INSTITUTE OF SPACE TECHNOLOGY, ISLAMABAD

Philosophy
Chapter Reviews (OHT-2)

Group Members
Abrar Younus (130501008)
Waleed Tahir (130501028)
Ali Haider (130501030)
Haider Aamir (130501031)
Muhammad Faizan (130501032)
Raheel Shaikh (130501047)

Submitted To
Sir Ubaidullah Jamil

Dated: 22nd May 2017

The Nature and Extent of Criticism
Of Evolutionary Theory
About Author
Professor Dato Dr Osman Bakar is Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic Affairs) of the University
of Malaya, Malaysia and an authority on Islamic science. He is the author of Classification of
Knowledge in Islam published by The Islamic Texts Society. A Fulbright Visiting Scholar at
Harvard University (1992), he has published 20 books and more than 300 articles on Islamic
thought and civilization, particularly Islamic philosophy and science, and on contemporary
Islam, inter-religious and inter-civilizational dialogues.

Review
One of the main sources of confusion and ambiguity in the creation of living, origin of life
evolution debate is the definition of evolution itself. In the context of biology, evolution is
genetic followed by somatic changes in populations of organisms over successive generations
to make them more adaptable to the climate changes. The word also has a number of different
meanings in different fields, from evolutionary computation to molecular evolution to
sociocultural evolution to stellar and galactic evolution. When biological evolution is conflated
with other evolutionary processes, this can cause errors such as the claim that modern
evolutionary theory says anything about abiogenesis or the Big Bang. Herbert Spencer, who is
considered the first great evolutionist and who gave the word evolution its modern connotation
in English, used the word in two different senses in his essay The Development Hypothesis
which appeared in the Leader between 1851 and 1854 that is several years before the
publication of Darwins The Origin of Species. In this essay as well as in his later work The
Principles of Biology, Spencer describes both the development of an individual adult organism
from a mere egg and phylogenetic transformation of species as processes of evolution. 5 years
after H. Spensers publication, in 1859, when Charles Darwin published the book by the name
"the Origin of Species", he convinced most of the scientific community that new species arise
through descent through modification in a branching pattern of divergence from common
ancestors, but while most scientists accepted that natural selection is a valid and empirically
testable hypothesis, Darwin's view that it is the primary mechanism of evolution was generally
rejected. Objections to evolution have been raised since evolutionary ideas came to
prominence in the 19th century. When Charles Darwin published his 1859 book On the Origin
of Species, his theory of evolution (the idea that species arose through descent with
modification from a single common ancestor in a process driven by natural selection) initially
met opposition from scientists with different theories, but eventually came to receive
overwhelming acceptance in the scientific community. The observation of evolutionary
processes occurring (as well as the modern evolutionary synthesis explaining that evidence) has
been uncontroversial among mainstream biologists since the 1940s. Sir Peter Medawar, the
distinguished British biologist who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1960, biologists
who use English as a scientific language never use the word evolution to describe the
processes of growth and development because to do so would be confusing and misleading, so
scientists like him and most of the French scientists rather used the term "transformism".
Transformism is the evolution in its true meaning with the omission of all the term related
ambiguities. But still, we adapted the term evolution instead of the word transformism
precisely because, as pointed out by Professor S. H. Nasr, it contains a more general
philosophical meaning outside the domain of biology not to be found in the more restricted
term "transformism".
In his opening remarks as chairman of a symposium, Sir Peter Medawar entitled "Mathematical
Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution held April 25 and 26, 1966 at the
Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, Philadelphia, said: There is a pretty widespread sense
of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought of as the accepted evolutionary theory in
the English-speaking world, the so-called Neo-Darwinian theory. He identified three main
quarters from which this dissatisfaction came: scientific, philosophical and religious. To these
we would add another important category of criticisms, namely the metaphysical and
cosmological, which must be distinguished from the philosophical and without which no study
on contemporary opposition to evolutionary theory is complete. We consider these latter
criticisms to be of greatest importance because they were missing in the original debate on
evolution due to the eclipse of the metaphysical tradition in the Western intellectual firmament
in the nineteenth century. In the absence of authentic metaphysical knowledge particularly
pertaining to nature, and with nineteenth century European theology unable to provide
satisfactory answers to the problem of causality, the theory of evolution appeared to Western
man then as the most plausible and rational explanation of the origin and diversity of life. We
now take a closer look at each of these types of criticisms and investigate to what extent the
ideas embodied in them are being discussed within the academic community.
