Allah The Almighty has given us many signs that the Qur’an is the Book of Truth and He invited the people to think about it. One of the most important subjects to which Allah refers in the Qur’an is the gratitude of man for the countless signs of creation on earth and the appreciation of the people for His power by remembering them. Today, however, there are different ideologies that make people forget the Fact of Creation and they try to separate them from their religion through unfounded ideas.

The most characteristic of these ideologies is materialism.

Darwinism, ie evolution theory, is the most important theory accepted by materialism because of its so-called scientific basis for its own ends. This theory, which claims that life by coincidence, originated from inorganic material, has actually subsided when it was confirmed that the universe was created by Allah.

It is Allah Who created the universe and Who designed it to the smallest detail. Therefore it is impossible that the theory of evolution, which claims that living beings were not created by Allah but are the product of accidental events, is true.

It is therefore not surprising that if we look at the theory of evolution, it is refuted by the scientific findings. The design of life is extremely complicated and something that is sensational. In the inorganic world, for example, we can investigate how sensitive the equilibrium is, the atoms of which depend on. Furthermore, we can see in the organic world in what kind of complex designs these atoms are brought together, and what extraordinary mechanisms and structures there are, such as proteins, enzymes and cells, that are made together with the atoms. This extraordinary design in life, unnerved, at the end of the ^20th century, Darwinism. We have discussed this topic very extensively in some of our other books and will continue to do so. But we think that, given its importance, it is necessary to provide a brief summary in this book.

The scientific decline of Darwinism

Although the doctrine goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks, the theory of evolution did not become profitable until the 19th century. The main development that made theory the topic of the scientific world was Charles Darwin’s book ‘ The Origin of Species ‘, published in 1859. In this book Darwin denied that the various living species on earth separately by Allah were created. According to Darwin, all living beings had a common ancestor and they distinguished themselves in the course of time by small changes.

Darwin’s theory is not based on concrete scientific findings; as he said, it was only an ‘assumption’ an ‘assumption’. Furthermore, Darwin confesses in the long chapter of his book entitled “Difficulties of the theory” that the theory failed in answering many critical questions.

Darwin put all his hopes on the new scientific discoveries that he thought would solve “the difficulties of theory.” But contrary to his expectations, scientific discoveries increased the dimension of these difficulties.

The defeat of Darwinism in relation to science can be revised in three basic topics:

1. The theory can not in any way explain how life on earth originated.
2. There is no scientific evidence showing that the ‘evolutionary mechanisms’ from which the theory is based have any power to evolve anyway.
3. The archive of fossils proves completely the opposite of the assumptions that evolve from the theory of evolution.

In this section we will give a general overview of these three basis points.

The first impregnable step: The origin of life

Evolution theory presupposes that all living species have evolved from a single cell, a cell that appeared on the primitive earth 3.8 billion years ago. There are a number of questions that the theory can not answer, namely, how could, if this evolution really took place, from a single cell, millions of forms of complex living species arise, why have no traces been found in the fossil record? But the most important part of the first step of that supposed evolutionary process is to ask: how this ‘first cell’ originated.

Since the theory of evolution denies creation and does not accept any form of supernatural interference, it maintains that the “first cell” was created by chance within the laws of nature, without a design plan or arrangement. According to the theory, a living cell would have been formed from inorganic matter by chance. However, this is an assertion that violates even the most invulidable rules of biology.

“Life comes from life.”

In his book Darwin never refers to the origin of life. The primitive concept of science in his time is based on the assumption that living beings consisted of a very simple structure. Since the Middle Ages, spontaneous reproduction has been a theory that assumes that inorganic material comes together and forms life, generally accepted. It was then believed, in general, that insects came from food debris and mice from grain. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some grain was put in a dirty piece of cloth, it was believed that after a while mice would emerge. The development of worms, in meat, was also accepted as evidence for ‘spontaneous reproduction’. Only a short time later people understood that worms did not spontaneously originate from meat,

Even in the period when Darwin wrote ‘The Origin of Species’, the belief that bacteria originated from non-living material was widespread in the scientific world. But five years after the publication of Darwin’s book, Louis Pasteur’s work disproved these assumptions on which the theory of evolution was based. Pasteur summarized the conclusion he reached after time-consuming experiments and researches, as follows:

“The thesis that inorganic material can produce life has become history forever.”

