Weaknesses in the Evolution Theory

Weaknesses in the Evolution Theory

A person probing the universe he lives in will encounter 250 billion galaxies, each the home of about 300 billion stars. Everyone of these magnificent systems operates in accordance with specific laws and in a particular order. There is a plan, a design and a balance in every part of the universe. The Earth occupies a minuscule part of this vast universe and it too has a perfectly designed system incorporating extremely complex and delicate balances. Unlike any other known heavenly body, its atmosphere and its surface support life. Water, the temperature range and surface of the Earth all demonstrate that this planet is specifically designed for life. This unique planet of ours is a home of an incredibly complex and comprehensive vitality. Millions of different plant and animal species live on Earth in perfect harmony. This harmony is so perfectly established that it is capable of surviving intact unless deliberately intervened in by human beings. But how did these systems and living things originate? A controversy on the subject arose during the 19th century. While creationists claim the presence of an infinitely strong being responsible for the creation of the universe, the theory of evolution that was advanced in the 19th century denies this evident fact of creation. Throughout this context, a question arises: Should the evolution theory be validated and considered as a fact? Indeed, this theory must not be considered as a scientific discovery due to its lack of evidence and due to the questions it leaves unanswered.

The evolution theory holds that the species on Earth were not created by God but came in the being as a result of processes governed entirely by chance. The founder of this theory was an amateur naturalist named Charles Darwin. Darwin expounded this theory in his book “The Origin of Species”, which was published in 1859. Darwin’s theory argued that all species descended from a common ancestor by means of little cumulative changes in long periods of time. Darwin’s book was an instance success but its popularity was due more to the ideological implications of the book rather than its scientific worth. In fact, Darwin could advance no sound evidence to prove his claim. Indeed, he was himself aware of the great many facts that invalidated his theory. He admitted these in the 6th chapter, entitled “Difficulties on Theory”, of his book. Darwin’s hope was that these difficulties would be overcome by new scientific discoveries. But in fact, advances in science will refute Darwin’s claims one by one, as will be demonstrated later on. In addition to that, the biggest argument confronting evolution is the incredibly complex structure of the living cell. Almost every living thing on Earth is made up of millions of cells. Some living things are made up of a single cell. Yet, even these single cell organisms are remarkably complex in their composition. They have complicated functions to survive and even little motors to move. In Darwin’s time, this complex structure of the cell was unknown. In fact, the complexity and organisation within a cell could not be the product of chance. Today, not even the most sophisticated laboratory has been able to produce a single living cell from non-living matter. Indeed, this is fully acknowledged to be impossible and efforts to produce living cells from non-living matter have been abandoned. Fred Hoyle, an English mathematician and astronomer explains the impossibility of this claim with an example: “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged by chance is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” (Fred Hoyle, 1981).
Darwin proposed that all species evolved successively from a common ancestor. But how did that first living thing come into being? Darwin did not address this question at all in his book. He was not even aware that this point was one of the biggest refutations of his theory. The primitive understanding of science at his days assumed that life had a very simple structure. According to a theory called spontaneous generation, which was popular since the medieval age, it was believed that living things could easily arise from non-living matter. It was commonly thought that frogs spontaneously arose from mud and bugs from food leftovers. Some curious experiments were designed to prove these theories. The maggots on meat were also taken as evidence that life could generate from non-living matter but later, it was understood that such maggots did not form spontaneously but that they emerged from microscopic larvae deposited on the meat by flies. Five years after the publication of “The Origin of Species”, the famous French biologist Louis Pasteur scientifically refuted these myths that lay ground for evolution. Pasteur, after lengthy studies and experiments reached this very important conclusion: “Can matter organize itself? No! Today, there is no circumstance known under which one could affirm that microscopic beings have come into the world without parents resembling themselves.” (Louis Pasteur, 1864). The first evolutionist to take up the issue of the origin of life on the 20th century was the Russian biologist Alexander Oparin. His aim was to explain how the first living cell, the alleged common ancestor of all living beings according to the theory of evolution, could emerge. Oparin formulated a number of theories to show how the first living cell could arise from inanimate matter by chance. However, his efforts ended in failure and Oparin himself had to confess: “Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question that is actually the murkiest aspect of the whole theory of evolution.” (Alexander Oparin, 1936). Evolutionists that followed Oparin conducted experiments to find an evolutionist explanation to the origin of life. The most famous of these experiments was conducted by the American chemist Stanley Miller in 1953. Miller obtained a few simple organic molecules by triggering a reaction among gases that he claimed would have been present in the primitive Earth atmosphere. After time, this experiment was regarded as a scientific proof for evolution. However, later discoveries show that the gases used in the experiment were very different from the gases that had been present in the early atmosphere of the world. Miller himself eventually admitted to the invalidity of his experiment. Every evolutionist attempt in the 20th century to account for the origin of life has ended in failure. Jeffrey Bada, a professor of geochemistry and a leading advocate of the theory of evolution, confesses this fact in the February 1998 issue of Earth, one of the leading periodicals of evolutionist literature: “Today as we leave the 20th century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the 20th century: How did life originate on earth?” (Jeffrey Bada, 1998)

Finally, when living things on Earth are examined, a manifest design is to be observed. Every living thing is furnished with extremely complex systems that enable it to play its role in the overall system to the best of its ability. Since life is planned, designed and organized, it certainly must have a creator. That creator has been introducing himself to mankind since the beginnings of the world. It is evident with DNA and the complexity of the cell that all living beings are products of an exalted and perfect creation and since such a creation truly exists, then there must also be a creator who has an eternal power, knowledge and wisdom. Whatever living being we observe in nature, we behold what great power the creator has. Each of the millions of living things and species in nature is a work of art and like every work of art, they introduce to us the artist to whom they owe their existence, that is Allah, the Lord of the Earth, the heavens and all that is in between.

References:
John W. Klotz(1984). The creation evolution controversy, Concordia Journal, 10(4), 124-130.

William Lane Craig(1984). Evangelicals and evolution : an analysis of the debate between the Creation Research Society and the American Scientific Affiliation, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 17(3), 131-148.

Charles Birch(1972). Participatory evolution : the drive of creation, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 40(2), 147-163.

Alan L. & Frank J.(2008). Louis Pasteur’s Views on Creation, Evolution, and the Genesis of Germs, Answers Research Journal, 1, 43-52

Harun Yahya (2009). Tell Me About The Creation. Retrieved May 29, 2009, from http://www.harunyahya.com/tellmeaboutthecreation02.php

References: John W. Klotz(1984). The creation evolution controversy, Concordia Journal, 10(4), 124-130. William Lane Craig(1984). Evangelicals and evolution : an analysis of the debate between the Creation Research Society and the American Scientific Affiliation, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 17(3), 131-148. Charles Birch(1972). Participatory evolution : the drive of creation, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 40(2), 147-163. Alan L. & Frank J.(2008). Louis Pasteur’s Views on Creation, Evolution, and the Genesis of Germs, Answers Research Journal, 1, 43-52 Harun Yahya (2009). Tell Me About The Creation. Retrieved May 29, 2009, from http://www.harunyahya.com/tellmeaboutthecreation02.php