A common objection to evolution is that it is simply too unlikely for life, in its complexity and
apparent "design," to have arisen "by chance." It is argued that the odds of life having arisen
without a deliberate intelligence guiding it are so astronomically low that it is unreasonable not
to infer an intelligent designer from the natural world, and specifically from the diversity of life.
It has also been noted that arguments against some form of life arising "by chance" are really
objections to nontheistic abiogenesis, not to evolution. Indeed, arguments against "evolution"
are based on the misconception that abiogenesis is a component of, or necessary precursor to,
evolution. Scientific criticisms of evolution do not come from biologists only. There is also an
increasing number of scientists in other disciplines, particularly physicists and mathematicians,
who have criticized the theory of evolution from the viewpoint of present knowledge in their
respective fields. Richard L. Thompson, an American mathematician who specialized in
probability theory and statistical mechanics and who has done research in mathematical
biology, has argued in his Mechanistic and Non-mechanistic Science: An Investigation into the
Nature of Consciousness and Form that the theory of evolution is not actually supported by the
factual evidence of biology and natural history. Drawing on ideas from information theory,
Thompson shows that configurations of high information content cannot arise with substantial
probabilities in models defined by mathematical expressions of low information content. This
means that complex living organisms, which possess high information content, could not arise
by the action of physical-chemical laws considered in modern science, since these laws are
represented by mathematical models of low information content.
What evolutionists have severely attacked is the theological conception of creatio ex nihilo
(creation out of nothing). Metaphysicians understand the idea of creation differently. They
refer to it as creative emanation. (A brief discussion of this important metaphysical idea is given
below). Here there is no question of having to make a choice between creation ex nihilo and
creative emanation. Both are true but at different levels. The theory of evolution by natural
selection has also been adopted as a foundation for various ethical and social systems, such as
social Darwinism, an idea that preceded the publication of The Origin of Species, popular in the
19th century, which holds that "the survival of the fittest" (a phrase coined in 1851 by Herbert
Spencer, 6 years before Darwin published his theory of evolution) explains and justifies
differences in wealth and success among societies and people. A similar interpretation was one
created by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, known as eugenics, which claimed that human
civilization was subverting natural selection by allowing the less bright and less healthy to
survive and out-breed the more smart and more healthy. Later advocates of this theory
suggested radical and often coercive social measures in an attempt to "correct" this imbalance.
Thomas Huxley spent much time demonstrating through a series of thought experiments that it
would not only be immoral, but impossible, Stephen Jay Gould and others have argued that
social Darwinism is based on misconceptions of evolutionary theory, and many ethicists regard
it as a case of the is-ought problem. After the atrocities of the Holocaust became linked with
eugenics, it greatly fell out of favor with public and scientific opinion, though it was never
universally accepted by either, and at no point in Nazi literature is Charles Darwin or the
scientific theory of evolution mentioned. Evolutionary theories has generated substantial
controversy and criticism, including: disputes about the testability of evolutionary hypotheses,
alternatives to some of the cognitive assumptions (such as massive modularity) frequently
employed in evolutionary psychology, alleged vagueness stemming from evolutionary
assumptions (such as uncertainty about the environment of evolutionary adaptation), differing
stress on the importance of non-genetic and non-adaptive explanations, and political and
ethical issues. While evolutionary theories has been accused of straw man evidence,
ideologically rather than scientifically motivated, evolutionary biologists and scientists respond
by arguing that these criticisms are also straw men, are based on an incorrect nature versus
nurture dichotomy, or are based on misunderstandings of the discipline. Since then, most
criticisms and denials of evolution have come from religious groups, rather than from the
scientific community. Although many religious groups have found reconciliation of their beliefs
with evolution, such as through theistic evolution, other religious groups continue to reject
evolutionary explanations in favor of creationism, the belief that the universe and life were
created by supernatural forces. The U.S.-centered creationevolution controversy has become
a focal point of perceived conflict between religion and science.