For a long time, the advocates of evolution theory rejected Pasteur’s discoveries. When, however, developments in science, the complex structure of a living being unraveled, the idea that life had come about by chance hit an even greater impasse.

Not convincing efforts in the ^20th  century.

The first evolutionist who dealt with the subject of life in the twentieth century was the famous Russian biologist Alexander Oparin. With various theories he put forward in the thirties of the twentieth century, he wanted to prove that the cell of a living being could be created by coincidence. But these studies were doomed to fail, and Oparin made the following confession: “Unfortunately, the creation of the cell remains a problem and in fact this is the darkest aspect of the whole theory of evolution.”

Evolutionist followers of Oparin tried to conduct experiments in order to solve the problem of the origin of life. The best-known experiments were conducted by the American chemist Stanley Miller in 1953. In an experimental setup he combined gases, which he assumed to exist in the earth’s primordial atmosphere and added energy to the mixture. Miller produced the synthesis of various organic molecules (amino acids) that are present in the structure of proteins.

A few years later, however, it became clear that this experiment, which was then seen as an important step in the name of evolution, was invalid. The atmosphere used in the experiment was very different from the actual conditions on earth.

After a long silence Miller confessed that the atmosphere in his experiment was unrealistic.

All evolutionary efforts, during the entire ^20th  century, to explain the origin of life, ended in failure. The geo-chemist Jeffrey Bada of the San Diego Scripps Institute accepts this fact in an article published in  Earth  Magazine in 1998:

Today, as we leave the twentieth century, we are still dealing with the biggest unresolved problem we had when we entered the twentieth century: “How did life come to earth?”

The complicated structure of life

The main reason why the theory of evolution about the origin of life has fallen into such a big impasse is that even the simplest living organism still contains an incredibly complicated structure. The cell of a living being is more complicated than all technological products made by man. Even today, in the most developed laboratories in the world, it is impossible to make a living cell by bringing together inorganic material.

The conditions necessary for the formation of a cell are too large in number to allow reasoning away by coincidences. The probability that proteins, the building blocks of the cell, come to synthesis by chance, is for an average protein made from 500 amino acids, 1 in 10 ⁹⁵⁰ . In mathematics, a probability less than 1 in 10 ^{50 is} considered practically impossible.

The DNA molecule that is located in the nucleus of the cell and in which the genetic information is stored is an incredible database. It has been calculated that if the information stored in DNA were put on paper, it would form a library consisting of an encyclopaedia of 900 parts, each with 500 pages.

An interesting dilemma arises here: the DNA can only multiply with the help of a few specialized proteins (enzymes). But the formation of these enzymes can only be achieved through the information contained in the DNA. Since they are both dependent on each other, they must exist simultaneously for the multiplication. This puts the scenario that life is formed by itself at a dead end. Prof. dr. Leslie Orgel, a renowned evolutionist at the University of San Diego, California, confessed this fact in September 1994, as a theme in the Magazine Scientific American:

“It is extremely unlikely that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which have a complex structure, originated in the same place and at the same time. And so we will have to come to the conclusion at first sight that life can never have come from chemical means.

Undoubtedly it is true that if life can not possibly be of natural origin, we will have to accept that life is “created” in a supernatural way. This fact clearly shows that the theory of evolution, whose main purpose is to deny creation, has no value.

The imaginary mechanisms of evolution

The second important aspect that invalidates Darwin’s theory is that both concepts presented in theory as “evolutionary mechanisms” have no evolutionary power.

Darwin based his evolutionary claim entirely on the mechanism of ‘natural selection’. The importance he attached to this was made clear by the title of his book: “The origin of the species through natural selection ??

