Charles Darwin’s book, Origin of Species is subtitled as, ‘the book that shook the world’. Yes, the theory of Darwin, much more than the disparate attempts of his ‘believers’, did shake the world. These so-called intellectuals and scientists have gone to any length in order to prove that man undeniably is the progeny of apes.
In 1912 a wealthy barrister and amateur fossil hunter named Charles Dawson unearthed fragments of an unusually thick human skull in a gravel pit in a place called Piltdown Common in Sussex, England. He also found prehistoric flint tools nearby. He sent his findings to Dr. Arthur Woodward of the British museum – an authority on the subject. When he examined the bones, he was enthralled and rushed to Sussex. Soon the two men were hard at work in the pit. Then Dawson had another stroke of luck – he found a jawbone close to the spot where he had found the skull. The jawbone looked like that of an ape, but its teeth looked like human. Woodward was thrilled by the find; he felt sure that Dawson had unearthed the remains of the common ancestor that everybody was looking for. The skull suggested that the creature had the brains of a man; the jaw showed he looked like an ape; the tools at the site showed that he could make and use the tools. When Woodward announced the discovery to the scientific world, it created a sensation all over.
Dawson’s find was christened as ‘Piltdown man’ and later as Eoanthropus Dawsoni or Dawson’s early man. Aficionados of Darwin were elated. They claimed the discovery had vindicated Darwin’s theory. Dawson continued to dig in the area around the gravel pit and in 1915 found more skull fragments and fossilised teeth there. All these fragments were deeply stained suggesting that they had been buried for thousands of years. Dawson died a year later.
More than three decades later in 1953, a chemical analysis of the bones unearthed by the Dawson was done. Findings showed that the skull was human but only of a few centuries old and the jaw was that of a modern orang-utan. It had been chemically treated to look antique and the teeth had been filed to give them a human appearance. Who was the fraud – Dawson or one of his scientist friends Woodhead – is not the scope of our discussion.
The point concerning us here is that no link between humans and apes has yet been found and those that have been ‘found’ have met the fate of baatil (falsehood) as it is stated in the Qur’ān – and Proclaim truth has come and falsehood has vanished. Surely falsehood is ever bound to vanish – (17: 81)
February 12, 2009 – the 200th birth anniversary of Charles Darwin was celebrated all over the world. The occasion reminded us of the theory which he is famous for; the theory of which he was not so sure, but posthumously people gave meaning and connotations. His was not any theory or at least not any scientific theory but people after him insisted that it is a scientifically established fact. Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, was quoted in the magazine Nature, November 12, 1981, as saying, “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein”.
Yes! I dare say I do not believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution but this is not because of any dogma but because there is no so-called “overwhelming weight of scientific evidence” that could vindicate Darwin as alleged in a Hindu editorial (24 December 08). Even Darwin was aware of the fact when he confesses in his Origin of Species, “We do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life.”
A dialogue is required as people who are refuting Darwinism are doing on the basis of some preconceived notions and not because of their scientific reasoning. Though there is no dearth of scientific evidence to disprove what Darwin propounded, let’s see some of the very logical and easily understandable arguments that may not involve tedious scientific terminologies and think once again: were we monkeys?
Kevin Martin in his article “17 Evidences against Evolution” mentions, “Meteoritic dust falls on the earth continuously, adding up to thousands, if not millions, of tons of dust per year. Realizing this, and knowing that the moon also had meteoritic dust piling up for what they thought was millions of years, N.A.S.A. scientists were worried that the first lunar ship that landed would sink into the many feet of dust which should have accumulated. However, only about one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indicating a young moon. Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans. Taking the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several thousand years, not the millions (or billions) expressed by evolutionists. This, and the lack of meteoritic dust piles on the earth, lend to the belief in a young earth.”
The most reverberating evidence against Darwin’s theory of evolution is the fossil records. We know Darwin claimed that all the millions of different life forms had come into being through descent from a supposed-single-common-unicellular-ancestor. Fossil records are considered to be an irrefutable document of natural history. Logically seen, Darwin’s claim that ‘all mammals were descended from reptiles’ could be verified and believed only if when traces of fossil remains of a series of half-mammalian, half-reptilian life forms could be excavated. Till date millions of fossils have been unearthed but to the dismay of Darwin and his proponents even after more than a century and a half not a single transitional animal could be traced by any farfetched attempts. All known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms, with all its characteristics complete; thus contributing to the fact of special creation.
Though some attempts have been made to pinpoint (pointlessly) a few of fossil records like that of famous Piltdown man debacle. This Piltdown man had been considered semi-monkey and semi-human but studies after more than seven to eight decades of its find in 1912 led the scientists to include that it was only an old man who died sometime in the 18th century.
Evolutionists saw another transitional animal in what they referred to as Archaeopteryx that they considered transitional between reptile and bird. The people interested may look at Francis Hitching’s book, The Neck of the Giraffe – Where Darwin Went Wrong. And so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set forth as the best example of a transitional form. No true intermediate fossils have been found.
The science of probability too has not been favourable to evolutionary theory; even with the theory’s loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Centre for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations. He “applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth – all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years.” (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.)
