Charles Darwin

The idea of evolution, which materialists ever since Ancient Greece have employed to account for the origin of life, entered the world of science in the 19th century with Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species. Those who supported the materialist philosophy, which underwent an enormous rise during the 19th century, adopted the theory of evolution as an answer to the question of how life came into being, but did not question the theory's scientific foundations.

Apart from making inferences from a number of biological observations, Darwin's book did not offer any scientific proofs for his theory, leaving the question of evidence for later. In particular, he suggested that the fossils that he expected would support his theory would be discovered eventually.

The theory of evolution, fervently embraced despite its scientific weakness by those who denied the fact of Creation, shortly came to dominate the scientific world. From scientific magazines to school textbooks, the theory of evolution was portrayed as scientifically proven and the only valid explanation of the origin of life. Scientists who pointed out the errors and illogicalities of the theory were either silenced by threats to their academic careers or else accused of being dogmatic or anti-scientific. The proponents of materialist ideologies imposed the theory of evolution on entire systems of education and popular culture for 150 years, despite possessing no evidence for it, and employing only methods of propaganda.

From the second half of the 20th century onward, however, the privileged position that the theory of evolution had enjoyed among the scientific community became increasingly problematic. Observations and experiments in a wide range of scientific disciplines, from paleontology to biology and from anatomy to genetics, began to produce findings that argued against the theory. In the face of these new scientific findings, evolutionists suddenly found themselves and their theory on the defensive. By the beginning of the 21st century, the theory of evolution had become the subject of wide debates the world over. To a large extent, it had lost its former prestige and in many quarters was expected to collapse at any time soon. Between the lines, world-renowned scientific magazines such as Nature, New Scientist, Science and Scientific American began publishing frequent doubts about the theory of evolution.

What, then, were these findings which led to the sudden undermining of the theory of evolution? These can be grouped under three main categories:

1. Increasingly, biologists have discovered that living organisms consist of exceedingly complex structures. It has been shown that proteins, DNA and the cell, all possess irreducible complexity and cannot have come into being by chance, as the theory of evolution originally maintained. That impossibility has also been calculated mathematically.

2. It has now been accepted that natural selection and mutation, long proposed as the mechanisms of evolution, have no power to cause living species to evolve. Natural selection may weed out weak or sickly individuals, but brings no new genetic information to living organisms, and mutations merely damage existing genetic information.

3. The transitional forms that evolutionists expected to find in the fossil record- and which might be regarded as proof that species evolved from one another-have not been found. Fossils emerge suddenly and with all their particular features fully present, and the fossil record demonstrates that no species experienced any process of gradual change leading to its eventual disappearance.

This book deals with the third of these scientific developments which have undermined the theory of evolution-the fossil record.

Before moving forward, we need to stress that the absence of transitional forms from the fossil record is by itself sufficient to undermine the whole theory of evolution. Charles Darwin, the founder of the theory, actually admitted the truth of this! After inquiring into the absence of such forms, he wrote that "this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

And today, one of the main objections to Darwin's theory of evolution indeed, concerns the fossil record. Even among evolutionists, there is a serious dispute over how to interpret the fossil record. Fossils, one important source of scientific evidence regarding natural history, clearly refute the theory of evolution and show that life on Earth appeared suddenly, with no evolutionary process behind it-in other words that life forms were created.


If a process of evolution had really taken place on Earth, and had all living species actually descended from a single common ancestor, then some clear evidence of this would be discovered in the fossil record. The well-known French zoologist Pierre Grassť says this:

Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms... only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms.

In order to see why this should be so, we need a brief look at the theory of evolution's fundamental claim: that all living things are descended from one another. A living organism, which previously came into existence in a random manner, gradually turned into another, with all ensuing species coming into being-or evolving-that same way. According to this unscientific claim, all plants, animals, fungi and bacteria came into being in the same manner. The 100 or so different animal phyla (comprising such basic categories as mollusks, arthropods, worms and sponges) all descended from one single common ancestor. Again according to the theory, such invertebrates as these gradually, in the course of time and the pressure of natural selection, turned into fish, which turned into amphibians, which turned into reptiles. Some reptiles turned into birds, and others into mammals.

Evolutionary theory maintains that this transition took place gradually over hundreds of billions of years. That being the case, then countless numbers of transitional forms should have emerged and left some trace of their existence during the course of that immeasurably long period.

Scientific discoveries from the second half of the 20th century began preparing the collapse of the theory of evolution.

