Question:
Do you reject Charles Darwin's theory of evolution? If you do, why?
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Do you reject Charles Darwin's theory of evolution? If you do, why?
25 answers:
TechnoRat60
2006-06-19 10:01:01 UTC
No. I understand the Theory of Evolution.



I actually don't think it's possible to reject the Theory. People who say they reject it, just don't understand it. And they are usually too closed minded to listen to explanations.



I am reminded of the story of a man in an airport. It's a busy airport with planes flying overhead frequently. The man is lecturing to a number of aerospace engineers. The man is saying;



" . . . heavier than air flight is simply ridiculous . . . it just isn't logical to think something made of heavy metal can fly like a bird . . ."



That man is not able to reject the the theory of heavier than air flight, no matter how much he claims it's impossible. For Creationists, Evolution is like that. It is unaffected by their ignorance.
D
2006-06-18 21:34:56 UTC
I do not reject Charles Darwin's theory of evolution because there is no proof that it is false. At this time, it is the most realistic theory.
2006-06-18 21:28:06 UTC
The overwhelming majority of mainstream scientists who work in universities/hospitals/research institutes know the theory of evolution is correct. Don't be fooled by the word 'theory'. A theory in scientific terms means it is an extensively tested hypothesis. All the available evidence, and there is a mountain of it -- from humans to viruses and everything else -- points to Darwin's theory being essentially correct.



The creationists/intelligent designers don't understand the science and misinterpret the word theory to its common usage. Their arguments against evolution are based on pig ignorance and are laughable to anyone with a basic education in biology and molecular biology. One of their classic "arguments" is that if humans were derived from apes, there would be no apes alive today. It's like saying if budgies are derived from parrots, there would only be one species of parrot, the budgie, alive today. See what I mean in regard to the appalling level of ignorance displayed by the ID people. It's sad to see in a world where information is so easily available.



Sorry for rambling on so long ...
2006-06-18 21:26:26 UTC
I wholeheartedly support this theory, but old habits die hard so people who have been raised with religious beliefs will reject it.
wellarmedsheep
2006-06-18 22:25:30 UTC
I think it's important to note that among actual scientists, there is no rejection, evolution is accepted as the method for speciation. While the article is old, Newsweek polled 480,000 earth or life scientists and only 700 accepted creationism as both a valid science and the reason for the variety of organisms that inhabit earth. With this absurdly low figure, and oft-repeated creationist claims that "many" scientists reject evolution (particularly the Discovery Institutes list of scientists), the National Center for Science Education actually started a list of "Scientists Named Steve" that support Evolution that now outnumbers the Discovery Institutes list.



As far as the general population goes, the only reason to not accept Evolution is both religious and ignorance of science and scientific method. I've never seen an argument against evolution didn't support Creationism as the reason for the variety of life. These arguments are often based on a literal interpretation of the Bible coupled with either ignorance or gross misunderstanding of science. Often used example are the "If we descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", the misunderstanding of the word 'Theory', or the irreducible complexity argument, which Darwin actually addressed in The Origin of Species.



Another dividing line is the interpretation that Evolution is somehow atheist, anti-religion, or at worst tries to disprove God's existence. Once again we hit a wall of ignorance, anti-evolutionists don't understand that science doesn't address God's involvement in the origin of life because it's fundamentally unprovable and untestable by scientific method. On the same token, the lack of any mention of God makes any theory of the origin of life and species irrelevant. Really the two ideas aren't mutually exclusive, both are possible, but only one can be science. Personally, as an agnostic, I've always thought that if there is a God, that he has done all his work through natural law, and it would only make sense that he would do the same with life.
song of the phoenix
2006-06-18 21:34:33 UTC
First of all-there is a HUGE misconception here in some of the other answers. WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM APES! WE SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR WITH THE GREAT APES. Proof is the 90-something identical DNA we share with chimpanzees. That is why there are still apes...



