FAQ in the category of Evolution

From time to time, Muslim scholars point of views on living organisms creation and development are evaluated incorrectly. That is certainly because of comprehending interpretations of some expressions and terms differently. Moreover, it is not the only reason for different evaluations; evolutionists are especially exploiting their comprehensions. We are going to explain the true meanings by pointing out some of the passages from scholars related works to prevent misinterpretations.

While dictionary meaning of evolution is process of growing or developing gradually, meaning of it as a term is transformation of one kind to another slowly and coincidently. In addition, the theory, which proposes that every living creature derived from the same origin of one species as line of descent gradually, is evolution. It is possible to categorize evolution philosophy into four principles. These are:

1-Gradual development: meaning evolving is a long period.
2-Transformation of one species into another.
3-Every being came into existence by differentiating of a single ancestor cell: meaning; transforming from one celled organism to invertebrate (not having a backbone or spinal column) multicelled; invertebrate multicelled to fishes; fishes to frogs; frogs to reptiles; reptiles to birds and mammals; and consequently apes to man.
4-Every incident occur coincidentally and by itself.

We should explicit that every scholar in a Muslim world could possibly have unique ideas, personal thoughts, and perceptions on subject, which should not be considered as Islamic doctrines. These scholars could be considered in two groups. First group of scholars studies decrees in Islamic sources, make interpretations and explanations. Second group is Islamic Philosophers. When it is said Muslim scholars, it should refer to the first group. Because, those philosophers could possibly be under the influence of other sources.

We should also clarify the creationist point of view. This is a conception, which tries to explain the existence and the functioning of the living creatures through scientific knowledge unlike evolutionist theory.

Actually, evolutionists are the ones who popularize the point of views of previous Muslims on the theory of evolution. Creationists on the other hand want this issue to be discussed on the scientific field. However, evolutionists sometimes ask for aid from religion itself. They need supporting ideas from Muslim scholars for their theory, and this shows us that their theories weakness and being without a scientific evidence.

Human logic is limited to observing the origins of the species and their development process. One should support his/her claim either with scientific experiment or with divine revelation. Since evolution (doctrines) theory brought forth, for 150 years, the experiments and researches have not proved any convincing fact. There is no religious decree instead of mans having created from earth. Therefore, it does not make any sense to expect from scholars to have knowledge on subject who had lived centuries from today, while it cannot be said anything about the origins of the species today although to the improvements were made in 21st century. In addition, how could philosophers perception without the support of revelation and experiment be a proof? In other words, we are in need of proofs rather than a proof. Evolutions existence cannot be proven with a philosophers dictum.

Surely, nobody can say anything about evolutionists searching proofs from the past for their arguments. Conditionally, if only there is a mutual understanding on the terms and their meanings. On the contrary, if fabricated terms would be given to define the subject matter and if the term evolution would be used for words such as istihale, taqamul, and tahavvul to define maturation, mutation, and transformation, it is impossible to reach a conclusion. Therefore, when evolutionists ideas, views are criticized, Arabic and Ottoman Turkish meanings of the terms, which have been used in the past, should be understood perfectly. Just as in every field, here too, there is confusion about concepts due to the lack of sensitiveness. Some are not using the terms relevant to the point, and causing confusions on the meaning of terms maybe unaware. Concept confusion should be prevented or at least can be minimized and necessity sensitiveness can be shown to the evolution terminology.

Evolution Terminology

It is impossible to reach a conclusion rather than exchange of accusations if insist on using same terminology to refer different meanings on evolution.

These are the terms, which are used as an equivalent of evolution, however refer to different concepts and meanings;
Taqamul (Maturation): Maturation is the process by which organisms grow and develop in their own body and become mature. For example, apple seed maturates, and becomes apple tree; zygote which is one celled maturates, and becomes a human being by Gods permission.

The development of an organism from the fertilized egg (embryo) to its mature form is Ontogeny in biology. Maturation should be used for Ontogeny. On the other hand, Phylogeny is a hypothesis, which is to determine the ancestral relationships among the first species and the living ones. Evolution should refer to this one.

With this consideration, every living organism is amenable to the law of Maturation.

Istihala (Metamorphosis) (Mutation): When evolution theory was put forth into argument, Muslim scholars who dealt with the subject preferred to use the word istihala as to refer evolution. Previous scholars who used to use istihala before evolution theory became an argument did not refer any meaning, which is closer to evolution. Actually, evolution has no exact synonym in Arabic because of it is being so recent. Some scholars propose the word tatavvur as a synonym for evolution. Some authorities in this field claim that tatavvur can be used to refer evolution. Just as they do, Arabic Lexicon book Al-Mungid named this theory as Tatavvur Theory in its Darwin section.

Therefore, it could certainly be said that takamul (maturation), and istihala (metamorphosis) are far away from being synonymous with evolution.

Tahawwul: Tahawwul (Changing) is another word, which leads false evaluations. Its meaning is also given to meet evolution. However, it is not conformable to use tahawwul as to refer evolution either. Tahawwul is used to define the transition of a molecule and an atom from one state (level) to another. In the light of the above given explanations, let us see the views of most exploited Muslim scholars. Undoubtly, Ibrahim Hakki is a leading scholar whose ideas expounded differently at most.

Ibrahim Hakki in his famous work, Marifetname (Book of Gnosis) explains the problematic as:

With the command of God (swt) heavens and stars moves, four elements mix with each other, and merge. Before this merging, matters come into existence. From these plants, from plants and matters merging, animals come into existence and when animals find their best form humans come into existence.

Ibrahim Hakki mentions the transition of molecules and atoms and their levels of existence in the human body. In fact, couple of paragraphs later, he explains it clearly:

That transitional body while entering into the realm of plants such disease can harm it; thereby it cannot become a plant. Or while becoming plant, before it maturates it spoils. It becomes crappy and no more, good as a food for the animals. Or maturates, but perishes before it is eaten, so years pass. Sometimes animals perish before they are eaten so it cannot become to the level of humans. However, sometimes it keeps and it is carried to the level of human.

This expression is as clear as not to give rise to any comments. It has been tried to explain the transition of elements from one level to another. For instance, sodium atom which is taken by a plant from soil spanks in a flower, becomes more active in a sheep, when it comes into the human body attains its best form of level. Does it contradict with science? Are not all of the atoms and molecules functioning in our bodies the elements that we take from plants and animals? Just because we cannot take those directly from soil; plants and animals step in the process. Muslim scholars describe this process (transition).

Ibrahim Hakki calls our attention to the structural similarities of living organisms and points coral as an intermediate being between matters and plants; date as an intermediate between plants and animals; and finally ape as an intermediate between animals and humans.

As it is seen, it is a classification. Its called attention to the structural similarities of beings and their being created by wisdom and in stages. Darwins proposal as, All species have evolved from a simple organism coincidentally through natural selection and above cited explanations have no possibility of confusion.

Although to the explanations that he made, if there is still any misunderstanding with conceptions, it is still not his responsibility, because he conveys other scholars point of views in many parts of his work. In fact, in the beginning of this matter by saying, O, beloved wisdom holders said burdens responsibilities onto them. It is the inside of the matter, because explanations were not depicted from verses or Hadiths but from wisdom holders.

Ibrahim Hakki, about the creation of the first man, used the expression, After the creation of the jihns when God wanted to create Adam (pbuh) sent Angel Azrail to the earth, and made him collect seven different soils from seven different climates; made Angel Gabriel kneed it, let it wait for forty days. Later, God gave a beautiful form to it in the Numan Valley and gave His spirit to him and finally made Angels prostrate to him; made him prophet for his sons in the world.

Featuring Ibrahim Hakki as he was the defender of evolution theory is claiming on behalf of him and this has nothing to do with the unprejudiced ethics of science.

His expression, about the all creatures being created in their best form draws great attentions, God created everything in proper and in a beautiful environment. He gave the most fitting disposition and most fitting nature to every other creature. Moreover, He granted the most convenient and perfect one to humans.

Is it ever possible to claim someone who uses these kinds of expressions as evolutionist? It is actually a natural need for humankind to seek explanation for creation. Therefore, Muslim scholars commented on observation. Scientific improvements in the past might have caused to different interpretations from today. In this regard, there is no rational explanation of opposing to the new scientific improvements that attempt at explanations to the creation matter with that of past conceptions decrees.

A. Hamdi Akseki, one of the former Directors of Religious Affairs of Turkey evaluates evolution problematic, as, We believe that Adam (pbuh) was the first man, first prophet and he was created from earth and we know it by way of inference from Hadiths, previous Muslim scholars, and most of the Quranic verses.

Late Hamdi Yazir was another Muslim scholar whose ideas are exploited. His comments on the matter are actually quite clear. His below quoted statements clearly explain the matter:

When animals are classified perfectly, it is seen that there is a gradation from deficiency to perfection, from simple to compound. Nevertheless, we do not find any experience or any witness that every other species come into existence from another species. A human gives birth to a human, a lion gives birth to a lion, a horse gives birth to a horse, a monkey gives birth to a monkey, etc. Although to the fact, some by depending on origin and by depending on coming from the same earth uses some kind of logic. Some by giving the fact that animal species showing resemblance each other, relate it with metamorphosis and maturation, therefore claim as, Compound forms derived from simple forms. According to this claim, one day a monkey gives birth to a human and humans derive from those. We always follow the scientific way and proudly say that deriving from the same origin is a fact. However, in the first place the origins of animals are matter and simple elements. In other words, it is earth. It is only possible for a life to come into existence with an external reason that has wisdom, willpower, might, and such a power so that a living thing can derive from that simple element. Because perfection cannot be derived from a deficient by itself. For instance, less heavy cannot burden its double in weight. If it is assumed that it is true for once, we should also accept that a thing could come into existence without a cause. Then, we cannot talk about intelligence, or science.

It is neither natural nor necessity for a species to give birth a species, which is similar. For a claim such as, Frogs are delivered by fishes one must show an actual illustration. Otherwise, it is neither scientific decree nor a philosophical one. Logic does not help us to understand the reality. It is only comprehended by either observation or revelation. However, it is never seen such deliverance; a frog from a fish or a man from an ape! And it is completely contrary to the Pasteurs experienced theory. Revelation, on the other hand tells us that we are humans, and sons of the same father.

These below mentioned rhetorical words reflect Islamic perspective:
The strange arts you saw in the palace are the miracles of Divine power you see in this world

Fruits, whetting our appetites with their delicious tastes, scents, and forms, they invite us to themselves. They sacrifice themselves for their customers so that they may rise from the level of vegetable life to that of animal life.

As it is seen, Islamic scholars points of views rely on the transition of the elements from one level to another. In addition, it draws attentions to the elements, which are taken from earth by living beings and their level of existence in different forms of bodies.

We did not mention the ideas of some Islamic scholars and philosophers such as Al-Jahız, İhsan-us-Safa, İbn-i Miskavayh, Nizam-i Aruzi Samarkand, Nasır-ı Tusi, Mavlana Jalaladdin-i Rumi, Muhammad Kazvini, İbn-i Haldun, Kınalızade Ali Efendi, Abdü'l-Kadir-i Bidil, because of their similarities.

Actually, Islamic scholars do not have a problem as evolution. Because they are wise enough to understand that one who knows alphabet does not need to use the same all letters to write frog as to write fish. Therefore, they think about a powerful Creator Who can create frogs, fishes, monkeys etc. separately. They adopt the view of Species need a previous father humans and animals as separate species, as they have a separate father in the beginning, their end will be with a last son.

The branch of science that studies the phases of embryonic development of an organism from the stage of zygote to fetus is called “embryology” or “ontogeny”. The branch of science that studies the changes and developments of the species that an organism belongs to and that are supposed to have taken place beginning from the moment that organism appeared on the earth to the present day during the geological eras is called “phylogeny”.   

Reasoning that community in embryonic structure reveals community of descent, Darwin thought, the early embryos, “show us, more or less completely, the condition of the progenitor of the whole group in its adult state”. Darwin was not an embryologist, however, so he relied on the work of German biologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919).

Haeckel produced drawings of embryos from various classes of vertebrates to show that they are virtually identical in their earliest stages, and become noticeably different only as they develop (Figure l). 

Figure 1.  Haeckel’s embryos. A- Fish, B- Salamander, C- Turtle, D- Chick, E- Pig, F- Cow, G- Rabit, H- Human. Haeckel’s drawings above are from George Romanes's 1892 book called “Darwinism Illustrated” (You can see that in all of the books of today, these drawings that were drawn by Haeckel about 140 years ago are used).

Before the publication of “the Origin of Species” by Darwin in 1859, Europe’s most famous embryologist was not Ernst Haeckel but Karl Ernst von Baer (1792-1876). Ernst von Baer, who was trained in physics and biology, published his work, which would have a significant role in the discussions about evolution later, in embryology in 1830s¹.

In this work, von Baer refuted “Prefor­mationism”, the old idea that embryos are simply miniature adults. Regarding the development of the embryo, he put forward the following idea: “The more general characters of a large group of animals appear earlier in their embryos than the more special characters”².

According to the view introduced by von Baer called “the Recapitulation Theory” at first and renamed as “the Biogenetic Law” by E. Haeckel later in 1886, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny³.

In his book called “General Morphology of Organism” published in 1876, Haeckel says, “Ontogeny summarizes phylogeny”. His claim was that the human embryo started like a single-celled sea organism, then it developed into a worm with a tube shaped heart that pulsated, then into a gilled fish with a two-chambered heart, then into an amphibian with a three-chambered heart, then into a mammal with a four-chambered heart and a tail, and finally into a human baby ⁴.

That is, during its ontogenetic development, an individual undergoes the phases that its genus underwent during its philogeny.  The similarities that vertebrate show during their embryonic development are given as examples. It is claimed that the embryos of fish, salamander, turtle, chick, cow, rabbit and human resemble one another during early stages.

It is claimed that they all have similar segmental somites and gill slits. It is supposed that in the embryonic stages that mammals undergo when their kidneys form, first pronephric, then mesonephric development of the embryo takes place and in the later stages, metanephric kidney structure is seen, and that the same embryonic stages repeat in the formation of the kidneys of all species of mammals.   

The examples of recapitulation in plants are fewer than animals. The development of Acacia tree can be given as an example. In the seedlings of Acacia tree, the first leaves that develop after cotyledons are in the form of simple leaves. The leaves of the tree later produce compound leaves. Thus, Acacia is regarded to have developed from simple-leaved ancestors.

CRITICISM OF SIMILARITIES IN
EMBRYONIC STRUCTURES

Gill Slits

The view put forward by those who believe in embryonic recapitulation that “the embryos of all mammals, birds, reptiles and humans had gill slits at a certain stage” is an exaggerated claim. The structures resembling bars and grooves in the neck region mentioned above are called pharyngeal pouches. Gish states that they develop into gills in fish. In the human, they do not open into the throat. Besides, they do not develop into tissues related to respiration. Therefore, it is stated that they cannot be regarded as gill slits⁵.

These slits develop into the lower jaw, Eustachian tube, thymus and parathyroid glands. Therefore, it is not possible to consider them as “useless, vestigial organs”.

According to Haeckel’s biogenetic law, a human becomes a fish first, an amphibian after that, and in the end, takes the form of a human by climbing the ladder of evolution.

Since 1859, when Darwin published his book “the Origin of Species”, it has been claimed that the slits in the human embryo are “gill slits inherited from fish”. Due to their approach that “the human embryo underwent those stages claimed by Haeckel”, evolutionist biologists interpret the development stages of the human embryo in biology textbooks in a way to confirm that view.

Curtis and Barnes state the following in their book, “Invitation to Biology”:

“Early vertebrate embryos are almost indistinguishable. All have prominent gill pouches”⁶.

Gould and Keeton inform the students as follows in their book called “Biological Science”:

“Traces of their genealogy are obvious in vertebrates. Human embryos, for instance, have gill pouches” ⁷.

Raven and Johnson state the following in their book “Biology”:

“Early in their development, human embryos possess gill slits, like a fish” ⁸.

Futuyma emphasizes the same issue in his book, “Evolutionary Biology”:

“Early in development, human embryos are almost indistinguishable from those of fishes, and briefly display gill slits” ⁹.

2- Pharyngeal Pouches

During the embryonic development, there exists a series of folds in the neck and pharynx region of all vertebrate embryos. The convex parts of the folds are called pharyngeal "arches" or "ridges," and the concave parts are called pharyngeal "clefts" or "pouches". In fish, the pharyngeal folds develop into gills. However, in reptiles, mammals and birds, these folds develop into inner ear or parathyroid gland. 

British embryologist Lewis Wolpert states the following regarding gill slits:  

“There is no embryological reason to call pharyngeal pouches “gill-like” in the embryos of vertebrate. The only justification for that term is the theoretical claim that ‘mammals evolved from fish-like ancestors’” ¹.

Swiss embryologist Günter Rager also states that there are no gill slits in humans:

“The only way to see 'gill-like' structures in human embryos is to read evolution into development" and that "there is no way 'gill-slits' in human embryos can logically serve as evidence for evolution” ¹⁰.

Austrian molecular biologist Denton attracts attention to the fact that there is no relation between the development of the vertebrate kidney and the fish and reptiles by saying:

“In fish and amphibia, the kidney is derived directly from an embryonic organ known as the mesonephros, while in reptiles and mammals the mesonephros degenerates towards the end of embryonic life and plays no role in the formation of the adult kidney, which is formed instead from a discrete spherical mass of mesodermal tissue, the metanephros, which develops quite independently from the mesonephros” ¹¹.

If the claim that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” is assumed to be true, such a change is expected to take place in all structures of the organism. For instance, the human heart should have been one-chambered first, and then two, three and four-chambered. However, its development starts with two chambers… Then, it becomes one-chambered. In the end, it develops into a four-chambered heart. The same development is observed in the formation of the brain, too.  The brain develops before the nerve chord and the heart develops before the blood veins, refuting the claim, “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”.

White states the following regarding the developments of the human heart:

“It is true that the human embryo starts with a one-chambered heart and then develops into a two chambered-state. However, it goes back to the one-chambered state again before it develops into the three-chambered and finally the four-chambered state” ¹².

It is a great claim that the difference of leaves in the young and adult plants is presented as evidence for the Recapitulation Theory because it is possible to find leaves of various forms in the same oak tree.

Drawings

The embryonic similarities between organisms put forward by the Recapitulation Theory of Haeckel in 1876 have appeared in almost all of the evolution books published since then¹³.

Historian of science Timothy Lenoir states that although von Baer, who published an important book on this issue before Haeckel, accepted the possibility of limited transformation of species at lower levels of the biological hierarchy, he saw no evidence for the large-scale transformations as proposed by Darwin. Lenoir claims that Darwin distorted Baer’s embryological evidence to make it fit his theory. However, Lenoir notes that Darwin persisted in citing him as “the best supporter of his theory of evolution”; Lenoir also states that von Baer was a strong critic of Darwinian evolution until his death¹⁴.

British zoologist Adam Segwick stated in his book he wrote in 1909 that the laws of von Baer and the biogenetic law of Haeckel were very different. He pointed out that the laws of von Baer refuted the theories that were not based on empirical observation and that did not fit the evidence, and that the Biogenetic Law of Haeckel or the Recapitulation was deduced from evolutionary theory rather than inferred from evidence¹⁵.

American embryologist Lillie also states that the Biogenetic Law of Haeckel is a logical consequence of the Theory of Evolution rather than an empirical inference¹⁶.

Historian of science Rasmussen states that from the very beginning, the Biogenetic Law was based on a theoretical deduction rather than facts and that the reasons of rejection were present beginning from the first days it was put forward, and adds the following:

“All the important evidence called upon in the rejection of the biogenetic law was there from the first days of the law's acceptance” ¹⁷.

British embryologist Gavin de Beer states in his book on embryology and evolution in which he criticized Haeckel’s Biogenetic Law that Recapitulation, that is, the pressing back of adult ancestral stages into early stages of development of descendants, does not take place and that recapitulation is a “mental strait-jacket” that has thwarted and delayed embryological research¹⁸.

Wells points out that both views have continually been on the agenda throughout the twentieth century and adds the following:

“Both views are empirically false. Yet throughout the twentieth century, they have periodically risen, phoenix-like, from the ashes of empirical disconfirmation. Since both are frequently enlisted in support of Darwinian evolution, it is often difficult to tell them apart; they are one of the most bizarre twists of all and both are now illustrated with the same set of faked drawings” ¹.

Oppenheimer says Haeckel altered the embryo drawings so as to support the view of “evolution” and adds:

“Haeckel used the same woodcut to print embryos that were supposedly from different classes. In others, he doctored his drawings to make the embryos appear more alike than they really were. Haeckel’s contemporaries repeatedly criticized him for these misrepresentations and accused him of fraud” ¹⁹.

British embryologist states in his book he published in 1995 that Haeckel misrepresented the truth in his drawings and adds:

“Whether or not Haeckel was guilty of fraud—that is, deliberate deception—there is no doubt that his drawings misrepresent vertebrate embryos. First, he chose only those embryos that came closest to fitting his theory. Although there are seven classes of vertebrates (jawless fishes, cartilaginous fishes, bony fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals), Haeckel showed only five, omitting jawless and cartilaginous fishes entirely. Furthermore, to represent amphibians he used a salamander rather than a frog, which looks very different. Finally, half of his embryos are mammals, and all of these are from one order (placentals); other mammalian orders (egg-laying monotremes and pouch-brooding marsupials) are omitted. Thus, Haeckel began with a biased sample” ²⁰.

Richardson and his colleagues explain the reason why Haeckel chose salamanders in his studies of the embryo as follows:

“There is a great variation in embryonic morphology among amphibians, but Haeckel chose a salamander that happened to fit his theory”²¹.

Richardson and his colleagues also found that vertebrate embryos vary tremendously in size, from less than one millimeter to almost ten millimeters, yet Haeckel portrayed them all as being the same size²².

Famous evolutionist wrote in the March 200, issue of “Natural History” that Haeckel distorted the drawings of the development stages of the vertebrate embryos stating the following:

“Haeckel exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. His drawings are characterized by inaccuracies and outright falsification”²³.

In an interview made by “Science” magazine, Gould says what Haec­kel made in the drawings of vertebrate embryos was fake:  

“What Haeckel did turned out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology. Briefly, Haeckel’s drawings are fakes, and they misinterpret the embryos they purport to show. Darwin based his inference of common ancestry on the belief that the earliest stages or embryo development are the most similar. Haeckel’s drawings, however, omit the earliest stages entirely, and start at a point midway through the development. The earlier stages are much different” ¹.

As a historian of science, Gould wrote a major book on the subject in 1977, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny”. Instead of criticizing and blaming such frauds, Gould approves them and argues that such scientific frauds are useful because they excite the imagination:

“Tales of scientific fraud excite the imagination for good reason. Getting away with this academic equivalent of murder for generations, and then being outed a century after your misdeeds, makes even better copy” ²³.

Wells asks the following question about Haeckel’s fake drawings:

“If biologists have known all along that Haeckel’s drawings were faked, then why are they still used?”

He answers the question in Gould’s words:

“Gould laid the blame at the feet of textbook writers, blasting them for dumbing down their subject matter to the point of making it inaccurate. Gould added, ‘We should be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number of modern textbooks!’”²⁴.

Hitching states that Ernst Haeckel himself admitted that the drawings of these embryos did not represent the truth and quotes his following view:

“After this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow-culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of 'forgery,' for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematized and constructed” ²⁵.

Famous evolutionist George Simpson also states that Haeckel made mistakes:

“Haeckel presented the development of evolution wrongly. It is definitely known today that the embryonic developments of the living beings do not represent their past” ³⁷.

Keith states that the Recapitulation Theory was excluded from the textbooks in the 1950s:

“Surely the biogenetic law (the Recapitulation Theory) is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised from biology textbooks in the 1950s” ²⁶.

Wells points out that the earliest stages in the vertebrates are not the most similar ones and states the following:

“When an animal egg is fertilized, it first undergoes a process called "cleavage", during which it subdivides into hundreds or thousands of separate cells without growing in overall size. At the end of cleavage, the cells begin to move and rearrange themselves in the stage known as gastrulation. Gastrulation even more than cleavage is responsible for establishing the animal's general body plan (e.g., insect or vertebrate) and for generating basic tissue types and organ systems (e.g., skin, muscles and gut)

If it were true (as Darwin and Haeckel claimed) that vertebrates are most similar in their earliest stages, then the various classes would be most similar during cleavage and gastrulation. Yet a survey of bony fish, amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal reveals that this is not the case.

In the gastrulation stage, a fish is very different from an amphibian, and both are very different from reptiles, birds, and mammals. Whatever model is examined here, it does not comply with the view that ‘the earliest stages are the most similar and later stages are more different’”¹.

Embryologist Ballard states the difference in the development stages of the embryos as follows:

“It is only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence, by bending the facts of nature, that one can argue that the early embryo stages of vertebrates are more alike than their adults”²⁷.

 Embryologist Blechschmidt and Elinson report that frogs, chicks, and mice are radically different in such fundamental properties as egg size, fertilization mechanisms, cleavage patterns, and gastrulation movements ^28-29.

Although the development of the embryos does not support the views of Darwin and Haeckel, the embryologic development stages are interpreted through an evolutionist view and this interpretation is present in almost all biology books. 

Well states it as follows:

“Since Darwin’s theory is affirmed regardless of the evidence, and “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” is a logical deduction from that theory, biology textbooks continue to teach it - though they usually attach von Baer's name to it. Thus, the 1975 edition of B. I. Balinsky’s classic textbook, Introduction to Embryology, includes this amazing passage:

“‘Von Baer’s law’ can be reinterpreted in the light of evolutionary theory. In its new form, the law is known as the ‘biogenetic law of Haeckel’. According to von Baer’s law, features of ancient origin develop early in ontogeny; features of newer origin develop late. Hence, the ontogenetic development presents the various features of the animal’s organization in the same sequence as they evolve during the phylogenetic development, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny³⁰.

“It is difficult to imagine how any history of the biogenetic law could be more distorted than this. Yet the distortion is perpetuated in many modern biology textbooks. And as if this were not bad enough, some textbooks even use Haeckel's faked drawings to illustrate von Baer's law. For example, Haeckel's drawings are reproduced in the 1998 edition of Douglas Futuyma's advanced college textbook, Evolutionary Biology, but the figure caption doesn't mention Haeckel; instead, it describes the drawings as ‘an illustration of von Baer’s law’”⁹.

In 2000, this attitude of Futuyma was criticized as “lying by distorting the truth”. In his defense, Futuyma explained that he had been unaware of the discrepancies between Haeckel's drawings and the actual vertebrate embryos"³¹.

Wells states the following regarding the issue:

“So Futuyma, a professional evolutionary biologist and author of a graduate-level textbook, did not know about Haeckel's faked drawings — a confession of ignorance not likely to inspire much confidence in the quality of our biology textbooks. But now he knows that “Haeckel was inaccurate and misleading,” and he said he would take this into account in future editions of his book”³².

In their book, “Invitation to Biology”, Helena Curtis and Sue Barnes reproduced the top two lines of Haeckel’s drawings with the following caption:

“These drawings are based on the work of the nineteenth-century embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer”⁶.

 Yet falsely attributing Haeckel’s ideas and drawings to von Baer is not the most serious offense in these textbooks. That distinction goes to their use of Haeckel’s drawings to misrepresent the embryological evidence 

According to Wells, Haeckel's drawings are misleading in three ways:

1. They include only those classes and orders that come closest to fitting Haeckel's theory.

2. They distort the embryos they purport to show.

3. They entirely omit earlier stages in which vertebrate embryos look different.

Haeckel’ s drawings appear not only in Futuyma's book but also in the latest edition of “Molecular Biology of the Cell”, by National Academy of Sciences President Bruce Alberts and his colleagues. Albert states the following regarding the issue:

“Early developmental stages of animals whose adult forms appear radically different are often surprisingly similar, and that Darwinian evolution explains why embryos of different species so often resemble each other in their early stages and, as they develop, seem sometimes to replay the steps of evolution”³³.

Many textbooks use slightly redrawn versions of Haeckel’s embryos. One example is the 1999 edition of Peter Raven and George Johnson’s Biology, which accompanies its drawings with the following caption:

 “Notice that the early embryonic stages of these vertebrates bear a striking resemblance to each other.”

 The book also informs students:

 “Some of the strongest anatomical evidence supporting evolution comes from comparisons of how organisms develop. In many cases, the evolutionary history of an organism can be seen to unfold during its development with the embryo exhibiting characteristics of the embryos of its ancestors”⁸.

Another example includes the 1998 edition of Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart’s Biology: the Unity and Diversity of Life, which accompanies its drawings with this misstatement:

 “The early embryos of vertebrates strongly resemble one another”³⁴.

 The latest edition of James Gould and William Keeton’s Biological Science includes this statement:

“One fact of embryology that pushed Darwin toward the idea of evolution is that the early embryos of most vertebrates closely resemble one another”⁷.

Burton Guttman’s 1999 textbook, ‘Biology’, accompanies its redrawn version of Haeckel’s embryos with the following caption:

 “An animal’s embryonic development holds clues to the forms of its ancestors”³⁵.

Some textbooks, instead of reproducing or redrawing Haeckel's embryos, use actual photos." How dare those nefarious textbook authors use photographic data to support their ideas. Sylvia Mader’s 1998 “Biology”, for example, includes photos of chick and pig embryos, accompanied by this caption:  

“At these comparable early developmental stages the two embryos have many features in common although eventually they are completely different animals.  This is evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor” ³⁶.

Wells evaluates the issue as follows:

“Mader's use of actual photos instead of faked drawings is a step in the right direction, but the embryological evidence is still being misrepresented As we have seen, Haeckel's distortions of embryos in mid-development was just one of his misrepresentations; the others were his biased selection of classes and orders that fit his theory, and his omission of earlier stages. Both of these misrepresentations are perpetuated.

Furthermore, although biologists have also known for over a century that Haeckel's drawings are fakes, and that the earliest stages in vertebrate development are not the most similar, textbooks continue to use those drawings (or almost equally misleading photos) to convince unsuspecting students that Darwin's theory rests on embryological evidence”³².

Footnotes:

1. Wells, J. Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth? Trns. Orhan Düz. Evrimin İkonları, Bilim Mi Mit Mi? Gelenek yayıncılık. Kurtiş Matbaası, İstanbul, 2003.

2. Henfrey, A. and Huxley, H.T. (Editors). Scientific Memoirs: Selected from the Transactions of foreign Academies of Science and from Foreign Journals: Natural History. London, 1853 (Reprinted, 1966 by Johnson, Reprint Corporation, New York).

3. Şengün, A. Evrim. Sermet Matbaası. Kırklareli. 1984, s.142.

4. Richard, M. Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. Trns. İ. Kapaklıkaya. Son Tartışmalar Işığında Darwinizm’in Mitleri. Gelenek Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2003

5. Gish, D.T. Evolution: The Fossils Say No! 1981. Trns. Â. Tatlı,  Fosiller ve Evrim. Cihan Yayınları, İs­tanbul. 1984.

6. Curtis, H. and Barnes, S. Invitation to Biology. 5^th impression, New York: Worth Publishers, p.405, 1994.

7. Gould, J. L. and Keeton, W. T. Biological Science. 6^th impression, New York: W. W. Norton, p. 347, 1996.

8. Raven, P. Johnson, G. Biology.5 the impression, Boston: WCB/ McGraw-Hill, p. 416, 1181, 1999.

9. Futuyma, D. Evolutionary Biology. 3^rd impression, Sunderland, MA:Sirauer Associates, p.653, 1998.

10. Rager, G. Human Embryology and The Law of Biogenesis. Rivista di Biologia 79, p. 449-465, 1986.

11. Denton, M. Evolution. A Theory in Crisis. Burnett  Books, London, 1985.

12. White, A. J. Wonderfully Made. Evangelical Pres, Darlington.

13. Guyer, M.F. Animal Biology. New York. Harper; Brothers, London. 1937. 

14. Lenoir, T. The Strategy of Life. The University of Chicago Press, p.258, 1982.

15. Sedgwick, A. The Influence of Darwin on The Study of Animal Embryology, p.171-184. A.C. Seward (Editor). Darwin and Modern Science. Cambridge University Press, p.174-176,1909.

16. Lillie, F. R. The Development of the Chick. 2^nd impression, New York, Henry Holt, 1919.

17. Rasmussen, N. The Decline of Recapitulationism in Early Twentieth Century Biology. Disciplinary Conflict and Consensus on the Battleground of Theory. Journal of the History of Biology, 24, p.51-89, 1991.

18. Beer, G. Embryos and Ancestors. 3^rd impression, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p.10, 164,172, 1958.

