Is Evolution A Theory, A System, A Hypothesis Or Much More?

Question

Darwin himself regarded his book not so much as a scientific work but as "a long argument." Darwin acknowledged the weaknesses, inconsistencies, impasses and difficulties of his theory in his writings and in letters to friends. In one letter he confessed that there were serious flaws in the theory which had brought him to the point of suicide: You ask about my book, and all that I can say is that I am ready to commit suicide; I thought it was decently written but find so much wants rewriting...
In another letter, he said: Pray do not think that I am so blind as not to see that there are numerous immense difficulties in my notions.
Particularly in letters to his friend, Charles Lyell, he clearly expresses the doubts he felt with regard to his theory:
Thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a fantasy.

Moreover, Darwin was aware of errors and unfounded claims in his theory. He wrote:
Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered.
In a letter to his close friend, Asa Gray, he defined his theory as extra-scientific speculation:
"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. II, pgs. 25/501
The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. I, p. 395.
The Origin of Species, 6th edition, p. 204.
Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, p. 2.
Is Evolution A Theory, A System, A Hypothesis Or Much More?

Answer 1

Yes it's a theory. Science itself refutes Darwinism. Science is disproving evolution more every day. There is less evidence for evolution today than there was when Charles Darwin first came up with the theory. There are a lot of scientists that don't believe in evolution, and more are changing their beliefs all the time. Here is a partial list of creation scientists (past and present).
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html
With all the evidence against it I really don't see how any open minded intelligent human being could believe in evolution. With the lack of proof for evolution it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation and intelligent design. There is a lot more evidence for intelligent design than there is for evolution.

* The Cambrian Explosion
Nearly all animal phyla made their first appearance in the fossil record at essentially the same time, an interval of some 5 million years (about 525 to 530 million years ago) called the "Cambrian Explosion.

Scientists have found that these early fossils exhibit more anatomical body designs than exist today, and that early animals, the trilobites, had eyes as fully developed as their counterparts today.

Many of the Cambrian fauna, still survive today, all looking much like they did over 500 million years ago. The prominent British evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, comments, "... We find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.

Two places in the world that have an abundance of early (Cambrian) fossils; the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies and the Chengjiang site in China.

In Stephen J. Gould's popular book, Wonderful Life, he points out that the Burgess Shale Cambrian fossils include "a range of disparity in anatomical design never again equaled, and not matched today by all the creatures in the world's oceans.

Further, these fossils contain some twenty to thirty kinds of arthropods*** that cannot be placed in any modern group. The modern arthropods, consisting of almost a million species, can all fit into four major groups. But "one quarry in British Columbia, representing the first explosion of multicellular life, reveals more than twenty additional arthropod designs." Today there are about 38 phyla in existence, but the Canadian, Chinese and other Cambrian sites reveal over fifty phyla.

There has been a decrease in diversity (probably due to global catastrophes). This is the reverse of what evolutionary theory predicts.

Besides diversity, the Burgess Shale shows exquisite detail, right down to "the last filament of a trilobite's gill," or the last meal in a worm's gut.

The Chengjiang site has even greater detail, and is earlier. According to Paul Chien, the chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco, said the preservation is such that internal organs, nerves, and even the water ducts of jellyfish are observable.

Researchers found striking similarities between the compound eyes of the Cambrian trilobites and those of modern insects. According to Riccardo Levi-Setti, "Trilobites could see in their immediate environment with amazingly sophisticated optical devices in the form of large composite eyes. ... The number of individual optical elements in the compound eye could vary from approximately one hundred to more than fifteen thousand in a single eye, a range not very different from that found in modern insects.

The conclusion is that the eye, a complex visual system, was fully formed and functional extremely early in the fossil record. Obviously, this is not predicted by evolutionary theory.

Until recently, the phylum of vertebrates had been considered a later arrival in evolutionary history. But not now! Even the vertebrate phylum now extends into the Cambrian period, especially with the recent discovery of two fossil fish in China.

The two new fossils . . . from Chengjiang are the most convincing Early Cambrian vertebrates ever found. The insects and other land invertebrates are also a very important group, and these practically all seem to be living fossils.