Look-there is enough fossil evidence that we evolved. People just don't want to accept it because to admit that we are evolved animals is beneath them. We want to feel special-and it's psychologically painful to accept that we were not just plopped down on the Earth by some divine hand...



Also-I think there is an issue with the word theory. Does anyone realize exactly what a theory is? It's not "just a theory". A hypothesis is tested over and over by many people before it becomes an accepted theory. However, scientific advancements are always "evolving" because life is always changing...therefore, the more we learn, the more we adjust our previous beliefs... (remember the flat Earth theory??? WRONG!) So far, no one has come up with a better explanation but we have a mountain of evidence that species adapt and change over time... and our idea of time-our lifespan is not long enough. These things take millions of years... so, yes, I believe we evolved. There is no other better explanation...unless you believe a book written by other humans that lived thousands of years ago-that had no idea about the rest of world or much clue about physics, biology etc...



P.S. To Fred the Dog....



Have that doctor prove the existance of God in a way that everyone can understand-not using the bible or "supernatural" means-because there is no evidence that you can prove either exists or is at work in the universe.



Explain away the fossil evidence...



Where are the bones and proof of Jesus? You can believe that he was "assumed into heaven" but you can't fathom that we evolved?????

Explain a virgin birth-where is the evidence?



We have fossil evidence of everything science holds as true about life... now, explain all these things... without using the bible and without relying on the supernatural... or just "God".



It's amazing to me how people can suspend logic....or reject evidence that they can clearly see for themselves...



I'll never forget a fundamentalist website that read in big bold black text... "OTHER GALAXIES DO NOT EXIST"

And there was a picture of Andromeda....

Ignorant to the fact that we can not take a photo of the Milky Way... it was hilarious and appalling that people actually believed the narrow minded rhetoric....



*Sigh*
Dark Angel
2006-06-18 21:18:56 UTC
I am not reject this theory because human evolution can occurs time by time even we can't be mutants..This called evolution...So from the first monkey in world ....they had generated time by time ,,,,and they change the face and creature based on differences of climate,
Franklin
2006-06-19 07:01:58 UTC
For the anti-evolution fans of Dr. Kent Hovind.



It's really cute when people who obviously have no grasp of basic scientific concepts claim they can positively refute evolution.



Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot University as a degree mill [3].



Theres nothing wrong with believing what you want to believe, but believe what you want in church. Don't parade around like you're a scientist telling people you have all of this great "proof" that evolution is a crock.



Good science is a continuous process and theorys change because the technology developed to study those theorys gets better.



Oh yeah, and if you really want to learn about evolution....don't ask the guy who got his degree from a school that has no faculty.
know it all
2006-06-18 21:19:48 UTC
no
Mac Momma
2006-06-18 21:20:03 UTC
Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species. Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.



Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr’s Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations—sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms’ physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership. Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection—for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits—and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.



Some Creationists say that evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see “The Mammals That Conquered the Seas,” by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans. Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds—it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record. Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the “molecular clock” that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.
2006-06-18 21:23:22 UTC
Questions for Evolutionists

by Dr. Kent Hovind



The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.



1. Where did the space for the universe come from?



2. Where did matter come from?



3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?



4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?



5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?



6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?



7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?



8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?



9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)



10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)



11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?



12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?



13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?



14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?



15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?
2006-06-18 21:26:04 UTC
I reject it on scientific evidence. Although there is alot of evidence of point mutation being passed on to descendents (however this tends to be short lived...lasting only a handful of generations) there is absolutely zero scientific evidence for the origin of species theory.



To be blunt, despite incredible amounts of sophisticated scientific observation, not the slightest bit of evidence has been observed that shows that one species, in any way, turns into another. There are no intermediate forms. No slow, incremental changes of one species into another.



Quite the contrary, the evidence is quite clear. Species appear and disappear both rapidly and mysteriously. Who knows what the process is behind this. However, it is pretty damn clear that it is most definitely not evolution. That's what science says.