19. Oppenheimer, J. M. Haeckel’s  Variation on Darwin. S. 123-135. Heonigswald, H. M. and Wiener, L. F. (Editors), Biological Metaphor and Cladistic Classification. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia,  p.134, 1987.

20. Richardson, M.K. Heterochrony and  The Phylotypic Period. Developmental Biology 172, p.412-421, 1995.

21. Richardson, M.K., Hanken, J. Gooneratne, M. L., Pieau, C, Raynaud, A., Selwood, L. and Wright, G.M. There is no Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in The Vertebrates: Implications for Current Theories of Evolution and Development. Anatomy and Embryology, 196, p.91-106, 1997.            

22. Richardson, M.K., Allen, S. P., Wright, G.M., Raynaud, A. and Hanken, J. Somite Number and Vertebrate Evolution. Development 125, p.151-160,1998.

23. Gould, S. J. Atrocious! Natural History, March, p.42-49,2000.

24. Beer, de G. Embryos and Ancestors. 3^rd impression, Oxford: Clarendon Press, p. 152, 1958.

25. Hitching, F. The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong?. New  York: Ticknor and Fields, 1982, p.204.

26. Keith, S.T. Ontogeny and  Phylogeny Recapitulated. American Scientist, Volume 76, May/June, 1988, p.273.

27. Ballard, W. W. Problems of Gastrulation: Real and Verbal. Bioscience 26, p.36-39, 1976.

28. Blechschmidt, E. The Beginnings of Human Life. Translated by Transemantics. Spring-Verlag, New York, p.29-30,1977.

29. Elinson, R. P. Change in Developmental Patterns: Embryos of Amphibians With Large Eggs. S.1-21. R.A. Raff and E.C.Raff (Editors). Development  as an Evolutionary Process, Volume 8, New York, p. 3,1987.

30. Balinsky, B.I. An Introduction to Embryology. 4^th impression W.B.Saunders Company, Philadelphia, p.7-8, 1975.

31. The digital City-Kansas City Public Evolution, 17 February, 2000. Board:http://home.digitalcity.com/kansascity.

32. Wells, J. Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth? Trns. Orhan Düz. Evrimin İkonları, Bilim Mi Mit Mi? Gelenek Yayıncılık. Kurtiş Matbaası, İstanbul, p. 107, 2003.

33. Alberts, B., Bray, D., Lewis, J. Raff, M. Roberts, K. and Watson, J. D.  Molecular Biology of Cell. 3^rd impression, New York: Garland Publishing, p.32-33, 1994.           

34. Star, C. and Taggart, R. Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life. 8^th impression, Belmont, CA: Wadswoth Publishing Company, p.317, 1998.

35. Cloud, P. Pseudofossils, A Plea For Caution. Ge­ology. November. 1973, p. 123.

36. Mader, S. Biology. 6^th impression, Boston: WCB/ McGraw-Hill, p. 298, 1998.

37. Simpson, G.G. An Introduction to Biology. New York, Harcourt Brace and World, 1965, p.241.

Although there are various narrations about when and how Hazrat Hawwa (Eve) was created, we do not have clear and certain information about it. However, we find out from the following verses in the Quran that she was created from Hazrat Adam (pbuh) (or from the same matter as Adam): "It is He who created you from a single person, and made his mate of like nature, in order that he might dwell with her (in love)" (al-A'raf, 7/189), "O mankind! reverence your Guardian-Lord Who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, his mate and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women" (an-Nisa, 4/1).

What is clearly understood from the verses is that Hazrat Hawwa and Hazrat Adam were created from the same matter (soul) and that Hazrat Adam (pbuh) was created before Hazrat Hawwa. Some scholars put forward the view that Hawwa was created from Adam, an organ of Adam based on the following expression in the verse "... and made his mate of like nature ".
If it is paid attention, it will be understood that with the expression; “It is He who created you from a single person”, the Quran states that all of the people were created from one soul and Hazrat Hawwa was created from “it”, that is from that soul. What is meant by the phrase “from it” in the verse maybe Hazrat Adam (pbuh) or the original matter that Adam (pbuh) was created from. Doubtlessly, Allah knows the best. 

Although it is definite that Hawwa was created from a single person (soul), we cannot find any extra information in the Quran about how that creation occurred. The narration that Ibn Kathir mentions in his tafsir (interpretation) is as follows:
When Iblis (the devil) was expelled from Paradise (because of his well-known crime), Adam (pbuh) was sent to Paradise. He wandered there for some time alone, without having someone that he might take rest in. He fell asleep; when he woke up, he saw a woman that Allah created from his rib. He asked her: "What are you? The woman answered: "a woman". Then he asked the woman why she was created. The woman answered, "so that you might take rest in me". Meanwhile the angels saw them and asked Adam who she was in order to test his knowledge. Adam (pbuh) said she was Hawwa. When the angels asked him why he gave her that name, she said, "because she was created from something living. (Ibn Kathir, "Tafsiru'l-Qur'ani'l-Azim", I, 112).

According to the narration of Bukhari, the Prophet (pbuh) said; “Treat women nicely, because woman was created from a rib. ", (in another narration, "is like a rib”, and the most curved portion of the rib is its upper portion, so, if you try to straighten it, it will break, but if you leave it as it is, it will remain crooked. So treat women nicely” (Bukhari, Anbiya, 1). In the narration of Muslim, the following phrase is present ".... if you try to straighten it, it will break, its break is divorce."

As it is understood from the following verses, “Allah did choose Adam above all people " (Aal-e Imran, 3/33) “Allah created Adam from dust, then said to him: "Be" and he was. " (Âli imran, 3/59) Adam was created from dust by being chosen. That meaning was reported as "Hawwa was created from a rib of Adam", which means a splitting. That meaning is the foundation of the husband-wife relationship. In a sound hadith, the following is stated, "A woman is like a rib. The woman was created from a rib, a curved rib, if you try to straighten it, it will break; its break is divorce."( Bukhari, Nikah 79; Muslim, Rada 65; Tirmidhi, Talaq 12; Darimi, Nikah 45; Ahmad b. Hanbal, II, 428, 449, 530, V, 164.) .

Here, the curved rib indicates splitting, but it is also a simile showing the mismatch of nature between man and woman and a warning that trying to make a woman like a man will break her. In addition, in other hadiths, it is stated that the separation into parts took place at the beginning of the creation in Paradise.

The word dinosaur, which we are familiar with, means terrible lizard. The dinosaurs were vertebrate animals that lived in terrestrial eco-system for over 160 million years, first appearing approximately 235 million years ago, and extinct 65 million years ago all of a sudden with a catastrophic event.

These reptiles coming to the order, which intrigue public eye, has been laid groundwork for both domestic and foreign periodicals to publish about evolution theory since time immemorial. TUBITAKs (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey) periodical Bilim ve Teknik, for instance, was publishing Darwins evolution ideas at the end of the article about Dinosaurs, which they had made cover in their October 1993 release. August 1983 cover of the same periodical was entitled The Extinction of Dinosaurs, and evolution scenarios came up in the articles. National Geographic Magazine (August 1978) featured how Dinosaurs evolved and turned into birds. However, this theory was confuted with the finding of a 225 million years old bird (Protoavis) fossil. It was then understood that birds were clapping their wings freely along with dinosaurs, when they first appeared in the history.

Dinosaurs first appearance in the history, their lives, and extinction event introduce scientific evidences against evolution rather than being reminiscent of it. Why did they become extinct from the scene of the history? Trying to find evidences for evolution theory from the answers to the question do not carry much conviction, because what is tried to be answered with the theory of evolution is not how species came up but how they extinct. It is quite interesting not to find any convincing evidence about the origins of the dinosaurs in the books related.

It should be also kept in mind that catastrophic extinction event of the dinosaurs rules out the possibility of gradual Darwinist evolution. If it was evidenced that dinosaurs evolved and turned into another species and extinct gradually, then it would have been considered good material for the evolutionist.

Prof. Dr. Âdem Tatlı

Different date ranges are put forth regarding the time that has passed since Adam, the first man, until now. Even though the date range that religious sources indicate includes a short time span as 6-7 thousand years as regards to this issue, the numbers that science and philosophy bring forth are stated as millions. Such a great difference arises due to the methods applied to determine the age of fossils. There are two sorts of methods used in such type of age determination. One of them is paleontological and the other is radioactive age determination method.

In the paleontological age determination method, the age of a rock is determined according to the type of fossils it includes. In geological eras, there are fossils which existed for short spans of time and vanished. They are called “Characteristic or key fossils” or “ Layer-determining fossils”. Judging by characteristic fossils which lived in different ages and eras, “geological columns” which display the age of each era and layer-determining fossils it includes have been formed. With the help of a characteristic fossil which might be found in an area, the age of that area is determined by looking up this geological column. However, how can it be determined which index fossil shows which age? The answer is “evolution”. That is, since it is claimed that evolution exists in the same direction on the earth, phases of evolution of an organism that lived in a certain era must provide an infallible criterion in order to define sediments stored in this era. This is the basic principle of the evolution theory.

The criterion that is necessary to move fossils to the very special place in this chronology is the claim that “life evolves from the simple to the complex”. Evolution of living organisms, though, is based upon fossil records. Evidence for the existence of evolution is fossils. Fossils are ranged in chronological order according to the evolution theory. Thus, this matter has become a strong reasoning system as a vicious circle.

Another method is age determination by means of radioactive elements. In this method, uranium, thorium and radio-carbon 14 methods are used. 

Uranium Method

This method depends on the principle of generation of lead and helium from uranium and its fellow element, thorium in their long chains of decay. Their decay time is calculated according to their half life. Half life of U^238, a radioactive element, is 4,5 billion of years and half life of U²³⁵ is 0,7 billion of years and half life of Thorium ( Th²³²) is 14,1 billion of years. By giving off definite proportions of Helium atom, they generate lead isotopes as shown in the diagram.

In this half life,U²³⁵ decays by giving of Pb²⁰⁷ ( Lead 207) isotope and 7 He⁴. Based on lead 207 isotope which accumulated in the layer as a result of decay, the amount of uranium 235 produced through its decay and the length of time of its generation are calculated judging by the half life of U²³⁵. 

Criticism of Uranium Method

There are some objectionable parts in the methods of age determination depending on radioactive decay of uranium. They might be summarized as follows:

1. Uranium minerals are always found in open systems.

Since the layer consisting uranium is not in a closed system, it is exposed to external effects. For instance, uranium can easily resolve in ground water. Radon gas, an intermediate element, may easily pass inside or outside the uranium system. Henry Fauld, an expert on radioactive age determination, points out to the following regarding the issue:

“In geological time, both uranium and lead translocated in shale. Detailed analysis showed appropriate ages have not been determined with these elements. Similar drawbacks are encountered in attempts of age determination of mineral ores which consist uranium and radium. It is known that different ages are found on samples taken from the same points and plenty of chemical activities took place.” ²

2. The disintegration rate of uranium might be changeable.

Since radioactive decays are controlled by atomic structure, they are not easily affected by other events. Nevertheless, factors which are able to affect atomic structures might also influence radioactive disintegration rate. The most outstanding example to this is cosmic radiation and neutrinos. Another example is free neutrinos which come out of reactors or which are generated out of various reasons. If anything which might increase the amount of these particles on the earth is to come into existence, it is sure to accelerate radioactive disintegration rates.

3. Daughter elements might have been present therein where the layer began to form. It is possible that radiogenic daughter elements which are generated by the disintegration of uranium and thorium might have been already present when these minerals began to form. It has been found today that rocks which were produced by lava flowing through the internal layers of the earth consist of both radiogenic and combined lead.

4. All of the daughter elements might not be peculiar to that layer.  All of the daughter elements which  were produced by radioactive disintegration may not remain in the same layer; other daughter elements which were produced in a different layer might have moved there. 

Radiocarbon (C¹⁴) Method

Radiocarbon is the name given to the unstable isotope  Carbon fourteen (C¹⁴). Carbon twelve (C¹²) is called “natural carbon” and it is not radioactive.  Radiocarbon is produced from the reactions among nitrogen-fourteen (N¹⁴) in the atmosphere, due to cosmic radiation in superior layer of atmosphere. Carbon-12 consists of six protons, six neutrons and six orbital electrons. Carbon-14, though, includes eight neutrons in the nucleus. These two extra neutrons make the atom unstable. One of these neutrons gives off a beta particle, producing a new nucleus which consists of seven protons and seven neutrons is produced. This new structure is the Nitrogen-14. Thus, the unstable Carbon-14 turns into the stable Nitrogen-14. Its half life is 5730 years.

Carbon-14 which is generated in the atmosphere is immediately oxidized as CO₂ and spreads to the air, water and to living organisms. Normally the ratio of radioactive carbon dioxide and non-radioactive carbon dioxide ( C¹⁴/C¹²)  in the air is fixed and it is accepted that 100 years should pass so that this fixed rate can be reached.

The ratio of C¹⁴/C¹²  in living organisms should be fixed as well. The equality of this ratio does not change as long as the organism is alive. However, when the organism dies, the ratio of C¹⁴ to ^C12 decreases gradually since the organism cannot take CO₂ in from the air any longer. When this decreasing ratio strikes ½, the length of time from the death of that organism must be 5730 years because the half life of C¹⁴ is 5730 years. In five half lives, in other words, in around 29 thousand years, only 1/32 of the original amount of radiocarbon is to be emitted. Radiocarbon method can only be used to determine the ages around 80 thousand years at most. For older materials, uranium method is applied. 

Criticism of Radiocarbon method

Radiocarbon method is based on some assumptions. Here are the  opposed points:

1.  A number of living systems do not have the standard ratio of  C¹⁴/C^12.. Carbon-14 method is based on the theory which claims that when all living organisms die, they include a standard ratio of C¹⁴/C¹² . Nevertheless, many samples did not display this ratio. For example, with this method, age of living mollusks was determined to be 2300 years old. Such ratio shows that the environment the organism is in includes higher amount of C¹⁴ than expected and therefore, there is an exchange of carbon between the organism and the environment.

2. Radiocarbon might not decrease at a stable rate in each organism.

Radiocarbon disintegration is influenced by environmental radioactivity, especially free neutrons and cosmic radiation and their disintegration rates change as a result.

3. The rate of natural carbon might have been different in the past.

In the past, the vegetation was either more or less than it is now. The ratio of C¹⁴/C¹², therefore, is to be higher or lower. For this reason, the radiocarbon age of the materials of these periods is to be measured older or younger than the true age. This matter is the same for the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If volcanoes had emitted carbon dioxide in the past, in this case, the amount of carbon dioxide at that time  should be different than it is now.

4. The rate of radiocarbon might not have reached a stable condition. It is assumed that the ratio of C¹⁴/C¹² reaches a stable condition in a certain length of time. In other words, the amount of C¹⁴ in the atmosphere is equal to the amount of C¹⁴ disintegrated on the earth. For this reason, the incoming and outgoing amount of C¹⁴ needs to be equal. However, there are some things which prove that this is not always in this way. In the same way, it is stated that the measurable amount of radiocarbon generated in a year on the earth is 25 % more than the amount of disintegrated radiocarbon. 

A general assessment on geological and archaeological dating methods 

Both radioactive method and other methods applied in geological and archaeological dating are not at the expected sensitivity since they are based on several assumptions and predictions. For this reason, some doubts arise on the correctness of ages determined. However, as there are similar errors in age-determination of every material, findings are important in terms of being approximate ages rather than exact ages. For example, material A, which is found to be at 150 million years of age, is three times older than the material B, which is found to be 50 million years old. That is to say that, if material B is 5 thousand years old indeed, then, the material A should be at 15 thousand years old.

There are no other alternatives for the methods mentioned above.

This might be said for the past of man:

From religious sources, it is understood that it has been 6 or 7 thousand years since Adam (pbuh). On the other hand, the date which is thought to be the first time man appeared on the earth, depending on fossils is several million years before now. The reason why the fossil ages are so high is because the methods applied include considerable margin of error. 

[1> Morrıs, H. and Parker,G.E. What is Creation Science? Master Book Publishers. California. 1982. Trns. Â.Tatlı, Keha,E., Marangoz, C., Solak, K. and Ha­senekoğlu, İ.  Yaratılış Modeli. Millî E. Bakanlığı Basımevi. Ankara. 1985.

2 Fault, H. Age of Rocs, Planets and Stars. NewYork. McGraw-Hill  Book. Co. Inc. 1966, p.61.

3 Kıeth, M.S. and Anderso, G.M. Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Tesults with  Mollusc Shells. Science, August, 16. A. 634, 1963; Libby,W.F.Radiocarbon Dating. Universty of Chicago Press.1955, p.7;Lingelfelter, R. E. Production of C-14 by Cosmic & Ray Neutrons. Reviews of Geographics. 1963, Vol. 1. p.51;37. Suess, H.E. Secular Vanations in the Cosmic Ray Pro­duced Carbon-14 in the Atmosphere and their In­terpretations. Journal of Geophysical Research. 1965, Vol.7. p.594. 

4 For more information; Tatlı, A. Evrim ve Yaratılış. Nesil Yayınları. İstanbul, 2007.

Certainly, it is the necessity of intelligence of man to be interested in his past. It is very normal for him to try to find out from where and how he came to the world. However, how will he solve those kinds of questions and what will be his criterion to evaluate the documents about this subject? Is reason alone adequate to answer those questions?

To clarify this subject, it is necessary to know the functioning principles of reason first. Reason passes the information received by organ of senses through the filter of logic to evaluate and interpret events. The effectiveness fields of sense organs are limited as their tasks are different from each other. Can we hear all sounds by our ears? No! We can only receive the sounds whose vibrations are between 20 and 20.000. In fact, eyes can distinguish only some lights with definite wavelengths. If we rotate a circle with seven colors speedily, we see the white color. When the white color is separated into the spectrum, we see it as seven colors. Thus, eyes may be mistaken. Another example; when we immerse our hand into warm water after we take it out of hot water, we conclude that that water is cold. However, in reality, the water is warm.

Actually, it is neither the eye, nor the hand that is mistaken here. The brain comes to a judgment based on the information received from sense organs. That is, it is the brain that is mistaken in both cases.

Reason makes evaluation by the methods of induction and deduction and comes to a judgment for any issue. That judgment may not be a real judgment because evaluation judgments that reason will bring up may change as the materials that the organs of sense give to reason change later. Information received from the organs of sense which have limited effectiveness fields will be certainly insufficient. Can it be expected from reason to make sufficient judgments with insufficient knowledge? Therefore, science is defined as Value judgments whose incorrectness may be proved momentarily by many people.

The knowledge about the transferring of images and sounds 150 years ago was seriously less than the knowledge today. According to the knowledge at that time, it was judged that images could not be transferred. Therefore, the values of judgments reason brings up changes in parallel with the knowledge achieved from the surroundings.

Then, we should bring up such a judgment about the creation of the first man that that judgment would not change according to time and place. That is, it should be a real judgment.

To what extent can reason comprehend the creation? Answering that question correctly will half facilitate the solution of the issue.

The field that reason can penetrate is definite and limited. The problems outside that field and the problems which reason cannot find out alone constitute the subjects of metaphysics.

Thus, one of the metaphysic subjects that is outside the penetration field of reason is creation. It gets more difficult when the subject is the creation of the first man. The conclusion reason can make alone here will have a big portion of mistake. Reason cannot proceed alone in this field. If it does, it is unavoidable for it to make erroneous conclusions because, the perception field of reason, which is a comprehension tool, is limited and narrow. Therefore, reason needs Divine declarations and judgments, that is, it needs a universal reason. And that reason is the Noble Quran.

Some people who wanted to find out the creation only by relying on reason emerged with a big uproar, but what was the result? They entered the dead-end street in the end. They have claimed that man came into existence by the evolution of some kinds of animals coincidentally and this opinion became a doctrine, a philosophy in our age. It has gained many supporters as Evolution philosophy. Some ardent supporters of this philosophy took the issue forward till evolution became a system of belief in their hands. Intellectuals who did not believe in evolution were excommunicated by those circles of science. Was it in the Middle Ages? No! It happened in the twentieth century.
Let us state right now that evolutionists accept evolution, not creation. According to them, by modification of a single cell, millions kinds of living beings living today emerged. Man was among those, of course, and he got his share from that modification.

How did those modifications happen? Who did them? According to evolutionists, answers of those questions are quite simple. According to them, that differentiation happened by coincidence. They tell that it took place over a long period of time. For instance; how long? That time is such a long period that, it is impossible to investigate it. Let us suppose that you reveal that the modification they claim did not take place during the time they assert, and then they refer you to other histories.

Evolutionists cannot even explain human races, let alone the emergence of new living beings. Famous evolutionist T. Dobzhansky tells the following about that issue:

Although one century has passed since Darwin, we have not been able to solve the problem concerning the origin of the different races in human species. The issue is still as complex as it was one century ago. (*)

How can a person explain profound issues such as creation of all living beings and modifications they have had by a theory which cannot even explain the origins of the races? It is understood that as we approach the evolution theory with scientific proofs, defending of that theory will be impossible.

Simpson, a famous evolutionist, tells the following about the creation of man:
Man is the only being which has the capacity and potential of comprehension in the universe. He is the work of unconscious and mindless materials. Man, who accomplished coming into existence himself, is responsible only towards himself. Man does not have a creative, controlling and determinative power in the universe. However, he is the builder and the master of himself. In this respect, man must determine and direct his fate himself.

Simpson strains the limits of reason and logic while explaining the evolution philosophy and he denies in a sentence what he tells in another sentence. Man is both accepted as the only being which has the capacity and potential of comprehension in the universe and yet it is declared that he is the work of unconscious and mindless materials. How will those unconscious and mindless materials create that conscious man? Materials do not possess comprehension and consciousness in themselves; how can they give them to man?

At the end of the paragraph, the following is stated, Man accomplished coming into existence himself. Is it possible for a person, who can only rise to his feet when he is one year old and begin to recognize his surroundings when he is 5-6 years old, to bring himself into existence from non-existence? How will man bring himself into existence while he was non-existent at the beginning?

Simpson continues his article as follows: Man does not have a creative, controlling and determinative power in the universe. But he is the builder and the master of himself. It is claimed that man did not have a power in the universe but he was his builder. How can a man who is not influential in the universe be his own builder? The earth, the sun, the moon, air, in short, the entire universe is necessary for man to be able to exist.

Simpson assigns the control of himself in uterus and even in the previous stages to man who is not given legal competence until he is 18 years old since it is thought that he cannot judge and evaluate matters correctly before then.

Hundreds of events take place even in the simplest cell in a split second. Man, who is made up of millions of cells and whose cells are changed and renewed continuously, cannot certainly be considered to be controlling himself. Are the course of hundreds of events such as functioning of the heart, processing of the nervous system, purification of the blood and the transportation and preparation of the nourishment for digestion based on mans willing? No. Those events go on with no intervention of man. Even Simpson himself is not out of that law.

The formation of beings from atoms and molecules and the administration of all events taking place in the universe may only be possible through the continuous control of a Creator with infinite knowledge and power in the universe.

L. Zuckerman, a famous evolutionist, depicts their working principles as follows: We begin with a pure scientific idea through the lights of physics and chemistry laws. However, immediately we move to the field based on syllogism and conjecture by getting far away from objective facts. We come to a conclusion about the fossil history of man through a sentimental intuition or way of explanation.

Another evolutionist, Gould, expresses his poverty by this question: Which evidences are present demonstrating the transition between forefathers and descendants? Kitts, an evolutionist anatomy professor, answers his question as follows: Despite the bright words of paleontology (the fossil science) about it has provided the evidence concerning evolution, the problems of evolutionists have not been solved yet. The most important ones are the spaces between the fossils. Transition forms between the species are needed for evolution. However, paleontology could not provide them.

A question comes to our minds: Seeing that transition forms are needed for evolution and those forms have not been found out yet, why do you still defend evolution?

The number of that kind of confessions of the evolutionists can be increased. However, if attention is paid, it will be seen there are no evidence supporting the idea of evolution that they claim. Then, why are they insistent on their opinion of evolution? The answer is one sentence; so as not to accept the Creator.

It is possible to summarize the basic philosophy of evolutionists as follows: There is an art, but no artist. There is a work of art, but no builder. There is a book, but no writer of it.

Gish expresses what the opinions and thoughts of the evolutionists are based on in the best way as the follows: The evolution philosophy is a belief system, a religion which exists in the evolutionists own opinions about the world.

Actually, the philosophy of evolution is intertwined with materialism. Gish calls attention to that issue by these words: The reason why many scientists accept evolution is that the theory explains the creation of living beings through a materialist and naturalist idea. It is because, they believe in materialism and nature. In fact, the famous evolutionist Dobzshansky says the following: Today, materialist philosophy constitutes the fundamentals of the most of the present biological sciences.

It is repeated frequently that the evolution theory is accepted by all scientists. In fact, that is a method made up and used habitually to win the discussion.

Five of the fossils set forth as the forefathers of human beings are made a subject of discussion too much. We will briefly talk about those fossils that are discussed.

1— Java Man
The being set forth as Java man consists of those parts: a half skull, a thighbone, two big and one small molar tooth.

Have those parts been found in one place and at the same time? No. They were collected from different places far away from each other between the years 1891-1898. That is, in an eight-year interval

The pictures of Java man are completely fictitious.
In the last researches performed, it came out that that skull belonged to a chimpanzee, the two big molar teeth belonged to an orangutan, and the small molar tooth and the thighbone belonged to a human.

Indeed, Dubois who had found the fossils confessed the truth in the recent times of his life and explained that the creature he had set forth as Java man was a gibbon monkey. However, what was done was done and Java man reached extraordinary state in the eyes of the evolutionists.

Java man, which we from time to time witness in secondary education books and even in high education books with a hairy face, a drawn back forehead, and a protruding nose and a chin, is not related with the truth. Then, what are those pictures and figures? They are models drawn as a figment of the imagination or the models made by hand.

2— Peking Man
This creature is claimed to consist of three molar teeth, a piece of skull and two lower jawbones. We say it is claimed because the fossils mentioned above do not exist except the two teeth. At present, there are models made by Weidenreich only with those two teeth.

It is claimed that fossils belonging to Peking man got lost. The story of getting lost of those fossils changes from narrator no narrator and nobody knows the real situation. Some evolutionists claim that those fossils found by Dr. Black between the years 1921-1928, got lost when Japan invaded Peking during the Second World War. OConnel, who worked in Peking in that time states that the Japanese did not enter there but evolutionists destroyed them themselves. According to him, the materials in their hands did not belong to a being showing the transition between a monkey and a human as claimed. The skull belonged to an orangutan caught by the hunters at that time. Evolutionists destroyed the fossils by their own hands to hide that fact.

The researches made also revealed that Peking man was not a forefather of humans subjected to evolution but a monkey like an orangutan.

If you have a look at a biology book, you will see a picture of a smooth head model or skeleton of a skull, a jawbone and teeth belonging to Peking man. Those do not reflect the truth but the being in the imagination of the evolutionist Weidrich. In fact, neither that kind of a being lived, nor its fossils were found.

3— Piltdown Man
Another being about whom volumes of books were written from the year 1912, when it was found in England, to 1960s is Piltdown man. In those books, how human beings evolved from monkeys was described in details. Those explanations could be persuasive from time to time since that fossil is the best among the existing fossils. Its skull, jawbones and teeth are complete. That fossil was found by Woodward, a curator, and Dawson, a medical doctor, and it was stated that it had lived 500 thousands years ago.

After the year 1955, when that fossil was subjected to the fluorine test, it came out that it was not as old as it was claimed, but it was very new. By a detailed investigation performed on the fossil later, it was understood that the material in hand was fake. It was such a fake that the skull and the teeth belonged to a human and the jawbone belonged to a 10-year-old orangutan monkey. Those human teeth had been filed to fit the monkeys jawbone. That was not all. The skull bone and the jawbones had been stained by potassium dichromate to give them the image as if they had belonged to older ages and they had been buried into a pit near Piltdown region secretly, of course in order to take out of that place with a ceremony.

What changed when that dishonesty came into light? Virtually, nothing. People that had made that dishonesty had died. Nobody undertook the responsibility. The people introducing those fossils into the scientific world began searching for new fossils favorable for their desires in Africa and Australia again. From time to time they claim that they have found fossils belonging to the forefathers of humans. I do not know if it is necessary to wait 40-50 years again to realize that those fossils are not connected with humans ancestors.

4 — Nebraska Man
One of the fossils suggested to be the ancestor of humans by the evolutionists is Nebraska Man. He was put forward by H. F. Osborn in Tennessee in 1922. What was the evidence concerning that creature? Only one molar tooth. It was claimed that that tooth belonged to the Prehistoric man supposed to have lived about one million years ago. William Bryan attracted all vehement criticism when he stated that there must be no hurry in coming to a decision about the ancestor of humans only with a molar tooth. The evolutionists accused him of being reactionary. However, after some years, it was proved through detailed searches that the tooth had belonged to a pig.

5 — Hong Kong Man
That man has a strange anthropological story, too. Von Koenigswald, purchases some fossil teeth from a Chinese shop. He separates three of them and puts them aside. Weidenreich also helps him in that research. Eventually, they decide to determine a fossil man based on those three teeth. That man also needs a name. It is also found as Hong Kong Man. (*)

In conclusion, it can be said that the opinion that living beings emerge from each other in chains is inconsistent, and entirely superficial and subjective. Claims about the background of human beings are also similar. They have no scientific evidence and consistency. Moreover, the fact that the dishonesty of the evolutionists has been disclosed today have also upset their credibility deeply.

As it is seen, all living beings and especially human beings have been created in the most perfect form directly.

One of the points the evolutionists go wrong is considering that all animals and humans consist of only organs such as eyes, ears, nose, etc. While claiming that one species came into existence from another one, their feelings and emotions must also be taken into consideration.

A body is like a dress of a living being. The body of every living being is suitable to its spirit and feelings. A sheep has a spirit suitable to its body and a lion has a body suitable to its spirit.

A sheeps spirit is fond of grass. Can we change its feelings by attaching it a lions paws? Even if we change its body members entirely, yet it will still remain as a tame sheep running after some grass as long as we do not change its spirit.

A human is the same. His body is his spirits cloth, too. There is a complete harmony between his body and his spirit. There is a feeling of writing in man. His hands are suitable for that feeling in a way that he can hold a pencil to write.

As it is seen, claiming that the physically and spiritually perfect human body has come into existence through the evolution of some kinds of animal-like bodies is again inconsistent from that point of view.

In the West, a great campaign in favor of the evolution theory is carried out. I think, to what extent that campaign is carried out will be somewhat understood through the following examples.

A. N. Field, a leading biologist, gives place to the following thoughts in his treatise called The Evolution Hoax Exposed" which he published in 1971:
That evolution is a proved event is repeated in every chance It is known that the evolution theory is carried out by a network under the guise of science.

The expressions of Thomas Dwight, a famous anatomy professor, are also quite outstanding. Read what he says:
The dictatorship established about the evolution issue has become so despotic that people outside cannot guess. It does not only influence our thinking system, but also perpetuates a tyranny that surpasses the ages of the terror. I wonder how many of the leaders of the science world can explain their sincere thoughts about that issue.

The paleontologist Merson Davis, a member of the England Loyal Club, writes the following in one of the publications of the Victoria Institute in 1926:
Nowadays, opposing evolution does not make people earn money as other people also state I wonder how many people are informed about the words of the famous European zoologist Fleischmann expressing that evolution cannot be accepted scientifically. Nobody opposed Fleischmann directly. However, he was condemned covertly and he was caused to be forgotten in a short time. Scientists hide themselves by not declaring their opinions about that issue when they face events like that.

In 1928, Paul Shorey stated the following opinions in the Atlantic Monthly published in America:
Nothing is as sacred as EVOLUTION not only in the newspaper editorial rooms but also in all universities in North America. It is not possible to criticize it. A professor can talk against Christianity, the USA constitution, George Washington, women rights, marriage or private property freely. However, he can never talk against evolution. It is deemed as intolerance and reaction.

I think everybody knows Sir Ambrose Fleming. That person had discovered the thermo ionic radio lamb which provides radio transmissions. He took place in the action of protesting evolution that was organized in England in 1934 and he asked permission from BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) administration to read a text disproving evolution on the radio. However, the director of BBC, C. A. Siepmann, refused that offer. Here is his reason:

Not broadcasting such kinds of broadcasts is a general policy of BBC in order to be able to ensure the supports of most of the leading scientists in the country.

That oppression on behalf of the evolution caused the famous biologist Prof. Sir William Batenson to become weary of life. Batenson expressed that there is no evidence supporting evolution in the congress of the American Scientific Progression Union held in Toronto. However, facing upsetting and continual protesting of his colleagues because of his thought he put forward objectively, drove him to a big hopelessness and he left his profession in the end.