Natural selection means that those living beings who are stronger and more suited to the natural conditions of their living environment, will survive in the struggle for existence. For example, if a herd of deer is threatened by predators, those deer that can run faster can survive. As a result, the herd of deer will be made up of the faster and stronger individuals. But undoubtedly this mechanism will not contribute to the fact that deer will evolve and transform into a different kind, such as in horses.

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

“Natural selection does not occur unless there is a favorable opportunity.”

The influence of Lamarck

So, how can those favorable opportunities occur? Darwin tried to answer this question from the primitive scientific standpoint of his time. According to the French biologist Lamark, who lived for Darwin, living beings give properties that they have acquired during their lives, to the next and this accumulation (accumulation) from one generation to another, formed new species. According to Lamark, giraffes, for example, had developed from antelope; because they always tried to eat the leaves of tall trees, their necks, generation after generation, became longer. Darwin described similar examples in his book “The Origin of Species.” He said, for example, because some bears go into the water to seek food, they transformed, over time, into whales.

But the laws of heredity, discovered by Mendel and confirmed by the science of genetics that emerged in the 20th century, have completely referenced the legend of passing acquired qualities to future generations to the realm of fables. So the natural selection, as an evolutionary mechanism, was no longer in favor.

Neo-Darwinism and mutations

In order to find a solution, Darwinists launched Neo-Darwinism at the end of the twenties of the twentieth century, the “Modern Synthetic Theory” or, as it is better known, Neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, these are malformations in the genes of living beings, caused by external factors – such as radiation or errors in the multiplication, as the cause of favorable variations, in addition to natural mutations.

Nowadays we have Neo-Darwinism as a model for evolution. The theory maintains that millions of living beings that are present on earth have been formed as a result of a process in which countless complex organs of these beings, such as ears, eyes, lungs and wings, undergo mutations (ie genetic errors). But there is a clear scientific fact that completely undermines this theory. Mutations do not ensure that living beings develop, on the contrary, they always do them harm.

The reason for this is very simple; the DNA has a very complicated structure and random changes can only damage it. The American geneticist BG Ranganathan explains this as follows:

Mutations are small, random and harmful. They only occur sporadically and the best is if they have no effect. These four properties of mutations mean that mutations can not lead to evolutionary development. A random change in a highly specialized organism is either ineffective or harmful. A random change in a watch can not improve the watch. Probably it damages or is at best without effect .. An earthquake does not improve a city, it destroys it.

It is therefore not surprising that so far no example of a useful mutation has been seen, ie a mutation that brings about a development in the genes. All mutations have been proven to be harmful. Now one can understand that mutations, presented as an evolutionary mechanism, are actually a genetic expression that harm living beings and make them deformed. (The best known effect of mutation in humans is cancer). Undoubtedly, such a destructive mechanism can not possibly be an ‘evolutionary mechanism’. Natural selection, on the other hand, can not do anything by itself, as Darwin accepted it. This fact shows us, therefore, that there are no “evolutionary mechanisms” in nature.

The fossil record: No sign of intermediate forms

The clearest proof that the scenario suggested by the theory of evolution did not take place is the fossil record.

According to the theory of evolution, every living species descends from a predecessor. A preceding living species changed into something else over the course of time, and all species were created in this way. According to the theory, the transition is gradual, for millions of years.

If this had been the case, there would have been a number of intermediate varieties that existed during this long transition period.

For example, in the past there should have been some half-fish-half reptiles that must have had a number of reptile characteristics in addition to the characteristics of fish they already had. Or reptilian birds should have existed that had characteristics of birds in the characteristics of the reptiles they already had. For this would be a transitional phase, it would be mutilated, incomplete, crippled living creatures. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe must have lived in the past, as the ‘intermediate forms’.

If this kind of animals really lived, there would have to be millions if not billions of them in different numbers and species. And more importantly, the remains of these strange species should be present in the fossil record. In ‘The genesis of species’ Darwin explains:

“If my theory is true, countless intermediate forms that the relatives of the species of different groups have connected to each other, should have existed. Therefore, the evidence of their former existence can only be found in the remains of the fossils.