However, politics are currently using "evolution" as a war against religion. They trot out the evidence for point mutation and then change what type of evolution they are talking about in mid-argument to claim that the second sort of evolution is scientifically valid (when it absolutely is not). This supposedly invalidates creationism (it does nothing of the sort), claiming that a competing explanation is supported by science (it's not) making creationism irrational. These are all lies and the agenda of the people making these claims is suspect.
2006-06-18 23:17:15 UTC
This is more of an answer to those that say the theory of evolution is flawed and has "large gaps."



First of all, Christianity and religion itself has no scientific evidence whatsoever. The fact that we can carbon date things to millions of years ago proves that the earth is not 4,000 years old like many stupid Old Testament-hugging Christians believe. Religion is based on a belief, which is like saying "Because I believe that I can fly, if I jump off this building, I will fly." It's total bullshit. The problem is, with religion, it's such a big problem, that no building is tall enough for all the stupid religious ******* to jump off of.



The Theory of Evolution actually has undeniable scientific evidence which has already been presented in lots of these answers. If you deny reason, then you might as well be an ape.



"Man is a reed, the weakest in nature. A virus, a vapor is enough to kill him. But man can think and it is of this that our dignity consists. Let us strive to think well." ---Blaise Pascal
johnusmaximus1
2006-06-18 21:21:41 UTC
First off, it's a theory and not a fact. Darwin saw similarities between the skeletal system between birds and reptiles. Are the similarities due to evolution or are they due to being designed by the same Person.



The vast intelligence that is evident by the way our earth, the animals, the plants and everything functions disprove that this all could happen by accident. If you had a pocketwatch that was completely dissassembled, put it in a box and shook it, what are the chances that the watch would be completely assembled when you opened the box? What are the chances of our earth being the perfect distance from the sun, having an atmosphere that sustains us, and a moon that acts in such a way as to keep the earth in rotational balance? Not to mention the complex ecological system on earth. All these and much more point to signs of a loving Creator.
secretsauce
2006-06-18 22:57:06 UTC
As is invariably the case, the answers by people who reject the theory demonstrate clearly that they DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT AT ALL.



Examples:

David: "something jumped from a little chimp to something twice its size" (Hint: Evolution does not "jump", and evolutionists repeat and repeat and repeat, man did not evolve from chimps! As for size difference ... there's far more size difference between chihuahuas a great danes, i.e., within the same species ... than between chimps and humans. )



john i: "If we came from Monkey's why are there still Monkey's" (Three fundamental errors in one sentence, can you spot them? Hint: john, you need a better source than "my buddy scott" ... your buddy doesn't understand evolution at all.)



onanutmission: "I personally do not believe we evolved from apes." We did not evolve from apes. But we *are* apes (in the same way that we are classified as primates, and as mammals.)



St. Toad: (Oh, nevermind.)



Fred_the_dog: Copies and pastes Kent Horvind's notoriously ignorant questions, many of which have nothing to do with evolution (i.e. biology). There are *many* web sites answering these questions, and quite a number showing that Horvind is not only a fool, but an intellectually dishonest liar as well (e.g. http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind_page.htm).



Panacea: The division of evolution into microevolution (changes within a species) and macroevolution (creation of new species) is a common misunderstanding by creationists. There is no such division in nature. Evolution over short periods produces small changes. Evolution over geologically huge periods of time produces huge changes, including establishment of new species, etc. Here's a great page on this issue: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
2006-06-18 21:22:16 UTC
There are cities beneath the Earth, in deep caverns and the spaces between continental shelves. The people who live in these cities descended from small, intelligent dinosaurs who became adapted to living underground. They have millions of years more advanced science than we do. They have guided our evolution and seem to need to take some of our genetic material. They created the grey 'aliens' and build the flying saucers. Adapted, as they are, to the deep pressures they cannot travel to the surface in comfort, but their greys can.
annie
2015-10-20 13:11:24 UTC
I'm overwhelmed by these huge answers.... In a nutshell, yes. No comment.
john l
2006-06-18 21:18:43 UTC
My buddy Scott says If we came from Monkey's why are there still Monkey's
I-C-U
2006-06-18 21:22:31 UTC
i reject it because my ancestors are not apes and i'm not one either.