Classical figures have not discussed the subject as it has only come up in the 19th century.
Contemporaries have come up with several distinct stances. One stance is that adaptation, or
evolution on a micro scale is accepted within a species, but cross-species evolution, that is
evolution from one species into another species, is not as the human beginning is considered to
be miraculous. However, this traditional thought would not conflict with the view that human-
like beings could have been created around the same time as human beings, which, in this view,
would explain the fossil records that look human but are not. Another stance is that since
evolution is the simplest explanation it is the most reasonable to accept under the condition
that it is not random but occurs only with the permission of God every step of the way. One
particular argument that supports the idea that evolution is possible is the one stating that in
that the stages of human development in evolution are akin to the distinct stages of
development acknowledged in the Holy Quran. The final stance completely rejects cross-
species evolution across all organisms, but approves of adaptation (micro evolution). Several
branches of creationism, including creation science, neo-creationism, and intelligent design,
argue that the idea of life being directly designed by a god or intelligence is at least as scientific
as evolutionary theory, and should therefore be taught in public education. Such arguments
against evolution have become widespread and include objections to evolution's evidence,
methodology, plausibility, morality, and scientific acceptance. The scientific community does
not recognize such objections as valid, pointing to detractors' misinterpretations of such things
as the scientific method, evidence, and basic physical laws.

Conclusion
The world picture of materialism and the theory of evolution respectively base their knowledge
on unproven assumptions like: "In the beginning, there was only matter because there is
nothing more than matter". Thus the fact that the world today is full of life must be a logical
consequence of assuming life is originating from non-organic matter. Consequently stating
that after the hypothetical Big Bang, an enormous amount of galaxy swirls emerged out of
primeval matter. In these swirls planets developed out of the primordial sun through heavy
matter swirls. One of these planets is the Earth composed out of glowing matter in the
beginning. When this started to cool down, lava sludge originated from rain and ended in
forming the primordial oceans. In the primeval oceans first organic compounds shall have
originated out of nonorganic-chemical reactions and these first compounds should have been
responsible for the first living unicellular organisms. Well, the first step to record is that
Darwinism is not a scientifically proven fact but only an interpretation of already existing
findings from biology, genetics and paleontology; in fact an interpretation depending on a
specific view of the world just as any interpretation is depending on the observers view of
the world. It is no secret which of these different views of the world determines Darwins
theory of evolution: materialism; meaning the opinion that matter is the source/very basis of
everything and everything existing is the product of material development; everything even life
and consciousness can be explained and in the end reproduced by the laws of materialistic
sciences. This view to the world offers only one single scenario to answer the questions of
How did life on earth develop? How did the different types of plants and animals come into
existence? and this is the scenario stating that life must have risen out of matter and that a
higher developed being is always an evolutional result of its direct predecessor. Today this
opinion is so heavily spread that nearly no one asks in how far this interpretation or hypothesis
has proven itself to be a logical theory. Not even the representatives of natural sciences,
pretending they themselves work scientifically and objectively, scrutinize this hypothesis.
Materialism postulates the equation: organic body = living being. If a living body in fact is only a
quantum mechanical structure, scientist should be able to create for example a seed in the
laboratory. Chemical components of seeds are long known. Thus it actually should be possible
to artificially merge these components in a way that a germinable seed arises. Or even simpler:
We split an apple into two parts and ask the whole scientific elite of the world to put both of
the parts together again. Because this process should be possible if an organic body is only the
result of mechanical functions of matter. Assuming that living organisms originated from matter
is in consequence only an unproven (and absurd) faith. The assumption of changes in
macroevolution resulted from genetical changes happened by accident, is again an unproven
faith with a pretty ridiculous component if you image all of the postulated steps of
development and intermediates. Religion in the materialistic model is nothing more than a
creation of mankinda self-deception to find consolation because this early human was not
strong or illuminated enough to bear the ultimate consequences of the materialistic truth
namely that life is bleak, senseless and godless. Here the vicious cycle of materialistic
argumentation is closed and leaves humans behind in nihilistic views of the worldincluding
the respective consequences we can see worldwide. But as followers of evolution theory are
not distinguishing between real scientific analysis and interpretation always dependent on the
picture of the world they see all palaeontic and genetical findings and all other phenomenas
of life compelled through glasses of their theory and thus see findings of alleged evolution
everywhere even though they are not pointing on evolution.