Darwin’s hope is in vain

But, although evolutionists have made great efforts to find fossils all over the world since the mid-nineteenth century, no intermediate forms have yet been discovered. All the fossils that emerged in excavations show, contrary to the expectations of the evolutionists, that life on earth, suddenly and completely formed, appeared.

A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, although an evolutionist, admits this fact.

“The point becomes clear that when we study the fossil record in detail, at the level of the rankings of species, we find, again and again, not a gradual evolution but a sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.

This means that in the fossil record, all living species suddenly appeared, while they were completely formed, without any intermediate forms. This is exactly the opposite of Darwin’s assumptions. It is also a strong proof that the living beings have been created. The only explanation, that living species suddenly and completely appeared to the detail, without an evolutionary ancestor, is that these species were created. This fact was also admitted by the famous evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma:

“All possible explanations for the origin of living beings, between creation and evolution, become exhausted. Organisms appeared on this world, or fully developed, or incomplete. If that were not the case, the organisms must have developed from pre-existing species through some process of change. If they have appeared in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some “supreme” intelligence.

The fossils show that living beings, fully developed and in perfect condition, appeared on the earth. This means that “the origin of species” is, contrary to Darwin’s assumptions, creation and not evolution.

The story of human evolution

The story that is most often told by the defenders of the theory of evolution is the subject of the origin of man. The Darwinists hold the view that modern modern man has come from a sort of ape-like creature. They state that during this so-called evolutionary process, which is thought to have started 4 to 5 million years ago, there were a number of ‘intermediate forms’ between modern man and his ancestors. On the basis of this completely imaginary scenario, a list is made of the four basic categories:

1. Australopithecus
2. Homo
3. Standing man
4. homo sapiens

Evolutionists call the so-called first ape-like ancestors of humans ‘Australopithecus’; that means Southern African monkey. These living beings are actually nothing more than an old monkey species, which is now extinct. There are two world-famous anatomists from Great Britain and the United States, namely Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard conducted in-depth research among the various species of Australopithecus; this showed that it was a common type of ape, which was extinct and did not show any resemblance to humans.

Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as ‘homo’ that means ‘man’. According to the evolutionary assumption, the living creatures in the homoseries are further developed than the Australopithecus. Evolutionists design a curious evolutionary scheme by arranging the different fossils of these beings in a certain way. This is an imaginary scheme, because it has never been proven that there is an evolutionary relationship between these different classes. Ernst Mayr, one of the most important defenders of the theory of evolution in the twentieth century, admits this fact and says that “the chain up to the Homo sapiens is, in fact, in search.”

By sketching the connecting chain, such as Australopithecus> Homo habilis> Homo erectus> Homo sapiens, evolutionists imply that each of these species is the ancestor of the other. But recent discoveries by paleoanthropologists have revealed that the Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Home erectus lived in different parts of the world, but in the same period.

In addition, a certain proportion of the hominids, classified as Homo erectus, have lived to the most modern times. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) have lived side by side in the same area.

This situation clearly shows that the claim that they are ancestors of each other does not go well. A paleontologist at Harvard University, Stephen Jay Gould, although an evolutionist himself, explains this impasse of evolution theory as follows:

“What is left of our evolutionary ladder, if three existing descendants of the hominids (A. Africanus, the Robust Australopithecines and H. Habilis) do not clearly descend from each other? Moreover, none of the three show any evolutionary development during their stay on earth.

In short, the scenario of human evolution, which one tries to maintain through countless drawings of what “half ape half human-like” beings appear in the media and textbooks and what is actually nothing more than a means of propaganda, is no longer then a story without a scientific basis.

Lord Solly Zuckerman, one of Britain’s most famous and respected scientists, who has been researching this subject for many years, especially for fifteen years, after the Australopithecus fossils, finally concluded, despite the fact that that he himself was an evolutionist, that there is in fact no pedigree of the ape-like beings to man.