These complex animals were present at the beginning of multicellular life and did not appear later as is predicted by evolutionary theory.

Evolution does not explain the abrupt appearance of complex forms of life early in the fossil record or these fossils' unequaled diversity. The implication of the Cambrian explosion of diverse, fully functional, and multicellular life is that evolutionary theory is falsified.

Life did not start out simple and evolve into more complex and diverse animals; it was complex and diverse right at the beginning. This contradiction between the fossil data and the predictions of evolutionary theory falsifies the theory.

"The facts of paleontology seem to support creation rather than evolution. All the major groups of invertebrates appear suddenly in the first fossiliferous strata. (Cambrian) of the earth with their distinct specializations, indicating that they were all created at almost the same time." - David Enock Associate Professor of Biology. BS Yeshiva College, MS Hunter College

Even George Gaylord Simpson, Harvard high priest of evolution had to admit, “In spite of the examples, it remains true (as every paleontologist knows) that most new species, genera and families appear in the record suddenly, and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm

* The Fossil Record
Darwin believed that the fossil record would reveal thousands or millions of life forms which would demonstrate a gradual change from one kind to another (called transitional forms).

But the fossil record has been against the Darwinian theory from the very beginning. It's true that different kinds of organisms lived on the earth at different times. But what is not seen in the fossil record is the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different. Instead, if something new shows up in the rocks, it shows up all at once and fully formed, and then it stays the same.

If evolution means the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different, then the fossil record contradicts evolution.

Given the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, evolutionists quietly acknowledge this is still a "research issue".

There is virtually nothing in the fossil record that can be used as evidence of a transitional life form When apparent examples of useful mutations are examined thoroughly, it becomes clear that no transitional creatures exist anywhere in the fossil record.

John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton, writes that traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are "a festering mass of unsupported assertions." In recent years, paleontologists have retreated from simple connect-the-dot scenarios linking earlier and later species. Instead of ladders, they now talk of bushes. What we see in the fossils, according to this view, are only the twigs, the final end-products of evolution, while the key transitional forms which would give a clue about the origin of major animal groups remain completely hidden.

The blank spots on evolutionary "tree" charts occur at just the points where, according to Darwin's theory, the crucial changes had to take place. The direct ancestors of all the major orders: primates, carnivores, and so forth are completely missing. There is no fossil evidence for a "grandparent" of the monkey, for example. "Modern gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere," writes paleontologist Donald Johansen. "They are here today; they have no yesterday." The same is true of giraffes, elephants, wolves, and all species; they all simply burst upon the scene de novo [anew], as it were.

So many questions arise in the study of fossils (paleontology) that even many evolutionary paleontologists put little stock in the fossil record. Basing one's belief in evolution on the shaky ground of paleontology can scarcely be considered scientific.

"We are about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." - Dr. David M. Raup, Curator of Geology, Museum of Natural History, Chicago

The fossil record is often so sparse that there are numerous cases where groups survived for tens of millions of years without leaving a single fossil.

The lack of the hypothesized intermediates between one species and another is a significant criticism of Darwinism. If land animals truly came from sea creatures, there should be ample evidence of this, such as fossils of fish with their fins turning into legs. Darwin wrote in his Origin of Species that "innumerable transitional forms must have existed." The predicted large numbers of fossil intermediate forms have never been found.
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm

* Missing Links:
All of the "missing links" on this page are examples of poor anthropology being used in an attempt to convince the public that God does not exist. Unfortunately, this rush to judgment is a consistent and erroneous theme of the evolutionary science community. The only thing missing from their studies was thorough research.

• NEANDERTHAL MAN: When this prehistoric man was first discovered, only part of an arm was recovered. Yet, the scientific community fabricated an entire ancient society around an arm bone. Scientists have since found quite a few Neanderthals and after careful study have concluded that these ancestors were regular humans with bone disease, probably rickets.

