Appendix: The Deception of Evolution

Darwinism, in other words the theory of evolution, was put forward with the aim of denying the fact of creation, but is in truth nothing but a failed, unscientific nonsense. The theory of evolution has its origins in pagan superstitions dating back to the time of ancient Egypt and Sumeria. Like these superstitions, the theory of evolution explains the origin of the universe and life through coincidences, and it has nothing to do with science. This theory, which claims that life emerged through coincidences from inanimate matter, was invalidated by the scientific evidence demonstrating the miraculous order in the universe and in living things, as well as by the discovery of about 700 million fossils revealing that evolution never happened. Furthermore, the theory of evolution is incapable of explaining the formation of even a single protein, the main building block of life. Science has proven that it is impossible for a protein to come into existence through coincidences. In this way, the fact that God created the universe and the living things in it has been confirmed by science as well. The worldwide propaganda carried out today to keep the theory of evolution alive is based solely on the distortion of scientific facts, biased interpretation, and lies and falsehoods disguised as science.

Charles Darwin

Yet this propaganda cannot conceal the truth. The fact that the theory of evolution is the greatest deception in the history of science has been expressed more and more in the scientific world over the last 20 to 30 years. Research carried out after the 1980s in particular revealed that the claims of Darwinism are totally unfounded and this fact has been stated by a large number of scientists. Many scientists from such different fields as biology, biochemistry, paleontology, genetics, zoology and archeology recognize the invalidity of Darwinism and explain the origin of life through the fact of creation.

We have examined the collapse of the theory of evolution and the proofs of creation in great scientific detail in many of our works, and are continuing to do so. Given the enormous importance of this subject, it will be of great benefit to summarize it here.

Challenges That Devastate Darwin

As a pagan doctrine going back as far as ancient Egypt and Sumeria, the theory of evolution came to the fore most extensively once more in the nineteenth century. The most important development that made it the top topic of the world of science was the publication of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species in 1859. In this book, Darwin in his own way opposes the fact that God created different living species on Earth separately, for he erroneously claimed that all living beings had an imaginary common ancestor and had diversified over time through small changes.

Darwin’s theory was not based on any concrete scientific finding; as he also accepted, it was just an “assumption”. Moreover, as Darwin confessed in the long chapter of his book titled, “Difficulties on Theory,” the theory failed in the face of many critical questions.

Darwin invested all his hopes in new scientific discoveries, which he expected would solve these difficulties. He indicated this expectation again and again in his book. However, contrary to his expectations, scientific findings expanded the dimensions of these difficulties and refuted the basic assumptions of the theory one by one.

The defeat of Darwinism in the face of science can be reviewed under three basic headings:

In this section, we will examine these three basic points in general outlines:

The First Insurmountable Step: The Origin of Life

The theory of evolution posits that all living species evolved from a single living cell that emerged haphazardly on Earth 3.8 billion years ago, supposedly having appeared as a result of coincidences. How a cell comprising a wide range of organelles such as vacuoles, mitochondria, lysosomes and Golgi apparatus could come into existence in a puddle of mud, how a single cell could generate millions of complex living species and, if such an evolution really occurred, why traces of it cannot be observed in the fossil record are some of the questions that the theory cannot answer. However, first and foremost, we need focus on the first step of the supposed evolutionary process. How did the aforementioned “first cell” originate?

Since the theory of evolution ignorantly denies creation, it maintains that the “first cell” originated as a product of blind coincidence within the laws of nature, without any plan or arrangement. According to the theory, inanimate matter must have haphazardly produced a living cell out of nowhere. Such a claim, however, is inconsistent with the most unassailable rules of biology.

“Life Comes from Life”

In his book, Darwin never referred to the origin of life. That is because the primitive understanding of science in his time rested on the assumption that living beings had a very simple structure. Since medieval times, spontaneous generation, which asserts that non-living materials came together to form living organisms, had been widely accepted. In that period, it was commonly believed that insects came into being from food leftovers, and mice from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty piece of cloth, and it was believed that mice would originate from it after a while.

Similarly, maggots developing in rotting meat were assumed to be evidence of life originating from inanimate materials. However, it was later understood that worms did not appear on meat spontaneously, but were carried there by flies in the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye. At the time Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from non-living matter was widely accepted in the world of science.

However, five years after the publication of Darwin’s book, Louis Pasteur announced his results, after long studies and experiments, which disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin’s theory. In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said: “Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.” (Sidney Fox, Klaus Dose, Molecular Evolution and The Origin of Life, W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1972, p. 4.)

For a long time, advocates of the theory of evolution resisted Pasteur’s findings. However, as the development of science unraveled the complex structure of the cell of a living being, the idea that life could come into being coincidentally faced an even greater impasse.

Louise Pasteur	Oparin
Through his experiments, Louis Pasteur invalidated the idea that “life can emerge from inanimate matter,” on which the theory of evolution is based.

Futile Efforts in the Twentieth Century

As accepted also by the latest evolutionist theorists, the origin of life is still a great stumbling block for the theory of evolution.

The first evolutionist who took up the subject of the origin of life in the twentieth century was the renowned Russian biologist Alexander Oparin. With various theses he advanced in the 1930s, he tried to prove that a living cell could originate by chance. These studies, however, were doomed to failure, and Oparin had to make the following confession:

Unfortunately, however, the problem of the origin of the cell is perhaps the most obscure point in the whole study of the evolution of organisms. (Alexander I. Oparin, Origin of Life, Dover Publications, New York, 1936, 1953 and 2003 (reprint), p. 196)

Evolutionist followers of Oparin tried to carry out experiments to solve this problem. The best-known experiment was carried out by the American chemist Stanley Miller in 1953. Combining those gases he alleged to have existed in the primordial Earth’s atmosphere in an experimental set-up, and adding energy to the mixture, Miller synthesized several organic molecules (amino acids) present in the structure of proteins.