Douglas Dewar, a world famous evolutionist, wrote a book supporting evolution called Self-formation of the Species in 1912. His book was also recommended by President Roosevelt. Dewar widened his researches after that publication more and he examined India birds in a detailed way. In the end, he came to the conclusion that species would not change by instantaneous mutations and he rejected the evolution theory. After that, he published his book called Human Being, Special Creature. He states the following in one section of his book:

Very few people realize the importance of the taking the possession of the media by evolutionists. Today articles rejecting the evolution can be published in very few journals. Even most of the religious journals are possessed by modernists having the opinion that human beings have come from animal species Generally, editorial offices of the journals know the evolution as a proved event and they accuse everybody opposing evolution of ignorance or insanity The scientific journals, almost all of which are published by evolutionists, do not want to publish even an article that will overshadow the evolution concept. Publishers will not publish a book, opposing evolution, that will cause them to receive assaults or that will not be in demand even if the expenses of the printings are met by the writer They think that their publishing house will loose esteem. So, the public knows only one side of the issue. Someone from the public knows the evolution as a proved fact like the law of gravity.

We hope that bigotry in the West will not last long.

The main objective of most of the people defending evolution is to place the sophistry that human beings came from monkeys in the minds. Since they do not tell that directly, they try to prove it by putting the evolution theory forward under the guise of science.

A question like that may come to the mind: Why is it claimed insistently that human beings came from monkeys? That question may have several answers.
The first and the most important one is: in order to spread the philosophy of materialism and unbelief all over the world by devastating beliefs. Both in the Quran and in the other heavenly books like the Gospel and the Torah, it is informed that the first forefather of the human beings is Adam. And it is also stated that he was created out of dust. Consequently, one of the ways to devastate the religious belief is suggesting the philosophy going against that heavenly belief.

What is evolution? What are the pieces of evidence it puts forward? What is the theory? What are the thoughts that are for or against that theory? Young peoples minds, which are not at the stage of comprehending and seeking the answers to those questions, are under the bombardment of the philosophy of evolution in all school subjects from biology to history.

The opinion of the evolution philosophy especially concerning the past of the human beings is inculcated continually as if it is a law under the guise of science. Moreover, it is necessary not to forget that after telling the evolution, the sophistry that religion and evolution contradict each other is added instantly. Perhaps that young person will never find the opportunity to learn that in reality, religion and science do not contradict each other but the figment of imagination the evolution philosophy tries to put forward contradicts religion.

Another reason of some other peoples supporting evolution is their feeling of evasion from responsibility. The acceptance of the creation entails the existence of a Creator. Then, after accepting the Creator, it will be necessary to obey His commands and prohibitions. The only way to avoid from that responsibility is to assign the creation to coincidence and causes.

(*) For more information: Fossils and Evolution, Translation, Â. Tatlı, Cihan Publications, 1984.
(**)For more information: Şişli, N. et al. General Biology, MEB publications, 1979, Ankara.

It is claimed by evolutionists that the genetic similarity between man and apes is 98%; thus, they try to establish a connection between apes and man in terms of evolution based on it. That claim has no scientific basis. The claim that the genes of man and apes are 98% similar was made up by evolutionists many years ago and has been used as a slogan since then. The similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and the chimpanzee is put forward as evidence for that claim.

There are about 100 thousand proteins in man. That 40 of them are similar does not prove that man and apes are 98% similar. Such an approach is not scientific; its aim is to make propaganda. Besides, the DNA similarity of those 40 proteins is also controversial.

Even if the similarity is 98% as it is claimed, an evolutionary connection between them cannot be established because species has particular genetic codes.

Moreover, basic proteins are common vital molecules present in all living things. Therefore, there are many similarities among living things in terms of those structures because all living things consist of the same molecules. Therefore, it is quite normal that the basics of the genetic structures are similar. That the basic structures are similar is not evidence for evolution but for the fact that the Master of all living things is the same and that they are created based on the same plan. As a matter of fact, there is a 75 % similarity between the DNAs of nematode worms and man. (1)

It does not mean that the similarity between man and worms is 75%. Even if the difference of genetic structure between two species of living things is 1%, that difference means those two species have completely different features. Another important issue to be taken into consideration here is the fact that a gene in the bodies of living things affects more than one feature. In other words, one feature is controlled by more than one gene. (2)

Apes are not the only animals that resemble man. Apes resemble man more than other living things in terms of anatomic structure, horses in terms of intelligence, parrots in terms of talking, bees in terms of art, ants in terms of social life, and penguins in terms of compassion they show to their youngs. Besides, what differentiates man from other living things is not the anatomic structure or some features only. The most remarkable features of man is his ability to reason, to think, to have conscience, to judge, his imagination, memory, love, speech, thought and belief.

Evaluation

We cannot understand what the person who proposes that there is a similarity between man and ape in terms of two chromosomes wants to learn from the people who advocates creationism. What does it show us that some chromosomes of different beings are partly similar?

- That living things emerged coincidentally?

- That all living things emerged as a chain coincidentally?

- All living things are a result of unplanned and random actions and disorder?

What the creationists claim is as follows:

- Things exist and they are artful.

- They emerge in a planned way, not coincidenatally.

- Many aims and reasons are present in that emergence.

- They accept the existence of a Creator, who creates all those living things as easily as He creates atoms and who is Almighty. Such a Creator can create whatever and however he wishes. If He wishes and deems it necessary, he will create a horse out of a dog and a dog out of a horse.

However, what the creationists ask coincidentalists and those who accept nature as god is this:

“You claim that living things emerged from one another in chains and that the first living thing emerged from a single cell coincidentally. However, you have no evidence to prove your claim. Besides, does a species or even each individual not come from a single cell today?"

The similarities that are put forward are not enough scientifically at all to make a generalization that millions of species emerged from one another coincidentally. However, if the issue is dealt with ideologically and the duty of godhead is attributed to nature, then, there is not much to say about the issue.

A person who attributes the duty of godhead to nature will probably say this thinking about his own existence:

“The Creator created me out of nothing; He gave me eyes from a cell and placed my ears. He made my heart and kidney from a single cell and gave me the appearance of a nice human being. He caused me to come to the world. He loved me so much that he did not leave me unattended. If he had done so, I would be a baby now. He always renewed my body and fed me so that I would grow up and become an adult. He made me grow up in such a way that all of my inner and outer organs were always in proportion. Otherwise, if one of my arms, feet or eyes had remained in the same size as I was born, it would have been very distressful for me.

"My Creator gave me life, which is not present in elements. He adorned my life with the feelings of mind, imagination, memory, love and compassion. He provided me with all of them."

"What does the Being who created me and likes me so much want from me? How can I thank Him for all those bounties?"

"Will my God fulfill my desires that reach the eternity and my wish to be and to live together with people I love eternally? I would like to know about it." Then, he will go on and say,

“The Creator, who made me like this out of a single cell and who renews and recreates trillions of my cells each moment, definitely creates whatever and however He wants.”

1 Karen Hopkin, "The Greatest Apes", New Scientist, 15 May 1999, p. 27.

2 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books Ltd., London, 1985, p. 145.

Language is an instrument, which speaks of the ideas produce of mind and heart and conveys the feelings of the spirit. For instance, just like a house, that does not have a door and windows, mind without eye and tongue is useless. Because, just as eye being the window of a spirit that opens out, ear being the receiver of mind; mouth and tongue are the exit doors of meanings that come out as utterances. According to this, claiming that first humans did not have the ability to speak is accepting that they were in great depression and their minds were given to them as a curse.

We read in the Holy Quran that Hazrath Adam who assumed a title of being the first man by speaking of the objects that were thought him by Allah (swt) Almighty became superior to Angels. 2.31. (Having brought him into existence, God) taught Adam the names, all of them. Then (in order to clarify the supremacy of humankind and the wisdom in their being created and made vicegerent on the earth), He presented them (the things and beings, whose names had been taught to Adam, with their names) to the angels, and said, "Now tell Me the names of these, if you are truthful (in your praising, worshipping, and sanctifying Me as My being God and Lord deserves).2.33. (In order to demonstrate the superiority of humankind more clearly, God) said: "O, Adam inform them of these things and beings with their names." When he (Adam) informed them with their names, He said (to the angels), "Did I not tell you that I know the unseen of the heavens and the earth, and I know all that you reveal and all that you have been concealing?"(Al-Baqarah Surah, 2:31, 33) In addition, it is known that Hazrath Adam who is the first prophet at the same time announced the first ten pages of the divine orders to his children, which he had by the divine revelation.

Humans are the respondents of Allah Almighty (swt); both first one and last one are the recipients of His favors.

On the other hand, the capability of the tongue voices the divine Mights greatness. Just as Quran puts it, And among His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the diversity of your languages and colors. Surely in this are signs indeed for people who have knowledge (of the facts in creation and who are free of prejudices). (Ar-Rum Surah, 22)

If that is so, humans have never left destitute of speaking, have never been dumb. However, the numbers of the first humans were as few as a small family and the means of their language was in direct proportion with their time and needs.

Finally, claiming that every language in the world today is left us from Hazrath Adams children is quite inadequate. As time passed, some languages derived from one proto-language, dialect varieties became different languages. For instance, there are two hundred million Turkish speakers today. However, living in different countries, surrounded by different cultures and environments made those dialects considered as different languages, such as Kazakh, Turkish, Turkmen, and Uighur. It can be said the same thing for European (Romance) languages such as French, Italian which their ancestral language is Latin.

Prof. Dr. Âdem Tatlı 

Logical positivist thought, which regards religious and metaphysical doctrines in philosophy as meaningless, has dominated over the world of science since nineteenth century. Positivism put forward by August Comte, the founder of this philosophy, on the one hand is a philosophy of sciences and on the other hand politics and religion. According to Comte, positivism is the only real religion that has been assigned to suppress all of the incomplete and transitory systems¹.

            Doubtlessly, it is not possible to say that all of those who share the same positivist thought system follow the religion of Comte. However, they all agree on denying the other religions. Murtaza Korlaelçi states it as follows:

                  “Positivism is a philosophical system whose followers are  characterized by their agreement on denial rather than the similarity of their doctrines , without having to accept the same belief”².

            The scientific understanding of positivism is expressed by the following words of Ernest Renan. Their approach is that religion will be replaced by science. He says,

                  “One day the humanity will no longer believe but know. As the humanity knows the physical world now, there will be a day in the future when the humanity will know the metaphysical and spiritual world”³.

            Jacques Maritain, who regards it both possible and necessary to extend the concept of being scientific so as to include theology too, calls science to make peace and harmonize with theology by surpassing the rigid framework. According to him, theology also has a base as sound as science⁴.

We see a similar approach in Copleston. He thinks that theology complements science in understanding and explaining the universe. According to him, the individual explanations of the phenomena are not sufficient to understand the universe. A sufficient explanation is one that that covers everything wholly and that does not need much addition. Such an explanation can be expected from metaphysics not science. Sciences, whether they are considered individually or as a whole, can only examine certain aspects of the features of the reality. The domain of science is limited. Many problems related to life are outside this domain. For instance, psychology, which is a science related to man, examines our behavior and the “psychological” processes. The subject of anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, etc is related to the structure and functions of the organism. Anthropology, sociology and social psychology deal with man, beliefs, customs, traditions and habits, and lifestyles. Even if we evaluate all of those studies together, we cannot say that we have been able to analyze man from all aspects by penetrating into his “real nature”. According to Copleston, man has a nature, an entity and a problem of meaning that cannot be reached through scientific method. What is hidden inside this nature can only be explained by the concept of God. Similarly, if the relationship between the entity that is called the world and God cannot be established, the world has no meaning or an understandable nature in itself⁵.

As it is seen, it is not sufficient to understand the universe and man through cause and effect relationship in science. Holistic thought is necessary in order to be able to understand the nature of life and the purpose of the creation of man. It is possible only through metaphysical thought. In fact, man is always within the metaphysical world with his thoughts and evaluations. Süleyman Hayri Bolay states it as follows:

“Events cannot be reduced to the events that can be explained by physical system and mathematical terms only. The studies of metaphysicians and scientists on the phenomena are not the same things. For instance, in Mariotte’s law, an engineer is interested in the application of the law to an event and it is enough for him; however, a metaphysician is interested in the whole event. He tries to understand the meanings of the events wholly within their concrete complexity based on reality. Therefore, a unitarianistic metaphysics based on reality is always necessary. Man cannot give up such metaphysics, thinking about the universe, time-place, matter-spirit-life, destiny-doom of man, Allah, who is the basis of goodness, the cause and principle of all reality. Man cannot be satisfied with relative things; he needs to surpass the personal things and reach the Absolute and to understand the one that exists unconditionally, that is the unshakable foundation of the universe and the essentials of life and reach Him ”⁶.

Thus, the thoughts and evaluations put forward by man in order to understand the nature of the universe and to know the creation of his purpose cannot be considered independently from metaphysics. A holistic thought is necessary in order to place the limited knowledge acquired by experiments or experience somewhere in terms of the whole universe and the future of man. When it is ignored, the studies carried out about the past of man and the structure of the universe, the data that were acquired will look like searching treasure with closed eyes under the sea. Everybody who will dive into the sea in order to get the jewels that are very different from each other in terms of shape and structure will come up with some jewels and claim that all of the jewels under the sea are the same shape and structure as the ones he has acquired. However, the holistic thought will describe the nature, shape and the structure of each being there truly like a diver who dives into the sea with open eyes.

Richard Dawkins, the evolutionist biologist, states with a materialistic approach that when the universe is viewed in a way that is far away from the compassion and mercy of God, everything seems meaningless and to consist of chaos as follows:

“There is no system, purpose, good or bad in the universe that we observe. Everything is blurred and consists of ruthless disregard. DNA neither feels nor knows anything. That is what DNA is and we are dancing accompanied by its music^”7.

Francis Crick, who is one of the discoverers of DNA, thinks that man consists of the piles of atoms without heeding his mental and emotional world:

“You are nothing other than the sum of neurons”⁸.

If the spiritual and emotional world of man is not taken into consideration, and if he is examined with a materialistic approach as a living organism that consists of molecules only and that has emerged as a result of a coincidence, that will the point to be reached. It is because the being that is examined as man consists of the cells viewed under the microscope and the law of physics and chemistry that are valid in those cells. They have neither spirits, nor feelings nor thoughts as Dawkins states. However, man is not like that. He is a being that thinks, understands, reasons, feels sorry, imagines and rejoices. Furthermore, he has certain responsibilities and liabilities. He does not belong to this world only; he is a candidate for another eternal realm and he is a traveler heading there.   

Steven Weinberg also claims that science shows that the universe is meaningless⁹.

According to Nursi, this universe is not meaningless. It is the perfect book of Allah containing many wisdoms and purposes; there is a book in each of its lines, there is a line in each of its letters. All sciences try to interpret, understand and explain that book of the universe. One page of that book of the universe is the earth. Thousands of living and non-living beings have been recorded in it. Man is like a single letter in that book. The science of medicine and biology is engaged with examining and explaining each dot of that letter¹⁰. 

            Both Kant and Nursi deal with the purpose of the creation of man. According to them, if the reason why man was sent to the world were to reach happiness, then man would be equipped with the feelings that animals had. Instincts would be enough for him. As a matter of fact, animals are very easy and peaceful in this sense. Their instincts lead them to the necessary places. Animals have neither the anxiety of sins nor the fear of death. However, man has the mind along with instincts. According to him, the mind does not lead man to happiness because the pains that come from the past, the anxiety of the future and the fear of death prevent man from being happy in the world. Then, man cannot have been sent to this world only to be happy. According to them, the purpose of his existence in the world is to know the Creator, to read the book of the universe and to fulfill his duties based on the law of ethics¹¹.

            It is a great deficiency that science does not aim at understanding the behavior and style of thinking of man in terms of its method and purpose. Attracting attention to the view of Kant regarding the issue, Ahmet Arslan states the following:

                  “According to Kant, man is not a being that has the need of knowing only. He also does deeds. Deeds, and ethics that deals with deeds necessitate our belief in the existence of the spirit, freedom and immortality and demands it. Those concepts may be insignificant for science but they are indispensable values for ethics”¹².

            The positivist philosophy and religion of Comte has been dominant over the world of science for about one hundred and fifty years. It is time people reviewed this philosophical approach and what it gained the mankind. The mankind must no longer be obliged to suffer from the religion of Comte.

             Limiting the framework of the science only with phenomena based on experiments and insisting on it in order to settle the positivist religion and ethics put forward by positivism have contributed to the mankind very little.

According to Arslan, many philosophers support the view that the behavior, thought and cultural values of man need to be included in the scientific category in order to be able to understand the nature of man better; and they appreciate its importance. Stating that the religion and ethics of science that Comte wanted to realize did not come true, Arslan makes the following evaluation:

            “Various schools of philosophy or philosophers that oppose the views of scientists or philosophers of science have objected to the imposition of “Either science or nothing”; they have attracted attention to the fact that man is not a being that knows and has the need of knowing only as Kant pointed out justifiably. They have insistently reminded that ethics and natural philosophy are not meaningless fields at all... They have underlined that the attempt of Comte to establish a “positivist religion” and a “positivist ethics” is a “dream” that will never be realized, that will have never been realized and that does not need to be realized. Today, most of the reasonable philosophers agree that the scientific examination of the behavior of man has an important role and advantage in understanding the basic cultural-human activities like religion, art and ethics”¹³.

Footnotes:

1-Larousse du XXe Sicle, Volume 5, Positivisme item; Comte, A. 

 Systéme Politique, Tome II, p. 62. Quoted by: Murtaza Korlaelçi.

 Pozitivizmin Türkiye’ye Girişi. Hece Yayınları, Ankara, 2002, p. 17.

2-Korlaelçi, M. Pozitivizmin Türkiye’ye Girişi. Hece yayınları, Ankara, 2002, p. 18.

3-Renan, E. Bilimin Geleceği. Çev. Ziya İhsan. C. 1, İstanbul, 1951, p.16.

4-Maritain, J. A New Approach to God.  Our Emergent Civilization . Ed.

R.N. Anshen, Harper and Brothers, New York, 1947, Chapter XIV.

5-Russell, B. and Copleston F.C. The Existence of God - A Debate," ve "A. J,  Ay er and F.C.

Copleston: Logical Pozitivizm-A Debate," A Modern Int. to  Philosophy, Ed.s P. Edwards

and Arthur Pap, The Free Press, New York, 1965, Chapters V and VIII.

6. Bolay, S. H. Felsefî Doktirinler ve Terimler Sözlüğü. Akçağ Yayınları,7thimpression,1997, p. 165.

7-Dawkins, R. Rise out of Eden. New York: Basic Books, 1995, p. 133.

8-Crick, F. The Astonishing Hypothesis : The Scientific Search for the Soul.

New York: Scribner, 1994, p. 3.

9-Weinberg, S. Dreams of a Finel Theory. New York: Pantheon, 1992, p. 255.

10. Tatlı, Â. İnsanlık Tarihi, Boyunca Evrim. Ufuk Yayınları. İstanbul, 2010.

11-Copleston, A History of Philosophy Volume 7, Burns and Dates, Wellvood, 1999, p. 378;

12-Arslan, A. Felsefeye Giriş. Adres Yayınları. Ankara, 2005, p. 47-47.

13-Arslan, A. Felsefeye Giriş. Adres Yayınları. Ankara, 2005, p. 60-62.

The alteration that occurs on chromosomes and  the genes on the chromosomes is called “mutation”. Mutations, which might occur in natural circumstances, may also brought forth by means of artificial experiments. Chemicals, X rays and cosmic rays play a role in it. Mutations are divided into two sub-groups as “gene and chromosome mutations”. 

In sexual reproduction of organisms, sperm and ovule play their parts.  Those two cells combine and produce one-celled zygote. It brings forth the multi-celled organism by developing. The number of chromosomes in the sperm and ovular cells halves before they combine. Thus, when two cells whose number of chromosome have halved combine, the number of chromosomes of this new organism remains unchanged and fixed.  Reduction of the number of chromosomes by half in male and female cells before insemination takes place in plants, animals and in human bodies in the same way as a law. 

Mutation is the alteration which occurs in the genetic constitution of an organism. This might occur on chromosomes or on genes. The alteration on chromosomes occurs in the number of chromosomes or in their constitution. The number of chromosomes of each organism is fixed. The alteration of the number of chromosomes might take place as an increase or a decrease.  For example, in a plant which has 40 chromosomes, this number can change in some individuals due to such reasons as inappropriate division of chromosomes during reproduction or their misreplacemet. For instance, it might become 41 or 42, or 39 or 38. Individuals that have such abnormality of numeric change of chromosomes will not have a healthy life. Most of the time their generations do not continue, and generally such changes cause abnormalities and even death of organisms. 

Another change might occur as an increase in the number of chromosomes exact number of times or half. During the reproduction process of a plant having 40 chromosomes, the number of chromosomes needs to halve while generating pollens and ovule because, when pollen which represents male individual and ovule merge, the number of chromosomes needs to remain fixed as 40. During this reduction by half of chromosomes in a cell, this reduction can be obstructed by interference. As this reduction by half can be made in ovule, it also can be achieved in a sperm cell or in both. In this case, this results in production of individuals with 60 or 80 chromosomes instead of 40. Such increase of chromosomes does not kill the individuals. Their generations continue as well. Such type of chromosomal change is called useful mutation. This method is applied especially in taming plants and animals. For example, corns whose number of chromosomes has increased two or four times, have bigger cobs and larger-grains in comparison to normal individuals. In the same way, in order to improve milk and meat production, similar applications are carried out on animals. 

Mutations apart from this are harmful and usually mortal whether they take place in genes or in the structure of chromosomes. It is possible to encounter different viewpoints which are in favor of or against the hypothesis that in time, mutations brought forth different diversity of organisms which are present today from one ancestor. Whatever the reason, some scientists accept mutations as “raw material for natural selection and “ a prominent factor for evolution” no matter what the reason is (1).

Dobzhansky, a well-known evolutionist, attributes all these changes to mutation and says:

“If all the things have been sprung up from one organism, all organic differences must occur by means of mutational changes” (2) 

Ernst Mayer makes a similar statement:

“Mutation is the final source for the  genetic variations which exist in natural populations”. (3)

Waddington claims that mutations which occur randomly are the only cause for differentiation and states it as follows:

“We do not know any other way other than mutations which randomly occur for the occurrence of new variations related to heredity. These facts have not changed yet.” (4)

However, there are also many scientists who state that mutations do not provide sufficient evidence for evolution. Among them, Ayala puts forth this statement:

“We predict that the frequency of mutations in higher organisms changes from one per ten thousand to one per million for a single gene.” (5)

Muller expresses this view:

“More than %99 of mutations is definitely harmful. This is all that is supposed to come out of random events.” (6)

The evolut,onist Huxley also points out that mutations are destructive and lethal:

“Rarely is one useful mutation encountered out of a thousand of them. However, even this rate is a success because most of the mutations are lethal and some are destructive.” (7) 

A number of different experiments have been carried out on bacteria especially in recent years. The effects of heat, drought, lyophilization, electricity, high pressure and various chemicals on bacteria have been researched. In conclusion, it has been observed that no new species came out by means of mutations in different environmental circumstances. (8)

Bacteria are the organisms which undergo mutation the most frequently. Especially the bacterium, Echerichia coli divides once in twenty minutes. A great amount of bacteria have been produced as a result of experiments which have been carried out in the last 50 years. Furthermore, the number of bacteria produced in these 50 years is much more greater than the number of any species of animal which have survived for 100 millions of years so far.  If a change of species due to mutation could have occurred, such change of species would have been definitely observed on these bacteria.

Institute of Medical Physics and Palynology in the University of Geesser points out that there is no difference between bacteria which existed 500 millions of years and the bacteria which are present today. (9) 

In fact, it is frequently pointed out that it is impossible to explain the form of evolution which is coordinated and has been proceed in a certain direction with randomly and irregularly occurring mutations. (9-10)

Moor states that changes which may occur due to mutations cannot exceed the limits of species and says:

“Mutations are the changes which occur in any species of living organisms and which cannot exceed the limitations of species. Groups of macro-organisms can be explained by neither change of polyploidy nor change of chromosomal order.” (12) 

Stephen Gould, a well-known evolutionist, states that a new species cannot be reproduced by mutation:

“A mutation cannot produce a new DNA. For this reason, it is impossible to generate new species by mutating species.” (13)

Gordon Taylor, a geneticist and evolutionist, admits the failure of experiments of mutation to provide evidence for evolution and says:

“ For sixty years, geneticists from all around the world have been trying to produce fruit flies to prove evolution. However, they have not observed an occurrence of a species nor an enzyme.” (14)

Conclusion

Useful mutations are the ones which occur as an increase of number of chromosomes in exact number of times. This method is applied in taming plants and animals, production of larger fruits and improvement of milk and meat production. However, it is impossible to reproduce new and different species out of these. Duplicating the number of chromosomes of a corn brings forth larger-grained and bigger cobbed corns and the  corn still remains a corn and the corn does not produce beans. 

Footnotes:

1. Demirsoy, A. Kalıtım ve Evrim. Meteksan Yay. No.11. Ankara. 1984. 

2. Dobzhansky,T.Genetic of the Evolotionary Process.Colombia Uni.Press.1970,P.30. 

3. Mayer,E. Populations, Species and Evolution. Cambridge, Mass: Harward  Uni. 1970, p.102.

4. Waddington,C. H. The Nature of Life. At­heneum. New York, 1962, p. 98. 

5. Ayala, J.F. Teological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology. Philosophy of Science. 1970, Vo1:37.p.3.

6. Muller, H.J. Radiation Damage to the Genetic Ma­terial. American Scientist. 1950, Vo1.37.p.3.

7. Huxley, J.  Evolution in Action. New York.Harper Bros. 1953, p. 4l.         

8. Bilgehan, H. Genel Mikrobiyoloji ve Bağışıklık Bi­limi. Ankara. 1984.                         

9. Şengün, A. Evolusyon. İstanbul Üniv.Yayınları, İstanbul. 1971, issue. 162.

10. Akbult, Ş.  Darwin ve Evrim Teorisi. Yeni Asya Ya­yınları. İstanbul, 1980.

11. Metin,A., Fıeld, A. N. ve Moore, J. N. İlmi Ger­çekler ışığında Darwinizm. Otağ Matbaası. 1976.

12. Moor, J. On Chromosomes, Mutations and Phlo­geny. 1971. Terc. A. Metin. İlmi Gerçekler ışığında Darwinizm. Otağ Yay. 1971.                              

13. Gould, S.J. Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging? Lecture at Hobart & Wm Smith College, 4 Şubat, 1980.                                                                         

14. Taylor, G. The Great Evolution Mystery. New York. Harper , 1983, p.48.

The changes that the horse underwent during its phylogeny are given as an example to the evolution of higher organisms. According to the claim of Weller, Eohippus, known as the “primitive horse”, which lived in the Miocene Epoch, had four toes on each forefoot and three on each hind foot; all of the toes pressed on the ground when it walked ^l.

It is claimed that there were eight species of horse throughout the geological time and they are listed from the smallest to the biggest as it is seen in Figure 1 (Table l).

According to Johnson, the third toe of the horse developed while the others were gradually reduced and disappeared. It is claimed that it was because the horses ate the young branches and leaves of the trees but later began to eat grass since the pastures became dominant beginning from the Miocene Epoch.  

It is assumed that only by running fast can it be possible to be protected from the enemies in plains where the horses graze on the grassland; thus, the third toe developed and enlarged, causing the others to disappear. The toes other than the third toe atrophied and became useless and vestigial organs ².     

EVOLUTION OF THE HORSE

When the horse fossils are examined carefully, it will be seen that there is no increase in the ribs in parallel with their development in the geological eras. As it is seen in Table l, The number of ribs decreases from 18 pairs in Eohippus to 15 pairs in Orohippus; then it increases to 19 pairs in Pliohippus and then decreases again to 16 pairs in Equus.

The decrease in the number of toes is attributed to the feeding style hence running and fleeing from the enemies. 

Table l. Species of horse assumed to live on the earth throughout geological eras                   

The assumption, “If an organ is used, it will develop, and if it is not used, it will atrophy” is known as “La­marck’s Principle”. It has been understood for the last 20 years that Lamarck’s principle was based on modification, that is, the transmission of the change in somatic cells to the youngs is impossible; however, it is transmitted through a change in the gametes. Besides, through the same reasoning, it will be necessary to explain why many animals primarily rabbits that escape from their enemies did not undergo similar changes.

Wells states the following regarding the issue:

“Three years before Charles Darwin's death in 1882, Yale University paleontologist Othniel Marsh published a drawing of horse fossils to show how modern one-toed horses had evolved from a small four-toed ancestor. His drawings, which included only foot bones and teeth, were supported by the addition of the skull and the drawings of horse fossils, and quickly found their way into museum exhibits and biology textbooks as evidence for evolution”³. 

Figure l. The drawing of evolution assumed to be related to the history of the horse.  In the first row, the whole body, in the second row, the legs, in the third row, the skull and in the last row the teeth are shown with their estimated drawings.

It is disputable whether “the splint bones in the horse leg are vestigial organs” because they have some functions. According to Cousins, the functions are as follows:

1. They provide strengthening for the horse's leg.

2. They are attachment areas for several leg muscles.

3. They make a protective groove for the suspensory ligament that supports a horse's weight ⁴.

Dunouy and Goldschmidt state that the single-toed horse existed on the earth in the Mesozoic Era, 130 million years ago, that is, long before the multi-toed horse. According to them, the first multi-toed horse appeared in the Eocene, 55 million years ago and the last generation of the multi-toed horse became extinct in the Miocene, about 25 million years ago^5-7.

Boyce Rensberger, one of the evolutionist biologists, states that the scenario of the evolution of the horse has no foundation in the fossil record, and that no evolutionary process has been observed that would account for the gradual evolution of horses:

“The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Therefore, they are not transitional forms but different forms with separate structures” ⁸.

Evolutionist Colin Patterson, one of the administrators of the British Museum of Natural History, expresses a similar view:

“The exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago, which is still on exhibit downstairs, is nothing but a bad imaginary story. The evolution of the horse has been presented as ‘the great truth’ in hundreds of scientific books. However, what those people do is nothing but speculation” ⁹.

It is stated that  the fossils that the equine evolution are based on the invented sequences of fossils, set out in order of size, belonging to different life forms that lived at different times in India, North America, South America and Europe. There is no consensus regarding the issue among the evolutionists. Various researchers have proposed more than 20 different equine evolution sequences. The only thing these sequences have in common is the belief that the first ancestor of the horse was a dog-like animal known as Eohippus (Hyracotherium) that lived in the Eocene Period some 55 million years ago. However, Hitching says, “Eohippus, which is presented as the “ancestor of the horse”, is in fact identical to the animal known as the hyrax, which is still to be found in Africa today, which has nothing to do with the horse and bears no resemblance to it ¹⁰.

Gordon R. Taylor, an evolutionist, writes the following in his book, “The Great Evolution Mystery” about the sequences of horses:

“Paleontologists failed to find the fossils related to the equine sequences put forward by evolutionists. The sequence of horses is presented as the only fully worked-out example regarding evolution, but it is not so. The line from Eohippus to today’s Equus is very erratic. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time” ¹¹.

It is understood that each species of the multi-toed horses is a separate kind and that they lived in a certain period and then became extinct... The ancestors of the single-toed horses are also single-toed. 

Footnotes:

1.Weller, M. J. The Course of Evolution. New York. 1969, pp. 689.

2. Johnson,W.H., Laubenga, R. A. and De Lanney, L. E. General  Biology. Third Edition. New York. 1965, 788 pp.                                                        

3. Wells, J. Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth? Trns. Orhan Düz. Evrimin İkonları, Bilim Mi Mit Mi? Gelenek yayıncılık. Kurtiş Matbaası, İstanbul, 2003 p. 181.

4. Cousins, F.W. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 1971, Vol. 8. P. 99.        

5. Dunouy, L.Human Destiny.The New American Library. New York.1947,P.74   

6. Gish, D.T. Have You Been Brain Washed? 1983.Trns. Âdem Tatlı,  Evolusyon. 11th impression, 1986, p.19.                                                                              

7. Goldschmidt, R.B. American Scientist. 1952, Vol. 40.p.97.                          

8. Rensberger, B. Houston Chronicle, 5 November, 1980, Chapter 4, p.15.                  

9. Patterson, C. Harper’s.  February, 1984, p.60.                                                      

10. Hitching, F. The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong? New  York.Ticknor and Fields, 1982, p.30-31.

11. Gordon, R.T. The Great  Evolution  Mystery. London, Sphere Books, 1984, p.230.

click on the links given below to see the answer;

What are the viewpoints of Muslim scholars on ‘evolution theory’?