Comments
When authenticity of a hypothesis is tested by a series of reliable and standardized
experiments, only then it is labeled as theory. This scientific systematic approach makes the
term "evolutionary theory" a misnomer. Its merely an assumption which is widely falsified at
scientific, metaphysical, religious and philosophical grounds. So either some evidence should be
bought in the favor of this scientifically unsupported assumption, or it should be boldly rejected
by all the intellectuals worldwide and should be scrutinized from all the textbooks, to avoid
misinterpretations, confusions and distractions in the field of science.
Islam, Science, Muslims and
Technology
On Biological Origins
About Author
Muzaffar Iqbl is a Pakistani-Canadian Islamic scholar and author. Iqbal earned his doctorate
(1983) in Chemistry from the University of Saskatchewan and then left the field of experimental
science to devote himself fully to his chosen fields: literature, history, philosophy, Islamic
intellectual and spiritual traditions. Iqbal is the founding president of the Center for Islamic
sciences, Alberta, Canada, (called Center for Islam and Science when founded in 2000). He has
written twenty-three books. Iqbal is editor of a journal of Islamic perspectives on science and
civilization, Islamic sciences. His most recent project is to produce the first Encyclopedia of the
Qur'an by Muslims, Integrated Encyclopedia of the Qur'an.

Review
Life began at least 3.5 billion years ago, because that is the age of the oldest rocks with fossil
evidence of life on earth. These rocks are rare because subsequent geologic processes have
reshaped the surface of our planet, often destroying older rocks while making new ones. Since
the very existence of humans on earth, people believed in creationism, that the life came into
being by some divine, supernatural power we called God. Moreover, until the early 19th
century many people believed in the regular spontaneous generation of life from non-living
matter. This was called spontaneous generation, and was disproved by Louis Pasteur. He
showed that without spores no bacteria or viruses grew on sterile material. In 1854 when the
concept of evolution was first introduced and 1859, when Darwin put forwarded the theory of
evolution. This evolutionary concept and theory gave nothing but a century and half of debates.
Debates between the believers of the creationism and of the evolution. But none of the
concept can be proved on scientific grounds. There are two basic issues involved in the
question of biological origins: the origin of life as such, and the special form of life that we call
human life. A huge amount of data has been gathered over the last two centuries in biological
sciences which has been interpreted from various perspectives, the dominant view being the
evolutionary process which stipulates that life originated in small-cell form and then became
more complex through random processes in which only the fittest forms survived. Some theists
have inserted God into this process to develop a form of evolution which is often called theistic
evolution, and there are some of Muslim scholars who also subscribe to this idea of theistic
evolution. Of course, no Muslim would say there is no Hand of God involved, but they put the
Hand of God into a form of Darwinian process, generating a great deal of confusion. As Francis
Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in
motion by God" There are three basic elements to consider: one, the destruction of forms in
the ultimate sense; two, the reduction of causality to the horizontal plane that is to say, the
denial of Vertical Causality and therefore Divine Causality; and third, the horizontalization of
the vertical chain of Being.
In the controversy a number of divergent opinions can be recognized, regarding both the
acceptance of scientific theories and religious practice. The creationevolution controversy
(also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) involves an ongoing,
recurring cultural, political, and theological dispute about the origins of the Earth, of humanity,
and of other life. Within the Christian world creationism was once widely believed to be true,
but since the mid-19th century evolution by natural selection has been established as an
empirical scientific fact. Efforts to sustain the traditional view are widely regarded in the
scientific community as pseudoscience. While the controversy has a long history, today it has
retreated to be mainly over what constitutes, good science education, with the politics of
creationism primarily focusing on the teaching of creation and evolution in public education.