Barely a few years had passed before it was revealed that this experiment, which was then presented as an important step in the name of evolution, was invalid, for the atmosphere used in the experiment was very different from the real Earth conditions. (“New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, 1328-1330)

After a long silence, Miller, himself confessed that the atmosphere medium he used was unrealistic. (Stanley Miller, Molecular Evolution of Life: Current Status of the Prebiotic Synthesis of Small Molecules, 1986, p. 7)

All the evolutionists’ efforts throughout the twentieth century to explain the origin of life ended in failure. The geochemist Jeffrey Bada, from the San Diego Scripps Institute, accepted this fact in an article published in Earth magazine in 1998:

Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth? (Jeffrey Bada, Earth, February 1998, p. 40)

The Complex Structure of Life:
Not Even a Single Protein Can Come into Existence by Chance

One of the facts nullifying the theory of evolution is the astonishingly complex structure of life. The DNA molecule located in the nucleus of cells of living beings is an example of this. The DNA is a sort of databank formed of the arrangement of four different molecules in different sequences. This databank contains the codes of all the physical traits of that living being. When the human DNA is put into writing, it is calculated that this would result in an encyclopedia made up of 900 volumes. Unquestionably, such extraordinary information definitively refutes the concept of coincidence.

The primary reason why evolutionists ended up at such a great impasse regarding the origin of life is that even those living organisms Darwinists deemed to be the simplest have outstandingly complex features. The cell of a living thing is more complex than all our man-made technological products. Today, even in the most developed laboratories of the world, not even a single protein of a cell, let alone a living cell itself, can be produced by bringing non-living materials together.

The conditions required for the formation of a cell are too great in quantity to be explained away by mere coincidence. However, there is no need to explain the situation with too many details. Evolutionists are at a dead-end even before reaching the stage of the cell. That is because the probability of just a single protein, an essential building block of the cell, coming into being by chance is mathematically “0”.

The main reason for this is the need for other proteins to be present if one protein is to form, and this completely eradicates the possibility of chance formation. This fact by itself is sufficient to eliminate the evolutionist claim of chance right from the outset. To summarize,

1. Proteins cannot be synthesized without enzymes, and enzymes are all proteins.

12. Around 60 proteins assuming the task of an enzyme need to be present for a single protein to be synthesized. Therefore, proteins are essential for proteins to exist.

13. DNA manufactures the protein-synthesizing enzymes. Proteins cannot be synthesized without DNA. DNA is therefore also needed for proteins to form.

14. All the organelles in the cell have important tasks in protein synthesis. In other words, for proteins to form, a complete and fully functioning cell needs to exist with all its organelles.

Evolutionist science writer Brian Switek admitted that the origin of life remains to be unaccountable by evolutionists as follows:

How life began is one of nature’s enduring mysteries. (Brian Switnek, “Debate bubbles over the origin of life”, Nature, February 13, 2012)

Harvard chemist George Whitesides made the following confession in his acceptance speech of the Priestley Medal, the highest award of the American Chemical Society:

The Origin of Life. This problem is one of the big ones in science. ... Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth. How? I have no idea. (George M. Whitesides, “Revolutions In Chemistry: Priestley Medalist George M. Whitesides’ Address”, Chemical and Engineering News, 85: 12-17, March 26, 2007)

The DNA molecule, located in the nucleus of a cell and which stores genetic information, is a magnificent databank. If the information coded in DNA were transcribed on paper, it would make a giant library consisting of an estimated 900 volumes of 500 pages each.

A very interesting insurmountable predicament emerges at this point for the evolutionists: DNA can replicate itself only with the help of some specialized proteins (enzymes). However, the synthesis of these enzymes can be realized only by the information coded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, they must exist at the same time for replication. This razes the scenario where life originated by itself to the ground. Prof. Leslie Orgel, an evolutionist of repute from the University of San Diego, California, confesses this fact in the September 1994 issue of the Scientific American magazine:

It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means. (Leslie E. Orgel, “The Origin of Life on Earth,” Scientific American, vol. 271, October 1994, p. 78.)

No doubt, if it is impossible for life to have originated spontaneously through blind coincidence, then it must be accepted that life was created. This fact explicitly invalidates the theory of evolution, whose main purpose is to deny creation.

1. Antenna 2. Legs	3. Eyes 4. Mouth
Evolutionists have been trying to form an example of useful mutation by subjecting flies to mutations since the beginning of the century. All they attained as a result of decades of studies are crippled, diseased and defective flies. On the left: Head of a normal fruit fly On the right: A mutated fruit fly

Imaginary Mechanisms of Evolution

The second important point that negates Darwin’s theory is that both concepts put forward by the theory as “evolutionary mechanisms” were understood to have, in reality, no evolutionary power.

Darwin based his evolution allegation entirely on the mechanism of “natural selection”. The importance he placed on this mechanism was evident in the name of his book: The Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection…

Natural selection holds that those living things that are stronger and more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will survive in the struggle for life. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of attack by wild animals, those that can run faster will survive. Therefore, the deer herd will be comprised of faster and stronger individuals. However, unquestionably, this mechanism will not cause deer to evolve and transform themselves into another living species, for instance, horses.

Therefore, the mechanism of natural selection has no evolutionary power. Darwin was also aware of this fact and had to state this in his book The Origin of Species:

Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, The Modern Library, New York, p. 127)

Lamarck’s Fallacy

So, how could these “favorable variations” occur? Darwin tried to answer this question from the standpoint of the primitive understanding of science at that time. According to the French biologist Chevalier de Lamarck (1744-1829), who lived before Darwin, living creatures passed on the traits they acquired during their lifetime to the next generation. He asserted that these traits, which accumulated from one generation to another, caused new species to be formed. For instance, he claimed that giraffes evolved from antelopes; as they struggled to eat the leaves of high trees, their necks were extended from generation to generation.

Darwin also gave similar examples. In his book The Origin of Species, for instance, he said that some bears going into water to find food transformed themselves into whales over time. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 184.)

However, the laws of inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel (1822-84) and verified by the science of genetics, which flourished in the twentieth century, utterly demolished the legend that acquired traits were passed on to subsequent generations. Thus, natural selection was left ‘alone’ and consequently rendered completely ineffective as an evolutionary mechanism.

Neo-Darwinism and Mutations

In order to find a solution, Darwinists advanced the “Modern Synthetic Theory,” or as it is more commonly known, Neo-Darwinism, at the end of the 1930s. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, which are distortions formed in the genes of living beings due to such external factors as radiation or replication errors, as the “cause of favorable variations” in addition to natural selection.