Some people try to explain the Creation by coincidence. What is your answer to them?

According to Islam, mother of all humanity is one, how does science react to this claim?

What would you say to evolutionists’ claims such as, “Dinosaurs evolved and transformed into Birds?”

Science is defined as the whole correct knowledge that has its own methods and that has been classified (Arslan, A. Felsefeye Giriş. Adres Yayınları. Ankara, 2005, p. 63 -64).

Scientific information needs to be systematic, to be able to develop by increasing, to be coherent, to allow to be checked and to be objective.  (Ural, Ş. Bilim Tarihi. Kırk Ambar  Yayınları. İstanbul, 1998, p. 13). 

What is the characteristic of scientific theory?

Scientific theory is defined as the whole knowledge and explanation that is put forward during the process of obtaining knowledge and whose validity and reliability have been determined through scientific methods and that is coherent in itself (http://www.canertaslaman,com/kitap/1.htm). 

Definition of philosophy 

Philosophy is a way of thinking and reasoning; it is not a way of doing and bringing something about. Science deals with phenomena but philosophy deals with both phenomena and values.

That is, science cannot judge and express opinions of evaluation like good-bad, right-wrong, just-unjust about the phenomena that it deals with. The right to do it belongs to philosophy. 

Scientific value of the theory of evolution 

The theory of evolution is a philosophical way of thinking that does not have scientific criteria, that is, that cannot be experimented in laboratory and that includes views that are mostly based on metaphysics. Metaphysics is defined as all kinds of philosophical thoughts whose results cannot be expressed scientifically and cannot be verified scientifically.

Although they try to give evolution a scientific appearance, it is observed that metaphysical theories are adhered to. It is not possible to avoid that metaphysical thought because as long as most of the issues like the existence of matter and the realm, the real nature of  life, the identity and attributes of the Creator are on the agenda of evolution, metaphysical approaches are inevitable. 

Hunter states that Darwin presented the thought of evolution that has existed since ancient times and that is based on metaphysics in a theological way, that is, based on an approach of faith. (Hunter, C.G. Darwin’in Tanrısı. Gelenek Yayıncılık. Çev. Orhan Düz. İstanbul, 2003, p. 195).

The strong commitment of evolutionists to the theory of evolution caused them to make all kinds of metaphysical speculations. The main evidence of evolution and their success does not originate from its scientific support but from the fact that it is against creationism. It is often put forward that evolution is the best explanation that is available. Such a claim is a judgment that is not scientific.

To accept in the first place that evolution is true and then to search scientific evidence is an act that is deliberate but not scientific. 

Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks state that evolution is not examined through a scientific method and is based on some presuppositions and say the following:

“It is not enough to say that evolution is wrong because it will be regarded as true until a better solution is found. However, science cannot be done like that. In this defense, evolution has been given a special place that does not exist in science. It is not a scientific approach to give a special place to those theories beforehand. “(Geisler, N.L. and Brooks, R. M. Come let us Reason. Grand Rapids: Bakir,  1990, p. 95-96).

Servier, a famous anthropologist points out that evolutionism has become a laic theological dogma and it is necessary to break its domination:

“Evolutionism has become a laic theological dogma. It is necessary to reject evolutionism first in order to be able to introduce new institutions and evaluations.”(Servier, J. Etnoloji. Translation: M. Ali Kayabal. İletişim Yayınları, 1992, p. 113, 124.

According to Hunter, there is a fundamental but secret theological effect in the theory of evolution. Both Darwin and modern materialist evolutionists of today use metaphysical hypotheses. (Hunter, C. G. Darwin’in Tanrısı. Gelenek Yayıncılık. Trns. Orhan Düz. İstanbul, 2003, p. 12, 15, 208).

In his book, Critique of Pure Reason, Kant states that a science is regarded as real science to the extent that it is mathematical.

According to Kant, the fact that there are very few mathematical arguments in the theory of evolution makes it disputable whether it is a scientific theory or not. (Mayr, E.  The Growth of Biological Thought. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1982, s. 862).

Bernard Russell, the famous philosopher, states that evolution is not scientific knowledge in terms of both its method and the problems it deals with:

“Evolutionism, in one form or another, is the prevailing creed of our time. Evolutionism is not a truly scientific philosophy, either in its method or in the problems which it considers” (Russell, B. Dünya Üzerine Bildiğimiz. Trns. Vehbi Hacıkadiroğlu. Alaz Yayınları. İstanbul, 1980, s. 24-25).

Hunter also states that the method of evolution is not scientific:

“Evolution is a regulatory thought that is based on non-scientific claims. Evolution refers to various science disciplines but it is not scientific itself. Therefore, a better scientific explanation cannot be expected from it.” (Hunter, C. G. Darwin’in Allah’ı. Gelenek Yayıncılık. Çev. Orhan Düz. İstanbul, 2003, p. 212).

According to Karl Popper, the distinguished philosopher of science, the criterion for being scientific is not verifiability but falsifiability. According to him, the characteristic of knowledge or a result is falsifiability. However, it cannot be said that Darwinism is suitable for such a test. It is possible to show some phenomenal data to verify Darwinism. However, the criterion for being scientific is not verifiability but falsifiability. In other words, Darwinists have not stated with what possible observation results can their theory be falsified. Therefore, Darwinism has a metaphysical structure rather than being a scientific theory.  (Popper, K. Unended Quest, Fontana-Collins, 1976, p. 171).

To sum up, this theory does not comply with scientific criteria. It is not scientific information but a philosophical way of thinking whose metaphysical aspect outweighs.

       Prof. Dr. Âdem Tatlı           

            Question:  “According to some sources, face shapes, slanting eyes, skin colors are based on the place where people live. For instance, if a community of white people go to Africa and do not marry with black people, their skin colors blacken after hundreds of years. Turks living in the hard climate of Altai-Tengri Mountains are slant-eyed but Turks living in the mild climate of Anatolia are not slant-eyed. Can this view be true?”

            Answer: The genetic traits of all living things are encoded in their genes. Genes are located in the big molecules called chromosomes.  The basic structures of chromosomes are DNA molecules that consist of acids, bases and proteins. Environmental conditions that will change or break the DNAs, which are the bases of these genetic structures, or the chromosomes, affect the genetic structure of that living thing. Those environmental conditions are either the inner structure of the living thing or the outer environment it lives in.

            To what extent a change that can happen in the genetic structure of a living thing can change the genetic structure of that living being depends on the level of the change and the genetic potential of that living thing.   

            The species of living things are dealt with as a community not as individuals. That community is called population. For instance, the community of bees is a population. Human beings are a population, too.  Therefore, the individuals in the populations have some small differences genetically. We call it the genetic potential or the gene pool of the population. There will be a gene flow among the individuals in that gene pool and as a result of some combinations, some traits that will not show their affects in the appearance will be produced. The new traits emerging in that appearance may have different reasons. They are as follows:  

            1- Some genes that are present in the genetic structure but that cannot appear because of being under the effect of the dominant trait may have been freed from that effect. The stars are present in the sky during the day but they cannot be seen due to the dominant effect of the sun. Similarly, when the effect of the sun disappears, stars become visible. Some traits are like that. When they are freed from the effect of the dominant traits, they appear.

            2- Some breaks and attachments may take place in chromosomes or genes due to the effect of the environment. In fact, the environment does not add new genetic structure to the living thing from outside. The changes in the existing gene pool make it possible.

We can clarify it by giving an example.

Suppose that the resistance dose of the bee to drug A is maximum120 units. When you give them an average of 70 units of drug A to the bees, some of the individuals of the bee population will die because although the traits that can resist the drug are present potentially in their genetic structure, they do not become active because they have never faced such an environment before. In such an environment, the traits in the genetic structures become active immediately and even if you increase the dose to 100 units, they will not be affected by it. As a matter of fact, the bee population did not acquire the resistance to that drug from that environment. Those traits, which were already present in their genetic structure, became active. If you increase the dose to 120 units, which is the maximum limit, that population will die.  

            Likewise, Allah gave each living thing including man that He created the maximum and minimum environmental conditions as a genetic potential just like that drug dose. The changes that can take place in the gene pool can be up to the maximum or minimum limits of life. When the change exceeds the limit, that living thing does not turn into a new species. It becomes extinct because it has exceeded the limit of life.      

            All of the color and race traits of man were present in the genetic structure of Hazrat Adam, the first man. During the course of the history, the tribes and groups that were separated from each other began to increase among themselves. Thus, through genetic expansions and new marriages, various color and race traits that were present in the gene pool of man became apparent in the appearance called phenotype. 

            Issues that fully interest specialists

            As a matter of fact, these issues are very special questions that interest specialists only. I think the reason why people who are not specialists are interested in the issue originates from the fact that the positivist and materialist philosophers explain the past of man through such changes. Besides, the soul tries to find a way showing that man emerged coincidentally and randomly through the evolution of other living things based on the changes in the environmental conditions. Thus, the soul wants to leave Allah out and not to obey His orders and prohibitions. However, even the movement of an atom is not out of the boundaries of the knowledge and power of Allah.  Can it be possible that the emergence of man, who is the most honorable creature, be out of His knowledge?

Denying Allah does not prevent one from going to the hereafter but to Paradise

Allah cannot be left out by ignoring Him. It is like denying the existence of the sun. A person who does not accept the existence of the sun and closes his eyes makes it a night only for himself. Denying the existence of Allah and the hereafter does not prevent one from going to the hereafter. It only prevents one from entering Paradise.  

Causes are only a pretext and a veil to Allah’s knowledge, will and power

No matter what living thing it is, no matter in which environment it lives, any changes that can take place in its body can be realized only through Allah’s knowledge, will and power. Environmental conditions are only a pretext and a veil.  The tree yields the apple and the seed yields the tree. Causes seem to produce the beings and direct them. In fact, there is a distance as far as the earth and the sky between the cause that brings about a being and that being. The distance between the sky and the mountain that seem to touch each other in the horizon is as much as the distance between the earth and the sky. As a matter of fact, the real doer behind the causes is Allah. Man intervenes in the structure of the beings consciously but he is still a cause because it is Allah who makes and renews the cells of the living things and it is also Allah who gives man knowledge, will and life, and arranges his working. 

Allah wants us and encourages us to study the book of the universe, that is, all of the beings in the universe and the laws that they are subject to, and to find out the laws and principles that are valid among the beings and how they work, with the knowledge, will and power that He gave us.  

However, we must not attribute the property of Allah to the causes and coincidence when we display them through the rules of science.

Prof. Dr. Âdem TATLI 

             There may be some differences in the interpretation of some verses of the Quran. The most important cause of it is the fact that there are some similes and metaphors in some verses. The similes in the verses are handled with their literal meanings by some people and with their non-literal meanings by others; thus, sometimes differences of interpretation contrary to each other arise. Hence, the approaches of those who adopt those different interpretations turn out to be different.   

After this short introduction, let us ask the question like this:

—Are there any verse(s) stating, or implying that man evolved from other beings or that can be interpreted like that?  

In the verses that are related to the creation of man, the creation of the first man, Hazrat Adam, is pointed out; there is no statement implying that man evolved from other beings. On the contrary, it is stated and explained that the first man was created out of the earth, that the first woman was created out of him, and that the humankind reproduced from them.

The Quran mentions about various stages of the creation. It is possible to divide it into three parts in general. The first one is the creation Hazrat Adam; the second one is the creation of Hazrat Hawwa (Eve), his wife, and the creation of other human beings. Those different creations are sometimes referred to in separate verses and sometimes in the same verse.

It is stated in the chapter al-Hijr that Hazrat Adam was created out of clay as follows:  

"We created man from sounding clay, from mud molded into shape..."[1>.

We understand from the chapter az-Zumar that Eve was created out of Adam. The meaning of the verse is as follows:

           “He created you (all) from a single person: then created, of like nature, his mate…”[2>.

In the chapter an-Nisa, the creation of Adam, the creation of Eve from him and the creation of other people from them are pointed out: 

“O mankind! Reverence your Guardian-Lord Who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, his mate and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women…”[3>.

In the verses above, it is not clearly stated how Eve was created out of Adam. However, a hadith regarding the issue clarifies the issue. The hadith is as follows:

“Treat women nicely, for the woman was created from a rib, and the most curved portion of the rib is its upper portion, so, if you should try to straighten it, it will break, but if you leave it as it is, it will remain crooked. So, treat women nicely”[4>.

In the chapter al-Muminun, the creation of Adam from clay, and stages of the creation of his descendants in the uterus are pointed out as follows: 

        "Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay); Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest firmly fixed; Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (fetus) lump; then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed out of it another creature..."[5>.

As it is seen, the stages of man beginning from the first creation are stated one by one. Besides, each person undergoes through those stages in the uterus. Therefore, it is not possible to interpret those stages as man was created in the form of other beings and underwent different stages.   

            In the chapter at-Tin, it is stated that man was created in the best form:

            “We have indeed created man in the best of moulds”[6>.

In the chapter Fatir, it is pointed out that the first man was created out of the earth and that his descendants were created out of a sperm drop:

“And Allah did create you from dust; then from a sperm-drop; then He made you in pairs…”[7>. 

If man had undergone the stages of other beings, Iblis would have mentioned those stages.

We understand that man was created directly out of the earth and that he did not undergo intermediate stages that represented other living things from the reason why Iblis did not prostrate before Adam, too. The following is stated in the verse:

"(Iblis) said: "I am not one to prostrate myself to man, whom, thou didst create from sounding clay, from mud molded into shape"[8>.

If man had undergone the stages of other living things, Iblis would probably have mentioned those stages, too, because he was in a position to prove his superiority to man. If man had undergone the stages of being a fish, frog, mouse and monkey in the past, Iblis would definitely have stated it because he was listing the aspects that he was superior to man, who was his greatest enemy, at that time.

            The discussions about the past of man are related to the period before Adam. Written history sheds light on the period of time after Hazrat Adam to B.C. 400. There is not any difference in the structure of man in that period.   

            In the Quran, the creation of man out of the earth is likened to the creation of the plant out of the earth as follows:

            “And Allah has produced you from the earth, growing (gradually)” [9>.

            It is possible to deduce the following meanings from here:

a) It is pointed out that man’s ancestor, Hazrat Adam, was created out of the earth.

b) The growth and development of man is likened to the growth of the plant from the ground because some of the elements in the body of man, who is always in a state of developing and growing, are received from the earth through food either directly or indirectly[10>.

The verses related to the creation of man in the Quran do not consist of those that we have mentioned above. However, those verses are similar in meaning. In a verse that is different from the ones above, it is stated that a group of people who did not obey the order of Allah was turned into monkeys:    

            “And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath; We said to them: "Be ye apes despised and rejected."[11>.

            God Almighty prohibited sons of Israel from working on Saturday. This incident took place in the town of Ayla when they did not obey that prohibition. There are two views about this change. The first one is that they were turned into monkeys in terms of ethics. The other one is that they were turned into the shape of monkeys. Besides, those people did not live long after this incident and died three days later. That is, the incident took place in a town (Ayla) and the people that were turned into monkeys died three days later[12>.

In conclusion, in the Quran, there is no statement showing or meaning that man was created from lower organisms. On the contrary, it is stated that man was created in the perfect form, that the first man, Adam, was created out of the earth, that his spouse, Eve, was created from Adam and that their descendants were created and developed in the uterus.

Today’s science and philosophy have some evaluations related to the past of man. Those philosophical evaluations and views are presented as if they are scientific facts and it is pointed out that the Quran supposedly contradicts science. The information put forward regarding the ancestor of man is not scientific knowledge but philosophical views and evaluations, theories and hypotheses. No one has the opportunity to test and to show the creation of the first man or the emergence of his wife in the laboratory. Therefore, all of the thoughts and views that have been or will be put forward about the past of man can be no better than theories or hypotheses.    

As it is stated by the rule, “He who does knows; he who knows talks”, the only being that can have the right to speak about the past of man is definitely God Almighty and His book, the Quran. He states that the first man (Adam) was created out of the earth, that his wife was created from him and that their descendants were created and developed in the uterus.

To sum up, it does not comply with the Quran to believe that man evolved from lower organisms. A Muslim cannot and must not have a view like that.

May God Almighty make us think properly and understand Him and the truth. May Allah not drown us in the swamp of denying divinity. Amin.

 

[1> al-Hijr, 26.

[2> az-Zumar, 39: 6.

[3> an-Nisa, 1.

[4> Bukhari, Nikah 80; Ibn Majah, Taharah 77.

[5> al-Mu'minun, 12–14.

[6> at-Tin, 4.

[7> Fatir, 11.

[8> al-Hijr, 33.

[9> Nuh, 17.

[10> Ibn Ashur, Muhammad at-Tahir, at-tahrir wa’t-tanwir. Tunis, 1984.

[11> al-Baqara, 65.

[12> Çantay, B. H. Meâlî Kerim. V.1. p.25.

Materialists people preferred to display their tricks in other fields on the grounds that they know quite well that it is rather unreasonable to attribute divinity to matter, which is unconscious, lifeless, and powerless. They started to maintain that matter is eternal. It was another form of calling matter as god. However, they maintained it as a kind of philosophy and they found many supporters who wanted to deceive themselves.

Just as evolutionists traced back the creation of human being to millions of years ago and attempted to explain the issue in the form of evolving from another animal because they realized that it is rather awkward to claim that man is created by his parents, so too did those people take man to the past as in the same trick above and tried to make him forget about his own creation by occupying him with eternality of matter. Though it was so obvious that matter is an auxiliary being, they struggled to demonstrate it as a god.


We want to quote from the Light Collection a lesson of truth which reduces all the materialists to silence: As for matter, it is the degenerated form and cannot be free from the temporary movements of happenings. Then, its hudus is certain. (Muhakemat)

Hudus is something that comes into existence later, that is to say, it has got a certain beginning.

As for hadis, it is something that has got a beginning.

The hudus of matter, namely the fact that it is created afterwards, is evident since it changes its shapes and it moves. One movement is followed by another action. That previous movement disappears because of the second action.

In the lesson of truth studied above, it has been proven that the attributes of matter are hadis. The movement is hadis; it shows that both actions are hadis if one disappears and then something new replaces it. Taking that into consideration, since matter has got these hadis features, it is necessary that matter itself be hadis as well. It is because hadis characteristics can only be found in hadis beings. This last decree has obviously been stated with the expression hudus is certain

The same thing can be said for shape. Regarding that matter changes its shape, its former figure and the form into which it turns are all hadis. Something that has got a hadis feature cannot be eternal since it is hadis. As it was created later, it is a being (creature).

As we pointed out shortly at the very beginning, the claim by materialists that matter is eternal stems from the fact that they failed to prove their assertion.

Let us think about a glass bowl. No materialist can respond to the question how the glass which is the origin of bowl took the form of the bowl.

In addition, the production of glass is another issue. The origin of glass is sand, lime and soda. They take the shape of glass after they are processed. There lies a knowledge, power and will for this course of action. Otherwise, why should these matters bother themselves for such a long and troublesome course? It is a matter of processing.

This palace of universe was created out of inanimate elements. However, the universe has moved forward, developed, expanded, spread and changed since its first formation. Then it took its present form in the end. Since all these useful and wise things cannot be attributed to lifeless matter, there is one who makes it expand, change and advance.

We need to contemplate a bit if the bricks of the past have turned into a house now, the ink of yesterday has became a book today, the motionless matters of former times have taken the shape of a car or an airplane and it is impossible to account for by reason these progresses and changes with matter being eternal used in their construction. However, this explanation is sufficient for those wishing to deceive themselves.

Nipples are present in the fetus before the gender forms. The state of the nipples is the same after birth in both boys and girls; the change starts with the secretion of different hormones in the stage of puberty. Nipples are places where there are a lot of neurons. The effect of nipples in sexual arousal in men is known.

Allah did not create anything purposelessly. That we do not know much about the issue does not mean that it is useless.

That the nipples are defined as vestigial organs remaining from the previous ancestors of man is a philosophical view; it is not scientific because the weakening of an organ because of lack of usage or the development of an organ because of usage is only a change in the cells of the body. It is not a change in the genes. Therefore, this change is not transferred to the offspring. For instance, the children of a man whose hand was cut off in a traffic accident or war are born with proper hands.

Last year, a trial about evolution was performed in Ohio State in the United States.

In the State mentioned above, when the Intelligent Design Theory also took place besides the Evolution Theory in the curriculum, the case was taken to the court. Kenneth Miller, a biologist, participated in the court with his lawyers arguing that the Intelligent Design should not be taught at schools.

The court has two stages. The first one is the scientific aspect , and the other one is the judicial aspect of the case. 

a)    The scientific aspect of the case:

1- In the Intelligent Design Theory, it is mentioned that tiny hairs have an irreducible complexity and in order to function, they must necessarily have a complex structure; they cannot have emerged by evolving individually.

In the court, Miller also mentions that there are some hairs which are one less than the existing quantity and still functioning.

2- In the Intelligent Design, attention is also attracted to the fact that it is essential for several factors to get together for blood to coagulate. It is mentioned that in case of any of the factors’ absence, human blood will not coagulate; so blood in humans cannot be a proof that it has come from less developed beings through evolution. 

Miller indicates that blood still coagulates in whales, in case of the absence of one of the blood coagulating factors in human beings.            

3- Miller mentions that monkeys who are supposed to be the ancestors of humans have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46 chromosomes. He claims that during transition from monkey to human, the two chromosomes mutated and fell into pieces and merged with the other chromosomes and thus the number of the chromosomes in human beings became 46.

4- Other proofs introduced to the court by Miller and his lawyers are approximately 50 books written by evolutionist biologists who tell that humans came into existence from lower organisms. 

Evaluation:

Miller’s claims about tiny hairs and the factors related to the coagulation of blood do not mean that there is no plan and program in tiny hairs and in the structure of blood. The essence of that theory is that everything was designed and made according to a specific plan and aim, and someone planning and making them definitely exists.

The claim that 46 chromosomes of humans emerged from 48 chromosomes of monkeys is one possibility out of infinite possibilities. Extremely different opinions and evaluations about that subject can be put forward. For example, it is also possible that human beings directly came into existence with 46 chromosomes. Accepting that claim of Miller’s as true is a prejudiced, atheistic approach.    

Besides, the number of chromosomes in living beings is not important. As more chromosomes can exist in lower organisms, there are also some higher organisms having the same number of chromosomes.  The basic thing is the essence of the chromosomes; in other words, the genes forming the chromosomes and the chemical components constituting the genes.  The characters controlling the genes are important. Let alone having the same number of chromosomes, even if a gene is different, great differences between the living things emerge. Sometimes a subtle difference in the genetic structure completely changes the structure of that living thing. 

The trial is carried on the claim that evolution is scientific but the Intelligent Design is not. The studies of the evolutionists are offered as evidence. That situation shows that the Evolution Theory is privileged in advance and it is accepted as definitely true.  

b-The judicial aspect of the case:

The members of the court are not biologists, of course. Therefore, to which extent the evidence offered to the court has a scientific value is out of their field. The members of the court are only interested in whether the opinions put forward denote the existence of a creator, in other words, they are only interested in whether the opinions put forward have a religious value or not because the laws do not permit the theories prepared according to a certain religious approach or the theories bringing such opinions to mind.  

Miller indicates the same thing himself. He mentions that his lawyers found the old edition of the Intelligent Design Theory and that the same evidence had been used there, too. He expresses that the phrase “the Intelligent Design” was used in the new edition where the word “the Creator” had been used in previous editions. He states that the first editions of that book implying or clearly indicating the existence of a Creator were forbidden to be taught by Arkansas Court in 1987; therefore, the new edition of the same book, which was partially modified, should not be taught, either. And the court adjudicates in the same way, too.     

In conclusion:

Whether an idea or a thought is scientific or not should be discussed within the framework of its own criteria and its own rules. Particularly, offering a theory including several philosophic thoughts and metaphysical ideas such as the Evolution Theory as a scientific information does not meet the scientific criteria.

It is not possible to understand how the books composed by the atheist evolutionists’ ideas claiming that all living things have randomly come into existence by chance, as a work of the nature were used as scientific proofs of evolution at court.     

Since the Evolution Theory is completely based on atheism, it is usual that the court is on favor of it. Because, the court deliberates on whether the case has a religious content or not rather than considering whether the theory content is scientific.

That the evidences and the results put forward are the work of a creator does not mean that it is not scientific. In contrast, if there is a work of art and if it is the product of a certain knowledge, will and power, it should definitely have a craftsman and a creator who plans it and makes it appear on the stage of life. 

That a state court of the United States’ adjudicated against the Intelligent Design Theory does not mean that the theory is not scientific. Actually, here it is focused on whether the theory implies the existence of a creator, instead of inspecting whether it is scientific or not. In one respect, through laws, they bestow a special favor on atheism under the name of science.  

That means: an answer is sought for the questions how the being things in the universe, especially human beings, emerged and who created them. Since the answers of those questions will have a religious content, that creation is not assigned to a creator but to chance and nature as the present Evolution Theory does under the shadow of laws. That is assigning a special position to atheism and irreligion through laws. In other words, the entirely atheistic and materialistic opinion stipulated by the positivist philosophy is accepted beyond question in advance. Worse still, evolution thought is not ever questioned, and what is more, it is accepted as scientific information beyond question. However, explaining and discussing how the living things came into existence is not scientific information but it is completely based on philosophy and metaphysics. In other words, that information put forward cannot be tested in laboratories. Therefore, introducing a philosophical thought as scientific information is wrong. 

Call it nature or something else; what is the nature? Does it have a mind, knowledge and conscious? Does it see and hear? Does it have power and will? The ones that will carry out activities in nature have to possess those attributes.

Prof. Dr. Âdem Tatlı 

Call it nature or something else; what is the nature? Does it have a mind, knowledge and conscious? Does it see and hear? Does it have power and will? The ones that will carry out activities in nature have to possess those attributes. Moreover, every attribute must be illimitably possessed because the works and activities carried out necessitate an infinite power, an infinite knowledge, an infinite will and an infinite life. If the qualities mentioned above do not exist in nature, how will nature manage and perform activities in the universe?    

The form and structure of human, placement of every organ properly and making them work necessitate an extremely sensitive care and infinite knowledge and power. If such a knowledge and power had not existed, the elements that should go to the bones would go to the eyes or the brain.  In uterus, the mouth could have been in the place of the ears, the ears could have been at the edge of the nose, the eyes could have been inside the palms and the teeth could have been under the feet. 

Pears or cherry leaves do not exist on apple trees; peach leaves do not exist on walnut trees, either. An infinite power and a universal will, which creates and manages all trees and fruits, cows and flies with their specific genetic features is necessary.       

In biology, nature is described as follows: all of the lifeless things and living things are called as nature. Since attributes such as knowledge, will and power do not exist in the lifeless beings such as air, water, the Sun and the earth, we should expect them to exist in living things. Living things are divided into three as plants, animals and human beings. Among those, only human beings have knowledge and power. If anybody would perform activities in this world, it could be only the humankind. However, man also asks questions: “Who is performing the acts in this universe? For example, he asks: “Who creates those sheep, goats, cows, flies, orchards, gardens and mountains? Who creates man in that form and sustains it?” It is not possible to explain that structure of the universe by taking refuge behind a hypothetical expression called nature.       

In this universe, Allah is the One who manages all beings from atoms to galaxies, from bacteria to human beings; in other words, He is the One who creates and sustains them and who has infinite knowledge, will, power and life. Everything acts and lives under His order and will. 

Every living thing is like a programmed folder. 

The beings in the universe can be considered as a computer folder containing ten thousand pages. Every line, letter and even every point of it express a meaning. If you add a character or a letter to that ten-thousand-page folder, or delete a letter from it, you will definitely be asked by the program whether to save that or not. In other words, without changing the program, you cannot add or delete any of the characters of the program without notifying the program or the maker of the program. 

As you see, the universe is just like that folder. Everything from atoms to galaxies is recorded in the program of the Divine Knowledge. Even an atom cannot move without His knowledge. You can also call that folder as the notebook of Divine Determining.      

If you add some letters in every second to your computer folder and save it as a different folder each time, you will achieve thousands of folders which are basically the same but have some subtle differences. If you print those folders one after another, you will have hundreds of pages which have some differences from each other.    

In the same way, according to the instructions in the notebook of the Divine Determining, at every moment, in the page of life, all living things are written with the elements existing in this universe one after another like those folder pages. Human beings are the same, too. A man is formed of approximately a hundred trillion cells and every cell is formed of about a hundred trillion atoms. Through the nutrition we take, the air we breathe and three thousand reactions occurring in every second in every cell, we are written in the page of life again and again. We can recognize those changes easily in long time periods. If we have our photograph taken once a year, we will see how we will have changed after 25-30 years. We will even hesitate whether the first photos belong to us or not.    

If man gazes at the universe, he will see that Allah created the universe in the form of a house; He made the Sun a lamp and the Moon a night-light; He adorned the ceiling of this house with stars and He ornamented the ground with orchards and gardens, fountains and springs; He sent down water from the sky and He decorated the earth with flowers and insects in the form of a carpet; He livened up it with sheep, goats and cows; He created man as a commander of all those beings, a being that He addresses as the most honorable creature of the earth.   

Then, it will be more significant and meaningful to study and search the beings on the earth. One will think that no being, not even a point in this realm is unnecessary and unattended and that everything was created by Allah in accordance with a purpose. Such a thought encourages studying and searching. 

In this realm, where even an atom is not unattended, is it possible that man, who is the most honorable being and the commander of the beings, is unattended? Allah gave man mind and reason and addressed him; He introduced Himself through His messengers and books. Is it not necessary for those who listen to evolutionists and atheist philosophers in order to learn the structure and nature of man and where he comes from and where he wants to go also to listen to what Allah and His messenger state about the issue?   

If man asks Allah and His Prophet why Allah created man and the universe and where man will go after this world, he will receive a true and satisfactory answer. “He who makes knows; he who knows speaks” is a rule. A person who produces a washing machine knows best what it is for, why it was produced and how it works. Similarly, the one who knows man best is Allah, who created him.   

Let us set out to past in our imagination. Let us go to the era in which the Earth newly started to differentiate from its lava form and tended to cool down. Let us stand by the Earth, the core of which is a great fire and the surface of which is cooling down and let us list some objects that we own today. Of course, we will not list all of the words in the dictionary here. Let us only remember a few words which will be enough to shed light on this issue:
Hand, foot, wings, eye, small intestine, pancreas, paw, beak, nails, branch, root, leaf, pine, willow, apple

Let us stab the nonsense of evolution with these words; then let us add new words to them Let us count all kinds of fauna and flora existing on the Earth today one by one. Let us remember all of their organs one by one. And let us ask ourselves: do not all of those hint an infinite knowledge and wisdom? How can one believe that all of those things emerged through evolution on their own after the fire cooled down?

We are returning to the past again. The Earth is fully adorned and it is waiting for its guests like an empty palace. Let us imagine one by one the emotions and moods which did not exist at that time but which now surround our inner world: Love, fear, curiosity, worry, hatred, mercy, cruelty, wittiness, naivety, ambition, indifference, affection

How and from whence were all of these given to the living beings on earth? With what kind of an evolution did those different characters which are as many as infinity emerge?

The creation may have occurred all of a sudden or lasted for billions of years. Humankind may have been created directly or indirectly. Yet, how can these questions be answered? : Who made human beings see out of the universe which cannot see? Who made humankind gain knowledge out of the universe which he does not know? Who brought these guests adorned with senses to this palace which does not feel, love and fear? How did non-seeing evolved into seeing? How did non-seeing turn into seeing, non-understanding into understanding? How did this non-living universe bear living beings?. Is it possible to explain all these bewildering events with the long-term awaiting of those ignorant objects?

Now let us go to earlier times. Let us go to the starting point which universe is about to be ready. Before that point, there is no creature existing. Let us imagine those words one by one: water, stone, air, star, moon, planet, sun, iron, nitrogen, chrome, nickel, mountain, plains, sky, the Milky Way, gravity, radioactive waves, electricity and many more.

If the creation of objects out of nothing is not attributed to the One who owns infinite knowledge and power, how can it be explained? If today we see a mansion in an area which was empty yesterday, we ask: Who had this mansion built? We do not even think that the area evolved and became a mansion. In this sense, how can this nonsense be put forward for the universe which was built from absence? Did absence evolve to be existence?

 
Let us put them all aside and seek the answer to this question: Though the essence of the Earth and the Sun were the same, how did one of them have all these forests, oceans, animals, human beings while the other one is still waiting? Why does it not go through evolution? We know it very well that if it evolves too, there will be neither the sun nor the earth. Then, let us put the question in another way: Who does not let the Sun evolve?