• PILTDOWN MAN: For more than 50 years we were led to believe that this ancient creature was another supposed ancestor of modern man. Two scientists eventually took a closer look and found out that Piltdown man was a fraud. This invented creature was a composite of the jawbone of an orangutan and the skull of a small child. The original "discoverers " had stained these bone fragments to gain recognition and promote the falsehood of evolution.

• NEBRASKA MAN: One ancient tooth was discovered in Nebraska. Eager evolutionists built a whole
imaginary society and lifestyle around this single tooth! When they found the rest of the skull some two years later, it was clear that the tooth belonged to a pig. For many years, evolutionists described Nebraska Man as a missing link.

• JAVA MAN: This prehistoric man was found on the island of Java and was reported to be the missing link between man and ape. After serious study it was found that the two pieces of Java Man were from two different skulls from two different areas of the island. Both were from the same species, probably an Orangutan, but they were not the parts of a man. Recent human skulls have now been discovered in the same layer of rock.

• PEKING MAN: This manlike creature was found in China during the early part of this century. No other scientists have directly observed this site and it has not actually been seen in more than 50 years. All of the examples of Peking Man were reported to have the back of their skulls smashed in, exactly matching the result when people of that region hunt for monkey brains. Also, modern human remains were found at the same site.

• LUCY: Lucy is the latest find that has been almost universally accepted as mankind's ancestor.
Lucy is an Australopithecus, that is actually more like a monkey than man. When the bones were studied by spectrograph, they were found to match a chimpanzee, rather than a man. Lucy too, is a mosaic, with bones assembled from different locations.

• LAETOLI FOOTPRINTS: These footprints were found in the same strata as the Lucy bones. Evolutionary scientists have said that Lucy-like animals made these, but a podiatrist concluded they are modern human footprints. It appears that Lucy is not an ancestor of modern man, but simply a monkey.

• KENYA SKULL: Recently it was reported that scientists had discovered a fossil of a skull in Kenya that evolutionists claim has more human-like features than "Lucy." This means that evolutionary scientists must once again revise their theory of man's origin. Ken Ham, Executive Director of Answers in Genesis says that the newly discovered fossil - which he says is nothing more than the skull of a chimpanzee - only pokes more holes in the argument for evolution.

• ARCHAEOPTERXY: Originally thought of as a transitional fossil between the reptiles and birds, it is now considered by most evolutionists to be a true bird. Also true birds have been found lower in the fossil record, making them older than Archaeopteryx.

Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing contends that Archaeopteryx is a combination of two fossils: one of the body and head of a birdlike creature and the other of the tail of a dinosaur. Xing says he has found another fossil, in a private collection in China, that contains the mirror image of the supposed tail of the Archaeoraptor. National Geographic published a note in its March 2000 issue saying that CT scans of the fossil appear to confirm Xing's observations and "revealed anomalies in the fossil's reconstruction.

To sum it up, here is what Dr. Austin Clark, a leading biologist of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington has to day about the subject: "No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life on earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the major groups of phyla. Scientists have sometimes come up with a few things that they have elected as candidates as transitions, but on a later closer examination these have been seen to be misinterpretations. There are no such things as missing links. ... Missing links are misinterpretations.
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm

* Living Fossils
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm

* Scientific evidence that dinosaurs and humans really did coexist together are the numerous intermingled dinosaur and human tracks that have been found in the riverbed of the Paluxy River in Texas for more than fifty years. In addition, 3,000 dinosaur footprints with human footprints right alongside them were recently discovered in Turkmenistan.
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/dinosaurs.htm

* Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:

* The Big Bang
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/bigbang.htm

* The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm

* Living "Fossils"
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm

* The Cambrian Explosion
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm

* New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm

* "Missing Links"
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm

* Anthropic Principle
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm

* Irreducible complexity
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/irreducible.htm

* Biological Evidence
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/biology.htm

* The Moon
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/moon.htm

* Earth's Fight Against Solar Attacks
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/earthfight.htm

* Scientific arguments against evolution:
Science itself refutes Darwinism
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml

* The Origins of Darwinism
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/origins.shtml

* Darwinism is Racist
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/racist.shtml

* Evidence for Intelligent Design
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/intelligent-design.shtml