Today, the model that Darwinists espouse, despite their own awareness of its scientific invalidity, is Neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living species were formed through a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent “mutations”, that is, genetic disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the contrary, they are always harmful. The horrific images that appeared after the nuclear explosions in Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the exact results brought about by mutations. The organisms with proper structures either died or were severely damaged by mutations.

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only harm it. The American geneticist B. G. Ranganathan explains this as follows:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building which, in all probability, would not be an improvement. (B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988, p. 7.)

According to the claims of Darwinists, mutations must produce proportionate and coherent changes all over the body. For example, as per the claims of Darwinists, if an ear is formed on the right side as a result of chance mutations just as they claim, chance mutations should also form a second ear on the left side that shares the same symmetry and properties, and hears just as well. The hammer, anvil and stirrup must each come into existence in the same perfect and equal state. Random mutations must form heart valves on both sides in the same way; the valves and auricles produced by random mutations must be formed simultaneously and equally compatible with one another; they must be flawless, in their proper places.

There is no single fossil showing that species developed gradually. An examination of the layers of the Earth’s crust and the fossil record reveals that life came into being on Earth suddenly.

Huge discrepancies would appear if this symmetry and order could not be maintained in every organ of the body. Bizarre structures with its one ear upside down, one unusual tooth, one eye on the forehead while the other on the nose, would appear. But living organisms do not possess such imbalances. According to the claims of the Darwinists, everything formed by mutations must be symmetrical and compatible. However, all mutations are harmful. In the past, it was assumed that 99% of the mutations were harmful while the remaining 1% was neutral. Yet new researches revealed that those 1% of mutations that take place in those regions of the DNA that do not code proteins and were thus assumed to be harmless, are in fact harmful in the long run. That is why scientists named these mutations as ‘silent mutations’. It is impossible for mutations that are absolutely harmful to form rational, compatible, symmetrical organs at the same time.

Mutations can be likened to shooting at an intact structure with a machine gun. Shooting at an intact object will completely ruin its structure. One of the bullets proving ineffective, or curing a pre-existing infection in the body by cauterizing it, does not change the result. The organism would already be ruined by the remaining 99 bullets that hit it.

Lynn Margulis, a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, has made the following confession regarding the evident harmful effects of mutations:

New mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired. (Lynn Margulis, quoted in Darry Madden, UMass Scientist to Lead Debate on Evolutionary Theory, Brattleboro (Vt.) Reformer, February 3, 2006)

There are no fossil remains that support the tale of human evolution. On the contrary, the fossil record shows that there is an insurmountable barrier between apes and men. In the face of this truth, evolutionists fixed their hopes on certain drawings and models. They randomly place masks on the fossil remains and fabricate imaginary half-ape, half-human faces.

Also in an interview in 2011, Margulis emphasized the fact that “there is no evidence” indicating that mutations modify organisms and thus give rise to new species:

[N]eo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change-led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. (Lynn Margulis quoted in “Lynn Margulis: Q + A,” Discover Magazine, April 2011, p. 68)

As Margulis stated, there is not a single evidence showing that random mutations lead to evolutionary changes, which in turn lead to the emergence of new species.

Indeed, no beneficial mutation – one that would advance the genetic code – has ever been observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful. It is now understood that mutation, which is presented as an “evolutionary mechanism”, is actually a genetic occurrence that harms living things, and leaves them disabled. (The most common effect of mutation on human beings is cancer.) Of course, a destructive mechanism cannot be an “evolutionary mechanism”. Natural selection, on the other hand, “can do nothing by itself”, as Darwin also accepted. This fact shows us that there is no “evolutionary mechanism” in nature. Since there is no evolutionary mechanism, no such imaginary process called “evolution” can take place.

The Fossil Record: No Sign of Intermediate Forms

The fossil records constitute the clearest evidence showing us that the scenario suggested by the theory of evolution did not take place.

According to the unscientific supposition behind this theory, every living species has sprung from a predecessor. A previously existing species (evolutionists have yet to offer an explanation on how this species came into existence) turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. In other words, this imaginary transformation took millions of years and proceeded gradually.

If this were the case, innumerable intermediary species should have existed and lived within this long transformation period.

For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles would have lived in the past, which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile-birds, which acquired some bird traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already had. Since these would be in a transitional phase, they should be disabled, defective, crippled beings. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as “transitional forms”.

Living Fossils Refute Evolution

Fossils are evidence that evolution never happened. As revealed by the fossil record, living organisms were created complete with all their characteristics, and have never changed since they first appeared and for as long as they existed. Fish have always been fish, insects have always been insects and reptiles have always been reptiles. There are no scientific grounds for the claim that species gradually develop.

Sun Fish Period: Cenozoic Age, Eocene Period Age: 54-37 million years

Sea Urchin Period: Paleozoic Age, Carboniferous Period Age: 295 million years

Crane Fly Period: Cenozoic Age, Eocene Period Age: 48-37 million years

Starfish Period: Paleozoic Age, Ordovician Period Age: 490-443 million years

Spittlebug Period: Mesozoic Age, Cretaceous Period Age: 125 million years

Birch Leaf Period: Cenozoic Age, Eocene Period Age: 50 million years

Sequoia Leaf Period: Cenozoic Age, Eocene Period Age: 50 million years

If such animals ever really existed, there would be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. In The Origin of Species, Darwin explained:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently, evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains... (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, New York: D. Appleton and Company. p. 161)

However, Darwin, having written these lines, was also well aware of the fact that no fossils of these intermediate forms had yet been found. He regarded this as a major difficulty for his theory. That is why, in one chapter of his book titled “Difficulties on Theory,” he wrote:

Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?…. But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, New York: D. Appleton and Company. p.154, 155)

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, New York: D. Appleton and Company. p. 246)

Darwin’s Shattered Hopes

However, although evolutionists have been making strenuous efforts to find fossils since the middle of the nineteenth century all over the world, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils, contrary to the evolutionists’ expectations, show that life appeared on Earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.

Renowned British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact, even though he is an evolutionist:

The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find – over and over again – not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another. (Derek V. Ager, “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the British Geological Association, vol. 87, 1976, p. 133.)

