The Evolution Deceit
According to Darwin’s theory of evolution, there is an imaginary “first cell” which came into being from the chance combination of inanimate substances. And according to Darwinism, everything began with this “first cell.” It is this imaginary “first cell” that, according to Darwinism, is the origin of all life, butterflies, birds, lions, eagles, whales, rabbits, deer and finally human beings who produce technologies, found civilizations, train professors, travel into space and study the cells they possess in the laboratory.
According to Darwinism, the origin of this imaginary first cell is; some muddy water, time and chance! According to the religion of Darwinism , these three magical (!) and intelligent (!) forces somehow came together and produced a “CELL” that not even Nobel Prize-winning scientists can manufacture in laboratories equipped with 21st-century technology, the details of which human beings have researched for more than half a century in order to understand, and that possesses highly complex and perfect mechanisms, organelles and an irreducible complexity! Moreover, these three glorious (!) forces combined to give rise to all the glorious life we currently see on Earth. The religion of Darwinism seeks to convince people of this nonsense.
But this claim is a horrendous fraud and lie.
The fantasy of the first cell that came into being in muddy water, which was proposed by Darwin, matched the level of science and technology in the day of Darwin. Bearing in mind that Darwin thought the cell was a simple blob of liquid, this childish tale is something that might very well be expected from the knowledge and scientific understanding of the time. Furthermore, since people did not know what the cell was like, it was easy for them to be deceived with this lie. But the findings of the science of genetics have once again revealed that Darwinism is a gigantic lie. In the light of current knowledge and data, just one of the countless proteins in the cell is enough to refute the theory of evolution. Proteins are structures with a sublime complexity, which cannot possibly come into being by chance. They cannot even be manufactured using 21st-century technology in a conscious and controlled laboratory environment. To claim that such a structure formed by chance in muddy water is laughable and irrational in the face of science. The American academic philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer describes the impossibility of a single protein forming by chance in these words:
Consider the probabilistic hurdles that must be overcome to construct even one short protein molecule of about 100 amino acids in length. First, all amino acids must form a chemical bond known as a peptide bond so as to join with other amino acids in the protein chain. Yet in nature many other types of chemical bonds are possible between amino acids. The probability of building a chain of 100 amino acids in which all linkages involve peptide bonds is roughly 1 chance in 1030.
Second, in nature every amino acid has a distinct mirror image of itself, one left-handed version or L-form and one right-handed version or D-form. These mirror-image forms are called optical isomers. Functioning proteins tolerate only left-handed amino acids, yet the right-handed and left-handed isomers occur in nature with roughly equal frequency. Taking this into consideration compounds the improbability of attaining a biologically functioning protein. The probability of attaining at random only L-amino acids in a hypothetical peptide chain 100 amino acids long is (1/2)100 or again roughly 1 chance in 1030.
Third and most important of all, functioning proteins must have amino acids that link up in a specific sequential arrangement, just like the letters in a meaningful sentence. Because there are 20 biologically occurring amino acids, the probability of getting a specific amino acid at a given site is 1/20. Even if we assume that some sites along the chain will tolerate several amino acids (using the variances determined by biochemist Robert Sauer of MIT), we find that the probability of achieving a functional sequence of amino acids in several functioning proteins at random is still “vanishingly small,” roughly 1 chance in 1065—an astronomically large number—for a protein only one hundred amino acids in length. (Actually the probability is even lower because there are many nonproteinous amino acids in nature that we have not accounted for in this calculation.)
If one also factors in the probability of attaining proper bonding and optical isomers, the probability of constructing a rather short, functional protein at random becomes so small as to be effectively zero (no more than 1 chance in 10125), even given our multi-billion-year-old universe. Consider further that equally severe probabilistic difficulties attend the random assembly of functional DNA. Moreover, a minimally complex cell requires not 1, but at least 100 complex proteins (and many other biomolecular components such as DNA and RNA) all functioning in close coordination. For this reason, quantitative assessments of cellular complexity have simply reinforced an opinion that has prevailed since the mid-1960s within origin-of-life biology: chance is not an adequate explanation for the origin of biological complexity and specificity.1
Even if we were to assume the impossible, that all these complex structures did form by chance, Darwinists still have to explain the formation of a million pages-worth of information in such a glorious molecule as DNA. On this subject, as on every other regarding the cell and the origin of life, Darwinists have no account to offer. According to distorted Darwinist logic, the extraordinary information in a cell that emerged by chance in muddy water must also have come into being by chance through various external agents. There is no doubt that such a formation is impossible. The information in DNA is glorious information, created together with that DNA.
The Darwinist claim that the cell formed by chance in muddy water is an outdated belief left over from the time of Darwin, who thought the cell was simply some blob. However, no doubt that 19th-century superstition no longer applies today, when science and technology are so much more advanced. There are countless complex structures in the body that all require explanation, yet Darwinism is unable to account for the formation of even a single protein. But Darwinists behave as if they were unaware of those impossibilities. Evolutionist publications still describe this impossible emergence from muddy water, just like the tales in a child’s book of fairy stories. The aim is to deceive the mass of people with this account, which is unscientific, illogical and incapable of proof. According to the adherents of this false religion, the more people who believe in this fairy tale, the more people will fall under the spell of Darwinism.
But people no longer believe in these fake tales of Darwinists. Everything in creation exhibits the Sublime Might and Power of our Almighty Lord, the Creator of the universe and everything within it. In the Qur’an, Almighty Allah describes the sublime creation of the cell and man:
We created man from the purest kind of clay; then made him a drop in a secure receptacle; then formed the drop into a clot and formed the clot into a lump and formed the lump into bones and clothed the bones in flesh; and then brought him into being as another creature. Blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators! (Surat al-Muminun, 12-14)
No matter how facile an account of the glory of life on Earth those seeking explanations outside the Qur’an may offer, it is clear that what has been created is very great and majestic. And the theory of evolution has no means of survival in the face of this sublime creation. Almighty Allah describes the greatness of the works He has created in another verse:
The creation of the heavens and earth is far greater than the creation of mankind. But most of mankind do not know it. (Surah Ghafir, 57)2008-11-21 16:41:20
1 “Word Games: DNA, Design, and Intelligence” by Stephen C. Meyer, in Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, ed. William A. Dembski, James M. Kushiner, Brazos Press, 2001, pp. 109-110 [emphasis added]