Among majority-Christian countries, the debate is most prominent in the United States, and to
a lesser extent in Europe and elsewhere, and is often portrayed as part of a culture war. Parallel
controversies also exist in some other religious communities, such as the more fundamentalist
branches of Judaism and Islam. According to Professor Christine Huda Dodge, the first
chronological mention of creation in the Qur'an is in Srat al-Anbiy, which hints that the
universe was "joined together as one unit, before we clove them asunder." After this, Allah
demanded the planets and stars to form and reshape themselves according to the destinies
that were set up for each body, "He Who created... the sun and the moon; all (the celestial
bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course." Further, some scholars such as Faheem Ashraf
of the Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc. and Sheikh Omar Suleiman of the Yaqeen
Institute for Islamic Research argue that the scientific theory of an expanding universe is
described in Srat adh-Dhriyt: And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed,
We are [its] expander. Quran 51:47 Srat al-Arf states that "heavens and the earth" was
created in the equivalent of six yawm. Some interpret the Arabic word yawm to mean "day"
akin to the story of creation in the Book of Genesis, which states the creation of the universe
took seven days. However other scholars interpret the term yawm to mean an "eon" or unit of
time much longer than a day, seeing as the term appears elsewhere in the Qur'an such as in
Srat al-Marij where it denotes "50,000 years" and Srat al-ajj where it denotes "1,000
years." After completing the Creation, Allah "settled Himself upon the Throne" to admire his
work. The concept of a "day of rest" does not appear in the Qur'an. The only explicit reference
to the creation of life in the Qur'an appears in the aforementioned Srat al-Anbiy, which Allah
proclaims "We made out of water every living thing." According to Muhammad Asad, "only
water has the peculiar properties necessary for the emergence and development of life." Sunni
theologian Said Nursi stated the Earth was already inhabited by intelligent species before
humankind. He considered, supported by the hadiths from Ibn Abbas and Tabari, the Jinn lived
here before but were almost wiped out by first. Some interpreters of the Quran believed that
even before Jinn, other creatures like Hinn lived on the earth. The characters of dam and
awwh (Eve) appear in the Qur'an as the first man and woman. However, no explicit mention
is made of how the two people developed. Therefore, it is open to speculation of whether
Adam and Hawwa evolved naturally from a common ancestor as Islamic scholar Mohamed
Ghlian asserts or were supernaturally created through a miracle by Allah as Islamic scholar Yasir
Qadhi asserts. Neo-creationists intentionally distance themselves from other forms of
creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a philosophy. They
wish to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals
to scripture, and to bring the debate before the public. Neo-creationists may be either young
Earth or old Earth creationists, and hold a range of underlying theological viewpoints (e.g. on
the interpretation of the Bible). Neo-creationism currently exists in the form of the intelligent
design movement, which has a 'big tent' strategy making it inclusive of many young Earth
creationists (such as Paul Nelson and Percival Davis).
Hominization, in both science and religion, involves the process or the purpose of becoming
human. The process and means by which hominization occurs is a key problem in theistic
evolutionary thought, at least for the Abrahamic religions, which hold as a core belief that
animals do not have immortal souls but that humans do. Many versions of theistic evolution
insist on a special creation consisting of at least the addition of a soul just for the human
species. Scientific accounts of the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and subsequent
evolution of pre-human life forms may not cause any difficulty (helped by the reluctance of
science itself to say anything about what preceded the Big Bang) but the need to reconcile
religious and scientific views of hominization and to account for the addition of a soul to
humans remains a problem. Theistic evolution typically postulates a point at which a population
of hominids who had (or may have) evolved by a process of natural evolution acquired souls
and thus (with their descendants) became fully human in theological terms. This group might
be restricted to Adam and Eve, or indeed to Mitochondrial Eve, although versions of the theory
allow for larger populations. The point at which such an event occurred should essentially be
the same as in paleoanthropology and archeology, but theological discussion of the matter
tends to concentrate on the theoretical. The term "special transformism" is sometimes used to
refer to theories that there was a divine intervention of some sort, achieving hominization.