This means that in the fossil record, all living species suddenly emerge as fully formed, without any intermediate forms in between. This is just the opposite of Darwin’s assumptions. Furthermore, this is very strong evidence that all living things are created. The only explanation of a living species emerging instantaneously and completely in every detail without any evolutionary ancestor is that it was created. This fact is admitted also by the widely-known evolutionist biologist Douglas Futuyma:

Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence. (Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, Pantheon Books, New York, 1983, p. 197)

Today, there are 700 million unearthed fossils. All these fossils reveal that living beings emerged fully developed and in a perfect state on the Earth. It is as if the fossils are saying “We did not evolve through evolutionary processes.” That means, contrary to Darwin’s supposition, “the origin of species” cannot be explained by evolution, but is explained by creation.

The Tale of Human Evolution

The subject most often brought up by advocates of the theory of evolution is the subject of the origin of man. The Darwinist claim holds that man evolved from so-called ape-like creatures. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started four to five million years ago, some “transitional forms” between man and his imaginary ancestors are supposed to have existed. According to this completely imaginary scenario, four basic “categories” are listed:

1. Australopithecus
2. Homo habilis
3. Homo erectus
4. Homo sapiens

Evolutionists call man’s so-called first ape-like ancestors Australopithecus, which means “Southern ape”. These living beings are actually nothing but an ape species that has become extinct. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world famous anatomists from England and the USA, namely, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, shows that these apes belonged to an ordinary ape species that became extinct and bore no resemblance to humans (Solly Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, 75-14; Charles E. Oxnard, “The Place of Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt”, Nature, vol. 258, 389).

Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as “homo”, that is, “man.” According to their claim, the living beings in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus. Evolutionists devise an imaginary evolution scheme by arranging different fossils of these creatures in a particular order. This scheme is imaginary because it has never been proven that there is any evolutionary relationship between these different classes.

By outlining the chain’s links as Australopithecus > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens, evolutionists imply that each of these species is another’s ancestor. However, recent findings of paleoanthropologists have revealed that Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus all lived at different parts of the world at the same time (Alan Walker, Science, vol. 207, 7 March 1980, p. 1103; A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 1st ed., J. B. Lipincott Co., New York, 1970, p. 221; M. D. Leakey, Olduvai Gorge, vol. 3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1971, p. 272.).

Moreover, a certain segment of humans classified as Homo erectus have lived up until very modern times. Homo erectus and Homo sapiens co-existed in the same region and era. (Jeffrey Kluger, “Not So Extinct After All,” Time, 24 June 2001).

This situation indicates the invalidity of the claim that they are ancestors of one another. The late Stephen Jay Gould explained this deadlock of the theory of evolution, although he was himself one of the leading advocates of evolution in the twentieth century:

What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth. (S. J. Gould, Natural History, vol. 85, 1976, p. 30)

Put briefly, the scenario of human evolution, which is “upheld” with the help of various drawings of some “half ape, half human” creatures appearing in the media and textbooks, that is, frankly, propaganda, is nothing but a tale with no scientific foundation.

Lord Solly Zuckerman, one of the most famous and respected scientists in the U.K., who carried out research on this subject for years and studied Australopithecus fossils for 15 years, finally concluded, despite being an evolutionist himself, that there is, in fact, no such family tree branching out from ape-like creatures to man.

Zuckerman also made an interesting “spectrum of science” ranging from those he considered scientific to those he considered unscientific. According to Zuckerman’s spectrum, the most “scientific” – that is, depending on concrete data – fields of science are chemistry and physics. After them come the biological sciences and then the social sciences. At the far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to be most “unscientific”, are “extra-sensory perception” – concepts such as telepathy and a sixth sense – and finally “human evolution”. Zuckerman explains his reasoning:

We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man’s fossil history, where to the faithful [evolutionist] anything is possible – and where the ardent believer [in evolution] is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time. (Solly Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower, New York: Toplinger Publications, 1970, p. 19)

The tale of human evolution boils down to nothing but the prejudiced interpretations of some unearthed fossils by certain people who blindly adhere to their theory.

Why a Muslim Cannot Be an Advocate of Evolution

Based on the knowledge of the 1940s and 1950s, some Muslims imagine that evolution is a theory supported by science, and try to reconcile it with Islam employing a strange logic which suggests that ‘Muslims knew about evolution long before Darwin.’ This logic is a product of serious lack of knowledge. Science has proven the invalidity of evolution. The fact science reveals is the fact of creation.

The fact that Muslims believe in, and the Qur’an clearly states, is that God created everything. Therefore, it is impossible for a Muslim to advocate the theory of evolution, which is a pagan superstition dating back to the time of the ancient Egyptians and Sumerians, explaining everything with coincidences.

God surely could have created the living organisms through evolution if He had wished so. However, the Qur’an does not contain any such information or any verse supporting the gradual formation of life forms as claimed by evolutionists. Had such a manner of creation existed, we would have seen it in the verses of the Qur’an with its elaborate explanations. But on the contrary, God informs us in the Qur’an that life and the universe is created miraculously with God’s commandment, ‘Be’.

He is 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)

The fact God heralds in the Qur’an is that mankind was created out of nothing, in the finest form:

We created man in the finest mold. (Qur’an, 95:4)

He created the heavens and the earth with truth and formed you, giving you the best of forms. And He is your final destination.(Qur’an, 64:3)

Inside the brain is utter darkness. Light cannot penetrate into the brain. The brain is soundproof as much as it is lightproof. Therefore, no matter how loud the sound we may hear, inside our brains it is completely silent. However, within this silence resides a consciousness that interprets the electrical signals as a favorite song, the voice of a friend or the ring of the phone. This consciousness is our soul.

The Prophet Adam (pbuh) and All Mankind Existed in the Spiritual Realm Before the Universe Was Created

In the Qur’an, God informs us He created mankind in the spiritual realm even before the creation of the Universe and called everyone to testify:

When your Lord took out all their descendants from the loins of the children of Adam and made them testify against themselves ‘Am I not your Lord?’ they said, ‘We testify that indeed You are!’ Lest you say on the Day of Rising, ‘We knew nothing of this.’ (Qur’an, 7:172)

As it is seen, God informs us in the verse that mankind was brought into being before the universe, that they were created flawlessly and were fully developed, and that they testified and promised that God is their Lord. According to the information imparted by the verse, fully developed, talking, hearing, promising, testifying human beings existed with all their organs and all their physical characteristics even before the universe was created.