because the BIG BANG didn't happen, how would two atoms collide or gases ,someone wold had to create them.

because i got proof of God,I asked him once in my humblest self,promissed that i'd serve him to the rest of my life once he'll give me a sign that he exists,and he did.

you can't explain the unseen(look at a floppy disc cdrom cdr cdrw disc you can have a load of information programs on them but the disc weights the same as it was clear).
2006-06-19 00:06:34 UTC
Any scientist would reject this stupid theory, as there have been hundreds of evidences that prove that it is wrong.
David
2006-06-18 21:16:19 UTC
i believe that things evolve, but what evidence do they have that something jumped from a little chimp to something twice its size? i believe in a combination. that everythin evolves, but that the individual species were created by a god originally
changeling
2006-06-18 21:20:13 UTC
I personally do not believe we evolved from apes.I believe the bible.I also believe that there was a world before this one where lucifer reigned until he fell.The creatures/humans from that world might be what darwin was referring to but not apes.
2016-03-15 13:05:24 UTC
no i do blive in the darwin theory he is very intellegent
NeO Anderson
2006-06-18 22:01:07 UTC
therory is falwed in major points, many gaps,
2006-06-22 06:22:28 UTC
ALL THESE ARE NOT THE WORK OF CHANCE



IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO SAY, ''IT HAPPENED BY CHANCE''



Just think about the things you see from the moment you wake up in the morning: the pillow under your head, the blanket over you, the alarm clock that woke you up, the slippers you search for as soon as you get out of bed, the window you open to get some fresh air, the clothes hanging in your closet, the mirror you look into every morning, the knife and fork you use for breakfast, the umbrella you take with you when you leave the house, the elevator you get into, the key that opens your car door, the traffic lights along the way, the billboards, the pen, paper and other things on your desk at work...

Spend some time to consider, and it will no doubt occur to you that each of these things was designed for a special purpose. No one would say that it was a matter of chance that everything was where it should be when you arose up in the morning. For example, who would claim that merely by chance, your house key was cut exactly to fit the door? Or that it ended up in your pocket by chance, in the first place? No one would claim that the billboards along the road were put there by chance, or that the meanings they intend came about by randomly painted symbols.

By the same token, no one would deny that a staple—nothing other than a specially shaped piece of wire on your desk—was bent and placed in its dispenser in order to hold papers together. Each staple's metal alloy, size, shape, and intended function show the evidence of deliberate design. It was planned specifically to accommodate your needs; and there's a particular reason why staples are so often found in any office setting.

What about the people you see walking along the street? Or the trees you pass by, the dog that runs out in front of you, the pigeons that build their nests in the eaves of your house, the flowers on your table, the sky above you? Could their existence be by chance, do you think?

It would be nonsense to even consider this possibility! Everything surrounding you, animate and inanimate alike, is too wonderful and complex to be compared with man-made items or ever to be ascribed to the operations of chance. Each is an example of a conscious creation, requiring consummate intelligence and skill. Everyone who finds it illogical to think that even a single staple came about by the proper bending of a wire by chance, will see that it is even more impossible that human beings, cats, birds, trees and the entire universe emerged by chance.

But today, there are people who cannot see this clear reality. Or rather they see it, but pretend not to. They claim that trees, birds, clouds, houses, cars, you yourself, others around you—in short, everything in the universe, animate and inanimate, is all the work of blind chance.