Some claim that Darwin was an evolutionist who believed in God. It is not that I will claim the opposite. However, if an evolutionist believes in God, when the theory he/she supports and this belief are juxtaposed, a weird scene emerges: This universe is created by God, together with its sun, moon, stars, air, soil and underground resources in order to offer a home to living beings. Later, the Creator decided not to interfere with the rest Every object evolved into whatever they wanted; camel, fox, monkey, human, apple or olive.

Lamarck who supported evolution before Darwin stated: The ancestor of giraffe was a creature similar to deer, without a long neck. When it could not find enough of weeds to feed on, it had to eat tree leaves. When it ran out of lower leaves, it tried to reach the upper ones. Then its neck got longer and in every new generation, it got even longer and finally the giraffe of our day emerged.

Let us ask to the ones who take this claim seriously: It is said that giraffes neck got longer in order to eat leaves in the upper parts of the tree. Then, why did fruit-trees evolve to bear fruits? Would they eat the fruits themselves or would their cubs eat them? Did a horse, which is given to the service of human beings, gain this speed in order to catch the weeds? Did an ox become strong in order to carry our loads? Did a chicken evolve to be a non-flying animal in order to be unable to escape from us?

The beings in the universe are called letters from God That is to say; every being went through a divine training, loaded with a lot of meanings, gained a new character and became a divine letter. The ink used in these letters: Atoms. According to a materialist, the letters were written by the ink. According to a naturalist, it is natural for ink to turn into letter. And according to an evolutionist, Letters were written with the long-term awaiting of the inks!

The ink of the book of the universe is atoms. These atoms were created with divine power and innumerable stars, planets and sun were created from approximately a hundred elements. We call them altogether the universe and we know very well that it could not have come into existence by itself and it could not have emerged with the evolution of another universe.

Let us have a look at the Solar System: It is not that it emerged with the evolution of another system.

It has been proved that all species have a different genetic structure today. The growth of living beings happens in accordance with this genetic structure and divine program. The One who owns infinite knowledge and power exposes billions of seeds, eggs and sperms to a perfect process and He creates books out of dots and oceans out of drops.

The ones who support the philosophy of evolution do not take this infinite mercy and this divine training into consideration at all and address people as follows: Neither this universe, nor your own existence is worthy of pondering over! Put them aside! Just ponder over from which animal did the first human being evolve!..

Nothing about transitional forms that have been put forward about evolution reflects the truth. If the frog came into existence from fish as it has been claimed by evolutionists, then transitional forms should show us this transition step by step. That is, the existent material should continue as at first a fish by hundred percent then a fish by ninety percent, a frog by ten percent and then a fish by eighty percent and a frog by twenty percent.

However, no animal has such a transitional form. Since no fossils show this transition, the statement “There exists transitional forms but they have not been found yet” is an ideological evaluation. If there is no transitional form, how can you claim that living things evolve from one another? It is clear that what atheistic evolutionists have put forward is not a scientific result but an ideological thought that aims to deny a creator based on positivist philosophy.

The decomposition of nylon parts by some bacteria through some enzymes is not proof of evolution but of science. In other words, the causes and effects of it must be exposed. This must have a reason. Attributing the unknown events to evolution by leaving the scientific works aside is laziness and referring it to ideology.

Since evolution is the cause everything and all questions are answered and become indisputable when the evolution is set forth, then let us end anything unknown by referring them to evolution just like evolutionists. Now is such an approach a healthy way of thought according to you? For God’s sake, what is the relation of this to the scientific thought and working? They try to confuse the minds of youths with such superstitions and canalize them wrongly.

We as believers in God know that God does not create anything without a reason. We believe that creatures of the universe must be investigated with scientific methods in detail. As we investigate the creatures in the world, which are an art of God, we will know God better and accept that we will perceive His infinite knowledge and power better.  

We are not interested in superstitions which say that creatures come into existence from one another like pulling a rabbit out of the hat.The inside of evolution hoax, which is believed to transform everything to another being with a magic band and nobody exactly know what it is, has been understood better gradually today, when mind and science are dominant.  

Prof. Dr. Adem Tatlı

Author: Sinan Bengisu

The balance of life in the sea, which is extremely well-arranged and rich, has been continuing for hundreds of ages without any deterioration. It is such a miraculous balance that each unit functions to complete one another. The balance existing among billions of creatures in the sea has the power of rebalancing itself against any sort of corruption.

If nutritious salt faces being harmed because of the abundance of plants in a region, this plant is attacked by the animals which feed on them. Thus, the plant density decreases down to its normal level. However, this time a rise in the organic waste of dead animals will occur. Thereby, if the plant balance is disturbed by the animals eating a lot of plants, then predatory animals which feed on those animals will attack them. Consequently, the balance will be restored again. There is no room for chance, randomness and disorder in the miraculous plan of our Creator. Cooperation examples in the sea world where an endless number of mysterious beauties are exhibited induced the scientists to research the matter. One of the truths researchers discovered is that those animals acquired very little of their knowledge by learning.

Then, all of their attributes and life programs are encoded in their cells while they are in the uterus or in the egg. That is to say, the most suitable life order is programmed before they come into the world.

The power that encoded the life program of a giant whale into such a small cell that cannot be seen by naked eye, does not leave any place as small as a cell for chance in the seas. The cooperation, balance, moderation and art in the sea realm that rolls in the death and life and that is shaken in destruction and repairs prove that birth, death, feeding and lifespan of these innumerable living beings occur in accordance with the program written by the One who sees and checks all the universe at the same time.

If the causes that continuously try to disrupt the balance of the universe were let free or were the works of aimless, wandering chance, unmeasured blind force and unconscious dark nature, the order in the sea even in the world would be so disrupted that in one year, perhaps in a day the sea would be full of messy things, the earth would become a rubbish damp, a slaughter house or a marsh. Nonetheless, there seems no true pollution or ugliness in anything. As there is no imbalance in anything, there is no true excessiveness in anything.

When we examine the food pyramid, we see that eating and being eaten are not unattended and that they are managed in accordance with a program. As for the life program of swallowtail sea perch, they feed on small parasites and dead skin flakes on the skin of big fish, and clean those fish.

Fish that are in need of cleaning come to these cleansing fish, which have special places, just as a person who needs a haircut goes to a barber. Other fish recognize them from their appearance and do not hunt them.

Amphiprions have a mutual life with deadly sea peonies. Acidic cells in the arms of the sea peonies which are used to kill and eat the fish do not harm amphiprions. The body of sea peony which has a diameter about 40-60 cm is connected to sea ground with succulent ties. The mouth of the creature is in the middle of the body. Anything would die instantly by the bites of the acidic cells and would be dragged towards the mouth of sea peony to be eaten. However, amphiprions are not harmed in the places surrounded by these acidic cells. Moreover, when these fish get scared on account of a reason, they take refuge in the arms of sea peonies as if going home, and spend the night there. Sea peonies benefit from this cooperation too. When an amphiprion finds a hunt which cannot be gobbled up straightaway, it carries the food to the sea peony and shares with it. Except from this pay, which is a sort of rent, amphiprions clean sea peonies and move the water around them.

Perhaps amphiprions and sea peonies do not know their Creator, who bestowed the mutual living program on them. However, any person with the ability of thinking knows our Creator, who sends light to the assistance of botanical planktons in the depth of the sea for photosynthesis, and who determined the cooperation as a rule of life for all things from cells to mankind, from seas to mountains. This is the greatest difference between fish and human beings.

Dolphins generally give birth to only one baby at a time. The gestation period of females changes between 11 months and a year and bringing the baby into the world takes about normally 30 minutes. When the time of birth comes, two more female dolphins succor the female dolphin. The first duty of these dolphins, which are called aunts, is to defend the mother and baby from the sharks that could attack by virtue of blood smell and from any other dangers. Afterwards, one of the aunt dolphins accompanies the mother dolphin so as to help for the baby care. The baby has to emerge to the surface in order to breathe. The mother dives immediately underneath the baby and shoves it upward to the surface. Dolphins, which always live in groups, immediately proceed to help if a dolphin is injured take it to the sea surface to make it breathe.

In an article entitled cruel-looking animal world published in Bild der Zeit magazine, there is this comment concerning the issue:

Hunting and being hunted is an event encountered every day in the animal kingdom. This world is full of incidences which make men say cruel nature. In reality, what we thoughtlessly define as cruelty is a chain of attitudes of all animals. Plants and animals are encoded to react against a certain event in a certain manner. Surely, the attributes acquired by learning are different.

Every animal that come to the world with a certain program reacts to the signals that are sent to it. Sometimes these reactions affect us astonishingly. What seems as cruel to us is nothing but the incidence of hunting and being hunted.

Every living being, from starfish to cuttlefish, from European anchovy to whale and from amoeba to terrapin, constitutes a proof for their Creator and manifests Allah as brilliant as the sun one by one with their artful creations, various weapons, unique defending fashions and different instructions. After seeing by eyes of intellect and heart that the brilliant magnificence and the order of the sea realm declare the Owner of an endless power, a vast knowledge and an eternal wisdom, it is not possible to accept the sentence big fish eat small fish as a philosophy of life without being aware of its wisdom.

The existence of small fish as much as the big ones and their continuation of their lives in the sea show that swallowing and being swallowed is not unchecked, and the fact that fish produce millions of eggs at a time cannot be regarded as a struggle of existence only. Those innumerable eggs are planned not only to provide the continuance of descendants, but also to present food to other creatures. The fish producing millions eggs cannot be the designer of those eggs; they can only produce the eggs in accordance with the instruction of creation; so the program of food pyramid in the sea cannot have occurred on its own or by chance.

If we reflect that each fish produces millions of eggs and that all of those fish survive without being swallowed by other fish and that the seas will invade the earth after a short time by overflowing and as the land will be filled with fish and it will putrefy, then we will see that being hunted or swallowed is not a struggle but acting in accordance with a program.

How could we explain the fact that a hen lays eggs throughout the year although it incubates once or twice a year and needs only about thirty eggs for that activity?

Would it be possible to say that life consists of struggle only by focusing on a struggle which is in the rate of one out of a thousand or on a hunting incident, in spite of the truths surrounding us and manifesting us that life is cooperation?

The statement “A human being is the product of seventy per cent genetics + thirty per cent environment” is not true because the scientific data we have today are not enough to make a definite judgment.   

According to what experts state, there is a DNA molecule resembling a rope ladder in each chromosome. The DNA molecule consists of thousands of units that are connected to each other like the links of a chain. The hereditary information is hidden in the special arrangement of those units. That arrangement is called “genetic code”. There really exists a code in each arrangement of the units in the DNA molecule showing what protein the cell will produce. The part of the cell that produces chemicals can decode the password and produce the protein necessary for the living thing.

As it can be understood from the explanations above, the genetic code is a mechanism that is designed by the divine power and wisdom and that is related to arranging the biological needs of the living body. Testing is related to the spirit, mind, consciousness and free will, which are spiritual mechanisms.  

“The genetic coding” that the exact sciences have discovered today is a wise reflection of the divine instinct and the instinct of destiny. The testing that Allah has prepared for human beings is related to consciousness and it addresses the mind. Therefore, when man directs those natural motives toward a wrong way through a wrong intervention, his conscious free will can interfere and turn it to the true path.

Therefore, “genetic codes” do not direct man toward good deeds or bad deeds by force, as it is wrongly assumed, because man’s free will can stop that motive. Besides, the duty of the free and conscious will is to function as a brake like that. The realization of an equitable testing depends on that free will. For instance, a man who is hungry cannot say, “I feel hungry; so, I can steal something.”

For an equitable testing, there needs to be two opposite poles – one demanding good deeds, the other demanding bad deeds – in the inner world of man. The mechanism consists of the heart, mind and the lofty feelings that like good deeds and the soul, blind and mean feelings that like good deeds. The realization of those opposite desires depends on the free will of man. Man prefers one choice and does it; then, he is punished or rewarded depending on it.

The views that there exists a genetic coding that suspends man’s free will and directs it toward bad deeds are nothing but speculations; they are the products of an approach that overlooks the divine justice that is necessary for testing. There may be some factors that symbolize goodness and badness but it is not right to think that they are so effective as to eliminate man’s free will completely.    

It is said that an important part of the genetic codes is inherited. However, the fact that the son of the Prophet Noah preferred unbelief and that Ikrima, the son of Abu Jahl, who was one of the leading figures of unbelievers, chose belief is enough to show that it is a controversial view. The proverb, “A bad child is born out of a good person and a good child is born out of a bad person” shows that the issue of inheritance in testing is exaggerated.

The presence of Moses in the palace of the Pharaoh, who claimed to be a god, and the existence of the Pharaoh’s wife, Asiya, who preferred belief and the fact that many members of the religious families prefer unbelief or debauchery and members of bad families prefer belief and Islam show clearly that the environment alone is not a forcing element in testing. The fact that many non-Muslims chose Islam through their free will by using their minds throughout history indicates clearly that there exists an equitable testing.

“Every child is born with a natural belief in Allah and an inborn inclination toward Islam; then his parents and his environment make him a Jew, a Christian or a fireworshipper.”

The hadith above points out that one single traffic sign that shows a compulsory direction is not in question. The fact that some children of sinners become righteous people and the some children of righteous people become sinners is an irrefutable fact proving it. 

“Say "The Truth is from your Lord": let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject (it).”(al-Kahf, 18/29)

In the verse above and in similar verses, the clear decree of Allah that man always has the right to make a preference based on his free will is stated; so, the scientific theories that are always disputable and the words of materialistic scientists and philosophers who always use those theories against the truths of religion have no significance at all.

Every species can adapt to the environmental conditions in its own habitat. Every species has a certain “variability coefficient” peculiar to it. If we assume the highest value of this variability coefficient as 1, it may be as low as 0,01 for some species and as high as 0,9 for others.  

No species has a change or variety that can pass the limit of this variability because every species encounters different stimuli in their environment almost every day and they respond to those stimuli based on their level of development and adapt to them. However, what we call variable and flexible equipment does not have a limitless property of variability; it is valid only for that species. As it is stated above, no species has the same property of flexibility and variability as another species.   

We will explain adaptation to the environment a bit. Every being has three values that it shows toward every environmental factor in the habitat that it lives as maximum, minimum and optimum. Factors like heat, temperature and light are the main environmental factors. For instance, let us think of the orange tree. Let us think that the temperature that it develops the most and gives the most fruit is 25 degrees; the minimum temperature that it can tolerate is minus 20 degrees and the highest temperature that it can tolerate is 70 degrees. If living beings are grown facing the environmental factors with the maximum and minimum values, they develop some differences in their structure compared to the ones grown in optimum values. When we grow the orange tree in an environment near the maximum value, that is, near 70 degrees, the leaves will get smaller and fuzzy in order to bear the heat. It will get smaller and fuzzy if it has those properties in its genetic structure. Then, there will be differences between the leaves of the orange tree growing in optimum conditions in terms of temperature and the leaves of the orange tree growing in maximum conditions in terms of size and fuzziness.  

Is this orange growing in the maximum environmental conditions a new species? If you regard small leaves and fuzziness as characteristics of species, you can call it a new species. However, basically, this plant is still an orange. That is, a pear or a peach tree does not come out of an orange tree through adaptation because its genetic structure is not suitable.

The book published by that academy is no difference than an ordinary book. This academy and similar institutions are under the control of scientists that support evolution and deny the existence of a creator. They present their philosophical views that are based on atheism under the disguise of scientific information. Thus, they want to form a public opinion and obtain power in the name of atheism. Their main aim is to bring up young people as atheists.  

Unfortunately, they abuse science for their ideology. The most appropriate field for abuse is evolution. Therefore, they always keep evolution on the agenda and they associate everything with it. They will not be able to conceal the reality of creation even if they publish one hundred books let alone one book. They cannot prove the existence of an evolution in the sense that they mean because the past of man cannot be experimented in the laboratory and it is not possible to reduce the past of the living beings to a single cell and to show that the others originated from them in chains through coincidence.

Therefore, all of the ideas they put forward can be no more than philosophical thoughts. That is, their claims can never be labeled as scientific information.

However, those who support creationism can open many windows in the past by showing the creation of a living being at any moment. Now, Allah creates a human being from a single cell, plants and animals from single cells at any moment. The one who creates today definitely created in the past, too. The one who creates a melon out of a melon seed can definitely create and created the whole universe and everything in it.

Atheistic evolutionists who claim that living beings came into existence coincidentally and spontaneously cannot even prove that lentil soup forms coincidentally and spontaneously let alone proving that all living beings came into existence coincidentally and spontaneously; if they could prove it, what they say might be somewhat true.

However, the evidence of those who support creationism has filled the universe. Every being shows and proves that they are the work of Allah’s infinite knowledge, will and power.

Prof. Dr. Adem Tatlı

If the evolution theory has been proved, then it cannot be a theory but a law. Then, there is no need to dispute it. If you wish, let us ask the question as follows:

What kind of works are needed to be done and achieved in order to prove the theory of evolution?

In order to answer this question, we need to know what the evolution theory prescribes; that is, the things that it claims. We can briefly explain the thought claimed by evolution theory as follows:

The foundation of all creatures in the universe is a single cell. This single cell came into existence coincidently and all other creatures reproduced from each other in succession. According to this theory, the universe is not an art of a creator but coincidence.

Such a claim can neither be proved by finding of a teeth or a skull nor exposing the formation of a gene. More precisely, it is a philosophical view which is related to the emergence of this realm and creatures. And the proving of it is not possible.

Leave the creatures aside. Can you prove that a lifeless thing came into existence coincidentally? For example, is the shirt made coincidentally and dressed on you by itself? Or your shoe, has it been made coincidentally without a doer and again put on your feet without your noticing; is that right?

If you listen to your conscience, then you will never be able to answer these questions as “Yes”. You cannot even make small children believe it, if you claim that a readymade shoe has been put on your feet coincidentally let alone the production of a shoe.

Since non-living things cannot come into existence without a doer, then how can living things come into existence in the same way?

In the second part of the question, the hormone of Aldosterone is mentioned. This hormone has the role of balancing the electrolyte and water in human body. It is secreted from the crust part of the suprarenal gland. It is impossible for such a hormone to function as a hormone singly without a living creature. As every organism has some elements in its basis, the main elements of this hormone are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen.

Some derivations and compounds of them may have been brought into existence or compounded before living things. After understanding the form of a hormone or a molecule, putting forward that the theory of evolution has been proved as explained above is not the product of a healthy mind.

As for the story of intervening the genetic formation of a chimpanzee and forming of human; it has two aspects.

Firstly, creating living things and giving them life is peculiar to God. What a human should do is to direct the work of a genetic form. God has given this will to man. Giving life and sustenance to every creature, meeting all the demands of those cells, multiplying and differentiating those cells, changing the dead ones with the new ones are made by the will and power of God.

That a living thing is produced from another living thing through outside intervention, or that God creates for example a human being out of a chimpanzee cannot force us to make a generalization and to accept that all human beings are like that. Such a generalization does not comply with scientific thought and the rule of science. It is necessary to receive correct answers for each question that we ask in terms of genetics, biochemistry and biology for such generalization. An accidental occurrence of a living being from another living being cannot be evidence for generalization for the species of that living being unless you obtain the same result after each trial.   

That all of the scientists in the West support the theory of evolution is not true. Many scientists accept evolution as a form of philosophical thought. Some scholars accept creation directly.

However, those who oppose the theory of evolution are under academic pressure; therefore, some of them avoid opposing evolution openly. The views of some scientists that are opposite to evolution are not published in scientific periodicals and books because the administrators of even the religious periodicals are evolutionists who believe that man has evolved from the ape. They will never let any views that oppose evolution. It does not matter whether the thought about it is scientific or not for them. What matters is the article not including any views against evolution.

Thus, those who do not know the inside of the story think that all scientists support evolution.  

Besides, evolutionists spread the lie that everybody supports evolution.

Prof. Dr. Adem Tatlı

We will deal with the issue from a few viewpoints and leave it to you to synthesize the analysis.

1. The universe is the property of Allah. He has the right to do whatever He wishes in His property. It depends on His decision what living beings to create and how to do it. Allah imposed some laws like growing, development, differentiation and reproduction regarding creation and He attributed these laws to certain causes. These laws are valid for not only human beings but also all of the other living beings. 

Allah gave every living being an ultimate point, which is the most developed and most suitable for that living being. It is called the perfection point, that is, the perfect state of that living being. There is a perfection point for a tulip, rose, nightingale, cow, fly, horse, etc. There are certain causes and laws for that species of living being to reach that perfection point.  If these laws are not obeyed, that living being dies before reaching the perfection point. It does not matter whether it is a human being, plant or animal.  

For instance, some faults occur in the structure of a living being that cannot get enough water or food. The degree of this fault and illness is directly proportional to obtaining the substance that this living being needs. 

Similarly, some changes called mutation can take place in a living being that becomes exposed to radiation in the embryonic phase. Disabilities and abnormalities can occur in that living being depending on the length and magnitude of the radiation. A living being can be exposed to radiation or similar chemical reactions in natural environment or in a laboratory.  

For example, some chemical experiments applied on rats or rabbits in laboratories can cause them to be disabled in some way or other. All of the changes and differentiation that can occur this way are issues of research and investigation.    

After this preliminary knowledge, we can go back to the question, “Why does Allah create disabled and mutated living beings?” There can be two answers given to that question:

Firstly,no matter how much you change the causes and laws, every living being is created in the perfect way. Secondly, when you intervene in the causes and laws, you will get results based on what you do. 

What is happening in the universe now is the second answer. That is, God Almighty answers our question. Is it not more appropriate for His wisdom and justice?

For instance, we wander what will happen if we apply a certain amount of x-rays on the mouse embryo in the uterus. We will find out when we do it. The result will probably be a disabled or ill mouse.

God Almighty attributed everything to a law and cause. Some deformities or illnesses occur in the individuals in the realm of living beings based on whether these causes and laws are obeyed or not. You can also call it an answer to a question. In the realm of the living beings, the answers to the questions are obtained through experiments and applications. Allah's wisdom, justice and sovereignty in creation necessitate this.  

2. Allah is the only owner of the property. He governs the world and the hereafter. The owner of the property does whatever he wishes in his property. He constructs a building on his land or plants something if he wishes. He cannot be regarded as wrong or responsible because of what he does.

Allah has one thousand and one names; each of them wants to be manifest through a different art, manifestation and reflection. 

For instance, the name ar-Razzaq (the Sustainer) wants the existence of the living beings that need sustenance; similarly, the name ash-Shafi (the Healer) wants the existence of ill people and illnesses. The differences in the universe originate from different manifestations of these names. 

Works of art need to have different esthetics, and contrasts so that Allah's endless knowledge, power and wisdom will be understood fully by conscious beings. As the scientific rule, “Everything is understood by their opposites” necessitates, contrasts are necessary in beings. Thus, the facts that are called relative truths will appear and the difference between different arts will be understood. From this point of view, it can be said that beautiful things need ugly things so that their beauties will be understood; similarly, perfect things need incomplete things so that their perfection will be understood.

Allah dressed the bodies of humans and animals as clothes of their spirits. He made the spirit a model to show the manifestations of His various names. He wanted to tailor the shirts of bodies in different forms by shortening, lengthening, reducing and cutting on the flexible model of the spirit that could fit all kinds of molds. This difference aims to show the manifestation of many of His names like divine knowledge, power and wisdom. Accordingly, every being including a lame and blind person is a wonderful work of art; they reflect Allah's knowledge, power and wisdom. The things that seem to be deficient for us are indeed wonderful works of art.

All of the beings except human beings, who are gentle, coy and a bit spoiled, are satisfied with their state. For instance, no ant complaints that it is not an elephant and no fly complains that it is not a camel. Every being knows that they are grateful to their Lord and thank Him based on the degree of their value.

From this point of view, it is necessary for lame people to understand that they need to be grateful for their state with the consciousness of belief, to think that they will get great rewards in the hereafter in return for their deficiency in this ephemeral world life, to know that a person who gives away one but receives one thousand is not a loser but a winner and to thank their Lord. 

Animals, whose spirits are immortal, thank their Lord due to their existence even if they are lame. It is possible to understand this fact from the following verse: “…All beings declare His glory...” (al-Isra, 17/44)

One of the claims which lasted long in the literature of evolution but was left aside silently after being understood to be invalid is the conception of “Non-Functional Organs (Vestigial Organs)”.

However, some local evolutionists still think “non-functional organs” to be a great evidence of evolution and try to show them to be so.The claim of “non-functional organs” was brought forth about a century ago.

According to the claim, there were non-functional organs which were inherited by the bodies of animate beings from their ancestors, but became futile in the course of time as they were not used.  

This was absolutely not a scientific claim since it depended on insufficient information. In fact, “non-functional organs” were “those whose functions were not discovered”.

The best sign showing this was the contraction of the long list recounted by the evolutionists.

An evolutionist, S.R. Scadding, accepts this truth as follows in his article entitled “Are The Non-Functional Organs Evidences For Evolution?” in the magazine of Evolutionary Theory:

“The more we learnt about biology, the narrower the list of non-functional organs became... Due to the fact that proving an organ to be non-functional is not possible and the claim of non-functional organs does not have scientific qualities, I conclude that non-functional organs do not serve as any proof in favor of evolutionary theory.”

The list of non-functional human organs put forward in 1895 by R. Wiedersheim, a German Anatomist, included some 100 organs like appendicitis, coccyx bone. 

Nevertheless, it was understood that all of the organs in Wiedersheim’s list had functions of great importance in the body as science advanced.

To illustrate, the appendix assumed to be a non-functional organ was explored to be the part of lymphatic system fighting against germs entering the body.This fact is mentioned as follows in a medical source dated 1997:

The other organs like thymus, liver, spleen, appendix, bone marrow in the body are parts of lymphatic system.These too help the body tackle infections.”

The tonsils in the same “non-functional organs” list were discovered to play an important role in protecting the throat against infections, especially up to the ages of adolescence.

It was understood that the coccyx, which forms the bottom of spinal cord, provides support for the bones around pelvis and is the point of holding for some small muscles.

Afterwards, it became evident that the thymus gland activates body’s defensive system by activating T-cells; the pineal gland is responsible for producing important hormones; the thyroid gland provides a balanced growth for babies and children; the pituitary gland controls many hormone glands’ operating properly.

The half-moon-shaped piece in the eye defined as non-functional organ by Darwin was understood to work for cleaning and moisturizing the eye.

There was, also, a very important mistake the evolutionists made on the claim of  non-functional organs.As we know, the claim brought on the agenda by the evolutionists was that non-functional organs of animate beings were passed down on by their ancestors of the past.

However, some organs said to be non-functional are missing in animate beings claimed to be the ancestors of human beings.

For example, some monkeys said to be the ancestors of human by the evolutionists do not have appendices.

Biologist H. Enoch, who rejects the thesis of non-functional organs, expresses this logical mistake as follows:

“Humans have appendices. However, sub-monkeys, his earlier ancestors, do not have appendices. Surprisingly, appendix emerges again in more sub-structured mammals, for instance, in opossums. So, how can the evolutionary theory explain this?

In short, the scenario of non-functional organs claimed by the evolutionists both contains logical mistakes in it and is scientifically false.

In humans, there exsist no non-functional organs left as heritage by his so-called ancestors. For, humans have not derived from other animate beings by chance; they have been created flawlessly and perfectly in their present form.

References:

1. S. R. Scadding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?", Evolutionary Theory, Cilt Volume 5, Mayıs May 1981, s. p. 173.
2. The Merck Manual of Medical Information, Home edition, New Jersey: Merck & Co., Inc. The Merck Publishing Group, Rahway, 1997.
3. H. Enoch, Creation and Evolution, New York: 1966, s. p. 18-19.

The genetic structure of cells does not generally change. However, the food that is taken, the inner or external environment might cause some reactions that pressure or delays the effect mechanisms of genes or that change the direction of the effect. In that case, the effect of the gene becomes apparent in different ways.  

However, the important point that should not be overlooked here is that no deed or reaction is aimless or takes place randomly.

In the past, science said that brain cells did not change at all; today, it says that they change, at least the effect mechanisms in its genetic structure change. No matter if the brain cell or the effect of the genetic structure changes, all of these changes are the works of the endless knowledge, will and power. 

Let me tell you something more than it: There are about one hundred trillion cells in human body.

All cells except brain cells always change. Five million white blood cells die every second and new ones are created. Cells are renewed and increase in number up to a certain age. If this change did not take place, man would remain as he was born. 

The cells of not only human beings but also all living beings, that is to say, animals and plants, always change and are renewed. The being that places these cells into their proper places, that sends the calcium that needs to go to the bone to the bone, not to the eye, is Allah, who is the owner of everything and who administrates the whole universe with His endless knowledge, will and power. They do not take place as a result of coincidental and random incidents as atheists claim.  

The issue on which those who defend creation and evolutionists cannot agree is the claim of the evolutionists that one living thing comes into being out of another living thing coincidentally. Otherwise, the changes that take place as a result of Allah’s knowledge and will take place all over the universe. Nothing is fixed. Living things change; similarly non-living realm always changes. When the world was first created, it was not like that. It changed in various eras with Allah’s knowledge, will and power; it is still changing; rocks turn into soil and soil nurtures plants.

Every living thing is born, grows up, from one shape to another based on the laws of development and change; after the period of youth, they get old and die.   

They are all formed by Allah’s endless knowledge, will and power. Changing of brain cells or remaining the same are also subject to the same laws. Even when the brain cells do not change, they are active and functioning. How can the feeding and respiration of the cells, decomposition and combination of food be overlooked?   

No matter if the cell changes or remains the same during the whole life of that living thing, three thousand different reactions happen in a cell every second. All of these activities have to be attributed to Allah, who has endless knowledge, will and power. They cannot be attributed to deaf nature, blind force or to some words and phrases like evolution, which is defined differently by everybody based on their own understanding, by any means. 

Each incident that takes place in the cell happens in accordance with thousands of probabilities; the state of an enzyme or reaction after several phases is taken into account; no trace of confusion is seen in any cell; every act is fulfilled by considering the finest details. They cannot be done by a being that does not have endless knowledge, will and power.

The genetic structure of living things does not always show its effect fully due to the pressure of the environment. For instance, the incident of cancer seen in cells appears due to the different orientation of the genetic structure. Very few of them can also be transferred to the young. However, the basic structure of that living thing does not change. A man remains a man and a chicken remains a chicken.  

Even if a human being comes out of a monkey or a monkey comes out of a human being, it cannot be accepted as scientific evidence that living things come out of one another. If the same result is obtained at each trial of an incident, it can be accepted as a beginning of a chain only then.

Otherwise, to reach a conclusion acting upon some assumptions is not a scientific act but an ideological approach.

Prof. Dr. Âdem Tatlı

Both radioactive methods and other methods used in determining the age of geological and archeological materials are not exact since they are based on some assumptions and estimations. Therefore, there are hesitations whether the ages determined by these methods are real ages.   

In geology, "age" (date) has a relative meaning. One of the two rock masses that are side by side or one over the other is younger or older than the other. If there was not a transformation, the rock under the other is older. It was first expressed by Nicolas Steno in 1669.

Various methods are used in order to determine the age of the geological and archeological materials. They are as follows:

1. Geological Dating

In this method, comparison is essential. For instance, if the carboniferous land in a region resembles the land in another region in terms of rocks, fossils and morphological structure, it is decided that the land in the second region has the same carboniferous age.   

2. Paleontological Dating

In this method, the age of the rock is determined based on the types of fossils the rock includes. During the excavations made by William Smith in England in 1770, he determined that the fossils he observed in the layers had not been placed randomly but based on a certain order and that the same types of fossil organisms existed in the same group of layers and different types of fossil organisms existed in different layers; thus, he concluded that layers of rock containing the same fossils had the same age. The studies he did afterwards confirmed this thought of his. 2

In geological eras, there are fossils which existed for short spans of time and vanished. They are called “Characteristic or key fossils” or “Layer-determining fossils”. Layer-determining fossils are like calendars and they are of significance importance in determining the geological age of the sediment they are located in. For instance, Trilobites, which emerged suddenly at the beginning of the Paleozoic Era, spread to a large area in a very short time and suddenly disappeared at the end of the Paleozoic Era. Therefore, the age of sediment in which Trilobites exit is Paleozoic. Similarly, Ammonites indicate the Mesozoic, Nummulites the Tertiary and mammals the Quaternary.    

Judging by characteristic fossils which lived in different ages and eras, “geological columns” which display the age of each era and layer-determining fossils it includes have been formed. With the help of a characteristic fossil which might be found in an area, the age of that area is determined by looking up this geological column.