Half-fish, half-amphibian creatures, which still bore piscine characteristics despite having acquired four legs and lungs, should have lived in the past. Alternatively, reptile-birds that retained some reptilian features but had also acquired some avian ones must also have come into being. Since these species were part of a transitional process, they must also have been flawed, or even deformed. For instance, a transitional reptile's front legs should have resembled bird's wings a little more with every passing generation. But over the course of hundreds of generations, this creature will have neither completely functional front legs, nor completely functional wings-in other words it will exist in a flawed, handicapped form. These theoretical creatures which evolutionists believe to have lived in the past are known as transitional forms.

If creatures of that type really had existed in the distant past, then they must have been numbered in the millions, even in the billions, and their fossil remains should be excavated all over the world. Darwin accepted the logic of that, and himself stated why there should be a large number of transitional forms:

By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the natural and domestic varieties of the same species at the present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient forms; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class.

What Darwin is referring to is that no matter how little difference there may be among living species today-between a pedigreed German shepherd dog and a wolf, for example-, the difference among the ancestors and the descendants which are claimed to have followed one another, needs to be equally small.

For that reason, had evolution really taken place as stated by Darwin, then it would progress in very minute, gradual changes. Effective change in a living thing subjected to mutation would have to be very small. Millions of minute tiny changes would need to combine over millions of years for legs to turn into functional wings, gills into lungs able to breathe air, or fins into feet able to run on land. Yet such a process would have to give rise to millions of transitional forms. Darwin drew the following conclusion in the wake of his statement:

So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.

Darwin also expressed the same point in other parts of his book:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all the species of the same group together, must assuredly have existed . . . Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved, as we shall in a future chapter attempt to show, in an extremely imperfect and intermittent record.

If the theory of evolution were correct, then there should be fossils of strange creatures, half-formed and with features belonging to two different species, in the fossil record, of the kind depicted here. Yet not one such creature has ever been found in the record.

However, Darwin was well aware that no fossils of such transitional links had ever been discovered. This he regarded as a major stumbling block for his theory. Therefore, in the chapter "Difficulties of the Theory" in On The Origin of Species, he wrote the following: :

But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such transitional forms? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Although a great many fossils of living things which existed billions of years ago, from bacteria to ants and from leaves to birds, are present in the fossil record, not a single fossil of an imaginary transitional form has ever been discovered.

In the face of this major dilemma, the only explanation Darwin put forward was the insufficiency of the fossil record of his time. He maintained that the missing transitional forms would inevitably appear once the fossil record was complete and was examined in detail.

However, fossil research of the last 150 years has revealed that the expectations of Darwin-and the evolutionists who followed him-were actually empty ones. Not a single fossil of any transitional form has ever been found. To date, there are around 100 million fossils, preserved in thousands of museums and collections. All of these are the remains of full-developed species with their own unique features, separated from all other species by definite, fixed characteristics. Fossils of half-fish, half-amphibians; half-dinosaur, half-birds, and half-ape, half-humans so confidently and definitely predicted by evolutionists, have never been encountered.

Despite being an evolutionist, Steven. M. Stanley of John Hopkins University admits as such:

The known fossil record is not, and never has been in accord with gradualism. . . Few modern paleontologist seem to have recognized that in the past century, as the biological historian William Coleman has recently written, 'The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin's stress on minute, slow and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.' In the next chapter, I will describe not only what the fossils have to say, but why their story has been suppressed.

Curators in the Department of Anthropology of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, Ian Tattersall and Niles Eldredge describe how the fossil record contradicts the theory of evolution:

The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history-not the artifact of a poor fossil record.

As these evolutionist scientists state, the true history of life can be seen in the fossil record, but there are no transitional forms within that history.

(1) a cowslip fossil. Above, a present-day cowslip
(2) the oldest flowering plant fossil so far discovered
(3) a 2-million-year-old ant embedded in amber and, top,
a present-day ant
(4) a fossil of a several million-year-old maple leaf and present-day maple leaves

Other scientists also admit the absence of transitional forms. Rudolf A. Raff, Director of the Indiana Molecular Biology Institute, and Thomas C. Kaufmann, Researcher at Indiana University, write:

The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record.

There are even preserved fossils of bacteria that lived billions of years ago. Nevertheless, it is striking that not a single fossil of any imaginary transitional form has ever been found. Fossils exist of a great many species, from bacteria to ants and from birds to flower-bearing plants. Even fossils of extinct species have been preserved so well that we are able to appreciate the kinds of structures possessed by these once-abundant species, which we have never seen alive. The absence of even a single transitional form within such rich fossil sources demonstrates not the insufficiency of the fossil record, but the invalidity of the theory of evolution.