Several 19th-century theologians and evolutionists attempted specific solutions, including the
Catholics John Augustine Zahm and St. George Jackson Mivart, but tended to come under
attack from both the theological and biological camps. And 20th century thinking tended to
avoid proposing precise mechanisms. There are different kinds of scientific theories. For
example, you have string theory in physics and cosmology and you have quantum mechanics.
Now, if someone were to oppose prevalent theories in these fields, no one would expel that
person from his or her university; no one would have his or her promo- tion denied because of
his or her saying I do not accept this theory. Evolution, on the contrary, is a totally different
matter, because it is an ideology, it is not ordinary science; if you are a professor of biology at a
university, especially in the Anglo-Saxon worldless so in Italy, France, and Germany, and if you
oppose the theory of evolution on purely scientific grounds, you are rejected and even ejected
from your position, your colleagues think you are insane, you do not receive promotions, and
so on. Darwinism is more of an ideology than just a theory. It cant be rejected until unless u
give a better alternative theory.
Creationists often argue that Christianity and literal belief in the Bible are either foundationally
significant or directly responsible for scientific progress. To that end, Institute for Creation
Research founder Henry M. Morris has enumerated scientists such as astronomer and
philosopher Galileo Galilei, mathematician and theoretical physicist James Clerk Maxwell,
mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal, geneticist monk Gregor Mendel, and Isaac
Newton as believers in a biblical creation narrative. This argument usually involves scientists
who were no longer alive when evolution was proposed or whose field of study did not include
evolution. The argument is generally rejected as specious by those who oppose creationism.
Many of the scientists in question did some early work on the mechanisms of evolution, e.g.,
the modern evolutionary synthesis combines Darwin's theory of evolution with Mendel's
theories of inheritance and genetics. Though biological evolution of some sort had become the
primary mode of discussing speciation within science by the late-19th century, it was not until
the mid-20th century that evolutionary theories stabilized into the modern synthesis. Geneticist
and evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky, called the Father of the Modern Synthesis,
argued that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," and saw no
conflict between evolutionary and his religious beliefs. Nevertheless, some of the historical
scientists marshalled by creationists were dealing with quite different issues than any are
engaged with today: Louis Pasteur, for example, opposed the theory of spontaneous generation
with biogenesis, an advocacy some creationists describe as a critique on chemical evolution and
abiogenesis. Pasteur accepted that some form of evolution had occurred and that the Earth
was millions of years old. Evolutionists believe Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts
and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the
world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go
away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation
replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome.
And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed
mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. There is the question of logical criticism.
How could something greater emerge from something lesser? This criticism is answered by
modern biologists and most scientists in general by denying the greater, because it is
qualitative; this is done through reductionism. By reducing the great prophets and saints as well
as little mosquitoes to simply molecular structures, evolutionists think that they do not have to
talk about the greater coming out of the lesser. But if they think about it for a moment, how
could the greatest works of literature, since we are speaking in the Western language, such as
those of Dante or Shakespeare, come out of a bowl of soup of molecules? They do not want to
think about it in these terms, as though in a long stretch of time these molecules just happened
to get together to finally produce The Divine Comedy. But from the point of pure logic and also
taking into consideration the fact that logical formulae and logical concepts do not themselves
evolve there is a constancy in logic, both in mathematical logic and formal logic. But all of these
arguments are going to be of no avail unless a very strong intellectual battle is carried out by
those who are not afraid of not being given grants, of not getting promotions, not getting
invited to conferences, and such things, because their criticisms go against what holds up the
modern paradigm itself. What has to change is the modern paradigm. Once that changes, even
with rigorous science, you can have a biology that is not evolutionary in the ordinary sense, a
biology that accepts higher levels of being without denying the observable realities of life
forms, that accepts Vertical Causality as well as horizontal causality, and that in fact would be
much truer to the nature of things. Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology
at Harvard University, once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms; The
absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design,
indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many
cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.