These people, known as Materialist-Darwinists, maintain the contradictory idea that chance occurrences can display supreme intelligence; and that the sum total of millions of chance events, occurring in sequence, can show creative power. According to Materialist-Darwinists, chance events have greater intelligence than every person in the world—no matter how many people have come and gone. They claim that a genius called "chance" has shaped everyone's brain, cognitive ability, judgment, memory, and countless other human characteristics for hundreds of thousands of years.

According to Materialist-Darwinists, time is the only thing that this brilliant genius needs to bring about such extraordinary events. Their warped logic claims that, if given time, chance can transform a mass of inert, unconscious atoms into, for example, a fig, olive, strawberry, orange, peach, tomato, pomegranate, melon, banana, violet, tulip, orchid, or rose; into ants, butterflies, peacocks, horses, giraffes, and human beings, or any of a million other things you may not think of. Moreover, it claims that chance can bring into existence every star, the sun, and all planets in their orbits. According to Darwinism, all students, doctors, architects, businessmen, engineers, and scientists came into being over the course of time by chance, working patiently with the help of a few minerals, a bit of water, and sunlight. Interestingly, the deity of chance at the basis of this false idea is, at the same time, used by Materialist-Darwinists in their books, conferences and heated discussions to explain their own chance existence. This is the essence of the theory of evolution and the materialist philosophy, which some evolutionist-materialist scientists describe by using Latin words in a difficult, deliberately obscurantist style.

In this book, we'll examine the irrationality of those who have entered the blind alley of chance, ignoring the wondrous design that surrounds them as well as the proofs of creation, and denying the evident existence of God Who created them and the universe they live in.

Before starting our discussion, though, it's useful to point out that Materialist-Darwinists' self-contradictory position arises from a conceptual deficiency that has been common throughout history. In the past, pagans and godless societies carved totems and statues of gods with their own hands, ignorantly believing that images of stone and clay had creative power. God speaks of these people in the Qur'an (25: 2-3):

He to Whom the kingdom of the heavens and the earth belongs. He does not have a son and He has no partner in the Kingdom. He created everything and determined it most exactly. But they have adopted gods apart from Him which do not create anything but are themselves created. They have no power to harm or help themselves. They have no power over death or life or resurrection.

=*=*=*=*=*=*

CHANCE IS NOT A DEITY: IT IS GOD WHO IS THE CREATOR OF ALL THAT EXISTS





The theory of evolution, as proposed by Charles Darwin in the 19th century, is one of the most unbelievable and irrational claims in history. Despite this, over its 150-year history it's been accepted by many scientists, professors, doctors and researchers, and many others who have expended great effort to defend evolution to the point of accepting its scientific contradictions.

This theory puts forth the irrational claim that all plants, animals and human beings are the result of blind, unconscious, accidental events. Evolutionists believe that millions of years ago, in the primal soup of the oceans or in pools of water, mindless atoms with no knowledge, powers of reason came together in certain proportions and later, by chance, formed the proteins and cells that even today's scientists with the most advanced laboratory technology have not been able to duplicate. They go so far as to say that these cells, in their turn—and again by sheer chance—formed starfish, fish, sparrows, hawks, seagulls, penguins, cats, lambs, lions, and even human beings who possess the faculty of reason.

To demonstrate just how incredible the claims of evolutionists are, let anyone who believes in the creative power of chance events take a large barrel. Let them put into it however much material they believe is required to form a living thing. For example, let them include all the needed elements—carbon, phosphorus, calcium—as well as organic compounds like amino acids, proteins, lipids, and carotene. Then let them add to this mixture whatever outside influence they choose. For example, heat or chill the barrel. Let it be struck by lightning or apply electric current. Let them stir the mixture with whatever advanced devices they may have. In addition, let them stand guard on this barrel transferring this responsibility from father to son for millions, even billions, of years. And so as to increase the chances of success, let them control the mixing at every moment. Let them consult with others;meet with the world's foremost biologists, geneticists, physicists and experts on evolution. Leave them free to produce whatever conditions they deem necessary to originate life.