Darwinism Watch

Read all responses to the Darwinist propaganda >>



And they have other uses for them, and drinks. So will they not be thankful? (Surah Ya Sin: 73)

Civil wars, slaughter, problems within families, people who kill without a qualm, children living on the streets, people freezing to death from a lack of shelter, murderers no older than children, youth gangs, civic and political corruption . . .

When one thinks about these social problems, which have become part and parcel of today's daily life, the same imperfection can be seen at the root of them all. This same common imperfection also underlies such corrupt moral values as injustice, fraud, hypocrisy and ruthlessness that cause these problems to emerge.

This grave imperfection is that people fail to think-and thus, fail to see the truth. For such people, all that matters is their own interests, their own lives. They are unconcerned by what goes on around them. At the same time, what limited topics they do think about, again center upon themselves. For that reason, they live within the confines of their own rights and wrongs. They regard living the course of their daily lives as sufficient, never sparing a thought for vital issues such as the reason for their presence in this world.

They never consider the features of the living things around them, or how it is that these have emerged so flawlessly and in such variety. They are therefore unaware that all these things-their own bodies, the equilibrium in the heavens, in short, everything and anything-are created by God. They are unable to properly appreciate Him, the Creator of the entire universe, and His infinite might. They never become aware of the reason for their own creation and the fact that they owe responsibilities to God. The fact is, however, that a great many verses in the Qur'an emphasize the importance of thinking and the fact that only thoughtful people will heed advice.

Your Lord revealed to the bees: "Build dwellings in the mountains and the trees, and also in the structures which men erect. Then eat from every kind of fruit and travel the paths of your Lord, which have been made easy for you to follow." From inside them comes a drink of varying colors, containing healing for humanity. There is certainly a sign in that for people who reflect. (Surat an-Nahl: 68-69)

Verses refer to people who think and thus achieve awareness of the might of God:

In the creation of the heavens and the Earth, and the alternation of night and day, there are signs for people with intelligence: those who remember God, standing, sitting and lying on their sides, and reflect on the creation of the heavens and the Earth: "Our Lord, You have not created this for nothing. Glory be to You! So safeguard us from the punishment of the Fire." (Surah Al 'Imran: 190-191)

The aim of this book is to overcome this mental idleness by presenting yet another of God's miracles of creation. In addition, the honeybee is one of the creatures to which the Qur'an draws our attention. In Surat an-Nahl, God reveals that bees act in the light of His inspiration:

Your Lord revealed to the bees: "Build dwellings in the mountains and the trees, and also in the structures which men erect. Then eat from every kind of fruit and travel the paths of your Lord, which have been made easy for you to follow." From inside them comes a drink of varying colors, containing healing for humanity. There is certainly a sign in that for people who reflect. (Surat an-Nahl: 68-69)

These verses emphasize bees' making their own homes, taking nourishment from every kind of flower and producing honey. As you'll see in the following chapters, all such activities in the hive are performed by workers. A hive contains worker bees, a queen bee, and male bees (or drones). Workers carry out almost all the tasks in the hive. In addition, the queen has the extremely important function of ensuring the hive's continuation. The sole function of the males in the hive is to fertilize their queen. They carry out this task within their short life spans, and then die.

In addition to examining these features of bees, this book also considers many other matters, such as how tens of thousands of bees are able to live together in the hive with no difficulty, how they follow directions, and how they produce honey. With verses from the Qur'an, we shall once again be seeing that there is no arbitrary and random "struggle for survival" either in nature or in the lives of bees, contrary to what the theory of evolution would have us believe.

Intelligent Design, in other words Creation
In order to create, God has no need to design

It's important that the word "design" be properly understood. That God has created a flawless design does not mean that He first made a plan and then followed it. God, the Lord of the Earth and the heavens, needs no "designs" in order to create. God is exalted above all such deficiencies. His planning and creation take place at the same instant.

Whenever God wills a thing to come about, it is enough for Him just to say, "Be!"

As we are told in the verses of the Qur'an:

His command when He desires a thing is just to say to it, "Be!" and it is. (Surah Ya Sin: 82)

[God is] the Originator of the heavens and Earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, "Be!" and it is. (Surat al-Baqara: 117)




Other Sites - Email - Subscribe