Microevolution could be possible along the path of life on this planet. But macroevolution is
just out of question. Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the laboratory or
in nature. In other words, nobody has ever observed one kind of creature turn into another
kind of creature. The entire theory of evolution is based on blind faith. Evolutionist Jeffrey
Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that the
formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.

Conclusion
In the battle between creationism and evolutionary ideology, no one actually wins on scientific
grounds. The believers of spontaneous evolution think that life came into being at once, by one
or more supernatural creator(s). Many religions teach that life did not evolve spontaneously,
but was deliberately created by a God or several gods. Often they claim that this happened
within the last few thousand years, which is much more recent than the fossil record suggests.
The lack of evidence that this happened means that most scientists do not believe it. But still
theistic have some historical background, and have Holy books and things to have their faiths
on. While on the other side, evolutionary theories are purely introduced by scientists, but still it
lacks its roots in scientific grounds (in paleontology, biology, zoology etc.). Even the
evolutionists become confused when it comes to explain the authenticity of theory, logically.
Darwinists believe that the human brain developed without the assistance of any designer. This
is so laughable it is amazing that there are any people out there that still believe this stuff. The
truth is that the human brain is amazingly complex. The following is how a PBS documentary
described the complexity of the human brain: It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over
50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. How can this theory get palatable if we just try
to imagine for a second the brain is evolved from a primitive unicellular microorganism?. This is
beyond imagination. If evolution was happening right now, there would be millions of
creatures out there with partially developed features and organs. But instead there are none. If
the theory of evolution was true, we should not see a sudden explosion of fully formed complex
life in the fossil record. Instead, that is precisely what we find. Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of
Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, once wrote the following about the lack of
transitional forms; The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct
functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for
gradualistic accounts of evolution. Anyone that believes that the theory of evolution has
scientific origins is fooling themselves. It is actually a deeply pagan religious philosophy that
can be traced back for thousands of years. Anything that we dig up that is supposedly more
than 250,000 years old should have absolutely no radiocarbon in it whatsoever. But instead, we
find it in everything that we dig up even dinosaur bones. This is clear evidence that the
millions of years theory is simply a fairy tale. But all of these arguments are going to be of no
avail unless a very strong intellectual battle is carried out by those who are not afraid of not
being given grants, of not getting promotions, not getting invited to conferences, and such
things, because their criticisms go against what holds up the modern paradigm itself. What has
to change is the modern paradigm. Once that changes, even with rigorous science, you can
have a biology that is not evolutionary in the ordinary sense, a biology that accepts higher
levels of being without denying the observable realities of life forms, that accepts Vertical
Causality as well as horizontal causality, and that in fact would be much truer to the nature of
things.

Comments
It is just a fairy tale for followers of science based on ancient pagan religious philosophy that
hundreds of millions of people around the world choose to believe with blind faith. When asked
to produce evidence for the theory of evolution, most comes up totally blank. When pressed,
most people will mumble something about how most scientists believe it and how that is
good enough for them. This kind of anti-intellectualism even runs rampant on our renowned
institutes and research centers. If you ask why they believe this all? Then very few of them will
actually be able to give you any real reasons why they believe it. Most of them just have blind
faith in the priest class in our society (the scientists). But is what our priest class telling us
actually true? When Charles Darwin popularized the theory of evolution, he didnt actually have
any evidence that it was true. And since then the missing evidence has still not materialized.
Most of intellectuals would be absolutely shocked to learn that most of what is taught as
truth about evolution is actually the product of the overactive imaginations of members of
the scientific community. They so badly want to believe that it is true that they will go to
extraordinary lengths to defend their fairy tale. They keep insisting that the theory of evolution
has been proven and that it is beyond debate. Meanwhile, most average people are
intimidated into accepting the truth about evolution because they dont want to appear to be
stupid to everyone else. In contrast, theistic evolutionists do have evidences to favor their
faith but they were never being able to satisfy the evolutionists and the battle continues. In this
day and age, it is imperative that we all learn to think for ourselves. Dont let me tell you what
to think, and dont let anyone else tell you what to think either. Do your own research and
come to your own conclusions.