Yet despite all this serious, conscious effort, they'll never be able to produce anything like a living being in that barrel. No matter what they do, they'll never be able to produce the living things pictured in this book.

Let those atoms in that barrel perform any reactions they want; never will they begin an "evolution" capable of producing brilliant scientists like Einstein and Newton able to solve complex problems; artists like Michelangelo and Picasso able to create masterpieces; musicians like Beethoven and Mozart able to compose melodies to delight the human spirit; discoverers;scientists able to examine under electron microscopes the molecules and atoms out of which they themselves are composed; talented actors like Humphrey Bogart and Charlton Heston; celebrities like Steve Martin, Bon Jovi and Sting. Or consider the many artists; those who take pleasure in symmetry, esthetics and harmonious colors; those able to design automobiles and write books; thinkers with faculties of logic and judgment;human beings able to retain in memory what they have learned, share longings, feel excitement and pleasure;who are possessed with a sense of love, mercy and compassion; who enjoy the taste of food and whose appetite is stimulated by a cake baking in the oven; who laugh at something funny and enjoy being with their friends; who can defend an idea and carry on a discussion.

Bring unconscious atoms together in whatever way you prefer. Never will they be able to bring about a single one of these living things, or even one of their cells.

If so—if no living thing can ever be produced by human effort and the whole pool of human knowledge—how can life be brought into being with the aid of unconscious atoms and chance events? Any intelligent human being of conscience can certainly understand that he—and other living things—cannot be the result of chance events. Every intelligent, unprejudiced person with a conscience knows that God has created all these living things with His incomparable power.

Regrettably, a segment of the population has accepted this irrational scenario throughout the 20th century. Professors, scientists and teachers may ridicule the "primitive" beliefs of pagan societies, while themselves accepting the nonsense of evolution. In this, they're equally as benighted as those human beings who expect a wooden idol can help them. God's Messenger, he Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, also reminded anyone afflicted with such blindness that the greatest sin is associating His creatures with God:

The most severe sin is to associate partners with God, while He has created you.1

In the Qur'an (29:17), God warns those who worship idols and invent lies about them that their power is strong enough to do anything.

Instead of God, you worship only idols. You are inventing a lie. Those you worship besides God have no power to provide for you. So seek your provision from God and worship Him and give thanks to Him. It is to Him you will be returned.

=*=*=*=*=*==*

THE FLAWLESS ORDER OF THE UNIVERSE FALSIFIES CLAIMS THAT IT CAME ABOUT BY CHANCE



The universe with all its creations, both animate and inanimate, has a flawless design, unique systems, and an ordered balance that provide all the conditions necessary for living things to survive. Discoveries, especially those made in the 20th and 21st centuries, have shown that the flawless design of the universe is clearly the work of a supreme intelligence. It is God, with His supreme intelligence, limitless knowledge and eternal power, Who created the universe.

But this fact, established with clear proofs by 20th-century science, is ignored by those who have adopted the Darwinist-Materialist philosophy. Materialists may claim that the universe is the product of chance and chaos, but when we examine the flawless systems that functioned in forming the universe, not to mention the balance and harmony existing among its living things, we clearly see that it cannot be the product of chance.

In The Mysterious Universe, the English physicist Sir James Jeans describes the flawless order in the cosmos:

A scientific study of the universe has suggested a conclusion, which may be summed up ... in the statement that the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician.2

Every planet in the universe, large and small, is the critically important part of a larger order. Not one of their positions in space or any of their movements is random. On the contrary, their countless details known to us so far have been created and especially adjusted for a particular purpose. Of all the innumerable factors influencing the balances in the universe, a change in the position of just one planet is enough to bring chaos. But these balances are never upset. The universe continues on, in its perfect order, with no problems. All of this is a result of God's supreme power in creation.