* Creation Science
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/creationscience.shtml

* Evidence For A Young Earth and Universe
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/youngearth.shtml

* Age of man:
The Race of Man Is Younger Than Previously Thought
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/ageofman.shtml

* Darwinism Is Strongly Rooted But Is Being Challenged
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/summary.shtml

* References
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/references.shtml

* Darwinism Refuted
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/

* Partial list of Creationist scientists
(past and present)
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

* http://www.drdino.com/

Answer 2

It's amazing that Darwin deduced so much, and was correct about so much, based on how little he actually had to go on. At the end of his book, he speculates that all life evolved from just a hand full of different species of plants and animals, and he leaves the origins of those species unaccounted for.
That was well over a century ago. Much has been learned since then, and evolution is now a proper theory. Which is to say, uncontested by the scientific community.

Answer 3

I also answered your earlier question, you obviously didn't read that one. i won't give you the same answer, because for you it's two clicks away.

On Darwins book i wanna ask you a question.
Which book would you respect more?
1. a book written by some persons, writing down all sorts of mythological stories, claiming it's God's word. In that book the writers state that the book is the full truth and nothing but the truth, without a single doubt.
or
2. a book, written by a scientist, with a theory from which many parts are actually proven facts today, yet the scientists never told us it's the truth, yet he continued to doubt himself, his theory, in search for more truth.

i'll always choose the latter.

Answer 4

It is a theory per the scientific definition.

However, not all theories are universally accepted and this one has many items that are based on presuppositions that it is true in the first place. Something akin to the faith that those who believe in Creationism have.

BTW....Creationism can use the same data points evolution uses to prove itself. It's just a matter of how you interpret the data.

Answer 5

Hey Bio...using Xian lies to support your flimsy theories again?


heres a link from a fellow Xian... http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html

Charles Darwin's thinking and writing on the subject of evolution and natural selection caused him to reject the evidence for God in nature and ultimately to renounce the Bible, God, and the Christian faith.

and heres more info...just in case you learn to read...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

Answer 6

It's a theory - and it can be proven by the fossil record.

Answer 7

A hypothesis...barely a theory...untestable and unprovable

Answer 8

its a theory, you know like the theory of gravity

Answer 9

ALL THESE ARE NOT THE WORK OF CHANCE

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO SAY, ''IT HAPPENED BY CHANCE''