The original Arabic verse is as below:

“Ve iz ehaze rabbuka min benî âdama min zuhûrihim zurriyyatahum wa asyhadahum alâ anfusihim, a lastu birabbikum, qâlû balâ, syahidna, an taqûlû yaumal qiyâmati innâ kunnâ an hâzâ gâfilîn (gâfilîna).”

ve iz ehaze: And when (He) took out
(iz: you know, remember, then, at that time, … when… because, as, hence)
rabbuka: your Lord
min benî âdama: from the children of Adam
min zuhûri-him: from their loins
zurriyyatahum: their descendant, their lines, their lineage
wa asyhadahum: and made them testify
alâ anfusi-him: against themselves
a lastu: am I not?
bi rabbikum: your Lord
qâlû: they said
bala: yes
syahidna: we testify
an taqûlû: lest, so that you say not
yaumal qiyâmati: the Day of Rising
innâ: certainly we, genuinely we
kunnâ: we are, … we were
'an hâza: of this
gâfilîn(a): unaware, knew nothing

The Arabic word “zuriyyat” (descendant) used in the verse, is used 18 more times in the Qur’an. The meaning of this word in all the verses it is used in is ‘mankind’ or ‘human generation’ as all the Islamic scholars unanimously agree. In this verse, there is a reference to the descendants of Adam - the line of the Prophet Adam (pbuh)- meaning all human beings that have lived and will live on earth. That is because, had that been a promise taken only from the person of the Prophet Adam (pbuh), the verse would have read ‘When your Lord made Adam testify.” As the verse states ‘When your Lord took out all their descendants from the loins of the children of Adam’, there is a reference to all the descendants of the Prophet Adam (pbuh), meaning all mankind.

The Arabic word ‘iz’ (meaning; remember that time, when) refers to the time when this address was made to the descendants of the Prophet Adam (pbuh), meaning to all mankind. The word ‘iz’ is a preposition used while talking about an incident that took place in the past. It means ‘remember this incident that took place in the past’. What is meant here is the testimony, the promise all humankind gave in the past, even before the universe was created.

In another verse of the Qur’an, it is stated that people will die twice and will be given life twice:

They will say, ‘Our Lord, twice You caused us to die and twice You gave us life. We admit our wrong actions. Is there no way out?’ (Qur’an, 40:11)

The first death and life mentioned in this verse is the way people–in a sense- die after they gave this promise in the spiritual realm, and then are given life by God using their parents as instruments and are sent to this world. The second death is the physical death that we know of in this world. After that, people will be given life for the second time in the Hereafter.

When this is the case, the ‘gradual formation of mankind’ claims of those who assert that creation through evolution is mentioned in the Qur’an become utterly invalid. Humans did not come into existence in a gradual manner. The whole of mankind, the Prophet Adam (pbuh), and all the other prophets existed in the spiritual realm even before the whole universe was created. The claim that the Prophet Adam (pbuh) and the rest of mankind turned into modern man through a set of evolutionary processes does not hold any truth.

The Prophet Adam (pbuh), just like the rest of humanity, existed in the spiritual realm even before the universe was created, and then was created in Heaven, later to be sent to the Earth:

Your Lord said to the angels, ‘I am going to create a human being out of clay. When I have formed him and breathed My Soul into him, fall down in prostration to him!’(Qur’an, 38:71-72)

But satan made them slip up by means of it, expelling them from where they were. We said, ‘Go down from here as enemies to each other! You will have residence on the earth and enjoyment for a time.’(Qur’an, 2:36)

In another verse of the Qur’an, God informs us about the promise given by all mankind in the spiritual realm as follows:

Remember God’s blessing to you and the covenant He made with you when you said, ‘We hear and we obey.’ Have fear of God. God knows what the heart contains. (Qur’an, 5:7)

Those who gave their promises to God in the spiritual realm were not part human and part other creatures, with incomplete forms and undeveloped limbs. They were complete and conscious humans. This is a clear proof that creation through evolution does not exist in the Qur’an.

Those Muslims Who Advocate Evolution Are Unable to Explain the creation of Angels and the Jinn

When those who claim that mankind developed through an evolutionary process are asked about how angels and the jinn were created, their answer will be ‘God created them out of nothing’. It is quite forbidding that these individuals, who are aware of and acknowledge the fact that angels and the jinn are creations of God, fail to realize that God created mankind in the same manner. It is highly surprising that they fail to see that Almighty Lord, Who created angels with His command ‘Be’, created mankind in the same manner. Likewise, God creates angels in human form, instantaneously. The angels who visited the Prophet Abraham (pbuh) had the appearance of fully developed and flawless human beings and were created instantaneously.

God informs in the Qur’an that the jinni, unlike mankind, were created from fire:

He created man from dry earth like baked clay; and He created the jinn from a fusion of fire. (Qur’an, 55:14-15)

As God revealed in the Qur’an, the creation of angels is also quite different from the creation of mankind. In the following verse, God informs us about the creation of angels:

Praise be to God, the Bringer into Being of the heavens and earth, He who made the angels messengers, with wings – two, three or four. He adds to creation in any way He wills. God has power over all things. (Qur’an, 35:1)

As clearly understood from the statement in the verse, angels also have a very distinct appearance, very different from that of humans. Additionally, God informs us in the Qur’an that both angels and the jinni were created before mankind. It is very easy for God to create. Our Lord is the One Who creates out of nothing and without cause. Just as He created the jinn and angels out of nothing and in distinct forms, so did He create mankind as a separate creature out of nothing, without any need for evolutionary processes. The same is also true for other life forms such as animals and plants. Here is the explicit truth explained in the Qur’an: God created all beings instantaneously and out of nothing without subjecting them to evolution; in other words, without turning them into other species.

Muslims Who Advocate Evolution Cannot Offer Any Explanation for the Miracles Mentioned in the Qur’an

God informs us in the Qur’an that when the Prophet Moses (pbuh) threw his staff to the ground, by God’s will, it turned into a living snake.