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



"God, there is no god but Him, the Living, the Self-Sustaining. He is not subject to drowsiness or sleep. Everything in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him. Who can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them but they cannot grasp any of His knowledge save what He wills. . . ." (Qur'an 2: 255)



Charles Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution, which suggests that all living things came into being by the mechanism of chance. But the universe's perfect design led even Darwin to admit that there is no room for chance in its creation. As he wrote:

This [conviction in the existence of God] follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity.3

"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 distance between the Earth and our moon ensures many important balances and is extremely vital for the continuation of life on Earth. Indeed, the slightest variation in the distance between the two bodies could give rise to significant imbalances. For example:

- If the moon were much closer [to the Earth], it would crash into our planet, if much farther away, it would move off into space.

- If it were much closer, the tides that the moon causes on the earth would become dangerously larger. Ocean waves would sweep across low-lying sections of the continents. Resultant friction would heat the oceans, destroying the delicate thermal balance needed for life on earth.

- A more distant moon would reduce tidal action, making the oceans more sluggish. Stagnant water would endanger marine life, yet it is that very marine life that produces the oxygen that we breathe.4

The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said:

O God:All the Praises are for You:You are the Lord of the Heavens and the Earth. All the Praises are for You:You are the Maintainer of the Heaven and the Earth. You are my only God [Whom I worship] and there is no other God for me [I worship none but You].5



"You will see the mountains you reckoned to be solid going past like clouds—the handiwork of God Who gives to everything its solidity. . . . " (Qur'an 27: 88)



"And the earth: how We stretched it out and cast firmly embedded mountains onto it and caused luxuriant plants of every kind to grow in it." (Qur'an 50: 7)



The distribution of heavenly bodies in the universe is designed exactly to conform to the needs of human life. In his book The Symbiotic Universe, American astronomer George Greenstein explains the importance of the huge voids in space and the distances between heavenly bodies:

All that wasted space! On the other hand, in this very waste lies our safety. It is a precondition for our existence. Most remarkable of all is that the overall emptiness of the cosmos seems to have no other consequence in the astronomical realm. Had the stars been somewhat closer, astrophysics would not have been so very different. The fundamental physical processes occurring within stars, nebulas, and the like would have proceeded unchanged. The appearance of our galaxy as seen from some far-distant vantage point would have been the same. About the only difference would have been the view of the night time sky from the grass on which I lie, which would have been yet richer with stars. And oh, yes—one more small change: There would have been no me to do the viewing.6



"This is God's creation. Show me then what those besides Him have created! The wrongdoers are clearly misguided." (Qur'an 31: 11)





Contemporary philosopher Jean Guitton of the French Academy writes:

The first conditions that determined the basic constants of nature and the emergence of life were set in place with amazing exactness. To give an idea of how precisely the universe appears to have been constructed, it is enough to think of a golfer who can hit his ball from Earth to a hole on Mars! 7



"God is He Who raised up the heavens without any support—you can see that—and then established Himself firmly on the Throne. He made the sun and moon subservient, each running for a specified term. He directs the whole affair. He makes the Signs clear so that hopefully you will be certain about the meeting with your Lord." (Qur'an 13: 2)



"Do you not see that everyone in the heavens and everyone on the earth prostrates to God, and the sun and moon and stars and the mountains, trees and beasts and many of mankind? But many of them inevitably merit punishment. . . ." (Qur'an 22: 18)



"Do you not see how He created seven heavens in layers, and placed the moon as a light in them and made the sun a blazing lamp?" (Qur'an 71: 15-16)



"In two days He determined them as seven heavens and revealed, in every heaven, its own mandate. We adorned the lowest heaven with lamps and guarded it. . . ." (Qur'an 41: 12)



"Did We not make the earth a receptacle for the living and the dead? Did We not place firmly embedded mountains in it, soaring high into the air, and give you sweet fresh water to drink?" (Qur'an 77: 25-27)



"He sends down water from the sky and river-beds fill up and flow according to their size, and the floodwater carries a rising foam. . . ." (Qur'an 13: 17)



If the laws of the universe allowed only the solid and gaseous states of matter, life would never have come into being. This is because the atoms in solid matter are compact, relatively motionless, and do not allow the dynamic molecular activity needed for living organisms to develop. The atoms in gasses have no stability and move freely, preventing the functioning of the complex mechanisms of living organisms.