Just think about the things you see from the moment you wake up in the morning: the pillow under your head, the blanket over you, the alarm clock that woke you up, the slippers you search for as soon as you get out of bed, the window you open to get some fresh air, the clothes hanging in your closet, the mirror you look into every morning, the knife and fork you use for breakfast, the umbrella you take with you when you leave the house, the elevator you get into, the key that opens your car door, the traffic lights along the way, the billboards, the pen, paper and other things on your desk at work...
Spend some time to consider, and it will no doubt occur to you that each of these things was designed for a special purpose. No one would say that it was a matter of chance that everything was where it should be when you arose up in the morning. For example, who would claim that merely by chance, your house key was cut exactly to fit the door? Or that it ended up in your pocket by chance, in the first place? No one would claim that the billboards along the road were put there by chance, or that the meanings they intend came about by randomly painted symbols.
By the same token, no one would deny that a staple—nothing other than a specially shaped piece of wire on your desk—was bent and placed in its dispenser in order to hold papers together. Each staple's metal alloy, size, shape, and intended function show the evidence of deliberate design. It was planned specifically to accommodate your needs; and there's a particular reason why staples are so often found in any office setting.
What about the people you see walking along the street? Or the trees you pass by, the dog that runs out in front of you, the pigeons that build their nests in the eaves of your house, the flowers on your table, the sky above you? Could their existence be by chance, do you think?
It would be nonsense to even consider this possibility! Everything surrounding you, animate and inanimate alike, is too wonderful and complex to be compared with man-made items or ever to be ascribed to the operations of chance. Each is an example of a conscious creation, requiring consummate intelligence and skill. Everyone who finds it illogical to think that even a single staple came about by the proper bending of a wire by chance, will see that it is even more impossible that human beings, cats, birds, trees and the entire universe emerged by chance.
But today, there are people who cannot see this clear reality. Or rather they see it, but pretend not to. They claim that trees, birds, clouds, houses, cars, you yourself, others around you—in short, everything in the universe, animate and inanimate, is all the work of blind chance.
These people, known as Materialist-Darwinists, maintain the contradictory idea that chance occurrences can display supreme intelligence; and that the sum total of millions of chance events, occurring in sequence, can show creative power. According to Materialist-Darwinists, chance events have greater intelligence than every person in the world—no matter how many people have come and gone. They claim that a genius called "chance" has shaped everyone's brain, cognitive ability, judgment, memory, and countless other human characteristics for hundreds of thousands of years.
According to Materialist-Darwinists, time is the only thing that this brilliant genius needs to bring about such extraordinary events. Their warped logic claims that, if given time, chance can transform a mass of inert, unconscious atoms into, for example, a fig, olive, strawberry, orange, peach, tomato, pomegranate, melon, banana, violet, tulip, orchid, or rose; into ants, butterflies, peacocks, horses, giraffes, and human beings, or any of a million other things you may not think of. Moreover, it claims that chance can bring into existence every star, the sun, and all planets in their orbits. According to Darwinism, all students, doctors, architects, businessmen, engineers, and scientists came into being over the course of time by chance, working patiently with the help of a few minerals, a bit of water, and sunlight. Interestingly, the deity of chance at the basis of this false idea is, at the same time, used by Materialist-Darwinists in their books, conferences and heated discussions to explain their own chance existence. This is the essence of the theory of evolution and the materialist philosophy, which some evolutionist-materialist scientists describe by using Latin words in a difficult, deliberately obscurantist style.
In this book, we'll examine the irrationality of those who have entered the blind alley of chance, ignoring the wondrous design that surrounds them as well as the proofs of creation, and denying the evident existence of God Who created them and the universe they live in.
Before starting our discussion, though, it's useful to point out that Materialist-Darwinists' self-contradictory position arises from a conceptual deficiency that has been common throughout history. In the past, pagans and godless societies carved totems and statues of gods with their own hands, ignorantly believing that images of stone and clay had creative power. God speaks of these people in the Qur'an (25: 2-3):
He to Whom the kingdom of the heavens and the earth belongs. He does not have a son and He has no partner in the Kingdom. He created everything and determined it most exactly. But they have adopted gods apart from Him which do not create anything but are themselves created. They have no power to harm or help themselves. They have no power over death or life or resurrection.
=*=*=*=*=*=*
CHANCE IS NOT A DEITY: IT IS GOD WHO IS THE CREATOR OF ALL THAT EXISTS


