that science has disproven evolution face another dilemma as well: the claim that the 1.5 million living species in nature came about as the result of unconscious natural events.
According to evolutionists, the first living cell emerged due to chemical reactions in inanimate matter. (Let's recall here that a considerable amount of scientific evidence shows that this is impossible. In addition, researchers who carried out experiments by bringing together the gases that made up Earth's initial atmosphere, as well as the appropriate atmospheric conditions, have been unable to "produce" even the smallest building block of life, the protein.13) Since they have failed to bring about a living organism despite all of the technology and scientific knowledge available to them, it is naturally irrational and illogical to claim that blind chance could have succeeded.
Evolution also claims that life began with that first cell, grew ever-more complex, and assumed an ever-greater variety until human beings were produced. In brief, the theory goes, unconscious mechanisms in nature must have continuously developed living things. For example, one bacterium contains the genetic code for some 2,000 proteins whereas a human being contains the genetic code for some 200,000 proteins. In other words, an unconscious mechanism "produced" the genetic data for 198,000 new proteins over time.

A CELL'S FLAWLESS CREATION
DISPROVES EVOLUTION

Even a single cell, the building block of life, possesses an enormously complex structure. The above picture shows just some of the parts that go into making up a cell. There is an extraordinarily complex and flawlessly planned organization between all of these components. To claim that all of this could have come about by chance flies in the face of logic and scientific discoveries.​

That is what evolution claims. Yet does nature really contain a mechanism that can develop a living thing's genetic data?

 

[biomat]

The modern theory of evolution - also known as neo-Darwinism, the updated version of Darwin's original theory that takes into account recent discoveries in genetics - proposes two such mechanisms: natural selection and mutation.

The evolutionists' imaginary tree of life​

Natural selection means that the strong and those who can adapt to changing natural conditions survive the fight for life, while the rest are eliminated and disappear. For instance, a continual fall in a region's temperature means that certain animal populations that are not resistant to low temperatures are weeded out. Over the long term, only those animals who are resistant to cold temperatures survive and eventually make up the whole population.

There is enough information in one human DNA molecule to fill 1,000 books. This giant encyclopedia has been shown to consist of 3 million letters. The flawless creation in DNA is proof of Allah's infinite power and might.​

Alternatively, in the case of rabbits who live with the constant threat of predators, only those who best adapt to the prevailing conditions (e.g., those who can run the fastest), survive and thus pass their features on to subsequent generations. However, careful examination reveals that no new feature actually emerges here, for these rabbits are not turning into a new species or acquiring a new characteristic. Thus one cannot say that natural selection causes evolution.
This being the case, evolutionists are left with mutation. In order for evolution's claim to be acceptable, mutations must be able to develop a living thing's genetic data. Mutations are defined as errors in a living thing's genes that arise either as the result of external influences (e.g., radiation) or copying faults in DNA. Of course mutations may give rise to change, yet such changes are always destructive. To put it another way, mutations cannot develop living things; rather, they always harm living things.

Genetics made major advances during the twentieth century. By examining genetic diseases in living things in the light of rapidly developing science, scientists showed that mutations were not biological changes that could contribute something to evolution. This contradicts the evolutionists' claim. Advances in genetics, in particular, resulted in the acknowledgement that some 4,500 supposedly hereditary genetic diseases actually were caused by mutation.
In order for mutations to become hereditary, they must occur in the reproductive organs (sperm cells in men, ovaries in women). Only this type of genetic change can be transmitted to later generations. Many genetic diseases are caused by such changes in just those very cells. Mutations, on the other hand, form in other bodily organs (e.g., the liver or the brain), and so cannot be transmitted to subsequent generations. Such mutations, called "somatic," cause many cancers through degeneration in the cells' DNA.

