CENTRE FOR FOUNDATION STUDIES OF INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF MALAYSIA

DARWINISM AND THE REFUTATION ON DARWINISM

ASSIGNMENT BASIC THEME OF AL-QURAN

LECTURER : USTAZ NASIRUDDIN B. HJ. AHMAD NO. 1. 2. 3. NAME NOORINI IZZATI MOHAMAD MAZUKI SYARAH MUNIRAH MOHD ZAILANI NUR SAKINA MUHD RADZI MATRIX NO. 092934 094721 095954

DARWINISM THE ABSOLUTELY WRONG THEORY

God has created human beings, plants, animals and everything else in the world. But some do not tell the truth about these good things that God created. These people believe in the so-called theory of evolution, the false idea that all living beings came into being by themselves, through chance. Those who want to deceive others with this idea are known as evolutionists.

This false theory was proposed about a long time ago by a man named Charles Darwin Robert who believed that all living things came into being by chance. Throughout his life, Darwin wrote books to make people believe this; and evolutionists are still trying to deceive others even today. But today, science has proven that God has created all living things. In spite of this, evolutionists still defend what has been shown to be a lie.

He claimed that all species descended from a common ancestor through coincidences. That former ancestor then changed from one level to another level in order to adapt with the surrounding or environment. The result of the changes that took many thousands of years then create a complex species called human. He stated his opinion in his famous book, The Origin of Species, published in 1856.

APES AND HUMANS HAD A COMMON ANCESTOR

In the mid nineteenth century, Charles Darwin postulated that apes and humans had a common ancestor. Human DNA is surprisingly similar to, and almost identical with, the

DNA of chimps and gorillas; both apes species have 48 chromosomes, we have 46. Chimpanzees even share the same ABO blood types with humans and thus appear to be very close kin to us.

Darwin suggested two basic mechanisms at work in this process: first, variation continually occurred within species. That is, individuals of the same species vary slightly from one another.

Darwin speculated that because of there are many anatomical similarities, apes and humans must have a remote common ancestor. Darwin suggested in 1871 that the most likely site of human origins was Africa, home of the gorilla and chimpanzee, which he regarded as our closest living relatives. Subsequent fossil discoveries have borne out Darwins early observations.

REFUTATION ON THE STATEMENT THAT STATE APES AND HUMANS HAD A COMMON ANCESTOR

The scenario of human human evolution is a complete fiction. In order for such a family tree to represent the truth, a gradual evolution from apes to man must have taken place and a fossil record of this process should be able to be found. In fact, however, there is a huge gap between apes and human. Skeletal structures, cranial capacities and such criteria as walking upright or bent sharply forward distinguish human and apes. (We already mentioned that on the basis of recent research done in 1994 on the inner ear, Australopithecus and Homo

habilis were reclassified as apes, while Homo erectus was reclassified as a fully modern human.)1

Another significant finding proving that there can be no family-tree relationship among these different species is that species that are presented as ancestors of others in fact lived concurrently. If, as evolutionists claim, Australopithecus changed into Homo habilis, which, in turn, turned into Homo erectus, the periods they lived in should necessarily have followed each other. However, there is no such chronological order to be seen in the fossil record.

Apart from the fossil record that we have dealt with so far, unbridgeable anatomical gaps between men and apes also invalidate the fiction of human evolution. One of these has to do with the manner of walking.

Human beings walk upright on two feet. This is a very special form of locomotion not seen in any other mammalian species. Some other animals do have a limited ability to move when they stand on their two hind feet. Animals like bears and monkeys can move in this way only rarely, such as when they want to reach a source of food, and even then only for a short of time. Normally, their skeletons lean forward and they walk on all fours.

The immense gap between man and apes is not limited solely to bipedalism. Many other issues still remain unexplained, such as brain capacity, the ability to talk, and so on.

Harun Yahya, Darwinism Refuted, Goodword Books 2002 November 2000, page 170.

Elaine Morgan, an evolutionary paleoanthropologist, makes the following confession in relation to this matter. Four of the most outstanding mysteries about humans are:

1)Why do they walk on two legs? 2) Why have they lost their fur? 3) Why have they developed such large brains? 4) Why did they learn to speak?

The orthodox answers to these question are: 1)We do not yet know 2) We do not yet know 3) We do not yet know 4) We do not yet know.