The theory of evolution, as proposed by Charles Darwin in the 19th century, is one of the most unbelievable and irrational claims in history. Despite this, over its 150-year history it's been accepted by many scientists, professors, doctors and researchers, and many others who have expended great effort to defend evolution to the point of accepting its scientific contradictions.
This theory puts forth the irrational claim that all plants, animals and human beings are the result of blind, unconscious, accidental events. Evolutionists believe that millions of years ago, in the primal soup of the oceans or in pools of water, mindless atoms with no knowledge, powers of reason came together in certain proportions and later, by chance, formed the proteins and cells that even today's scientists with the most advanced laboratory technology have not been able to duplicate. They go so far as to say that these cells, in their turn—and again by sheer chance—formed starfish, fish, sparrows, hawks, seagulls, penguins, cats, lambs, lions, and even human beings who possess the faculty of reason.
To demonstrate just how incredible the claims of evolutionists are, let anyone who believes in the creative power of chance events take a large barrel. Let them put into it however much material they believe is required to form a living thing. For example, let them include all the needed elements—carbon, phosphorus, calcium—as well as organic compounds like amino acids, proteins, lipids, and carotene. Then let them add to this mixture whatever outside influence they choose. For example, heat or chill the barrel. Let it be struck by lightning or apply electric current. Let them stir the mixture with whatever advanced devices they may have. In addition, let them stand guard on this barrel transferring this responsibility from father to son for millions, even billions, of years. And so as to increase the chances of success, let them control the mixing at every moment. Let them consult with others;meet with the world's foremost biologists, geneticists, physicists and experts on evolution. Leave them free to produce whatever conditions they deem necessary to originate life.
Yet despite all this serious, conscious effort, they'll never be able to produce anything like a living being in that barrel. No matter what they do, they'll never be able to produce the living things pictured in this book.
Let those atoms in that barrel perform any reactions they want; never will they begin an "evolution" capable of producing brilliant scientists like Einstein and Newton able to solve complex problems; artists like Michelangelo and Picasso able to create masterpieces; musicians like Beethoven and Mozart able to compose melodies to delight the human spirit; discoverers;scientists able to examine under electron microscopes the molecules and atoms out of which they themselves are composed; talented actors like Humphrey Bogart and Charlton Heston; celebrities like Steve Martin, Bon Jovi and Sting. Or consider the many artists; those who take pleasure in symmetry, esthetics and harmonious colors; those able to design automobiles and write books; thinkers with faculties of logic and judgment;human beings able to retain in memory what they have learned, share longings, feel excitement and pleasure;who are possessed with a sense of love, mercy and compassion; who enjoy the taste of food and whose appetite is stimulated by a cake baking in the oven; who laugh at something funny and enjoy being with their friends; who can defend an idea and carry on a discussion.
Bring unconscious atoms together in whatever way you prefer. Never will they be able to bring about a single one of these living things, or even one of their cells.
If so—if no living thing can ever be produced by human effort and the whole pool of human knowledge—how can life be brought into being with the aid of unconscious atoms and chance events? Any intelligent human being of conscience can certainly understand that he—and other living things—cannot be the result of chance events. Every intelligent, unprejudiced person with a conscience knows that God has created all these living things with His incomparable power.
Regrettably, a segment of the population has accepted this irrational scenario throughout the 20th century. Professors, scientists and teachers may ridicule the "primitive" beliefs of pagan societies, while themselves accepting the nonsense of evolution. In this, they're equally as benighted as those human beings who expect a wooden idol can help them. God's Messenger, he Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, also reminded anyone afflicted with such blindness that the greatest sin is associating His creatures with God:
The most severe sin is to associate partners with God, while He has created you.1
In the Qur'an (29:17), God warns those who worship idols and invent lies about them that their power is strong enough to do anything.
Instead of God, you worship only idols. You are inventing a lie. Those you worship besides God have no power to provide for you. So seek your provision from God and worship Him and give thanks to Him. It is to Him you will be returned.
=*=*=*=*=*==*
THE FLAWLESS ORDER OF THE UNIVERSE FALSIFIES CLAIMS THAT IT CAME ABOUT BY CHANCE

The universe with all its creations, both animate and inanimate, has a flawless design, unique systems, and an ordered balance that provide all the conditions necessary for living things to survive. Discoveries, especially those made in the 20th and 21st centuries, have shown that the flawless design of the universe is clearly the work of a supreme intelligence. It is God, with His supreme intelligence, limitless knowledge and eternal power, Who created the universe.
But this fact, established with clear proofs by 20th-century science, is ignored by those who have adopted the Darwinist-Materialist philosophy. Materialists may claim that the universe is the product of chance and chaos, but when we examine the flawless systems that functioned in forming the universe, not to mention the balance and harmony existing among its living things, we clearly see that it cannot be the product of chance.
In The Mysterious Universe, the English physicist Sir James Jeans describes the flawless order in the cosmos:
A scientific study of the universe has suggested a conclusion, which may be summed up ... in the statement that the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician.2
Every planet in the universe, large and small, is the critically important part of a larger order. Not one of their positions in space or any of their movements is random. On the contrary, their countless details known to us so far have been created and especially adjusted for a particular purpose. Of all the innumerable factors influencing the balances in the universe, a change in the position of just one planet is enough to bring chaos. But these balances are never upset. The universe continues on, in its perfect order, with no problems. All of this is a result of God's supreme power in creation.