In short, there must be a fluid environment for the functions necessary for life to develop. The most ideal fluid—rather the only ideal fluid—is water.



The suitability of Earth's environment for the sustaining life is too wondrous to ever be explained by chance occurrences. Lawrence Henderson, a professor in Harvard University's department of biological chemistry, says the following in this regard:

The fitness... [of these compounds constitutes] a series of maxima—unique or nearly unique properties of water, carbon dioxide, the compounds of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen and the ocean—so numerous, so varied, so complete among all things which are concerned in the problem that together they form certainly the greatest possible fitness.8



God has created the amount of water in the world in the way most appropriate for the survival of living things. The 18th century English natural scientist John Ray, writes the following in this regard:

… [I]f there were but half the sea that now is, there would also be but half Quantity of Vapors, and consequently we could have but half as many Rivers as now there are to supply all the dry land we have at present, and half as much more; for the quantity of Vapors which are raised, as well as to the heat which raised them. The Wise Creator therefore did so prudently order it, that the seas should be large enough to supply Vapors sufficient for all the land.9

To claim that all these events resulted from chance events, a person would have to be completely deluded.



"We pour down plentiful water, then split the earth into furrows. Then We make grain grow in it, and grapes and herbs and olives and dates." (Qur'an 80: 25-29)



". . . . Luxuriant gardens and orchards and meadows, for you and your livestock to enjoy." (Qur'an 80: 30-32)



The molecular biologist Michael Denton writes:

The fitness of water [for life] would in all probability be less if its viscosity were much lower. The structures of living systems would be subject to far more violent movements under shearing forces if the viscosity were as low as liquid hydrogen... If the viscosity of water was much lower, delicate structures would be easily disrupted . . . and water would be incapable of supporting any permanent intricate microscopic structures. The delicate molecular architecture of the cell would probably not survive.

If the viscosity was higher, the controlled movement of large macromolecules and particularly structures such as mitochondria and small organelles would be impossible, as would processes like cell division. All the vital activities of the cell would be effectively frozen, and cellular life of any sort remotely resembling that with which we are familiar would be impossible. The development of higher organisms, which is critically dependent on the ability of cells to move and crawl around during embryogenesis, would certainly be impossible if the viscosity of water was even slightly greater than it is.10



"Say: ‘What do you think? If, one morning, your water disappears into the earth, who will bring you running water?' "(Qur'an 67: 30)



"Have you thought about the water that you drink? Is it you who sent it down from the clouds or are We the Sender?" (Qur'an 56: 68-69)



Water is renewed in a continuous cycle, in a state ready to be used by plants, animals, and human beings. Due to the sun's influence, the Earth's water is purified by evaporation. Evaporated water condenses in the atmosphere, forming clouds, and falls to the earth again as rain. In one year, for example, it is calculated that roughly six to seven hundred million tons of water evaporates at the equator, rises into the atmosphere, is carried towards the North and the South Poles, and eventually returns to the seas again, in the form of rain.

If this transformation did not occur—that is, if water didn't evaporate and return to the earth, life would certainly come to an end.



=*=*=*=*==*=**=



Here is a wonderful book about Evolution Theory:



((The Collapse Of The Theory Of Evolution In 20 Questions))



(Word file)

http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=80&Format=rtf



(PDF file)

http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=80&Format=pdf



Useful sites which may help :

http://www.harunyahya.com

http://www.harunyahya.net

http://www.islam-guide.com/islam-guide.p...

=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*...


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...