As we are informed in the verses, when the Prophet Moses (pbuh) throws his staff to the ground, an inanimate tree branch turns into a living snake, and when he takes it in his hand, it reverts back to an inanimate tree branch, and when he throws it once more to the ground, it again comes to life. In other words, an inanimate matter comes to life and then becomes lifeless, and then comes to life again. With this miracle, God shows us the constant creation. God commands in the verses:

He threw it down and suddenly it was a slithering snake. He said, ‘Take hold of it and have no fear. We will return it to its original form. (Qur’an, 20:20-21)

‘Throw down what is in your right hand. It will swallow up their handiwork. Their handiwork is just a magician’s trick. Magicians do not prosper wherever they go.’ (Qur’an, 20:69)

‘Throw down your staff.’ Then when he saw it slithering like a snake he turned and fled and did not turn back again. ‘Have no fear, Moses. In My Presence the Messengers have no fear.’ (Qur’an, 27:10)

When the Prophet Moses (pbuh) threw his staff to the ground, as a blessing of God, an inanimate piece of wood turned into a very much alive creature that slithered and swallowed the conjurations of the others; in other words, a creature with a functional digestive system. This transformation took place instantaneously. Thus, God showed people an example of how living organisms are created out of nothing. An inanimate matter came to life by God simply willing it, in other words, with His command ‘Be’. This miracle that God granted to the Prophet Moses (pbuh) shattered the superstitious evolutionary beliefs of the Egyptians at the time with a single blow, and even those who were against the Prophet Moses (pbuh) realized the truth at that very moment, renouncing their superstitious beliefs and believing in God.

Furthermore, God informs us in the Qur’an about how the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) made a clay object in the shape of a bird and breathed into it, and how the bird came to life by God’s Will:

Remember when God said, ‘Jesus, son of Mary, remember My blessing to you and to your mother when I reinforced you with the Purest Spirit so that you could speak to people in the cradle and when you were fully grown; and when I taught you the Book and Wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel; and when you created a bird-shape out of clay by My permission, and then breathed into it and it became a bird by My permission...’ (Qur’an, 5:110)

A bird came to life without being bound to any cause, by God’s leave and miracle. A living bird emerging from inanimate matter is one example of Almighty God’s peerless, causeless and sublime creation. Through this miracle bestowed upon him by God, the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) also reveals the illogicality and invalidity of evolutionist thinking. It is impossible for those who try to arbitrarily reconcile Islam with evolution to offer an explanation of these miracles of our Lord.

Just as God did not create the jinn, angels, the women of Heaven (houris), the male servants of Heaven (gillmans), the children of Heaven, palaces and gardens of Heaven, hell and its guardians through evolution, so did He not create mankind through evolution. God created every detail in Heaven; the high palaces, ornaments, gardens, birds, foods and infinite blessings instantly and out of nothing without any evolutionary process. The mansions in the Heaven, rivers of milk, thrones and jewels of Heaven were all created by God's command “Be”. No cause is needed such as foremen, tailors or craftsmen for those to appear. Just as the fruits of Heaven such as date palms and figs or the jewels of Heaven such as pearls and mother-of-pearls were not created by means of evolution in Heaven, they are not created by means of evolution in this world either. Creation is not through evolution, neither in this world, nor in Heaven. (For further information, refer to: Why Darwinism Is Incompatible with the Qur’an, Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar))

Darwinian Formula!

Besides all the technical evidence we have dealt with so far, let us now examine what kind of an irrational belief the evolutionists have with an example so simple as to be understood even by children:

The theory of evolution claims that life is formed by chance. According to this irrational claim, lifeless and unconscious atoms came together to form the cell and then they supposedly formed other living things, including man. Let us think about that. When we bring together the elements that are the building blocks of life such as carbon, phosphorus, nitrogen, and potassium, only a heap is formed. No matter what treatment it undergoes, this atomic heap cannot form even a single living being. If you like, let us formulate an “experiment” on this subject and let us examine what evolutionists really claim about the “Darwinian formula”:

Let evolutionists put plenty of the materials present in the composition of living things, such as phosphorus, nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, iron, and magnesium, into big barrels. Moreover, let them add in these barrels any material that does not even exist under normal conditions, but that they think is necessary. Let them add in this mixture as many amino acids and as many proteins - not a single one of which can by any means be formed by chance - as they like. Let them expose these mixtures to as much heat and moisture as they like. Let them stir these with whatever technologically developed device they like. Let them put the foremost scientists beside these barrels. Let these experts wait in turn beside these barrels for billions or even trillions of years. Let them be free to use anything they believe to be necessary for a living being’s formation.

No matter what they do, they cannot produce from these barrels a living being. They cannot produce giraffes, lions, bees, canaries, horses, dolphins, roses, orchids, lilies, carnations, bananas, oranges, apples, dates, tomatoes, melons, watermelons, figs, olives, grapes, peaches, peafowls, pheasants, multicolored butterflies, or any of the other millions of other living beings such as these. Indeed, they could not obtain even a single cell of any living being.

Briefly, unconscious atoms cannot form a cell by coming together. They cannot make a new decision and divide this cell into two, then make other decisions and create the professors who invented the electron microscope and then examine their own cell structure under that microscope. Life only comes with God’s superior creation. The theory of evolution, which claims the opposite, is a total fallacy, completely contrary to reason. Thinking even a little bit on about the claims of evolutionists discloses this reality, just as in the above example.

Can life emerge if all the conditions stipulated by evolutionists are met? Of course not! In order to show why not, let us carry out the following experiment: Place all the enzymes, hormones and proteins—everything that evolutionists regard as essential for life to form—into a barrel such as that pictured on the left page. Then mix all these substances, using all possible physical and chemical techniques. But whatever you do, no matter how long you wait, not a single living cell will emerge from that barrel.

Technology in the Eye and the Ear

Another subject that remains unanswered by the theory of evolution is the excellent quality of perception in the eye and the ear.

Before passing on to the subject of the eye, let us briefly answer the question of how we see. Light rays coming from an object fall upside down on the retina in the eye. Here, these light rays are transmitted into electrical signals by cells and reach a tiny spot at the back of the brain, the “center of vision”. These electrical signals are then perceived in this center as an image. Given this brief technical explanation, let us do some thinking.