''He Who created the seven heavens in layers. You will not find any flaw in the creation of the All-Merciful. Look again –do you see any gaps? Then look again and again. Your sight will return to you dazzled and exhausted!'' (Qur'an 67:3-4)

"God, there is no god but Him, the Living, the Self-Sustaining. He is not subject to drowsiness or sleep. Everything in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him. Who can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them but they cannot grasp any of His knowledge save what He wills. . . ." (Qur'an 2: 255)

Charles Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution, which suggests that all living things came into being by the mechanism of chance. But the universe's perfect design led even Darwin to admit that there is no room for chance in its creation. As he wrote:
This [conviction in the existence of God] follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity.3
"The Originator of the heavens and earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, ‘Be!' and it is." (Qur'an 2: 117)

The distance between the Earth and our moon ensures many important balances and is extremely vital for the continuation of life on Earth. Indeed, the slightest variation in the distance between the two bodies could give rise to significant imbalances. For example:
- If the moon were much closer [to the Earth], it would crash into our planet, if much farther away, it would move off into space.
- If it were much closer, the tides that the moon causes on the earth would become dangerously larger. Ocean waves would sweep across low-lying sections of the continents. Resultant friction would heat the oceans, destroying the delicate thermal balance needed for life on earth.
- A more distant moon would reduce tidal action, making the oceans more sluggish. Stagnant water would endanger marine life, yet it is that very marine life that produces the oxygen that we breathe.4
The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said:
O God:All the Praises are for You:You are the Lord of the Heavens and the Earth. All the Praises are for You:You are the Maintainer of the Heaven and the Earth. You are my only God [Whom I worship] and there is no other God for me [I worship none but You].5

"You will see the mountains you reckoned to be solid going past like clouds—the handiwork of God Who gives to everything its solidity. . . . " (Qur'an 27: 88)

"And the earth: how We stretched it out and cast firmly embedded mountains onto it and caused luxuriant plants of every kind to grow in it." (Qur'an 50: 7)

The distribution of heavenly bodies in the universe is designed exactly to conform to the needs of human life. In his book The Symbiotic Universe, American astronomer George Greenstein explains the importance of the huge voids in space and the distances between heavenly bodies:
All that wasted space! On the other hand, in this very waste lies our safety. It is a precondition for our existence. Most remarkable of all is that the overall emptiness of the cosmos seems to have no other consequence in the astronomical realm. Had the stars been somewhat closer, astrophysics would not have been so very different. The fundamental physical processes occurring within stars, nebulas, and the like would have proceeded unchanged. The appearance of our galaxy as seen from some far-distant vantage point would have been the same. About the only difference would have been the view of the night time sky from the grass on which I lie, which would have been yet richer with stars. And oh, yes—one more small change: There would have been no me to do the viewing.6

"This is God's creation. Show me then what those besides Him have created! The wrongdoers are clearly misguided." (Qur'an 31: 11)


Contemporary philosopher Jean Guitton of the French Academy writes:
The first conditions that determined the basic constants of nature and the emergence of life were set in place with amazing exactness. To give an idea of how precisely the universe appears to have been constructed, it is enough to think of a golfer who can hit his ball from Earth to a hole on Mars! 7

"God is He Who raised up the heavens without any support—you can see that—and then established Himself firmly on the Throne. He made the sun and moon subservient, each running for a specified term. He directs the whole affair. He makes the Signs clear so that hopefully you will be certain about the meeting with your Lord." (Qur'an 13: 2)

"Do you not see that everyone in the heavens and everyone on the earth prostrates to God, and the sun and moon and stars and the mountains, trees and beasts and many of mankind? But many of them inevitably merit punishment. . . ." (Qur'an 22: 18)

"Do you not see how He created seven heavens in layers, and placed the moon as a light in them and made the sun a blazing lamp?" (Qur'an 71: 15-16)

"In two days He determined them as seven heavens and revealed, in every heaven, its own mandate. We adorned the lowest heaven with lamps and guarded it. . . ." (Qur'an 41: 12)