Zuckerman has also created an interesting “spectrum of science”. He established a spectrum of sciences and ranked sciences according to what he considered scientific and non-scientific.

According to Zuckerman’s spectrum, the sciences of chemistry and physics, depending on concrete information, are the most “scientific” fields. Then come the biological sciences and finally the social sciences. At the very end of the spectrum, considered the part that is “least scientific”, we see the concepts of supernatural observations, such as telepathy and the sixth sense, and finally “human evolution.” Zuckerman explains his reasoning as follows

“When we leave the field of objective truth, we end up in those areas of supposed biological science, such as supernatural perception or the interpretation of human fossil history, where according to the faithful (evolutionist) everything is possible – and where the sincere believer (in evolution) sometimes is able to, at the same time, believe in different contradictory matters.

The fable of human evolution appears to be nothing other than the biased interpretations of some excavated fossils, by a number of people blindly following their own theory.

The technology of the eye and the ear

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

Before we continue with the subject of the eye, let us try briefly to answer the question “how we see”. Light rays coming from an object are mirrored on the retina (retina) of the eye. Here these light rays are converted by cells into electrical signals and they reach a small spot in the back of the brain called the facial center. These electrical signals are observed in this brain center as image after a series of processes. With this technical background in mind, we can think about it.

The brain is excluded from light. This means that it is pitch dark in the brain, and that light does not reach the place where the brain is located. The place, called the facial center, is a pitch dark place where no light can come; it can even be the darkest spot you have ever known. But you perceive a bright, light world in this pitch-dark darkness. The image that is formed in the eye is so sharp and clear that even the technology of the ^20th century can not match it. For example, consider the book you are reading, the hands that hold it, then lift your head and look around you. Have you ever seen such a sharp and clear image, like this, anywhere else? Even the best-designed television screen, made by the largest television producer in the world, can not provide you with such a sharp image. This is a three-dimensional, colored and extremely sharp image. For over a hundred years thousands of engineers have tried to achieve this sharpness. For this purpose, factories and colossal cases were set up, a lot of research was done and plans and designs were made. Look again at a TV screen and the book that you hold in your hands. You will notice a big difference in sharpness and distinction.

For years, tens of thousands of engineers have tried to create a three-dimensional TV that can measure itself with the vision quality of the eye. Yes, they have made a three-dimensional television system, but it is impossible to look at them without putting on glasses, and it is only an artificial third dimension. The background is blurred and the foreground looks like a paper design. It has never been possible to get a sharp and clear picture like that of an eye. There is loss of image quality in both the camera and the television.

Evolutionists claim that the mechanism that produces this sharp and clear image has been formed by chance. What would you think if someone told you that the television in your room was just the result of chance, that all of its atoms “coincidentally” came together and thereby formed this design that produced an image? How can atoms do what thousands of people can not do?

If a design produces a more primitive image than the eye does, it can not be made by chance, then it is very clear that the eye and the image that the eye perceives are not made by chance. The same applies to the ear. The outer ear captures the available sounds through the auricle and leads it to the middle ear; the middle ear amplifies these sound waves and transfers them to the inner ear; the inner ear sends these vibrations to the brain by translating it into electrical signals. Just as with the eye, the action of hearing finally ends in the hearing center in the brain.

The situation that applies to the eye also applies to the ear. This means that the brain is completely closed to sound, just like light; there is no sound. That is why there is complete silence in the brain, no matter how noisy it is outside. However, the sharpest sounds are perceived by the brain. In your brains, which are closed to the sound, you listen to symphonies of an orchestra, and you hear all the sound in a crowded place. If, however, at that moment, the sound level in your brain would be measured by an accurate instrument, it will be seen that there is complete silence.