“To get a single cell – the single smallest living cell known to mankind – which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you take thin pieces of paper and write 1 followed by zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!”
Till a few years back vestigial organs were supposed to be the organs in the body which are useless, left over from evolutionary development. In the 1800s, evolutionists listed 180 vestigial organs in the human body. The functions for all have now been found. Some of these were the pituitary gland (oversees skeletal growth), the thymus (an endocrine gland), the pineal gland (affects the development of the sex glands), the tonsils, and appendix (both now known to fight disease). It is rightly argued that the fact that an organ must sometimes be removed does not make it vestigial. For example, one can live without an organ (appendix, tonsils) does not make it vestigial. You can survive without an arm or a kidney but these are not considered vestigial.
I think these arguments are enough to shake one’s belief in Darwinism if at all the belief is based on scientific fact and not any scientific dogma. Avoiding a healthy discussion, today’s evolutionists engage in complicated descriptions and frequently resort to demagoguery and hollow slogans in order to give the impression that they are discussing a highly scientific matter. Confronted by these facts evolutionists have resorted to various falsehoods. They have produced artificial fossils that have come to be regarded as disgraces to palaeontology. They have tried to deceive the lay public by tampering with genuine fossils of extinct life forms and inventing a series of imaginary scenarios. One of the best known of them is the so-called “evolution of the horse.” There are many others!
Fossils belonging to entirely different species that once lived in India, South America, North America and Europe were arranged in order of size – from small to large – in the light of evolutionist imaginations. So far, different researchers have come up with more than 20 different equine evolution scenarios. There is no agreement among them regarding all these completely different family trees.
The one point they commonly agree upon is their belief that a dog-like creature known as Eohippus (or Hyracotherium) that lived in the Eocene epoch (54 to 37 million years ago) was the very first ancestor of today’s horses. However, Eohippus – portrayed as the ancestor of the horse and that became extinct millions of years ago is almost identical to the present-day animal known as the hyrax, which looks nothing like a horse and is totally unrelated to that species.
Moreover, it has been established that breeds of horse living today have also been discovered in the same rock strata as Eohippus. (See Francis Hitching’s The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, p. 30-31.) This means that the horse and its supposed ancestor were both living at the same time, which proves that the horse never underwent any such process as evolution.
The invalidity of the “equine series” proposed by evolutionists also applies to birds, fish, reptiles and mammals, in short, to all living beings, to their supposedly common ancestors and supposed family trees. It has been determined that every fossil species suggested as being the ancestor of some other living thing either belongs to an independent extinct life form or is the result of evolutionists tampering with fossils of the species in question.
Darwinism has been exposed as the most wide-ranging and astonishing deception in the world’s history. That millions have been taken in by this deception, as if hypnotised and influenced by all of Darwinism’s illogical claims, is truly miraculous.
If you feel bored by these scientific details, then please close your eyes and think logically. According to this utterly unbelievable theory, first dust, then soil, stones, waters, mountains and oceans came spontaneously into being in this nothingness devoid of anything of the sort. Later, certain atoms in the mixtures of these came together by chance and brought into being such elements as calcium, phosphorus and carbon. Over millions of years these lifeless elements, completely lacking in intellect, memory, knowledge and consciousness, turned into human beings able to breathe, speak, think, rejoice and mourn, possessed of a soul and memory, with the intelligence, knowledge and consciousness necessary to invent things, and capable of writing libraries full of books.
In short, the theory of evolution, as known, claims that inorganic chemical compounds came together by chance and as a result of randomly occurring natural phenomena, they formed first the building blocks of life and ultimately life. Consequently, in its core, this claim accepts time, inorganic matter and chance to be creative powers. Not surprisingly, despite being an evolutionist scientist, Pierre Paul Grassé acknowledges the implausibility of the theory and summarises what the concept of “coincidence” means for evolutionists: “Chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped.” (Pierre Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, p.107)
To conclude, there is no single evidence that any evolutionary process took place on earth. The fossil records clearly indicate that different living species did not appear through evolution from one another by fine gradations, but that on the contrary, distinct living species appeared on earth fully formed and without any preceding ancestors similar to them. Neither birds sprung from reptiles, nor fish transformed into land-dwelling animals. Each living phylum is created individually with its traits particular to its kind. Even the most renowned evolutionists had to accept this fact and confess that this provides an evidence for Creation.
For instance, evolutionist palaeontologist Mark Czarnecki confesses: “A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fuelled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”
Especially during the last 50 years, developments in various scientific fields such as palaeontology, microbiology, genetics and comparative anatomy, and new discoveries show that the theory of evolution is untrue and living beings appeared on earth all of a sudden in their distinct and perfect forms.
As Darwinism is not, and never was, a scientific fact, it is criminally unscientific to pour an unproven hypothesis as an established scientific fact in the plastic minds of children. Darwin’s theory of evolution has been disproved by science but still many people are bent upon believing in it (imperialists believed in it to apply the Darwinian theory of ‘survival of the fittest’ to the poor African and Asian countries that were not fit to govern themselves; today the victims of the theory too believe in it – what an irony!). It has really become a ‘scientific dogma’ over the years! Are you dogmatic enough to believe even now in a tale according to which your ancestors were apes?