The brain is insulated from light. That means that it is completely dark inside the brain, and that no light reaches the place where it is located. Thus, the “center of vision” is never touched by light and may even be the darkest place you have ever known. However, you observe a luminous, bright world in this pitch-black darkness.

The image formed in the eye is so sharp and so distinct that even the technology of the twenty-first century has not been able to attain that clarity and sharpness. For instance, look at the book you are reading, your hands with which you are holding it, then lift your head and look around you. Have you ever seen such a sharp and distinct image as you now see, with any other device? Even the most developed television screen produced by the greatest television manufacturer in the world cannot provide such a sharp image for you. For more than 100 years, thousands of engineers have been trying to achieve this sharpness. Factories, huge premises have been established, much research has been done, plans and designs have been made for this purpose. Again, look at a TV screen and the book you hold in your hands. You will see that there is a big difference in sharpness and distinction. Moreover, the TV screen shows you a two-dimensional image, whereas with your eyes, you watch from a three-dimensional perspective which adds depth.

For many years, tens of thousands of engineers have tried to make a three-dimensional TV and achieve the vision quality of the eye. Yes, they have made a three-dimensional television system, but it is not possible to watch it without putting on special 3-D glasses; moreover, it is only artificially three-dimensional. The background is more blurred, the foreground appears like a paper setting. Never has it been possible to produce as sharp and distinct vision as that of the eye. In both the camera and the television, there is a comparative loss of image quality.

Evolutionists claim that the mechanism producing this sharp and distinct image has been formed by haphazard events. Now, if somebody told you that the television in your room was formed as a result of coincidences, that all of its atoms just happened to come together and make up this device that produces an image, what would you think? How can unconscious atoms do what thousands of people cannot?

If a device producing a more primitive image than the eye could not have been formed by chance, then it is very evident that the eye and the image seen by the eye could not have been formed by chance. The same is valid for the ear as well. The outer ear picks up the available sounds by the auricle and directs them to the middle ear, the middle ear transmits the sound vibrations by intensifying them, and the inner ear sends these vibrations to the brain by translating them into electrical signals. Just as with the eye, the act of hearing is finalized in the center of hearing in the brain.

The situation of the eye is also true for the ear. That is, the brain is insulated from sound just as it is from light. It does not let any sound in. Therefore, no matter how noisy the outside is, the inside of the brain is completely silent. Nevertheless, the sharpest sounds are perceived in the brain. In your completely silent brain, you listen to symphonies, and hear all the noises in a crowded place. However, if the sound level in your brain were measured by a precise device at that moment, complete silence would be found to prevail there.

As is the case with sharp imagery, decades of effort have been spent in trying to generate and reproduce sound that is faithful to the original. Sound recorders, high-fidelity systems, many electronic devices and music systems sensing sound are all the results of such efforts. Despite all this technology and the thousands of engineers and experts who have been working on this endeavor, no sound has yet been obtained that has the same sharpness and clarity as the sound perceived by the ear.

Think of the highest-quality, highest-fidelity systems produced by the largest company in the music industry. Even with these devices, when sound is recorded, some of it is lost; or notice how when you turn on a hi-fi you always hear a slight interference or static even before the music starts. However, the sounds that are the products of the human body’s technology are extremely sharp and clear. A human ear never perceives a sound accompanied by a hissing sound or with static as does a music set; rather, it perceives sound exactly as it is, sharp and clear. This is the way it has been since the creation of man. So far, no man-made video or audio recording apparatus has been as sensitive and successful in perceiving sensory data as are the eye and the ear. However, as far as seeing and hearing are concerned, a far greater truth lies beyond all this.

Compared to cameras and sound recording devices, the eye and ear are much more complex, much more successful and possess far superior features to these products of high technology.

To Whom Does This Consciousness That Sees and Hears Within the Brain Belong?

Who watches an alluring world inside the brain, listens to symphonies and the twittering of birds, and smells the rose?

The stimulations coming from a person’s eyes, ears, and nose travel to the brain as electro-chemical nerve impulses. In biology, physiology, and biochemistry books, you can find many details about how this image forms in the brain. However, you will never come across an answer to the most important question: Who perceives these electro-chemical nerve impulses as images, sounds, odors, and sensory events in the brain? There is a consciousness in the brain that perceives all this without feeling any need for an eye, an ear, and a nose. To whom does this consciousness belong? Of course, it does not belong to the nerves, the fat layer, or neurons comprising the brain. This is why Darwinist-materialists, who believe that everything is composed of matter, cannot answer this question.

For this consciousness is the spirit, the soul created by God, which needs neither the eye to watch the images nor the ear to hear the sounds. Furthermore, it does not need the brain to think.

Everyone who reads this explicit and scientific answer should reflect on Almighty God, and fear and seek refuge in Him, for He fits this entire universe into a pitch-dark place of a few cubic centimeters in a three-dimensional, colored, shadowy, and luminous form.

Bir cisimden gelen uyarılar elektrik sinyaline dönüşerek beyinde bir etki oluştururlar. Görüyorum derken, aslında zihnimizdeki elektrik sinyallerinin etkisini seyrederiz. Beyin ışığa kapalıdır. Yani beynin içi kapkaranlıktır, ışık beynin bulunduğu yere kadar giremez. Görüntü merkezi denilen yer kapkaranlık, ışığın asla ulaşmadığı, belki de hiç karşılaşmadığınız kadar karanlık bir yerdir. Ancak siz bu zifiri karanlıkta ışıklı, pırıl pırıl bir dünyayı seyredersiniz.

A Materialist Superstition

The information we have presented so far shows us that the theory of evolution is incompatible with scientific findings. The theory’s claim regarding the origin of life is inconsistent with science, the evolutionary mechanisms it proposes have no evolutionary power, and fossils demonstrate that intermediate forms the theory necessitates have never existed. So, these certainly require that the theory of evolution be pushed aside as an disproven theory. This is how many ideas, such as the geocentric model of the universe, have been taken out of the realm of science throughout history.