According to natural selection, the strong and those able to adapt to their surroundings survive, while the rest disappear. Evolutionists propose that natural selection caused living things to evolve and resulted in new species. However, natural selection has no such effect; all of the supposed "evidence" presented so far confirms this. Cancer is one of the best examples of the damage caused by mutations. Many carcinogenic factors, such as chemical substances and ultraviolet rays, actually produce mutations. Following the recent discovery of oncogenic and tumor-preventing genes that, when they malfunction, particularly effective in causing cancer, researchers realized how mutations lead to cancer. These two types of genes are necessary in order for cells to multiply and for the body to renew itself. If one of them is damaged by mutation, cells begin to grow in an uncontrolled manner and cancer begins to form. We can compare this situation to a stuck gas pedal or a non-working brake in a car. In both cases, the car will crash. In the same way, the cells' uncontrolled growth rate leads first to cancer and then to death. When mutations damage these genes at birth, as in the case of retinoblastoma, the affected babies soon die.

Chance mutations are always harmful to humans and all other living things. The horrifying results of the 1986 nuclear accident at Chernobyl show the effect of mutations.
http://www.ecn.cz/private/c10/tmi.jpg
http://www.ecn.cz/private/c10/child.jpg
http://www.adiccp.org/imagery/medical-aid.html​

The damage done to living things by mutations is not limited to these examples. Almost all mutations observed so far are harmful; only a few are neutral. Despite this, however, evolutionists as well as Muslim evolutionists still try to maintain that mutation is a valid evolutionary mechanism. If species had evolved into one another, as evolutionists claim, millions of advantageous mutations would have had to occur and be present in all reproductive cells.

Just as an earthquake destroys a city instead of developing it, chance mutations lead to sickness, deformity, and handicaps in living things.​

Science, as it continues to advance, has discovered millions of harmful mutations and has identified the resulting diseases. However, evolution faces a terrible quandary: Evolutionist scientists can cite no mutations that actually increase genetic data. Pierre Paul Grass, one of France's best-known zoologists, editor of the 35-volume Traite de Zoologie, and former president of the French Academy of Sciences, has compared mutations to the incorrect letters made while copying a written text. And just like incorrect letters, mutations do not increase information; rather, they damage the already existing data. Grass states this fact in the following manner:
Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complimentary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what persists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how... As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy.14
Given this fact, mutations, as Grass puts it, "no matter how numerous they may be,they do not produce any kind of evolution." We can compare the effects of mutations to an earthquake. Just as an earthquake does not help develop or improve a city but actually tears it down, mutations always have negative effects in exactly the same way. From this point of view, the evolutionists' claims regarding mutations are completely unfounded. (For further details, see The Evolution Deceit by Harun Yahya, Taha Publishers, London, 1999).

"These people of ours have taken gods apart from Him. Why do they not produce a clear authority concerning them? Who could do greater wrong than someone who invents a lie against Allah?"
(Qur'an, 18: 15)​

4. David Skjaerlund, Philosophical Origins of Evolution, (http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/x0742-philosophical-origin.html)
5. http://www.candleinthedark.com/anaximander.html
6. http://buglady.clc.uc.edu/biology/bio106/earlymod.htm
7. David Skjaerlund, Philosophical Origins of Evolution, (http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/x0742-philosophical-origin.html)
8. http://buglady.clc.uc.edu/biology/bio106/earlymod.htm
9. Maurice Manquat, Aristote naturaliste, Paris: Librairie Philosophique, J. Vrin, 1932, p. 113
10. Sir Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe Prof of Astronomy, Cambridge University Prof of Astronomy and Applied Mathematics University College, Cardiff Evolution from Space, J. M. Dent, 1981, pp.141, 144
11. Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p.103
12. Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, Dent, London, 1981, p.130
13. The evolutionary scenario related to the origin of life is called the theory of chemical evolution. Countless experiments conducted during the twentieth century failed to support this theory. Stanley Miller's experiment, the most famous case, consisted of his alleged "creation" of a primitive atmosphere and the subsequent synthesis of a few amino acids. However it was later recognized that the primitive atmosphere was far more hostile to organic compounds than Miller had assumed. No one has ever been able to duplicate the assembling of proteins, the real building bock of life, in any "chemical evolution" experiment. For details, see Harun Yahya, Darwinism Refuted, Goodword Books, New Delhi, 2003.
14. Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p.97