Criticism of the Method of Paleontological Dating

The age of rocks is determined by the index fossils they contain However, how can it be determined which index fossil shows which age? The answer is “evolution”. That is, since it is claimed that evolution exists in the same direction on the earth, phases of evolution of an organism that lived in a certain era must provide an infallible criterion in order to define sediments stored in this era. This is the basic principle of the evolution theory

Morris states that the only way to classify rocks in chronological order is fossils. The criterion that is necessary to move fossils to the very special place in this chronology is the claim that “life evolves from the simple to the complex”. Evolution of living organisms, though, is based upon fossil records. Evidence for the existence of evolution is fossils. Fossils are ranged in chronological order according to the evolution theory. Thus, this matter has become a strong reasoning system as a vicious circle.1

Dunbar states the following regarding the issue:

“Fossils provide the only evidence based on historical data that  life evolves from the simple to the complex.” 3


3. Varve Dating

Water deposits the materials it carries in low areas. The age of a sedimentary sequence can be determined through this speed of sedimentation. The waters that form especially from melting glaciers deposit in lakes or low areas. The rate of melting is slow in winter and these waters cause the formation of thin layer since they carry materials with fine grains. In summer, the rate of melting is fast and they form a thick layer by carrying materials with large grains. Thus, one thin layer and one thick layer form every year. It is possible to determine the age by counting these rings like the rings of a tree. The first dating by making use of the varves of the layered rocks was made by the Swedish scientist De Geer in 1905 for the first time. In Swedish, "varve" means "periodic repetition".  

Acting upon the rate of depositing, it was shown that the River Nile deposited sediment of 30 cm thick every 400-500 years for 3000 years. It is claimed that geological dating is possible through determining the amount of salt in the oceans. It is taken into account that the salts there are carried out in a certain time from the rocks around. Calculating the rate between the amount of sodium ions in the ocean waters and the amount of sodium reaching the sea from the land through rivers, Joly found that the amount of Na+ contained in the ocean to be to 15.627 x 10¹² tons and the amount of Na+ entering the oceans to be 15.727 x 10⁴ tons. Acting upon this, he calculated the age of the oceans as 99.4 million years. This method is criticized in that this number is very small and that the rate of Na+ constantly changes.

Criticism of Varve Method

The precipitation regime and the structure of the soil play an important part in Varve method. The climate changes to be seen among seasons and years will affect the texture and structure of the material to be carried by the same amount of water. Floods seem to be a disadvantage in the formation of the varve. For, more sediment will be carried and deposited by flood water compared to the material carried by normal water. This will substantially affect the result of the Varve method, which bases its calculation for determining the age on the sediment that is deposited. 

4. Age Determination by Means of Radioactive Elements

Becquerel determined for the first in 1896 that some invisible rays emanated from uranium salts. Madam Curie determined in time 1897 that thorium also emitted rays and called this event “radioactivity”. Radioactive elements emit alpha, beta and gamma rays. These rays are identified through devices like Geiger counter and centilometer thanks to the radiation effect they exert on the photograph film.  

It is possible to divide age determination by meansof radioactive elements into two based on the direct and indirect effects of radioactive e elements.

4.1. Methods Based on the Indirect Effects of Radioactivity

4.1.1. Uranium Method

Uranium Method is a group of age determination methods. All of these methods depend on the principle of generation of lead and helium from uranium and its fellow element, thorium, in their long chains of decay. This event is called alpha degradation. In this event, alpha particles separate from the nuclei of main atoms at a constant speed. They are positively charged atoms of helium gas.

The most important radioactive elements are uranium and thorium. Uranium has two isotopes. The first one is U238, whose half life is 4,5 billion of years. The other one is U235, whose half life of is 0,7 billion of years.

The half life of Thorium (Th232) is 14,1 billion of years. By giving off definite proportions of Helium atom, they generate lead isotopes as shown in the diagram:

U 238 ----> Pb 206 + 8 He 4
U 235 ----> Pb 207 + 7 He 4
Th 232 ----> Pb 208 +6 He 4

Three isotopes of lead exist in galenite (PbS, which is a normal lead mineral. It is possible to find Pb204, which is another isotope of lead, in any layer that contains these elements. That is why, it is called "common lead". Although the amount of the other isotopes always increased throughput geologic eras, the amount of Pb204 always remained the same. Therefore, the importance of Pb204 in finding radiometric age is great. In a mineral that contain lead, when the amount of Pb204 is subtracted from the general amount of lead, the Pb isotopes that are the outcome of radioactive degradation remain. When their amounts are determined, the age of the mineral they are located in is found.

In radioactive elements, the number of atoms occurring through degradation (n) is directly proportional to the atom number of the radioactive elements (N).  

This law is represented as follows in mathematics:

n = N.e-λt
n = the number of atoms remaining after a certain time (“t”)
N =the number of atoms that were present at the beginning of time; that is, when t=0.
l = Radioactive degradation constant (it is characteristic for each element).

If the amount of the radioactive elements present at the beginning and the amount of the element that formed up to now as a result of radioactivity are known, the time necessary for the formation of the last amount can be calculated.   

Degradation speed is not dependent on time and the age of radioactive isotopes. It is not possible to determine this speed statistically.  For instance, out of 10 million radium atoms (N), 4273 (n) of them undergo degradation every year. The rate of n/N is called "degradation constant".    

This value for radium is

l = n / N = 4273 / 107
l = 0.0004273 per year.

Half life is:

T= 0.693 / l
T = 0.693 / 0.0004273 = 1622 years.
 

Criticism of Uranium Method

There are some objectionable parts in the methods of age determination depending on radioactive decay of uranium. They might be summarized as follows:

1. Uranium minerals are always found in open systems.

Since the layer consisting uranium is not in a closed system, it is exposed to external effects. For instance, uranium can easily resolve in ground water. Radon gas, an intermediate element, may easily pass inside or outside the uranium system. Henry Fauld, an expert on radioactive age determination, points out to the following regarding the issue:

“In geological time, both uranium and lead translocated in shale. Detailed analysis showed appropriate ages have not been determined with these elements. Similar drawbacks are encountered in attempts of age determination of mineral ores which consist uranium and radium. It is known that different ages are found on samples taken from the same points and plenty of chemical activities took place.” 4.

2. The disintegration rate of uranium might be changeable.

Since radioactive degradation is controlled by atomic structure, it is not easily affected by other events. Nevertheless, factors which are able to affect atomic structures might also influence radioactive disintegration rate. The most outstanding example to this is cosmic radiation and neutrinos. Another example is free neutrinos which come out of reactors or which are generated out of various reasons. If anything which might increase the amount of these particles on the earth is to come into existence, it is sure to accelerate radioactive disintegration rates.

3. Daughter elements might have been present therein where the layer began to form. It is possible that radiogenic daughter elements which are generated by the disintegration of uranium and thorium might have been already present when these minerals began to form. It has been found today that rocks which were produced by lava flowing through the internal layers of the earth consist of both radiogenic and combined lead.

4. All of the daughter elements might not be peculiar to that layer.  All of the daughter elements which were produced by radioactive disintegration may not remain in the same layer; other daughter elements which were produced in a different layer might have moved there.

4.1.2. Potasyum-Argon Method

Potassium minerals exist in most of the volcanic rocks and some sediments. They have a wide range of usage. Potassium 40 transforms into Argon 40 by catching electrons with a speed of 1,3 billion years half life.

4.1.3. Rubidium-Strontium Method

This method is based on the transformation of Rubidium 87 into Strontium 87 with 47 billion years half life. The half life of Rubidium is regarded as 60 billion years by some authorities and 120 years by others. This method needs to be arranged based on uranium method.   Therefore, it is not more reliable than uranium age determination method. In terms of application and the drawbacks in application, Potassium-Argon Method and Rubidium-Strontium Method, and the other radioactive methods are similar to uranium method.

4.1.4- Radiocarbon (C14) Method

Radiocarbon is the name given to the unstable isotope Carbon fourteen (C14). Carbon twelve (C12) is called “natural carbon” and it is not radioactive.  Radiocarbon is produced from the reactions among nitrogen-fourteen (N14) in the atmosphere, due to cosmic radiation in superior layer of atmosphere. Carbon-12 consists of six protons, six neutrons and six orbital electrons. Carbon-14, though, includes eight neutrons in the nucleus. These two extra neutrons make the atom unstable. One of these neutrons gives off a beta particle, producing a new nucleus which consists of seven protons and seven neutrons is produced. This new structure is the Nitrogen-14. Thus, the unstable Carbon-14 turns into the stable Nitrogen-14. Its half life is 5730 years

Carbon-14, which is generated in the atmosphere, is immediately oxidized as CO2 and spreads to the air, water and to living organisms. Normally the ratio of radioactive carbon dioxide and non-radioactive carbon dioxide (C14/C12)  in the air is fixed and it is accepted that 100 years should pass so that this fixed rate can be reached.

The ratio of C14/C12 in living organisms should be fixed as well. The equality of this ratio does not change as long as the organism is alive. However, when the organism dies, the ratio of C14 to C12 decreases gradually since the organism cannot take CO2 in from the air any longer. When this decreasing ratio strikes ½, the length of time from the death of that organism must be 5730 years because the half life of C14 is 5730 years. In five half lives, in other words, in around 29 thousand years, only 1/32 of the original amount of radiocarbon is to be emitted. Radiocarbon method can only be used to determine the ages around 80 thousand years at most. For older materials, uranium method is applied.

Criticism of Radiocarbon method

Radiocarbon method is criticized because it is based on some assumptions. Here are the opposed points:

1.  A number of living systems do not have the standard ratio of C14/C12. Carbon-14 method is based on the theory which claims that when all living organisms die, they include a standard ratio of C14/C12 . Nevertheless, many samples did not display this ratio. For example, with this method, age of living mollusks was determined to be 2300 years old. Such ratio shows that the environment the organism is in includes higher amount of C14 than expected and therefore, there is an exchange of carbon between the organism and the environment. 5

2. Radiocarbon might not decrease at a stable rate in each organism.

Radiocarbon disintegration is influenced by environmental radioactivity, especially free neutrons and cosmic radiation and their disintegration rates change as a result.

3. The rate of natural carbon might have been different in the past.

In the past, the vegetation was either more or less than it is now. The ratio of C14/C12, therefore, is to be higher or lower. For this reason, the radiocarbon age of the materials of these periods is to be measured older or younger than the true age. This matter is the same for the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If volcanoes had emitted carbon dioxide in the past, in this case, the amount of carbon dioxide at that time should be different than it is now.

4. The rate of radiocarbon might not have reached a stable condition. It is assumed that the ratio of C14/C12 reaches a stable condition in a certain length of time. In other words, the amount of C14 in the atmosphere is equal to the amount of C14 disintegrated on the earth. For this reason, the incoming and outgoing amount of C14 needs to be equal. However, there are some things which prove that this is not always in this way. In the same way, it is stated that the measurable amount of radiocarbon generated in a year on the earth is 25% more than the amount of disintegrated radiocarbon. 5-8

4.2. Methods Based on the Indirect Effects of Radioactivity

The indirect effects of radioactivity occur with the rays of radioactive breakdowns. These rays affect the rock as if they bombard the rock. The source of the rays might be the natural radioactive minerals especially in the rock or the alpha or cosmic rays of the heavy metals around and their fission.     

4.2.1. Pleochroic Halos Method

Pleochroic halos occur around small inclusions of radioactive minerals, such as zircon, and monazite, especially in biotites. If inclusions are tiny,pleochroic halos are in the shape of full spheres and they resemble a circle in thin section. The diameters of concentric spheres have constant values; the diameter of each sphere is equal to the distance covered by alpha ray. The relation between the light transmittance ofpleochroic halos and the alpha ray it gets with its effect is determined by experiments; therefore, it can be used in age determination.          

This method is criticized in various ways. The experiments that are carried out show that the light transmittance in pleochroic halos obtained artificially change periodically and that it is affected especially by increase in heat.

4.2.2. Trace Method

This method is based on the count of the traces of rays emitted when a mineral breaks down due to radioactivity. 

4.2.3. Metamictization Method

This method is based on the irregularity that can be determined by measuring through X rays of crystal networks in a mineral.

4.2.4. Thermoluminescence Method

Some electrons connected to the crystal inner structure affected by rays are released and then entrapped in the faulty places of the crystal network. All of the electrons in that state form a dynamic system with a higher level of energy than that of their normal place. Electrons return to their normal places with the effect of heat when energy comes out in the form of light; thus, the energy level of the mineral affected by radioactivity can be found.  

These methods, which are based on the indirect effect of radioactivity, are still in the phase of development and their range of usage is narrower than the previous ones.

5. A general assessment on geological and archaeological dating methods

Both radioactive method and other methods applied in geological and archaeological dating are not at the expected sensitivity since they are based on several assumptions and predictions. For this reason, some doubts arise on the correctness of ages determined. However, as there are similar errors in age-determination of every material, findings are important in terms of being approximate ages rather than exact ages. For example, material A, which is found to be at 150 million years of age, is three times older than material B, which is found to be 50 million years old. That is to say, if material B is 5 thousand years old indeed, then, the material A should be at 15 thousand years old.

There are no other alternatives for the methods mentioned above.

References:

1. Morris, H. and Parker,G.E. What is Creation Science? Master Book Publishers. California. 1982. Translated by Â.Tatlı, Keha, E., Marangoz, C., Solak, K. ve Hasenekoğlu, İ.  Yaratılış Modeli. Millî E. Bakanlığı Basımevi. Ankara. 1985.
2. Ketin, I. Genel Jeoloji. Cilt 1. İTÜ Yayını. 1982, issue 1096.                              
3. Dunbar, C.O. Historical Geology. New York. John Wiley Sons. Inc. 1949, p.52.                                                                                                                         
4. Fault, H. Age of Rocks, Planets and Stars. New York. McGraw-Hill  Book. Co. Inc. 1966, p.61.
5. Keith, M.S. and Anderson, G.M. Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with  Mollusc Shells. Science, August, 16. A. 634, 1963.
6. Libby, W.F. Radiocarbon Dating. University of Chicago Press.1955, p.7.
7. Lingelfelter, R. E. Production of C-14 by Cosmic & Ray Neutrons. Reviews of Geographics. 1963, Vol. 1. p.51.                                                                 
8. Suess, H.E. Secular Variations in the Cosmic Ray Produced Carbon-14 in the Atmosphere and their Interpretations. Journal of Geophysical Research. 1965, Vol.7. p.594.

Prof. Dr. Adem Tatlı

One reader asked the following questions:

“Almost all scientists accept the theory of evolution. Only those who believe in religion do not. How can these scientists, who accept evolution, be mistaken?  Besides, they are not ordinary people. If you say they advocate this theory because they are faithless, why do they deny and risk going to Hell? How can a person, especially a scientist, deny something deliberately? Is it reasonable and logical?

Firstly, it is necessary to know what is being discussed. To put it more clearly, it is necessary to understand the discussion of evolution well.

The word evolution is used for various words and phrases that have nuances like metamorphosis, differentiation, gradual development, change, progress and evolvement.

Materialistic evolutionists claim that all living beings come from one another in a chain coincidentally.

According to the determinations that could be done today, four basic molecules exist in the genetic structure of plants, animals and humans, that is, all living beings. They are: Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and Thymine. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, sulfur, phosphate and nitrogen atoms form the structures of those molecules.

It is the duty of science to show what elements living beings consist of in terms of genetic structure. It is not the duty of the scientific knowledge to interpret what they indicate. This interpretation is related to cultural values like man's belief, ideology, philosophical view and metaphysical thought. 

The books that fill our bookcases are formed by the 26 letters of the alphabet. The view that books come from one another due to the fact that the letters are the same in all books is not scientific. Likewise, it is not a scientific approach to claim that all beings come from one another in chains acting upon the fact that they come from 114 elements.

As a necessity of their ideology, they use the similarities of the elements in the genetics of living beings as an argument to show that all beings come from one another in chains and coincidentally. Without leaving the scientific method, we clearly say that the similarities of the elements in living beings are the greatest evidence for the oneness and existence of their creator. We can write "fish", "horse" or "man" with those 26 letters. Similarly, Allah creates any being He wishes at any time He wishes and however He wishes out of those 114 elements.

Thousands and even millions of plant and animal species including human beings on earth come from a single cell separately. Although there are small changes in the structures of human beings, a differentiation that changes the quality and characteristic of that living being does not occur. If the genetic structure of a living being changes or is changed substantially, that living being dies when it is an embryo. Science world has not seen the genetic structure of a living being differentiate and produce a completely different living being so far. Even if a living being is produced from another living being, it will be created by Allah, too.

Those who advocate creation regard it as a necessity of science to search and examine all of the beings around closely and to include all of the different views regarding the issue. Nothing in the universe is stable. Everything, from atoms to galaxies, changes and differentiates all the time within the knowledge and will of Allah. Allah wants us to meditate on the beings in the universe, to reason and to think; He states that those who know and those who do not know are not equal.

To express it in short, the existence of atoms and molecules in the structures of living beings by being transformed from one state into another, that is by transmutation, takes place within the framework of certain biology and physics laws. Therefore, the transmutation of elements is not a theory but a law of Allah that takes place through His knowledge, will and power.

In fact, nothing is stable in the universe. Everything, from atoms to galaxies, is moving and active all the time. The electrons around an atom revolve 50 thousand times per second. The molecules made up of atoms are also active. The solid molecules move slowly but the liquid molecules and the molecules in the air are faster. 

It is accepted that there are 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Some of these galaxies move away from one another at a speed close to the speed of light. All living beings are constantly changing. Man is made up of about one hundred trillion cells. Three thousand different reactions take place per second in a cell. A human being at the moment is not the same human being as the one a second ago in terms of matter. Many elements in his structure underwent change and metamorphosis. This change and metamorphosis and similar changes and metamorphoses are described as EVOLUTION. All of the changes and metamorphoses in this sense are a law, not a theory.

What makes evolution disputable?

What makes evolution disputable is to use it in the sense of the view that one species came from another species hence all living beings including human beings came from one another in chains coincidentally and as a work of nature.  

What underlies the discussion of evolution?

Here, a creator is accepted or refused. Suppose that you are holding a pair of eyeglasses. You examine closely what it is made of and what it is used for. Everybody accepts that it is the work of a master. When the eye of a living being is taken into account instead of a pair of eyeglasses, it is also examined closely, what it is used for and how it works.    

There is no problem between evolutionists and creationists up to this point. The dispute starts when the question who is the master (maker) of the eye is asked. Those who advocate creation accept and claim that the eye is also the work of a master who has knowledge, will and power just like the master of the eyeglasses who has knowledge, will and power.   

Atheistic evolutionists accept that the pair of eyeglasses has a master but they state that the eye occurred by chance and that it did not have a master; they also put forward that such a claim is a scientific approach. In short, they exclude Allah.

Difference of viewing the universe between creationists and evolutionists

One of the crucial points between materialistic evolutionists and creationists is that evolutionists view the world based on causes and on behalf of nature; they attribute everything to causes.    

Creationists view the universe on behalf of Allah. When the universe is viewed on behalf of Allah, all of the information obtained in that field becomes a means of knowing Allah. Islam states that the more man makes progress in science, that is, the more he obtains information about living beings, the more he will know about the wisdom and domination of Allah’s administration in the universe.   

What is the reason why scientists oppose religion in general?

Materialistic philosophy, which became dominant thanks to the French Revolution in the nineteenth century, maintained a stance against the religion of Christianity; after that, religious thought was shown as opposite or hostile to all kinds of scientific development. After that time, the foundations of all political, sociological and scientific studies were based on atheism.

Those who did not know Islam equated Islam to Christianity. The stance against Christianity was perceived as stance against Islam. 

However, Islam does not conflict with science because the religion of Islam sees the whole universe as a book - a book that is the work of Allah's attribute of power and a book written by elements, that is, the book of the universe.  

In Islam, thinking of the measured, planned and purposeful creation in things, TAFAKKUR (CONTEMPLATION / MEDITATION), is expressed as reasoning and interpreting. Islam regards an hour of reasoning and thinking superior to interrogatory worshipping. The Quran refers people to the mind by saying, “Do ye not understand?”[al-Baqara, 76], “Will ye not understand?”[ al-Baqara, 44] It encourages people to think by using the mind. It says, “…and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.” [Aal-i Imran, 7] It advises us to ask Allah to increase our knowledge: Say, 'O my Lord! Increase me in knowledge.'”[Taha, 114] It draws attention to the fact that those who know and those who do not know are not equal: “Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know?” [az-Zumar, 9]

“Already have We shown the Signs plainly to you that ye may learn wisdom.” [al-Hadid, 17]

People are asked to learn something that they do not know by asking and searching:

“If ye realize this not, ask of those who possess the Message.” [an-Nahl, 43]

Hadiths also encourage people to learn:

“A person who sets off to learn knowledge is in the way of Allah until he returns.” [Tirmidhi, Ilm 2, 2649; Ibn Majah, Muqaddima 17, 227]

“If a person seeks knowledge, this will atone for his sins in the past.” [Tirmidhi, Ilm 2, 2650]

“A wise word is like something that a believer has lost. He has the right to take it wherever he finds it.” [ Tirmidhi, Ilm, 19, 2688]

“Decrease in knowledge, increase in ignorance” [Bukhari, Kitabu’l-Ilm, 71-72] is stated to be the end of the world.

In Islam, the ink of a scholar is regarded superior to the blood of a martyr. Can such a religion oppose science? Are all branches of science not an interpretation and explanation of Allah’s book of universe? Both the Quran and the universe are His books. What conflicts with Islam is not science but some theories and hypotheses or ideological approaches.

To sum up, the advocates of positivist belief who deify matter took the theory of evolution of its scientific platform and used it for their own atheistic ideology.

Most of the scientists do not accept evolution in the sense ofone species coming from another species in chains coincidentally.

Most of the scientists do not accept the view of evolution in the sense of living beings coming from one another gradually and coincidentally. Besides, the dispute between creationists and evolutionists is due to this type of understanding of evolution. What is more, such a view of evolution, which is advocated by materialistic philosophers and atheistic biologists, is not scientific knowledge but a philosophical view and interpretation based on metaphysics. Therefore, the approach that such a philosophical view is accepted by all scientists is a completely ideological attitude.

How can a person, especially a scientist, deny Allah deliberately?

The reader asks this. He is right. How can a scientist who sees the extremely artistic works necessitating endless knowledge and power in the universe deny their maker? A letter cannot be without a writer; a needle cannot be without a maker; then, is it possible for the vast universe to be without a creator? It is definitely impossible.

When a few ink spots are put on eyeglasses, they may prevent a big mountain from being seen. Similarly, spots put on the spiritual eye of the heart due to the sins that are committed prevent many truths from being seen.

The sun is luminosity and light. It illuminates and enlightens the places it enters, causing roses, basils, daffodils and tulips to form; the same sun decays and rots the things that are stale. Similarly, the lights of knowledge that the people whose spiritual worlds have rotten due to sins receive from the universe go out in their worlds. Although every being is a window opening to Allah, it is transformed into randomness and coincidence in such a person's world. It is no longer possible for them to penetrate the truth. For Allah Almighty states the following for people like that: “They have ears wherewith they hear not; they have eyes wherewith they see not; they have hearts wherewith they understand not. Satan makes their acts seem alluring to them.”

We do not have to defend them. Satan defends them far more. We should not forget that believing in Allah is an issue of faith. The way to believe in Allah is to make efforts in order to know and understand Allah. However, this is not enough. It is necessary for him to be granted the light of belief by Allah Almighty. If you do not use your will in this direction, Allah will not grant you belief. Even when you use your will in this direction, the light of belief still depends on Allah’s grace and mercy. We should not be interested in why Allah does not grant this to others; we should try to thank Him for this grant and belief and be grateful to Him. We should know that there cannot be a greater and more valuable grant and grace than belief in the world and the hereafter. Therefore, to be given this boon shows how valuable we are in the eye of Allah. What we need to do is to try to receive this love and grace. Otherwise, Satan, our soul and bad friends work all the time in order to cause this boon to be removed from us. We should do our best and work very hard so as not to lose this grace and beg Allah not to remove it from us. For, belief enlightens man's world and hereafter. It makes its owner live in a world like Paradise here.

What is meant by evolution here is very important. A lot of things in the universe are not constant. Everything undergoes change. If what is meant by evolution is the transformation of a species into another, it has no scientific basis.

If change is meant by it, it is not evolution but development. The changes that take place in a species through useful mutations are not evolution but planned, flexible creation. A living being can change to the extent that its genetic structure allows. It cannot transform into another species. A virus is still a virus and a bacterium is still a bacterium.

The Quran mentions various stages of the creation of man. It is possible to divide it into four in general:

1- Creation without a woman and man like Hz. Adam

2- Creation of today’s man from a man and woman.

3- Creation from a man without a woman like Hz. Hawwa (Eve).

4- Creation from a woman without a man like Hz. Isa (Jesus).

1- The creation of Hz. Adam, the first man

Allah Almighty states in various verses of the Quran that He created Adam, the first man, from soil (dust). Some of those verses are as follows:

We created man from sounding clay, from mud molded into shape [1].

Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay) [2].

He (Allah) created him (Adam) from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was [3].

We understand from the chapter of Sad that Satan witnessed that Hz. Adam was created from clay:

I am better than he: thou createdst me from fire, and him thou createdst from clay [4].

We understand from those verses that the creation of Hz. Adam started with soil and that it was transformed into mud. This mud was filtered and the “essence of mud” occurred; Hz Adam, the first man, was created out of it. 

There is gradualism in this creation of the first man, as it is the case in the creation of today’s man. That is, today a person is slowly formed in the womb in about nine months; similarly, it is possible to understand that the is transformed into mud from soil, from soil into slime and into something hard; after that this thing slowly transforms into a human.

2- The creation of today’s man from a man and woman

In a verse, the creation of today’s man beginning from the first man is mentioned and the following is stated:

And Allah did create you from dust; then from a sperm-drop; then He made you in pairs [5].

These developments in the womb are indicated as follows: 

Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed; Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (fetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature [6].

As a matter of fact, Allah Almighty states in a verse that He created man in stages as follows:

It is He that has created you in diverse stages [7].

The stages of the creation of both the first man and those who reproduced from him are mentioned in those verses. The laws of growth, development and differentiation are seen in man like in plants and animals until spirit comes to the fetus, which is the first form of man. The fetus grows and develops according to those laws. A new stage starts when spirit comes to the fetus.

Since the world is a place of testing, Allah Almighty creates the creatures in the world slowly and in time due to various reasons.

It is stated that Allah Almighty wanted the angels to prostrate before Adam on behalf of Him when He breathed spirit into Adam and that Satan, who was at the same rank as angels, did not obey this order as follows: 

When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him [8].

It is We Who created you and gave you shape; then We bade the angels bow down to Adam [9].

(Iblis) said: "I am not one to prostrate myself to man, whom Thou didst create from sounding clay, from mud molded into shape [10].

All of the stages of creation are indicated in the following verse:

O mankind! If ye have a doubt about the Resurrection, (consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then out of a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed, in order that We may manifest (our power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babes [11].

A similar creation is indicated in the following hadith:

The creation of each one of you is composed in the mother‘s womb in forty days as nutfa; in that (creation), it turns into such a clot, then in that  turns into such a mudgha. Then, an angel is sent and spirit is breathed into him [12].

In the hadith, the stages of zygote, morula and blastula are expressed as the stage of “compositions” (nutfa). The ovum that is fertilized in the fallopian tube starts to go down to the womb. It is divided even when it is going down. The ovum that enters the womb embeds into mucosa and muscles by sticking when the placenta forms. In other words, it is sown like a seed. This stage is expressed with the word “alaqa” in verses and hadiths.

When the embryo starts to be seen by the naked eye, it is in the form of a small piece of flesh (mudgha); it develops and takes the shape of a human being. It is not yet possible to determine scientifically in which stage of the development of human body the feelings of man are given.

3- The Creation of Hz. Hawwa (Eve)

Allah Almighty states the following about the creation of Hz. Hawwa in the Quran:

O mankind! Reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, His mate [13].

It is He Who created you from a single person, and made his mate of like nature [14].

He created you (all) from a single person: then created, of like nature, his mate [15]. 

According to those verses, Hz. Hawwa was created after Hz. Adam and out of the same thing as him. Acting upon the verse “It is He Who created you from a single person, and made his mate of like nature", some scholars claim that Hz. Hawwa was created from an organ of Hz. Adam.

The Prophet (pbuh) states the following about the creation of women in a hadith:

O believers! Advise good things to one another about women. For, a woman is created from a rib, and the most curved portion of the rib is its upper portion. And if you attempt to straighten her, you will break her, and breaking her is divorcing her.And if you leave her alone you will benefit by her, and crookedness will remain in her.Therefore, advise good things to one another about women [16].

It can be understood that Hz. Hawwa was created from a rib; it can also be interpreted that it is a metaphor. That is, a woman has been created in a delicate way like a rib. If you try to straighten her by force, you will break her. If you want to lead a happy life, you will love her with her crookedness. 

According to some interpretations,after Iblis disobeyed Allah and was expelled from Paradise, Hz. Adam was settled in Paradise. He walked around there for a while without a spouse with whom he could be consoled. Once, he fell asleep; when he woke up, he saw a woman whom Allah created from his rib. He asked, "What are you?" The woman answered, "I am a woman." He asked the woman why she was created. The woman said, "So that you would be consoled with me." Meanwhile, the angels saw them and asked Adam who the woman was. Adam said he was "Hawwa" and that she was given this name because she was created from a living thing [17].

In the Quran, the reason for the creation of Hz. Hawwa is stated as follows: “…made his mate of like nature, in order that he (Adam) might dwell with her (in love)" [18].

Hz. Hawwa might have been created from Hz. Adam’s rib or another part of his body. This has no aspect that can be found strange scientifically. The creation of every man from a sperm and egg is no easier than the creation of Hz. Hawwa out of a rib. Furthermore, it is seen that a lamb is created from a body cell of a sheep through cloning; therefore, it is not contrary to science to accept that Hz. Hawwa was created from Hz. Adam’s rib or another part of his body.

4- The Creation from a woman without a man like Hz. Isa (Jesus).

In the Quran, the creation of Hz. Isa is likened to the creation of Hz. Adam and the following is stated:

 The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was [19].

Today, there are some creatures that are created without a father like Hz. Isa. Bees are an example of it. Female bees are born from fertilized eggs and male bees from unfertilized eggs.

What is noteworthy here is that that creation of Hz. Adam, Hz. Isa and Hz. Hawwa is not based on the current laws of reproduction. In other words, Allah Almighty shows that He creates as He wishes, that He can change His laws as He wishes and that He can create beings independently and unconditionally.

The existing rules related to things do not change except in extraordinary circumstances. However, the universe is not like a machine or clock that runs automatically and whose master does not interfere. The view of ​​creation regards every formation and every move in the world of beings to be under the control and management of Allah any moment. Beings can be created all of a sudden as well as gradually.

There is gradualism in the creation of man too. Man comes out to the world of beings with a cell; and nine months later, he steps on the earth as a baby. This gradual evolution continues until a certain period. It is understood that the first man underwent the stages of soil, clay and sulala.

Is it not possible for Allah to have created man from other beings through evolution?

Allah cannot have evolved man from another living being because Allah Almighty states that He created man in the best way as follows:  

By the Fig and the Olive, And the Mount of Sinai, And this City of security,- We have indeed created man in the best of molds [20].

It is understood from those verses that Allah Almighty created man in a nice nature and shape in terms of form, figure and posture. He created eyes suitable for the face, teeth suitable for the mouth and a head suitable for the body; thus, He created every organ with a certain size and shape, and in the place where it needs to be and as many of them as necessary.

He equipped man with feelings like intellect, imagination, memory, curiosity, anxiety, fear, affection and compassion. He granted man eyes that could see all kinds of subtleties and beauties, ears that could hear all sounds, a tongue that could taste all flavors, a mind that could understand all meanings, and an imagination that could imagine anything.  

Man was made the vicegerent of the earth and the addressee of Allah with this material structure and by being made superior to animals in terms of his spiritual aspect. Man is the mirror to the names of Allah in the widest and most general sense. He is superior to angels with this aspect. For example, man becomes a mirror to Allah's name ash-Shafi (the Healer) and understands it when he becomes ill; he also becomes a mirror to Allah's name ar-Razzaq (the Sustainer) when he is hungry; angels cannot be mirrors to those names; thus man overtakes angels with this aspect.

The following verses summarize the things that happen to man beginning from the creation of the first man to his resurrection in the hereafter. It is clearly stated that man was created as a human being and that he was not evolved from any creatures in these verses:

“Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay); Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed; Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!

After that, at length ye will die Again, on the Day of Judgment, will ye be raised up [21].

In the verses above, Allah Almighty states clearly that He created Hz. Adam, the first man, and from him his wife and the people today as human beings and in the best form. Therefore, it is contrary to those verses to think that man evolved from other creatures; and a Muslim cannot think like that.    