The list of the questions could be considerably lengthened without affecting the monotony of the answers.2

THE PROBLEM OF THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

In his book, Darwin never mentioned the origin life. The primitive understanding of science on his time rested on the assumption that living things had very simple structures. Since mediaeval times, spontaneous generation, the theory that non-living matter could come together far to form living organisms, had been widely accepted. It was believed that insects come into existence from leftover bits of food. It was further imagined that mice came into being from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty piece of cloth and it was believed that mice would emerge in due course.

Elaine Morgan, The Scars of Evolution, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994, page 5

REFUTATION ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT LIVING THINGS HAD VERY SIMPLE STRUCTURES

The findings of the French biologist Louis Pasteur put an end to this belief. As he put it: The claim that inanimate matter can originate life is buried in history for good.3

All experiments and research carried out throughout the 20th century ended in failure. The chance formation of a living cell aside, it has not even been possible to produce a living cell aside, it has not even been possible to produce a living cell by a conscious process in the most advanced laboratories of the world.

Therefore, the question of how the first living organism emerged puts the evolutionary claim into a quandary right at the first step. One of the chief defenders of the theory of evolution at the molecular level, Prof. Jeffrey Bada, makes this confession:

Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth?.4

While invalidating the theory of evolution, the law life comes from life also shows that the first life on earth came again from life, which means that it was created by God. He is the only One Who can give life to inanimate matter. In the words of the Quran

3 4

Sidney Fox, Klaus Dose. Molecular Evolution and The Origin of Life. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1977. Page 2 Jeffrey Bada, Origins, Earth, February 1998, page 40

It is He Who brings out the living from the dead, and brings out the dead from the living. (Surah ar-Rum:19).

Every new discovery in the 20th century showed that life was too complex to have originated by chance. Well-known evolutionist Leslie Orgel makes this admission: (Examining the structures of DNA, RNA and proteins), one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5

THE PROBLEM OF GENETICS

Another subject that posed a quandary for Darwins theory was inheritance. At the time when Darwin developed his theory, the question of how living beings transmitted their traits completely understood. That is why the nave belief that inheritance was transmitted through blood was commonly accepted.

Darwin assumed that natural selection was the mechanism of evolution. Yet one question remain unanswered: How would these useful traits be selected and transmitted from one generation to the next? At this point, Darwin embraced the Lamarckian Theory, that is, the inheritance of acquired traits.

REFUTATION ON NATURAL SELECTION

The greatest problem for the theory of evolution by natural selection, is that it cannot enable new organs or traits to emerge in living things. Natural selection cannot develop a
5

Leslie E. Orgel, The Origin of Life on Earth, Scientific American, Volume 271, October 1994, page 78

species genetic data; therefore, it cannot be used to account for the emergence of new species.

The greatest defender of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, Stephen Jay Gould, refer to this impasse of natural selection as follows;

The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.6

Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as an intelligent designer. However, natural selection has no intelligence. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living things. As a result, natural selection cannot explain biological systems and organs that possess the feature of irreducible complexity.

These system and organs are composed of a great number of parts cooperating together, and are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective.(For example, the human eye does not function unless it exists with all its components intact).

Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be able to foresee the future and aim directly at the advantage that is to be acquired at the final stage. Since natural selection has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing.
6

Stephen Jay Gould, The Return of The Hopeful Monster, Natural History, Volume 86, June-July 1977, page 28

CONCLUSION

Our species has been so successful in spreading over the world and changing it, sometimes more to our liking , that is difficult to see ourselves in relation to other forms of life, to see ourselves in nature.

We have made ourselves different and set ourselves apart from the rest of the natural world. Perhaps for that reason alone, among many others, it is useful and instructive to try to understand our origins and to reconstruct our relationship to other life on the planet. Since the great task of classifying the worlds life forms according to their anatomical similarities got well under way during the late 18th century, the affinities between human and tge great apes have been recognized and pondered.

REFERENCE

1. Harun Yahya, Darwinism Refuted, Goodword Books 2002 November 2000, page 170. 2. Elaine Morgan, The Scars of Evolution, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994, page 5 3. Sidney Fox, Klaus Dose. Molecular Evolution and The Origin of Life. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1977. Page 2 4. Jeffrey Bada, Origins, Earth, February 1998, page 40 5. Leslie E. Orgel, The Origin of Life on Earth, Scientific American, Volume 271, October 1994, page 78 6. Stephen Jay Gould, The Return of The Hopeful Monster, Natural History, Volume 86, June-July 1977, page 28