"Did We not make the earth a receptacle for the living and the dead? Did We not place firmly embedded mountains in it, soaring high into the air, and give you sweet fresh water to drink?" (Qur'an 77: 25-27)

"He sends down water from the sky and river-beds fill up and flow according to their size, and the floodwater carries a rising foam. . . ." (Qur'an 13: 17)

If the laws of the universe allowed only the solid and gaseous states of matter, life would never have come into being. This is because the atoms in solid matter are compact, relatively motionless, and do not allow the dynamic molecular activity needed for living organisms to develop. The atoms in gasses have no stability and move freely, preventing the functioning of the complex mechanisms of living organisms.
In short, there must be a fluid environment for the functions necessary for life to develop. The most ideal fluid—rather the only ideal fluid—is water.

The suitability of Earth's environment for the sustaining life is too wondrous to ever be explained by chance occurrences. Lawrence Henderson, a professor in Harvard University's department of biological chemistry, says the following in this regard:
The fitness... [of these compounds constitutes] a series of maxima—unique or nearly unique properties of water, carbon dioxide, the compounds of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen and the ocean—so numerous, so varied, so complete among all things which are concerned in the problem that together they form certainly the greatest possible fitness.8

God has created the amount of water in the world in the way most appropriate for the survival of living things. The 18th century English natural scientist John Ray, writes the following in this regard:
… [I]f there were but half the sea that now is, there would also be but half Quantity of Vapors, and consequently we could have but half as many Rivers as now there are to supply all the dry land we have at present, and half as much more; for the quantity of Vapors which are raised, as well as to the heat which raised them. The Wise Creator therefore did so prudently order it, that the seas should be large enough to supply Vapors sufficient for all the land.9
To claim that all these events resulted from chance events, a person would have to be completely deluded.

"We pour down plentiful water, then split the earth into furrows. Then We make grain grow in it, and grapes and herbs and olives and dates." (Qur'an 80: 25-29)

". . . . Luxuriant gardens and orchards and meadows, for you and your livestock to enjoy." (Qur'an 80: 30-32)

The molecular biologist Michael Denton writes:
The fitness of water [for life] would in all probability be less if its viscosity were much lower. The structures of living systems would be subject to far more violent movements under shearing forces if the viscosity were as low as liquid hydrogen... If the viscosity of water was much lower, delicate structures would be easily disrupted . . . and water would be incapable of supporting any permanent intricate microscopic structures. The delicate molecular architecture of the cell would probably not survive.
If the viscosity was higher, the controlled movement of large macromolecules and particularly structures such as mitochondria and small organelles would be impossible, as would processes like cell division. All the vital activities of the cell would be effectively frozen, and cellular life of any sort remotely resembling that with which we are familiar would be impossible. The development of higher organisms, which is critically dependent on the ability of cells to move and crawl around during embryogenesis, would certainly be impossible if the viscosity of water was even slightly greater than it is.10

"Say: ‘What do you think? If, one morning, your water disappears into the earth, who will bring you running water?' "(Qur'an 67: 30)

"Have you thought about the water that you drink? Is it you who sent it down from the clouds or are We the Sender?" (Qur'an 56: 68-69)

Water is renewed in a continuous cycle, in a state ready to be used by plants, animals, and human beings. Due to the sun's influence, the Earth's water is purified by evaporation. Evaporated water condenses in the atmosphere, forming clouds, and falls to the earth again as rain. In one year, for example, it is calculated that roughly six to seven hundred million tons of water evaporates at the equator, rises into the atmosphere, is carried towards the North and the South Poles, and eventually returns to the seas again, in the form of rain.
If this transformation did not occur—that is, if water didn't evaporate and return to the earth, life would certainly come to an end.

=*=*=*=*==*=**=

Here is a wonderful book about Evolution Theory:

((The Collapse Of The Theory Of Evolution In 20 Questions))

(Word file)
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=80&Format=rtf

(PDF file)
http://www.harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=80&Format=pdf

Useful sites which may help :
http://www.harunyahya.com
http://www.harunyahya.net
http://www.islam-guide.com/islam-guide.p...
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*...