Is it mentioned in the Quran that Hz. Adam was created in Paradise and that he was sent down to the earth later?

Allah Almighty states in the Quran that Hz. Adam and Hz. Hawwa were sent down to the earth because they ate from the fruits of the tree that were forbidden for them in Paradise as follows:

(Allah said): "O Adam! Dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and enjoy (its good things) as ye wish: but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression."

Then began Satan to whisper suggestions to them, bringing openly before their minds all their shame that was hidden from them (before): he said: "Your Lord only forbade you this tree, lest ye should become angels or such beings as live for ever."

And he swore to them both, that he was their sincere adviser.

So by deceit he brought about their fall: when they tasted of the tree, their shame became manifest to them, and they began to sew together the leaves of the garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: "Did I not forbid you that tree, and tell you that Satan was an avowed enemy unto you?"

They (Adam and his wife) said: "Our Lord! We have wronged our own souls: If thou forgive us not and bestow not upon us Thy Mercy, we shall certainly be lost."

(Allah) said: "Get ye down. With enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling-place and your means of livelihood,- for a time."

(Allah) He said: "Therein shall ye live, and therein shall ye die; but from it shall ye be taken out (at last)." [22].

It means Hz. Adam and his wife were sent to the world from Paradise. Human beings lead a short life in the world and die. It is stated in the Quran in detail that the people who die will be resurrected and reckoned, that those who obey Allah’s orders and prohibitions will be rewarded by being sent to Paradise and that those who disobey will be punished by being sent to Hell.   

In conclusion, the following can be stated:

1- It is possible to give a precise figure about how long it took the first man to be created. However, it can be said that the creation of Hz. Adam, the first man, also took place in a few stages, like the creation of man today.

Divine force, power, knowledge and will are essential in creation. However, everything was created based on a cause and effect relationship; thus, the laws of cause and nature were used as a screen for the deeds of Allah. From this point of view, different factors and laws seem to do things.

2- Creation is uninterrupted and continues all the time; some beings are created in an instant while others are made perfect through stages.

3- Allah declares that He created man in the best way. Therefore, the claim that human beings have emerged through the evolution of creatures with lower structures is baseless.

4- Hz. Adam and Hz. Hawwa were sent from paradise to the earth.

5- After death, people will be resurrected and will be accounted for an everlasting life; they will be rewarded or punished.

Footnotes:

[1] al-Hijr, 26.
[2] al-Mu’minun, 12.
[3] Aal-i Imran, 59.
[4] Sad, 76.
[5] Fatir, 11.
[6] al-Mu’minun, 13-14.
[7] Nuh, 14.
[8] Sad, 72.
[9] al-A’raf, 11.
[10] al-Hijr, 33.
[11] al-Hajj, 5.
[12] Sofuoğlu, M. Sahih-i Müslim ve tercümesi, 8, 114, Sönmez Neşriyat A.Ş., İstanbul, 1978.
[13] an-Nisa, 1.
[14] al-A’raf, 189.
[15] az-Zumar, 6.
[16] Muslim, Rada, 60; Bukhari, Anbiya, 1, Nikah, 80; Ibn Majah, Taharah, 77; Darimi, Nikah, 35; Ahmad b. Hanbal, 5/8.
[17] Ibn Kathir, Mukhtasar Tafsir, Ikhtisar and Tahqiq M. Ali as-Sabuni, 7^th impression, Beirut 1402/1981, I, 112vd.
[18] al-A'raf, 189; Elmalılı, Hamdi Yazır. Kur’an Tefsiri. IV. 180-181.
[19] Aal-i Imran, 59.
[20] at-Tin, 1-4.
[21] al-Mu’minun, 12-16.
[22] al-A’raf, 19-25.

Author:

Adem Tatlı (Prof.Dr.)

Homo sapiens is the Latin name of today’s human beings. It has been proven that the evidences claimed to be human fossils do not belong to human beings. That is, the first man did not evolve from beings of lower structures; he was created directly from dust (soil).

The Creation of the First Man

1. The Creation of Hz. Adam from Dust

We see that man’s stages of creation are stated in detail in the Quran. We can list those verses as follows:

“Among His Signs in this, that He created you from dust; and then,- behold, ye are men scattered (far and wide).”(1)

“He created you from clay,...”(2)

“Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay).”(3)

“Them have We created out of a sticky clay.”(4)

“We created man from sounding clay, from mud molded into shape.”(5)

“He created man from sounding clay like unto pottery.”(6)

As it is seen, the stages of man’s creation are stated in those verses. Accordingly, the creation of man started with dust continued with clay and quintessence of clay and finally had a hard structure like pottery.   

It is clear that what is narrated through those stages is the creation of the first man. This view is supported when it is mentioned after some of those verses that the angels were asked to prostrate before Adam after this creation.(7)

The higher level of creation expressed by the word “ja’ala”mentionedin verse 32 of the chapter of al-Baqara is clear in the verses listed above. The creation that started at the level of dust did not remain in the level of plants and animals. It was elevated directly to the level of human beings.

Is there no elevation like that in today’s creation? The formation of man starts with one cell in the womb. A baby who is created from one cell is equipped with organs and feelings; is it a small elevation? From one cell, it is elevated to a sane person who is conscious, who thinks, knows and dreams. Can there be a post higher than that?

That it is stated in the first verse after it is expressed that man was created from dust that men were scattered on earth indicates that various races that spread to different regions of the world came from the descent of Hz. Adam. As a matter of fact, the following is stated in a hadith: “Hz. Adam was created from a lump of dust taken from various regions of the world; therefore, sons of Adam have different colors.” (8)

2. The Creation of Hz. Adam’s Wife

“It is He Who created you from a single person, and made his mate of like nature.”(9)

In the verse above, Allah addresses human beings and tells them that He created them from a single person. Tafsir scholars state that this person is Hz. Adam and that his mate created from this person is Hz. Hawwa (Eve).

The verses and hadiths related to the creation of Hz. Adam expresses this meaning; the statements in the Torah support the interpretations of tafsir scholars.

The phrase “wa khalaqa minha zawjaha” (He created his mate from him) is generally interpreted as follows: “He created Hz. Hawwa from Hz. Adam’s left rib."

However, some tafsir scholars interpreted it as He created his wife “min jinsiha” (from Adam’s species).  That is, He created you from Hz. Adam and created Hz Hawwa from Hz. Adam (according to the general acceptance) or from Hz. Adam’s species (according to some tafsir scholars).

Thus, according to both interpretations, it is stated that human beings were created from one person (Hz. Adam).

“And your creation or your resurrection is in no wise but as an individual soul.”(10)

It is clear that “individual soul (nafs wahida)” mentioned in the verse above means a single person; similarly, it is also clear that “a single person” mentioned in verse 189 of the chapter of al-Araf means the same thing. 

“The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.”(11)

As the verse above indicates, this person is Hz. Adam.

In a similar verse in the chapter of an-Nisa, the verse continues as follows: "and from them (the two people) twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women.” (12) The phrase from them (the two people) mentioned in the verse proves that they are these two people (Hz. Adam and Hz. Hawwa).

3. The Creation of Human Generation from Hz. Adam and Hz. Hawwa

“He began the creation of man with (nothing more than) clay, And made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised.”(13)

In those verses, Allah Almighty attracts attention to the creation of today’s men. He attracts attention to the difference between the creation of the first man and that of the others. It is clear that what is meant “man” in this verse is “Adam” and by “naslahu”(his generation) is the other “people”.

That Iblis, who was created from fire, avoided prostrating before Adam despite Allah’s order “Prostrate before Adam!” by saying “Shall I bow down to one whom Thou didst create from clay?”(14) is a clear evidence that the person created from clay is Hz. Adam.

Allah Almighty states different creations as follows:

“He is Well-versed in every kind of creation.”(15)

As he created before the father of Jinn from the fire of a scorching wind (16), He created the first man with clay, and made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised.(17)

The verses clearly explain the creation of the first man, his wife and today’s human beings, who came from them. Listen to and obey the Quran, which is the word of Allah.

Footnotes:

(1) ar-Rum, 20.
(2) al-An’am, 2.
(3) al-Mu’minun, 12.
(4) as-Saffat, 11.
(5) al-Hijr, 26.
(6) ar-Rahman , 14.
(7) al-Hijr, 28-29 and similar verses
(8) see Muslim, II, 261; Tirmidhi, IV, 67-68; Abu Dawud, 4693; Ahmad, IV, 400.
(9) al-A’raf , 189.
(10) Luqman , 28.
(11) Aal-i Imran, 59.
(12) an-Nisa, 1.
(13) as-Sajda, 7-8.
(14) al-Isra, 61.
(15) Yasin, 79.
(16) al-Hijr, 27.
(17) as-Sajda, 7-8.

Yes. The basis of this theory claims that living beings formed on their own, not by the creation of Allah.

It is possible to categorize the principles that the philosophy of evolution are based on under four headings:

1. Gradualism (gradual development): The incidents of evolution took place in a very long period of time and step by step.

2. A species came out of another species, or a being from another being.

3. All of the beings living today occurred as a result of the differentiation of a single cell. That is, multicellular invertebrates came out of one single cell; then fish came out of multicellular invertebrates; after that, frogs came out of fish, reptiles out of frogs, birds and mammals out of reptiles; finally, human beings came out of monkeys.

4. All of those incidents happened by chance (coincidentally) and on their own.

Stanley Miller showed that some amino acids could be synthesized by combining the gases considered as the gas composition of the primitive atmosphere.

In 1953, Stanley Miller, who was a chemistry student, solved methane, ammonia and hydrogen in water and exposed them to electrical discharge by putting them in a glass balloon.

Miller used energy sources and the mixtures that were supposed to be found in the world at that time. In addition to ultraviolet rays, Miller accepted lightning, that is, electrical discharge, occurring as a result of atmospheric movements as a source of energy. In addition to many compounds, three amino acids found in nature formed within 24 hours in this experiment. They are glycine, asparagine and alanine.

The Criticism of Stanley Miller Experiment

Miller's experiment is criticized in several ways.

1. The crucial part of Miller's tools is the cold trap. This structure served to collect the products that originated from chemical reactions. If he had not used a cold trap, those amino acids would have been destroyed by electric sparks. However, a means similar to this protector of Miller did not exist on the primordial earth. 1-3

2. After 1980, the literature showed that the first world conditions were not a homogeneous mixture of metal, rock and ice, and that the first atmosphere did not consist of methane, ammonia and hydrogen. Recent studies indicate that the world was very hot at first and that it consisted of a mixture of molten nickel and iron. It is generally believed that there was a mixture of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water vapor in the atmosphere at that time. However, they are not as suitable as ammonia and methane for the formation of organic molecules. 4

3. Stanley Miller did not use oxygen in his experiment, assuming that there was no oxygen in the first atmosphere. For, oxygen prevents the formation of amino acids due to oxidation. However, oxygen is released from water and carbon dioxide as a result of photolysis. Water and carbon dioxide are decomposed by the effect of ultraviolet ray. Because there was no ozone (O3) layer in the first atmosphere, it is assumed that an adequate amount of ultraviolet light reached the earth.

The explanation of photolysis with a formula:

H2O + UV photon è OH- + H+

OH- + OH- è H2O + O=

CO2 + UV photon è CO + O=

4. All proteins present in the body are levo (left handed) amino acids. No dextro (right-handed) amino acid has been seen in any living being so far. Stanley Miller's experiment yielded both levo and dextro amino acids. However, dextro amino acids spoil the living structure and its function.

The issue of how life first occurred on earth has been a matter of debate for many years. There is no explanation that satisfies everyone even today.

That "living things arose from non-living things spontaneously and by chance" was commonly accepted for centuries. That is, living things arose from non-living things spontaneously without needing a mother and a father. Greek philosophers that lived Before Christ like Tha­les, Anaximander and Xenophanes believed that this view was true. According to them, plant lice originated from the dew on the plants, and frogs originated from mud at the bottom of the puddles.

This is called "Abiogenesis Theory". Francisco Redi showed that worms did not occur on meat covered with something because flies could not lay eggs there. After that, it was understood that a living thing could originate only from another living thing. However, it still remains unclear how the first living thing occurred.

The "Heterotroph Hypothesis" is proposed in relation to the emergence of the first living being. According to this hypothesis, the world was warmer than today millions of years ago. There was hot water in the oceans. The sun's rays were more severe than today. Since there was no free oxygen, ultraviolet rays reached the earth. Electrical discharge and volcanic eruptions occurred frequently in the atmosphere. Simple organic compounds were produced in the oceans from substances such as NH3, H2, CO2, which were present in the atmosphere.

A living being formed spontaneously from one of these substances “by chance”. Some other living beings originated from it by chance. It is chance (coincidence) that planned and conducted all incidents in the Heterotroph Hypothesis.

If such an explanation related to the emergence of the first living being satisfies you, the first living thing occurred in this way. If such an explanation does not satisfy you, let me quote an explanation given by an evolutionist biologist. This biologist states exactly the following about how the first living things emerged in the textbook:

“Living beings found a way to the earth somehow.”

If you are not satisfied with it, there is no other explanation that science and biology can offer you. Besides, science world has satisfied itself with this scenario for two hundred years. You have to believe in this explanation related to the emergence of the first living being for the time being.

This scenario about the formation of the first living being was put into practice by Stanley Miller, a chemistry student, in 1953. Miller put methane, ammonia and hydrogen gas, which are accepted to have existed in the primordial atmosphere, into a glass balloon and exposed it to electrical discharge. As a result, along with several compounds, three amino acids that exist in nature emerged. They are glycine, asparagine and alanine.

Acting upon this, they claim that the gases in the atmosphere combined to form amino acids, that amino acids combined coincidentally to form proteins, that proteins combined coincidentally to form the structure called coacervate soup in the seas, and that this coacervate produced the first living thing coincidentally.

Could a soup form spontaneously or coincidentally if the ingredients were ready? You can try it at home if you want. For example, you can prepare all the ingredients of the lentil soup and put it on the kitchen counter. Then you need to wait for the soup to form by chance. It will take place in the course of time. For, the most magical thing here is time. It will happen in a very long time.

The reason why man cannot see such coincidental things is his short life. Do not starve by depending on the soup that will occur by chance. Fill your stomach with something else and wait for the chance soup. For, the advocates of the theory of evolution insistently tell us that all the coincidental things will occur spontaneously when given enough time.

If you say that there must be someone to make the soup, this view will not be accepted by evolutionists because they will say it is not scientific.

How is it possible for a living cell, in which a realm is virtually placed, to form by chance though even a soup does not form spontaneously by chance?

A scientific explanation about how complex and conscious living beings emerged from simple molecules on their own has not been made up to now. It is not possible to do it in the future either. For, if there is a work, there must be its master. It is not a scientific approach to attribute the existence of something to chance and to nature or to claim that it came into being spontaneously by rejecting its doer or master. It is the view of atheism, that is, materialist philosophy based on irreligiousness. It is an ideological attitude, not a scientific one, to insist that the first living thing and other living things emerged based on such a philosophical view. Such ideological thoughts should not be taught under the name of science.

Since there is no life and vitality in the atoms and elements that make up the human, the trait of life that does not exist in an atom will not exist in groups of atoms according to the rule, "Something that does not exist in an individual will not exist in the group.” In other words, the traits of life in man come to him from outside, from a living body. Just like the gleams on water droplets in the river come from the sun so too does man reflect the names and attributes of Allah like a mirror. For example, some attributes like knowledge, possessions, power, hearing and vision that exist in man indicate His qualities. Man says, “I see some things; Allah sees everything. I own this house. Allah is the owner of the universe.” Thus, man understands and knows, to some extent, the meaning of Allah's attributes and names with his mind through the names and attributes that become manifest in him. Animals do not have these attributes; nor do they have mind and reason to evaluate them. For example, a sheep does not know that Allah has knowledge because it does not have the attribute of knowledge; nor does it have the mind to reason. This is what makes man superior to other beings. That is, man thinks logically with the mind in him and he has a position over all beings; thus, he becomes an addressee of Allah. He gains the attribute and rank of being the most honorable being. The value of man increases as he meditates on the purpose of creation and duties of the beings in the universe.

The qualification that makes man superior to the angels is his contemplation and meditation on the beings in the universe and his efforts to study and understand them. For, each one of the angels has a duty and is responsible for doing a deed of worship. One of them always stands while another is always in prostration. However, man can understand and do all kinds of deeds of worship. An angel cannot have the same pleasure and reach the same degree as man when man takes pleasure as his hunger is appeased or his thirst is quenched and when he thanks Allah. For, angels do not get hungry and thirsty.  Therefore, an angel does not know the pleasure received when those are met; an angel’s thanking Allah regarding the issue cannot reach the level of man. For instance, an angel cannot know the manifestation of the name ash-Shafii (the Healer) of Allah. For, angels do not get ill. However, man appreciates the value of health after his illness and the being that gives him health more than the angels; he praises and thanks Him for it.

The ability and capacity to think and understand, which elevates man to such a rank, does not exist in elements and atoms. This feature becomes manifest in man only through life. Man reaches the rank that is superior to all beings through life, a very broad, comprehensive and general contemplation and thought that he has; he becomes an addressee of Allah, who is the Creator of the whole universe, due to his praise, thanking and worshipping. 

The philosophy dominating today's scientific community is the materialist philosophy. This philosophy tries to explain everything with atoms and matter. However, it is not possible to explain the phenomenon of life with such a mechanistic and materialistic approach. For, the features of life, such as vision, hearing, taking pleasure, suffering, fury, mind, imagination, love and affection do not exist in the structure of atoms and molecules.

References:

1. Bliss, R. B. and Parker, G. E. Origin of Life. Ca­lifornia. 1979. 
2. Demirsoy, A. Kalıtım ve Evrim. Meteksan Yay. No.11. Ankara. 1984.      
3. Miller, S.L. Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions. Science, 1953, V ol.117.
4. Gribbin, J. Carbon Dioxide, Ammonia and Life. New Scientist.      Vol.94. May 13. 1982, p.143.

First of all, the verses mentioning the phases of the creation of man out of dust seem to be contrary to the theory of evolution. We see that the phases of the creation of man are explained in detail in the Quran though the phases of the creation of other beings are not explained in detail. We can list those verses as follows:

“Among His Signs in this, that He created you from dust; and then,- behold, ye are men scattered (far and wide).” (ar-Rum, 30: 20)

“He it is created you from clay...” (al-An’am, 6:2)

“Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay).” (al-Mu’minun, 23:12)

“…Them have We created out of a sticky clay.” (as-Saaffat, 37:11)

“We created man from sounding clay, from mud molded into shape.” (al-Hijr, 15:26)

“He created man from sounding clay like unto pottery.” (ar-Rahman, 55:14)

As it is seen, the stages of the creation of man are explained in detail in those verses. Accordingly, the creation of man started with dust continued with clay and quintessence of clay and finally had a hard structure like pottery. It is clear that what is narrated through those stages is the creation of the first man. As a matter of fact, this view is supported when it is mentioned after some of those verses that the angels were asked to prostrate before Adam after this creation.

That it is stated in the first verse after it is expressed that man was created from dust that men were scattered on earth indicates that various races that spread to different regions of the world came from the descent of Hz. Adam. As a matter of fact, the following is stated in a hadith: “Adam was created from a lump of dust taken from various regions of the world; therefore, sons of Adam have different colors.” (see Abu Dawud, Sunnah, 16; Tirmidhi, Tafsir, 2/1; Musnad, IV, 400, 406)

Since the plural pronouns are used in those verses (“He created you (plural) from dust”), those who defend evolution have interpreted it as the creation of all human beings, not Hz. Adam only.

However, what is meant by the statement “He created you from dust” is the creation of Hz. Adam from dust. For, when Adam is created from dust, other human beings are naturally regarded to have been created from dust. Therefore, the word “you” in the statement “He created you from dust” means “your father Adam”. Such a style, that is, addressing people as if addressing their ancestors or mentioning the bounties given to their ancestors as given to them is something that is often seen in the Quran. For instance, what is meant by “you” in the verses below “O Children of Israel! Call to mind the special favor which I bestowed upon you …” (al-Baqara, 2: 40, 47, 122) , “We, when the water (of Noah´s Flood) overflowed beyond its limits, carried you (mankind), in the floating (Ark),” (al-Haaqqa, 69: 11) is actually the ancestors of the people living in that period. What was done for their ancestors are narrated as if they were done for them.

In fact, the other human beings are also dust in terms of origin because they feed on plants and animals. The animals we eat feed on plants. Plants receive their nutrition from the ground (dust). 

Therefore, we are created from dust indirectly like the other living beings on earth. The statement “Everything on earth is earth” indicates this fact.

However, there is an important point that should be kept in mind here. If the word dust (turab) only had been used in the verses related to the creation of man, it could have been considered as a second possibility that not only the Prophet Adam but also all human beings were created from dust. However, as we have seen in the verses above, when the creation of man is explained, not only dust but also mud, drained mud, sticky mud, hardened mud are used.

Therefore, it is clear that the creation of Adam, the first human being, from dust is explained in detail in those verses. What is explained in the other divine books and many sound narrations also support this view.

Mention of the various stages of dust (soil) in those verses is contrary to the understanding of evolution, the understanding stating that man was evolved from ape-like beings, not from dust directly; therefore, those stages (mud, hardened mud, etc.) were tried to be interpreted with strained interpretations. (For examples, see İslamoğlu, 2016, 135 ff)

“…He began the creation of man with (nothing more than) clay, And made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised.” (as-Sajda, 32:7-8) The difference between the creation of the first man and that of the others is mentioned in the verse above.  It is clear that what is meant by “man” in this verse is “Adam” and by “naslahu” (his generation) is the other “people.

When Allah ordered, “Bow down unto Adam”, Iblis said, “Shall I bow down to one whom Thou didst create from clay?” (al-Isra, 17:61) and avoided prostrating; this is clear evidence that Hz. Adam was created directly from clay, that he was despised by Iblis because of this and that the person who was created from clay was Hz. Adam.  

“It is He Who created you from a single person, and made his mate of like nature…” (al-A’raf, 7:189) In the verse above, Allah addresses human beings and tells them that He created them from a single person (nafs wahidah).

All tafsir scholars state that this person is Hz. Adam and that his mate created from him is Hz. Hawwa (Eve). The verses and hadiths related to the creation of Hz. Adam express this meaning; the statements in the Torah support the interpretations of tafsir scholars.

That is the meaning of the verse, but the word “nafs” is used in some translations and it is sometimes translated as “He Who created you from a single nafs” and sometimes as “He Who created you from a single essence”; thus, words like essence and ore are used to translate the word nafs.

In that case, the meaning of the verse becomes ambiguous and it is not clearly understood what is meant by nafs, essence or ore.

In that case, the meaning of the verse is as follows: “It is He Who created you from a single essence, and made its mate of like nature”; in this translation, Hz. Adam is not mentioned and something like “the mate of essence” is understood; mentioning “mate” becomes meaningless. In our opinion, it is clear that what is meant by nafs wahidah is “a single person”.

Similarly, it is not coherent to interpret this word (nafs) as “species” (for such interpretations, see Mustafa Öztürk, Kur’an ve Yaratılış, 2016, p. 161 ff). For, in that case, the meaning of the verse is as follows: “It is He Who created you from a species, and made its mate of like nature.” Thus, the meaning of the verse becomes ambiguous. In that case, since the verse starts with the phrase “We created you” the phrase that follows should have been “azwajakum/your mates”, not “zawjaha/its mate”.

Therefore, as we have mentioned above, the meaning of the verse is “It is He Who created you from a single person, and made his mate of like nature.”

“And your creation or your resurrection is in no wise but as an individual soul…” (Luqman, 31: 28) As a matter of fact, it is clear that individual soul (nafs wahida) mentioned in the verse above means “a single person”. And that single person is Adam, who is the first man.  

A similar verse in the chapter of an-Nisa continues as follows: “…and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women…” (an-Nisa, 4:1) It proves that the two people mentioned in the verse are Adam and Hawwa and that they are the parents of all human beings.

“The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was” (Aal-i Imran, 3:59) This verse is one of the clearest and most important evidences that Hz. Adam is the first man and that he was created directly from dust. For, in this verse, Allah addresses Jews, who do not believe that Hz. Isa (Jesus) came into the world without a father and who claim that something like that is impossible, and Christians, who deify Hz. Isa since he came into the world without a father and claim that he is the son of Allah, and tells them that the creation of Hz. Isa is like that of Adam, mentioning a more interesting example of creation. That is, if you cannot understand it, the creation of Adam is much more interesting: Allah created him without a mother and father, directly from dust; He said to him: "Be". And he was.   

Adam was created without a father from dust and became a living human being as a result of Allah’s order kun (be); similarly, Allah, who created him without a father and mother, created Isa without a father. 

Thus, this verse explains the miraculous creation of Isa without a father by a more miraculous creation, that is, the creation of Adam from dust without a mother and a father; in addition, it states that the creation of Hz. Adam is miraculous like the creation of Hz. Isa and that he was created directly from dust. 

“…I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah´s leave...” (Aal-i Imran, 3: 49) This verse narrates how Allah gives life to a piece of mud in the shape of a bird through Hz. Isa’s hands and shows how easy and quick it is.

Thus, clues are given about how creatures were created. Besides, it is clearly understood that there is no need for millions of years to pass (contrary to the claims of evolutionist) for the piece of mud to transform into a bird and for Adam to transform from mud into a human being.

“And He taught Adam the names of all things…” (al-Baqara, 2:31), “(Allah) Most Gracious! It is He Who has taught the Qur´an. He has created man: He has taught him speech (and intelligence).” (ar-Rahman, 55:1-4) These verses show that first man was created with the ability to speak like us. Similarly, That Hz. Isa started to talk by saying, “I am a slave of Allah...” upon the sign of his mother when he was a baby in swaddling clothes shows that Adam could speak after his creation was completed. There is no need to wait for a long time to speak.

“We have honored the sons of Adam...” (al-Isra, 17:70), “We have indeed created man in the best of molds” (at-Tin, 95 4) These verses state that man is an honorable and valuable being; they show that man was not created from other species, but as an independent being in a different way, and that it has no relation with animals like apes.  

As a matter of fact, the expression “despised and rejected” used for a group of people from Sons of Israel who insisted on opposing Allah’s orders in the verse “Be ye apes, despised and rejected!” (al-A’raf, 7:166) shows that apes are lower creatures than humans in the eye of Allah. Since it is very easy for Allah to create man separately, it is unthinkable for Him to make human beings relatives of apes or similar beings.

“He Who has made everything which He has created most good…” (as-Sajda, 32:7) “…the artistry of Allah, who disposes of all things in perfect order…” (an-Naml, 27:88), “…No want of proportion wilt thou see in the Creation of (Allah) Most Gracious…” (al-Mulk, 67:3) It is stated in these verses that the beings and living beings in the universe were created in the best way and perfectly.

This is clear evidence against the theory of evolution because, according to this theory, the organs of living beings developed gradually and adapted to the environment. That is, there is no perfect living but there are constantly changing and evolving creatures. In fact, every being and living thing is perfect. Even the living beings regarded as primitive and simple are perfect and flawless. As a matter of fact, as all Islamic scholars state, “لیس فی الإمکان أبدع مما کان” that is “there is nothing more perfect than what exists within the boundaries of possibilities.” That is beings were created in the best way. Something more perfect cannot be put forward. Man cannot say, “it would be better if it were like this or that” for any being. What he sees as imperfect is actually his own viewpoint. 

In conclusion, we can say that there is no expression that supports evolution in the verses of the Qur'an; on the contrary, some verses indicate that species were created independently and it is clearly stated in some verses that Adam, the first man, was created from dust.

Those who put forward opposite views have no clear evidence; what they put forward as evidence is nothing but interpretations and distortions based on their own opinions. In other words, they are subject to their conjectures only.

It is not a scientific approach to be subject to conjectures. As it is stated in the following verse, “…Conjecture avails nothing against Truth” (an-Najm, 53:28)

The Prophet Adam had the color, race and body characteristics of all humanity to come into being up to the Day of Judgment. It is necessary to know the genetic structure of man to understand it. In fact, the encoding of genetic structure into chromosomes and its transfer from mother and father to their offspring occur within the framework of the same laws in plants, animals and humans.

As it is known, the genetic structure of all living beings is located in large molecules called chromosomes, except for a few living beings. Each chromosome consists of two DNA molecules. Proteins, bases, sugars and phosphates constitute the structure of DNA molecules. They are based on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur atoms. Amino acids constitute the structure of proteins. The smallest protein molecule consists of about three hundred amino acids.

The genetic characteristics of living beings are encoded in DNA molecules and gene regions. Every living being has a different chromosome number. For example, humans have 46 chromosomes. 23 of them come from the mother and 23 of them come from the father. All the characteristics possessed by human beings are encoded in the DNA that constitutes the structure of those chromosomes.

- How can it possible? How is the information of all people loaded onto 46 chromosomes?

Some technological structures and applications that have emerged recently make it easy to understand such issues. For example, information from thousands of volumes can be loaded onto a device called a flash disk. It is not possible to see that information, which is encoded in a very small area, with the naked eye from the outside. However, it can be read when it is placed in a computer. Likewise, all genetic characteristics of the fig are encoded into the fig seed. The area allocated to genetic structure in that seed is very small. Nutrients are stored in a great part of the fig seed.

There are 46 chromosomes in a normal body cell in man, but the number of chromosomes in the sperm cell from the father is reduced to half, that is, to 23. The number of chromosomes in the egg cell from the mother, the chromosome number is also reduced to half. A single cell with 46 chromosomes is formed when they unite. Man begins life with that single cell. That cell reproduces by dividing in two each time. Gradually, those cells differentiate to function in the tissues and organs in which they will operate. However, the number of chromosomes always remains the same: 46.

It is known that there are approximately twenty to twenty-five thousand gene regions in man. Each gene controls one and sometimes more than one characteristic. A change in the position of an atom in one of those 25,000 genes, for example the change of hydrogen and oxygen in the structure of a gene, causes a different characteristic to occur. The change of a hydrogen in an amino acid branch in a protein in the structure of the gene produces a different structure.

Therefore, such different combinations, i.e., different and various possibilities, cause the formation of billions of characteristics. Some argue that the genetic information found in human chromosomes can barely fit into an encyclopedia covering an area of ​​100 square meters from the ground to the moon. What should be understood from it is that there is a lot of information stored in human chromosomes.

The information recorded on the chromosomes in the Prophet Adam’s genetic structure can contain the genetic information of not only the people to come from Adam to the Day of Judgment but also billions of times more people. There is nothing in it that contradicts reason, science and logic. For example, in your eyes, there are the eye characteristics of the people to come into being from you up to the Day of Judgment. Everyone accepts it. The same thing holds true for the people before you. That is, there were the basic eye characteristics of the people to come up to the Day of Judgment in the Prophet Adam’s eyes.

It is necessary to know the following at this point: All of the genetic characteristics of humanity are considered as a gene pool. There is a combination of marriages and various characteristics in that gene pool. That is, a different variation of the two characteristics of any structure present in the mother and father may arise. There is enough space in the chromosomes for all those differences to be recorded.

In conclusion, there is an area where thousands of volumes of information can be recorded in a person’s DNA, i.e., in his chromosomes. Thus, the chromosomes of Adam, who was the first human being, were capable of containing the genetic characteristics of the people to come up to the Day of Judgment. God Almighty created him and his descendants like that.

Not all characteristics there have to be exactly the same. There are some variations, i.e., minor changes, among the main characteristics. When two characteristics come together, a structure in the middle of those two characteristics can be formed. The place to record all those differences and changes always exists in the chromosomes.

Allah is able to place the genetic information of all humanity in a small place like the tip of a pin. Man’s having difficulty in understanding it is due to the fact that he compares it to his own soul. The soul opposes as follows: “I cannot do it. So, how does a creator do it?”

However, if the soul looks at the issue from Allah’s point of view, not from its own point of view, there will be no problem because there is no difference between creating an atom and creating the whole universe for Allah. In fact, if God Almighty were to create infinite times more universes, including Paradise and Hell, He would spend as much force as He did to create an atom. There is no difference between a lot and a little, and big and small for Him. The manifestation of His names and attributes is endless. When He wants something to happen, He only wills and commands; that is all. It does not matter whether what He wills is an atom or the infinite universe...

PERFECTION IN A PERIOD OF TIME

The biggest dilemma of the evolutionists is the process problem. According to them; each living creature become perfect as time goes by. In other words, living creatures evolve from their very simple forms to their sophisticated structures.

Now here is what I want to ask them:

How could the fact that it is necessary for a living creature to have a faultless system in order to survive be ignored?

