On April 4, 2003, the Discovery Channel broadcast a short, 10-minute presentation film after its program "Discovery with Children." The film introduced the program "Nature," in which viewers were invited to discover nature.
On April 4, 2003, the Discovery Channel broadcast a short, 10-minute presentation film after its program "Discovery with Children." The film introduced the program "Nature," in which viewers were invited to discover nature. The film introduced a number of deep-sea creatures and screened perfect light shows from a number of exotic jellyfish and species of fish living in a totally dark environment. The introduction displayed an enquiring attitude as to how such bright and light-producing creatures might have evolved in such complete darkness. It was apparent that the Discovery Channel was preparing an evolutionist documentary based on deep-sea creatures and was attempting to arouse viewers" interest. This article will explain the truth about the colorful design in deep-sea creatures.
At the beginning of the presentation the following question is posed:
Why do you imagine evolution equipped these darkness-dwelling creatures with such bright colors? Scientists are still unable to answer this question.
The Discovery Channel is pointing here to something unknown in the name of evolution, but is erroneously including scientists in this. The fact is that the ranks of those who are unable to account for the bright colors in deep-sea creatures are limited to "evolutionist scientists." There is no question of those scientists who examine modern scientific findings in an objective manner and thus grasp the fact of creation being caught in such a dilemma.
Deep-sea creatures produce a protein in their bodies which allows light to be radiated. Thanks to this protein, known as green fluorescent protein, they are able to swim and turn this light on and off. This represents a headache for evolutionists since it cannot be accounted for in terms of natural selection.
The explanation which evolutionists most often bring to bear on such aesthetic and striking structures is that of "sexual selection." In other words, they say that the presence of an attractive structure in a living thing stems from the sexual attraction that structure gains for its owner. According to this claim, animals prefer more attractive individuals when breeding, and such individuals are "selected" down the generations.
Yet the theory is a mistaken one. We must immediately make it clear that the theory is unable to account for how the information regarding these attractive organs first appeared in DNA. Furthermore, the assumption that any living thing devoid of consciousness possesses an "aesthetic" point of view is an unfounded one. Darwin himself had no hesitation in putting that obstacle forward when unveiling his theory of sexual selection, stating that even human beings were not so selective regarding criteria placing attractiveness to the fore in their spouses, and saying that it was difficult to definitively accept that animals did so.
Even if we ignore the obstacles facing the sexual selection thesis for one moment, the evolutionist viewpoint is still unable to account for the striking emission of light in jellyfish. These creatures have no eye-like organ, for which reason it is impossible for them to perceive color. This entirely does away with the possibility of the aesthetic and attractive light production in jellyfish being perceived by their mates. The emanation of light in jellyfish, therefore, does away with the only thesis evolutionists can cling to, in other words the thesis that it might have emerged with the selection of mates. On the other hand, giving off light in pitch darkness provides no defense against predators, but rather attracts their attention. For that reason, it is impossible to explain this aesthetic feature by means of any selective logic, in other worlds in terms of natural selection.
It is not only the emanation of light which is striking in deep-sea creatures, but also their color. Colors which amaze those who see them, and the patterns on fish, are exceedingly attractive. These creatures demonstrate the existence of artistry. It is impossible for evolutionists to account for this, because they are unable to account for striking colors such animals possess within the context of any model of evolutionary advantage. These fish live in pitch-blackness. It is ridiculous to claim that creatures which give rise to no evolutionary advantage but which are all works of art could have come about by chance. The only explanation for this artistry is that the creatures in question were created.
Some transparent creatures were also shown in the short presentation, and the question posed as to why they failed to "evolve" colored or light-emitting bodies. Discovery Channel itself offers a nonsensical response to this nonsensical question: "They evolved in such a way as to become transparent. Maybe these fish realized that nobody would appreciate their beauty in the depths..."
As we have seen, the Discovery Channel is in a real quandary as regards accounting for the striking emission of light, patterns and transparency found in deep sea creatures in terms of evolution. That is why its questions and answers in this regard go no further than being nonsense. It is of course impossible for a fish to realize that its appearance has made an impression on other fish and for it then to design and produce colors, patterns and light emitting proteins in its own body. Moreover, if the reason why transparent fish remain transparent is that colors will not be appreciated, then why are those creatures which do possess perfect colors and illumination systems in search of just such "appreciation."
All of this shows that the design in deep-sea creatures leaves the theory of evolution quite helpless. And yet the position is really quite clear: if there is a work of artist, then there must also be an artist who made it. If the crew of a research submarine travel down to the depths of the ocean and encounter an old gold-plated candlestick, then it will immediately be realized that this is the work of an artist, and that it came to be where it is when a ship sank. No rational person would claim that blind chance created a gold-plated candlestick on the ocean floor. The crew of that submarine would not even stop to debate whether the candlestick had been covered in gold "for the appreciation of sea bottom creatures."
Allah created the creatures at the bottom of the sea, together with their attractive designs. The fact that evolutionist institutions such as the Discovery Channel cannot see the obvious truth when they look at these creatures, each one of which is proof of evolution, is a situation which has been revealed in the Qur"an. Allah refers to the blindness of the deniers in these terms:
""How many Signs there are in the heavens and Earth! Yet they pass them by, turning away from them."" (Qur"an, 12: 105)