Just as in the case of images, there have been decades of effort to advance in order to try to produce a sound that resembles the original. The result of these efforts are sound recorders, hi-fi systems and sound-sensing systems. Despite all the technology and the thousands of engineers and experts who have worked in this field, 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 hifi systems produced by the largest companies in the music industry. Even in these devices, there is a certain loss if sound is recorded; or if you turn on your hi-fi, you will always hear a hissing sound before the music starts. However, the sounds that are the product of the technology of the human body are always very clear and sharp. A human ear never perceives a sound that is accompanied by a hissing sound or with noise as the hifi has; it perceives the sound as it is; clear and sharp. That is how it has been since the creation of man. So far, no visual or recording device made by man is as sensitive and as successful in observing information as the eye and ear are.

But besides seeing and hearing here is another, even more important fact.

To whom belongs the consciousness that sees and hears in the brain?

Who is it that sees the seductive world in the brain, symphonies and listens to the chirping of the birds, and smells the rose?

The stimulus that comes from the eyes, ears and the nose of man, travel as electrochemical nerve impulses to the brain. In biology-physiology and biochemistry books you can find many details about how these images are formed in the brain. But you will never find the most important fact on this subject. Who is the person who perceives these electrochemical nerve impulses such as images, sounds, smells and sensory events in the brain. There is a consciousness in the brain that perceives everything, without the need for an eye, an ear or a nose. To whom does this consciousness belong? Undoubtedly this consciousness does not belong to the nerves, to the fat layer and to the neurons that form the brain. This is therefore the reason why Darwinist materialists, who believe that everything consists of matter, can not answer these questions. For this consciousness is the spirit created by Allah. The spirit does not need the eye to perceive images, nor the ear to hear sounds. Even, it does not need the brain to think.

Anyone reading this clear and scientific fact should think about the Almighty Allah, should fear Him and seek refuge with Him. He is the one who compresses the whole universe, in a pitch-dark place of a few cubic centimeters and in a three-dimensional, colored, shady and illuminating form.

A materialistic belief

The information we have presented so far shows that the theory of evolution is an assertion that clearly differs from the scientific findings.

The claims of the theory about the origin of life differ from science, the evolutionary mechanism it presents has no evolutionary power. Thus the theory of evolution should certainly be dismissed as a non-scientific idea. Throughout history, many ideas, such as the model of the universe where the earth was the center, have disappeared from the scientific agenda. However, the theory of evolution is emphatically maintained on the agenda of science. Some people try to portray the criticism of theory as ‘an attack on science’. Why?

The reason for this is that the theory of evolution in some circles is an indispensable dogmatic belief. These circles are blindly devoted to materialistic philosophy and adopt Darwinism as the only materialistic explanation of the working of nature that can be brought forward. It is interesting that they also confess this from time to time. A well-known geneticist and outspoken evolutionist, Richard C. Lewontin of Harvard University, confesses that he is “primarily and above all a materialist and only then a scientist. He says:

“It is not that the methods and the scientific institutes force us in one way or another to give only a materialistic explanation of the phenomenal world, on the contrary, because of our bias towards material things, we are encouraged to use a research tool and series of concepts. to produce material explanations, regardless of how they go against our intuition, no matter how mysterious this is to the uninitiated. But materialism is absolute, therefore we can not allow a Divine Foot to be put in the door. “

These are clear statements that Darwinism is a dogma that is kept alive to support materialistic philosophy. This dogma maintains that there is no being except matter. That is why it claims that inorganic, unconscious matter has created life. It maintains that millions of different living species: for example, birds, fish, giraffes, tigers, insects, trees, flowers, whales and humans, are the result of interaction between matter, such as pouring rain, a lightning flash, etc., from inorganic material . This is a view that goes against reason and against science. But Darwinists continue to defend it as if they did not allow ‘Divine Foot in the door’.

Anyone who looks at the origin of living beings without materialistic prejudice will see the clear truth: all living beings are the work of a Creator, The Almighty, the All-Wise and the All-Knowing. This Creator is Allah, Who created the entire universe from non-existence, designed it in the best form and created all living beings:

“You are glorified, we have no knowledge 
except what you have taught us. 
You are the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. 
(Qur’an to Soerat al-Baqara: 32)