However, the theory of evolution is persistently kept on the agenda of science. Some people even try to represent criticisms directed against it as an “attack on science” and to suppress adversatives. Why?

Because this theory is an indispensable dogmatic belief in some circles. These circles are blindly devoted to a materialist philosophy and adopt Darwinism because it is the only materialist explanation that can be put forward to explain the workings of nature.

Interestingly enough, they also confess this fact from time to time. A well-known geneticist and an outspoken evolutionist, Richard C. Lewontin from Harvard University, confesses that he is “first and foremost a materialist and then a scientist”:

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine [intervention]... (Richard Lewontin, “The Demon-Haunted World,” The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28)

These are explicit statements demonstrating that Darwinism is a dogma kept alive just for the sake of adherence to materialism. This dogma maintains that there is no being except for matter. Therefore, it argues that inanimate, unconscious matter brought life into being. It claims that millions of different living species (e.g., birds, fish, giraffes, tigers, insects, trees, flowers, whales, and human beings) originated as a result of interactions between matter, such as pouring rain, lightning flashes, and so on, or out of inanimate matter. This is a precept contrary to both reason and science. Yet Darwinists continue to ignorantly defend it just so as not to acknowledge, in their own eyes, the evident existence of God.

Anyone who does not look at the origin of living beings with a materialist prejudice sees this evident truth: All living beings are works of a Creator, Who is All-Powerful, All-Wise, and All-Knowing. This Creator is God, Who created the whole universe from non-existence, in the most perfect form, and fashioned all living beings.

The Theory of Evolution: The Most Potent Spell in the World

It should be openly stated first and foremost that anyone free of prejudice and the influence of any particular ideology, who uses only his or her reason and logic, will clearly understand that belief in the theory of evolution, which brings to mind the superstitions of societies with no knowledge of true science, is quite impossible to embrace.

As explained above, those who believe in the theory of evolution think that a few atoms and molecules thrown into a huge vat could produce thinking, reasoning professors and university students; such scientists as Einstein and Hubble; such artists as Frank Sinatra and Charlton Heston; antelopes, lemon trees, and carnations. Moreover, as the scientists and professors who believe in this nonsense are educated people, it is quite justifiable to speak of this theory as “the most potent spell in history”. Never before has any other belief or idea so taken away peoples’ powers of reason, refused to allow them to think intelligently and logically, and hidden the truth from them as if they had been blindfolded. This necessitates an even worse and unbelievable blindness than the totems worshipped in some parts of Africa, the people of Saba worshipping the Sun, the tribe of the Prophet Abraham (pbuh) worshipping idols they had made with their own hands, or some among the people of the Prophet Moses (pbuh) worshipping the Golden Calf.

In fact, God has pointed to this lack of reason in the Qur’an. In many verses, He reveals that some peoples’ minds will be closed and that they will be powerless to see the truth. Some of these verses are as follows:

As for those who do not believe, it makes no difference to them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe. God has sealed up their hearts and hearing and over their eyes is a blindfold. They will have a terrible punishment. (Qur’an, 2:6-7)

...They have hearts with which they do not understand. They have eyes with which they do not see. They have ears with which they do not hear. Such people are like cattle. No, they are even further astray! They are the unaware. (Qur’an, 7:179)

God informs us in the Surat al-Hijr that these people are under a spell that they do not believe even if they see miracles:

Even if We opened up to them a door into heaven, and they spent the day ascending through it, they would only say: “Our eyesight is befuddled! Or rather we have been put under a spell!” (Qur’an, 15:14-15)

Words cannot express just how astonishing it is that this spell should hold such a wide community in thrall, keeping people from the truth, and remaining unbroken for 150 years. It is understandable that one or a few people might believe in impossible, illogical scenarios and claims full of stupidity and illogicality. However, “spell” is the only possible word to use when people from all over the world believe that unconscious and lifeless atoms suddenly decided to come together and form a universe that functions with a flawless system of organization, discipline, reason, and consciousness; a planet named Earth with all its features so perfectly suited to life; and living things full of countless complex systems.

In the same way that the beliefs of people who worshipped crocodiles now seem odd and unbelievable, so the beliefs of Darwinists are just as incredible. Darwinists regard chance and lifeless, unconscious atoms as a creative force, and are as devoted to that belief as if to a religion.

In fact, in the Qur’an God relates the incident of the Prophet Moses (pbuh) and Pharaoh to show that some people who support atheistic philosophies actually influence others by use of spells. When Pharaoh was told about the true religion, he told the Prophet Moses (pbuh) to meet with his own magicians. When the Prophet Moses (pbuh) did so, he told them to demonstrate their abilities first. The verses continue:

He said: “You throw.” And when they threw, they cast a spell on the people’s eyes and caused them to feel great fear of them. They produced an extremely powerful magic. (Qur’an, 7:116)

As we have seen, Pharaoh’s magicians were able to deceive everyone, apart from the Prophet Moses (pbuh) and those who believed in him. However, his evidence broke the spell, or “swallowed up what they had forged,” as revealed in the verse:

We revealed to Moses: “Throw down your staff.” And it immediately swallowed up what they had forged. So the Truth took place and what they did was shown to be false. (Qur’an, 7:117-118)

The Prophet Moses’ throwing his staff of inanimate wood and then that staff coming to life and instantly overthrowing the deceptions of the Pharaoh and his followers is like breaking the spell of evolution. When people realized that a spell had been cast upon them and that what they saw was just an illusion, Pharaoh’s magicians lost all credibility. In the present day too, unless those who, under the influence of a similar spell believe in these ridiculous claims of evolution under their scientific disguise and spend their lives defending them, abandon their superstitious beliefs, they also will be humiliated when the full truth emerges and the spell is broken. In fact, world-renowned British writer and philosopher Malcolm Muggeridge, who was an atheist advocating the theory of evolution for some sixty years, but who subsequently realized the truth, reveals the position in which the theory of evolution would find itself in the near future in these terms:

I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has. (Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980, p. 43)

That future is not far off: On the contrary, people will soon see that “coincidences” are not a deity, and will look back on the theory of evolution as the worst deceit and the most terrible spell in the world. That spell is now rapidly beginning to be lifted from people all over the world. Many people who see its true face are wondering with amazement how they could ever have been taken in by it.