Let me clarify what I meant by this question.

For example, think about a spacecraft. It has thousands of ultra tech pieces in its structure. Let us assume one of its screw is loosened, one of its cable is broken or forgotten to be mounted and this has made all its system invalid in space. Indeed, a similar example happened after the launch of the Hubble telescope to space. Engineers made a mistake in calculating the angle of the mirror and this made all the system functionless. After millions of dollars of additional expenses, a new team was sent to space. So finally, they were able to fix it. One can easily observe that even the misplacing of a single piece of the system can cause the whole system to be inoperative.

Like the example above, all of the systems of a cell, which is the building block of living creatures, have to be present at the same moment so that there would be life in that cell. In other words, for a cell to be alive, all its units should be complete and exact at the very first moment. Even when one building block of the Hubble telescope is missing, it does not work, how is it possible that a much more complex cell forcing limits of science by containing bodies such as DNA, RNA, endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondria could work with missing systems?

As a more astonishing example, let us take a look at the improvement process of human in the uterus. Until the human embryo reaches the perfection to live independently its birth time, it has to be fed by an outside support from its mother’s placenta and of the needs of its cells have to be met. As evolutionists claim, if we put a human embryo in a forest, could it develop as a baby? İn other words, without grabbing the wall of the womb and without being fed by its mother, is it possible foran embryo to finish his development process on its own in a forest?

As another example, let us have a look at the countless hormones which are in the structures of organs like liver and pancreas. If, at the beginning, one or few of these hormones are missing, life does not continue. As life does not continue, how will the process of adaptation to environment work? Likewise, for example if 10.000 years is needed for the formation of the valve of the pharynx which separates air and liquid and guide them to lung and stomach consequently, how can that animal live during that 10.000 years? For, if this pharynx valve does not exist or work properly water will fill up his lung and end his life.

For example, how could it be possible that a predator eagle’s talons are continuing to develop and the eagle cannot grip its hunt for thousand years, that the venom of a snake cannot yet poison its prey, that a spider cannot spin a web, that a shark’s broken tooth is not replaced by new one, that a baby dolphin does not know how to swim just after its mother has given birth, that a baby gazelle cannot learn how to hide itself, that a cat does not have its maternal instincts, that the equilibrium center of the inner ear is not functional, that the sense of smell cannot detect harmful external factors for life for thousands years. In short, how can it be possible that all living beings live for thousands of years as prototypes with missing or undeveloped organs? Is it a scientific approach to accept such an impossibility?

Those examples can be increased. From histology to endocrinology, from urology to cardiology, it is possible to exemplify each line of billions of pages of medicine books like this. As it is seen, in the world of living creatures, life cannot continue with missing or undeveloped building blocks. Therefore, the claim of evolutionists that organs have completed their improvements in the long period of time does not match with the reality.

Another paradox in the claims of evolutionists is the environment delusion. From atom to cell, the basic issue their theory is based on is that the living creatures gained their perfection within the environment itself. For example, according to them, a bird became perfect within its environment. However, a bird has to have a perfect aerodynamic system with its wings in order to enter into its environment, which is “air”. If it does not enter air, how can it adapt itself to that specific environment? In other words, the bird must be perfect with all its organs to enter its environment. However, according to evolutionists, living creatures are becoming perfect as they entering into their environment. That is a real paradox.

Here is another paradox. For example, an eye should exist in order to recognize light, which is its environment and according to the view of evolutionists, it should adapt itself to it. However, if the eye is not yet present in its environment, how could it adapt itself to light?

Another paradox; how can a leech would know the coagulation factor of a living creature whose blood it sucks without being present in the environment? How can it arrange itself as such an environment is not present?

So, what happens in the realm of living creatures do not improve randomly or by coincidence from its simple form to its sophisticated structure as evolutionists claim. All limbs needed by a living creature are given to it and handled with the order and control of an exceptional Personality, who has limitless knowledge, will and power.

“For example, if the stones of the dome of Hagia Sophia are not dependent on the command and skill of its architect, all the stones must have skill in the art of building like that of the architect Sinan, and must be either subject to, or dominant over, the rest of the stones. That is, they must have the power to say: “Come, we shall stand shoulder to shoulder in order not to fall and collapse. In the same way, if the particles in creatures, which are thousands of times more skilfully fashioned, wonderful, and full of wisdom than the dome of Hagia Sophia, are not dependent on the command of the master builder of the universe, to each of them must the ascribed as many attributes of perfection as those of the universe’s Maker.”¹

In architecture, in structures like dome and cove, there are units named keystones which support the whole building. In a dome, if we assume that stones are not assembled with cement, the whole dome will collapse. Here, there is an important point of our main subject for the ones who do not accept the scaffold and engineer: if the stones are not together all at the same time, they cannot constitute a dome.

For a cell to have a life, its mitochondria needs to have an excellent function. According to the approach of evolutionists, billions of years of adaptation is necessary for the mitochondria to have a certain function. However, the cell will not be able to survive as its mitochondria is not perfect. How can a non-living entity can adapt or evolve? In other words, the obligation that “all stones in the dome should be perfect at the same moment” refutes all those process theories that “every living creature becomes perfect as time goes by” claimed by evolutionists.

1 Nursi, B. S. Sözler. Envar Neşriyat, Istanbul,1997, p. 554.

Gökhan DİLER

This question of Kenneth’s originates from not being aware of the difference between the philosophical approach of evolutionists and the philosophical thought of creationists about the formation of the creatures in the universe.

According to evolutionists, everything in the universe occurred by coincidences and has a very complicated structure. Living beings formed from one another in a chain. Therefore, they claim that the anatomic, physiologic and biochemical similarities of living beings is an evidence that they came from one another. They claim that the structures, formations and similarities whose wisdom and meaning they do not know and understand in their studies are a result of coincidences and randomness.

According to the view of the creationists, everything, from atom to galaxies, is a work of Allah. At every single moment, Allah is creating plants, animals and humans from a single cell. In the past, He created the ancestors of each of those living beings from a single cell representing their genetic structures too. Allah’s knowledge, power and will are endless and eternal. Therefore, Allah did and can create each kind of living beings at any shape and style He wishes. Therefore, the similarities in the body, shape and function of all living beings are not an evidence that they have originated from one another in a chain but they are a very strong evidence that the creator of all living beings is the same.

The whole universe is like a book consisting of 114 letters.

That thousands or even millions of English books in a library consist of only 26 letters shows that they are all works of man who has knowledge, will and power. The similarities among those books in terms of letters cannot be interpreted that they have originated from one another.  Living beings also consist of 114 letters; similarly, this book of universe consist of 114 elements together with their isotopes; it was written by Allah. Each spring season is like a page of this universe book. Plants, animals and humans are also written from the same elements, in other words, the same letters in that page.

The topic and duty of sciences is to analyze that book of universe and to try to understand the function of the beings written in that book. For example, man is written in that book like a word. The sciences of biology, medicine, sociology, psychology and biochemistry considering man as their topic and try to understand the secrets of his creation.

The tooth of man is only a piece of bone in terms of appearance. However, hundreds of scientists started from assistantship and made a lot of study on that tooth and became professors for decades but not all secrets of the creation of a tooth have been discovered yet. Therefore, human tooth will probably continue to make thousands of people professors for hundreds of more years.

On the other hand, the brain and DNA structures of man are much more fantastic and miraculous masterpieces. Even if thousands scientists investigated them for hundreds of years, the secrets of their creation would not be understood. What is known about those structures today is probably not even ten percent of them.

So, to ask creationists to find out and to show the subtleties of the duty and structure of any human organ means to show an ideological attitude in the name of irreligiousness by ignoring all of those facts and scientific working methods.

Two answers to Kenneth’s question

Creationists will have two answers to Kenneth’s question. The first one is that this similarity in human DNA definitely proves that the creator of those living beings is the same. The other is that if there is an organ whose duty is not known, it is obvious that scientists will research and find it. As the research on living beings will go until Doomsday, the existence of a lot of bodies whose duty and structure are not known is normal. Those researchers might or might not believe in a creator.

The view put forward by Kenneth is not scientific information

The reader wants a scientific answer to be given to Kenneth’s question. The claim put forward by Kenneth is not scientific information, but a philosophical consideration. He makes an analogy by matching the difference he sees in the structure of a human chromosome with the one in the monkey, repeating the claim that both of them come from the same ancestor. A creationist regards the same similarity in the structure of those chromosomes as an evidence that their creator is the same. Kenneth’s view is not based on science but on the atheistic thought of the positivist philosophy.

How the religion of Islam views scientific studies

If Kenneth asks, “How does the religion of Islam view this research on DNA?”, we will say that Islam encourages people to do scientific research.

Islam regards one hour of reflection, meditation and reasoning on created beings superior to one year of supererogatory prayer!

The Quran refer people to the mind by saying, “Do you not understand?” (al-Baqara 2/76). “Will you not understand?” (al-Baqara 2/44). It encourages people to think wisely. “None will grasp the Message except men of understanding.” (Aal-i Imran 3/7)

Allah also advises us to ask our knowledge to be increased:

“O my Lord! Advance me in knowledge!” (Ta-Ha 20/114)

Attention is attracted to the fact that people with knowledge are not same as people without having knowledge:

“Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know?” (az-Zumar 39/9)

“We show the Signs plainly to you, that ye may learn wisdom.” (al-Hadid 57/17)

We are asked to ask, research and learn something that we do not know:

“If ye realize this not, ask of those who possess the Message.” (an-Nahl 16/43)

All laboratory works are based on asking and investigating the unknown things. To refer to books means to ask the people who wrote them and learn about them.

Hadiths also encourage science:

‘The one who sets off to learn is in Allah’s way until he returns.’ (Tirmidhi Ilm 2, 2649; Ibn Majah, Muqaddima 17:227)

‘If a person wants to gain knowledge, it will be atonement for his sins in the past.’ (Tirmidhi Ilm 2, 2650)

‘Word of wisdom are the lost property of the believer. He has the right to take it wherever he finds it.’ (Tirmidhi Ilm 19, 2688)

“The decrease of knowledge and increase of ignorance” is stated as the end of the world!’ (Bukhari, Kitabul-Ilm, 71-72)

In Islam the ink of a scholars is regarded to be superior to the blood of martyr.’

The ones who believe in a single creator and the religion of Islam encourage all kinds of scientific study and regard all beings in the universe as Allah’s works. What is known about the beings in the universe is not even ten percent compared to what is not known. Therefore, to ask creationists to find out the answer about the purpose of an organ or any object whose duty, structure and function are unknown  is completely an ideological attitude based on irreligiousness.

Creationists accept that the duty and nature of the beings in the universe can be exposed by scientific studies and the scientists to do it can be believers or those who do not believe in a creator; they regard the whole universe as a book of Allah and name it as “the book of universe” written by Allah!

Java Man and Peking Man have nothing to do with the history of man. The claim included in a website by Ralph Von Koenigswald and Franz Weidenrich in 1939 that those fossils belonged to humans is true. There is a mistake about the year. Java man was introduced by Dubois in 1891. Dubois, Ralph Von Koenigswald and Franz Weidenrich are people who believe that human beings come from apes and they try to prove it.

Therefore, they presented those fossils as the ancestors of man. The creationist site you mention included this claim; the website does not say that those fossils are man’s ancestors.

Atheistic evolutionists, not creationists, skew fossils. All of the fossils presented by Dubois as Java Man (Pithecantropus erectus) include one big and one small molar tooth, a half skull and a thigh bone. When Dubois claimed that the fossils he had belonged to Java Man at the International Congress of Zoology in 1895, British zoologists stated that those fossils belonged to man, the Germans stated that they belonged to human-like apes, and the French stated that they belonged to a transition form between an advanced form of ape and man.

All of the fossils that exist include one or two molar teeth and a half skull. No statement like “it belongs to man” or “it belongs to a being similar to man” is written on a fossil. Everybody makes an evaluation according to their own beliefs, thoughts, cultures and values. As a matter of fact, different countries evaluated the same fossils differently.

Dubois himself, who presented Java Man as the ancestor of man, admitted thirty years later that this being was actually a big gibbon monkey. (Howells, W. Mankind in the Making. Doubleday and Co. Garden City. N.Y.P. 1967. P.579-581)

The explanation of Dubois was included in the Encyclopedia of Archeology. The following statement was included in the encyclopedia: 

“At first, there was much opposition to the status implied by the name the ape-man, ‘who walked erect’, but it became generally accepted though Dubois himself finally changed his mind and said that the fossils he found belonged to a giant ape, but this skull gained general acceptance.” (Cottrell, L. The Concise Encyclopedia Archeology. Hawthorn. New York. 1960. P.394)

Koenigswald is of the opinion that the big molar teeth of Java Man belongs to an orangutan and the small one to a human. He states that the skull is similar to that of chimpanzees and gibbons. (Boule, M. and Valois, H.M: Fossil Man. The Dryden Press. New York)

What should we say about Java Man after the evaluations above? This has nothing to do with the history of man. The molar teeth and the thigh bone belong to different living beings and they were deliberately presented as the ancestor of man. However,  this being is still presented as the common ancestor of man and the ape in both secondary school and university books.

Now it is understood who skewed the issue and who introduced it as the ancestor of man by combining the pieces of different living beings.

As for Peking Man, he was introduced as the ancestor of man in 1921 by combining a skull and teeth. The fossils claimed to be Peking Man (Sinanthropus pekinensis) were claimed to have been destroyed by the Japanese in 1945 when they invaded Beijing. Now there exist only two teeth in relation to Peking Man.

O’Connel states that the Japanese did not enter this city and that he was an ambassador there at that time. O’Connel states that the fossils that those who presented Peking Man had did not show the truth, and hence they themselves destroyed them. (O’Connel, P. Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis. Hawthorne, CA. 1969; Richard, M. Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. Translated by İ. Kapaklıkaya. Son Tartışmalar Işığında Darvinizm’in Mitleri. Gelenek Yayıncılık)

It is possible to increase those claims. At least, we can easily say that the issue of fossils, especially the fossils related to human history, is very controversial and almost all of the fossils do not have the state and structure of being the ancestors of man as it is claimed.

The most powerful fossils and evidences of evolutionary atheists related to the ancestor of man are Java Man. As it can be seen, even those who presented these fossils stated that they had made a mistake about it but the evolutionists of today do not abandon these fossils and they present them as the ancestors of humans in the textbooks. This fossil came to the fore in 1891. 120 years passed after its introduction but evolutionists still hold on to it since there is still no serious evidence related to human history.

As for creationists, they accept and declare that man has been created perfectly by Allah as a human being directly. They always defend and prove it everywhere. Then, who is distorting the truth, evolutionists or creationists?

In the second part of your question, you ask what you should do to prevent Satan from confusing you through delusions.

First let us settle something: Are you a paleontologist? Are you an anthropologist? Are you a biologist? In other words, do you want to exchange opinions with those who put forward their opinions in the field of evolution related to your profession? Or are you not an expert and do you want find out what evolutionist and creationists say about human history and then believe according to what they say?  

If you are in the first group, we have nothing to say. A new opinion is put forward regarding the issue every day. You will have an opinion accordingly. In that case, you should not worry about Satan’s misleading you. For, those issues are a matter of opinion and thought rather than a matter of belief for the experts of this field.

If you are in the second group, that is, if you want to learn about the history of man through some facts from here and believe accordingly, you are on the wrong path. For, there is nobody who entered this field of philosophical thought with weak belief and came out with strong belief. This philosophical field threw strong believing geniuses like Ibn Sina and Farabi off the cliffs; some Islamic scholars regarded them as ordinary believers while others decreed that they died as unbelievers.

Now, I ask you: If an anthropologist or a biologist claims that he has found a few fossils anywhere in the world, and if he claims that these fossils show that man evolved from a lower creature, do you have the opportunity to investigate whether this claim is true or wrong?

Your answer will probably be “No”. Some philosophers and media are already looking forward to such news. They will immediately claim that it is true. Perhaps that claim will be refuted in 20-30 years. Well, what are you going to do then? Which philosopher will you follow?

I want to say the following briefly: If your faith is to be shaped based on the claims and evidences of philosophers, it means you have lost at the beginning. For, no philosopher has confirmed and approved the word of any other philosopher so far. A philosopher always puts forward some different interpretations and claims. The vast majority of them has not attained the truth. How can they guide you to the right path?

Since you accept the existence of Satan, it means you believe in Allah. In that case, why are you engaged in philosophy in order to have a strong belief? Listen to Allah once after listening to those philosophers ten times about the creation and history of man. Listen to the Prophet. Allah clearly states that He created man directly in the most beautiful way. Then, why does Satan give you delusions? When you read those views of philosophers, you will say, “They have not yet found the truths revealed by Allah. They walk around them.”

So, the main issue here for those who are not experts is to get a strong belief based on sound evidence. They also call it investigative belief. After reading books related to the realities of belief and getting a strong belief, you can be engaged in philosophy and evolution to satisfy your curiosity. Otherwise, it is highly probable for you to lose your belief unless you have strong belief. They can present you an evidence that they claim to be serious and strong related to evolution in the future if not today. A fallacy can be presented to you as great evidence. In that case, it may be inevitable for you to lose your belief.  

Therefore, let us stop searching for Satan in that field; let us read the Quran and its interpretations, trying to understand the realities of creation in it.

What is tried to do is to eliminate the idea of a creator and to place in minds that everything is the work of nature and chance. To this end, they use evolution as a tool for those irreligious ideologies. In this regard, they cause confusion by using evolution in different meanings. As a result, it becomes incomprehensible who means what by evolution. After that, they give their wrong ideas along with the right ones.

First, let us mention what should be understood from evolution.

How should we understand evolution?

The word evolution is used in place of many words and phrases that are different from each other like change, metamorphosis, differentiation gradual development and change, and progress.

Terms used in place of evolution:

They are takamul (evolvement) istihala (differentiation), tatawwur (moving from one state to another), tahawwul (changing from one state to another), tabdil (changing the shape of something), tabaddul (exchange), taghyir (transformation), taghayyur (metamorphosis), taraqqi (improvement), sudur (occurrence), zuhur (appearing), tajdid (renewal), ontogeny and phylogeny.

Takamul:

If “EVOLVEMENT”, that is, gradual change, is meant by the word “EVOLUTION”, it is a law, not a theory. For example, an apple seed’s becoming a sprout, sapling and fruit tree shows a gradual change. Similarly, a human embryo’s developing from a zygote and reaching stages of a multicellular embryo, baby, child, young person and adult is another example of gradual development. In that sense, all living beings are subject to the laws of change, metamorphosis and differentiation at any moment.

Tahawwulat:

If what is meant by the term evolution is TAHAWWULAT, that is, change of state, it is a law, not a theory. The change of state of the elements is expressed as TAHAWWULAT ADH-DHARRAT.

To put it briefly, the transformation of atoms and molecules from one state to another, that is, by changing their state, takes place within the body of living beings, based on a number of biology and physics laws. Therefore, this change of state of the elements is a law, not a theory.

A human being is made up of about one hundred trillion cells. Three thousand different reactions occur in each cell in one second. A person one second later is not, in terms of matter, the same person as the one a second ago. Many elements in its body have undergone change and metamorphosis. All living beings are always in a state of change. All these changes and similar ones and metamorphoses are expressed as EVOLUTION. All changes and metamorphoses in this sense are not a theory but a law.

What lies behind the evolution debate?

The acceptance or rejection of a creator lies behind it. For example, you have a pair of glasses. You examine in detail what materials they are made of and how they work. In that case, everyone agrees that glasses are the work of a master.

When the eyes of living beings are taken into consideration instead of glasses, the eye is examined down to its finest structure; it is tried to reveal what it does and how it works. So far, there is no problem between evolutionists and creationists. When it comes to the issue of who the master of this eye is, the debate begins. Those who defend creation accept that glasses are the work of a master who has knowledge, will and power; they also accept that the eye, which is more perfect than glasses, is the work of a master who has knowledge, will and power.

Atheist evolutionists, on the other hand, state that the eye emerged by chance and has no master though they accept the master of the glasses; what is more, they state that such a claim is a scientific approach. Supporters of positivist belief, who deify matter, remove the theory of evolution from its scientific platform by doing so and use it as a tool for their ideologies.

In conclusion;

The theory of evolution is removed from its scientific platform and it is used as a tool for deliberate and malicious acts that try to destroy and deny the idea of "Divinity" and to prove that the only effective force in the universe is "chance, unconscious causes and nature".

In particular, the fact that religious sources provide detailed information about the past of human beings and that evolutionary theories attribute human history to an ape or an animal with a lower structure have focused criticism and objections regarding the issue.

The doctrine arguing that evolution was not designed and that man emerged by chance is based on materialist philosophy, which assumes atheism, not experiment, as a principle.

Not allowing alternative views about evolution and not criticizing the evidence for evolution are aimed at ensuring the continuation of the dominance of positivist philosophy based on materialist thought.

What you want to express in this long text can be summarized as three questions. We can express these questions as follows:

Question 1: Has the fact of evolution occurring at the intraspecies and interspecies level been proved experimentally?

Question 2: Can pseudogene and phylogeny be evidence for evolution?

Question 3: Do fossils form evidence for macroevolution?

The answers to those questions:

Question 1: Has evolution at the intraspecies and interspecies level been experimentally proved?

Answer 1:

It is a known and observed fact that there is a change in the living and nonliving universe. However, this change is not in the form of one species changing into another. Change can happen be within certain limits. We cannot talk about unlimited change. There is intraspecies change, and it is necessary for living species to survive in nature and adapt to different environments.

There is no scientific problem for those who defend creation. Allah creates every living being and provides the needs of every cell of those beings. That is, even an atom cannot move without Allah’s permission and command. For example, there are an average of 40-50 trillion cells in man. Allah brings about three thousand different reactions, that is, changes, in each cell in one second. In other words, the changes that take place in the human body in one second are 50 trillion x 3 thousand =....

If only one reaction is wrong here, one’s life will be in danger.

If it is not attributed to Allah, to whom can it be attributed? Could the sparrow in the air or the frog in the swamp cause these changes in humans? If any being can do it, man can do it. Although man is the most intelligent and conscious being on earth, he cannot make the changes that occur in his own body. How can other creatures do them themselves? How can the bird come out of the egg itself? How will it grow? How will it do the development and differentiation in its body? How will the calf make itself? How will it develop and become a cow or a bull?

Gene Pool

The genetic structures of living species are not handled as individuals. It is considered as a gene pool consisting of all members of that species. For example, the genetic structure of all humans is considered as a gene pool. Not all humans are created with the same genetic characteristics like photocopy paper. There are some genetic differences among individuals. With the marriage of people of different characters, , God Almighty creates different color and race characters according to the rules called Mendel’s Laws. For example, eye color may change. Lengthening or shortening of the height may occur. Eye, face and head shapes can change at certain rates. However, all these changes are still changes within the human species.

That is the case in humans as well as in the nightingale species. It is the same in the rose species too.

Such changes are not macroevolution. They are variants or variations. They are called varieties.

That is what evolutionists call the changing of species.

A living group changes and differentiates within itself with the knowledge, will and power of Allah. It is called a variant, that is, a variety. As a matter of fact, the Corona-19 virus has displayed many variants, i.e., changes in itself. For example, if there are 20 spikes, the disappearance of one or both of them brings about a new variant. However, it is still the Corona-19 virus. Bacteria or mice do not arise from this virus. Evolutionists call the variant microevolution in order to mislead young people regarding the issue. After that, they make a generalization and say, “That is how it happens in interspecies evolution.”

- Can Allah not create another living being from a living being if He wills? For example, a rabbit from a mouse?

- He can. However, Allah has no such law. He made the genetic structure of every living being stable under certain conditions. That genetic structure does not bring about another living being by changing.

There are genetic laws set by Allah in this regard. Those laws are called Mendel’s Laws because Mendel was the first one to discover those laws in the 1880s. According to those laws, an individual is genetically similar to the mother 25%, the father 25%, the grandmother 25% and the grandfather 25%.

The effect of Mendel’s Laws on offspring may change due to changes in the environment or in the organism’s own body. They are included in the genetics books as deviations from Mendel’s Laws. Those deviations from Mendel’s Laws are not in a way to create a new basic living species because the genetic structure of that creature was created in a way that would not allow such a major change. Such a big change can only happen at the embryo stage. And at that stage, the living being cannot develop and dies.

The Covid-19 virus, which has taken different forms in millions of people for three years, has shown various variations. However, it has still remained a virus. If Allah wanted, He could create bacteria from that virus, and sparrows from the bacteria. However, there is no such law of creation today. It did not happen in the past either because there is not the slightest evidence that it happened.

 It is the definition of species that causes confusion about evolution.

It is the ambiguity in the definition of species that causes confusion about evolution. It is necessary to look at the concept “species” in biology to understand biological evolution. Species is defined as follows: “a community of living beings that can mate with one another and produce fertile offspring when they mate”. The basic invariant group in the classification of living beings is the species. There are supergroups over the species listed as genus, family, order, class, phylum and kingdom. Under the species, there are intraspecies groups called races in animals and varieties in plants. For example, the cat is a species. It has intraspecies breeds such as Van cat, Siamese cat and tabby. There may be variations within the cat species. However, no cat has evolved into another new species, and it is not scientifically or technically possible.

In animals, the definition of species is based on interspecific breeding barriers. However, the case is different in plants. Interspecific reproduction, which we express as interspecific crossing or hybridization, is possible in plants.

To avoid this confusion, creationists rely on the basic type definition instead of the species definition. For example, flint corn, starchy corn, sweet corn, hard corn and bird corn exist in the maize basic type. They are varieties of the basic type of corn.

Another example is the Galapagos Island finches, which Darwin grouped according to beak size alone. The finches depicted as different species are all variants of the finch species linked to one basic type.

- Well, why do some people intensely defend evolution? Why do they claim that living beings change and give rise to different living beings?

- It is because they do not accept the existence of a creator, that is, Allah. They claim that living beings emerged spontaneously from one another in succession.

If they accept that every living being came into being separately, they will not be able to explain each one by chance and nature and will have to attribute them to Allah; therefore, they claim that they came into being by chance in succession.

There is no scientific problem for those who defend creation. Allah creates every living being and provides the needs of every cell of those beings. That is, even an atom cannot move without Allah’s permission and command.

It is not possible to explain all this without attributing it to Allah.

If you ask them this, they will say “Allah” willingly or unwillingly because great minds think alike. There is no other explanation for it.

Question 2: Can new species arise with epigenetics?

What is a gene?

A gene is a sequence of genetic letters that can produce a protein. 25,000 gene regions have been identified in the human genetic structure. Those regions are called exon gene regions. There are also gene regions in human DNA that do not produce any proteins. They are called intron regions. The intron regions are 3% more than exon regions.

Until recently, those who defended the evolutionist approach called those intron regions useless, waste or junk genes. They argued that they were useless remnants that adhered to human DNA with viruses. However, as the secrets of genetic structure were solved, it was understood that those regions controlled the functioning of DNA.

Thus, another obsession maintained by the evolutionist approach was eliminated.

However, a very interesting operation has emerged recently in these regions. It is epigenetics.

The word epigenetics is generally used to express changes that cannot be explained by normal genetic principles. Although there is no change in the nucleotide arrangement responsible for determining the genetic structure of the living being, some different characters emerge in the external appearance, that is, in the phenotype of the living being.

The reason for this is this: Some parts of the DNA responsible for determining the genetic structure are temporarily closed by junk genes under the influence of some environmental conditions. Since the genetic structure of those closed regions is not read, the effect of the genes there is not visible in the living being. This condition is called gene silencing.

The most common form of it occurs as follows: The methyl (CH3) molecules of genetic letters are closed temporarily and the function of that region stops. In that case, the amount of protein produced from the closed gene regions decreases, and as a result of this decrease, color change and height shortening can be seen in the living being. It is such a structure that affects many features in plants, such as the narrowing of the leaf surface.

The benefit of epigenetics is to make the living being adapt to changing environmental conditions.

A protein called melanin is responsible for determining human skin color. Those melanin pigments are encoded in the exon gene region. The functioning of those genes is controlled by an intron gene region. Normally, some of those intron regions are created with methyl groups attached to the ends of genetic letters. A certain and small amount of melanin is produced there. However, if the skin is exposed to the sun for a long time, these methyl groups are removed from the genes. Then, more melanin is produced. Thus, the color of the skin becomes more brownish.

The same mechanism operates in all changes such as the development of muscles, lengthening or shortening of people who work hard or do intense sports.

All those changes depending on the environment are also called adaptation. Until recently, mutations were shown as the cause of those changes and were called microevolution. It was claimed that macro evolution, that is, the transformation of one species into another, could occur with the accumulation of those microevolutions in living beings.

Today, it has been understood that epigenetic functioning, not mutations, is the determining factor in the adaptation mechanism.

Unlike what is claimed, the methylation is not an advantage gained from the environment. This functioning, which was created so that living beings would keep up with environmental changes, is a gift and an advantage granted by our Lord in the creation of that creature.

This genetic functioning is calculated beforehand and how this process will be done is coded into the genetic codes. Therefore, the enzymes that will take part in the methylation process and the working laws of those enzymes are present in our genetics. In other words, it is not an accidental and random operation, but rather a carefully planned thing that necessitates engineering.

In the nineteenth century, at a time when DNA had not been discovered, genetic mechanisms had been unknown, and epigenetics had never been talked about, Darwin’s evolutionist approach, which he put forward by observing the lengthening/shortening of beaks in finches, is still persistently pursued by evolutionists today.

In this period when DNA and epigenetics have been understood, the persistence of the evolution mentality of 150 years ago is the product of an ideological obsession based on atheism, not a scientific thought.

Question 3: Has the macroevolution of fossils been proved?

I am sending you a long article so that you can have a good idea regarding the issue. Inshaallah it will be useful.

Claims of intermediate forms and deadlocks of the view of evolution

What is evolution?

We will now make a brief evaluation of the view of evolution, also known as Darwinism, in which everyone, young and old alike, is interested more or less.

Let us start the issue with a question:

Why is everyone, young and old alike, interested in this issue of evolution?

It is because this view of evolution attributes the past of humans to monkeys. Everybody naturally wants to have accurate information about who their ancestors were and they object to the monkey being imposed as their ancestors though it is irrelevant.

So, what is the truth regarding the issue? Why is it so insistently emphasized and brought up in every topic? Everyone probably wants to have correct knowledge regarding the issue.

At the very beginning of the issue, we should state in advance that it is not an ordinary theory. It is a view based on positivist philosophy, which is based on denial of a creator, that is, Allah. This view, which is based on atheism, is supposedly presented as a law under the name of scientific knowledge.

It is the easiest and most effective way to destroy a nation from within because this view inculcates especially to young people that they came into being as a result of coincidences, that their history is based on monkeys, and that it is scientific knowledge. However, Islam states that man was created in the best way and from clay.

In the face of such an indoctrination, young people hesitate and think as follows:

Science shows that man emerged from other living beings by chance. Religion, on the other hand, declares that man was created from clay. So, should I believe in science or religion?

Faced with such a dilemma, he at least hesitates. On the other hand, it is constantly suggested that science is the truth and religion is based on belief and metaphysics and that it is not scientific.

Then, the young person remains distant from religion; at least, he remains indifferent. The evil forces have an easy job from then on. Young people are constantly told that everything is a result of chance, that human beings are born by chance, that they have no responsibility towards anyone, that there is no concept of haram-halal and that they have the freedom to live as they wish.

Young people who are exposed to such propaganda become open to all kinds of negative ideologies. They begin to take a stand against the order, family, state and religion.

That is the reason why this view, which has no scientific value and serves the ideology of irreligion, is insistently emphasized at the international level. In other words, it is a plan to turn the youth of a nation against their religion, state and nation.

Therefore, it is necessary to know the inner face of this evolution issue well.

Since the issue is so important, let us take a closer look at evolution.

Let us start with the definition of it first. “What is evolution? Let us have a look at it.

Definition of evolution

The word evolution is used in place of many words and phrases that are different from each other like change, metamorphosis, differentiation, progress and evolvement. Some of them are as follows:

Evolution, takamul (evolvement), taraqqi (improvement), istihala (differentiation), tatawwur (moving from one state to another), tahawwul (changing from one state to another), tabdil (changing the shape of something), tabaddul (exchange), taghyir (transformation), taghayyur (metamorphosis), tadanni (regression), sudur (occurrence), zuhur (appearing), tajdid (renewal), ontogeny and phylogeny.

Each of these terms actually means different things.

A question may come to mind here:

Why are terms that express so many different meanings gathered under one word, evolution?

That is the key point. By doing so, they kill several birds with one stone.

With the word “Evolution”, it is easy to give people false and superstitious information as well as the truth. On the other hand, conceptual confusion is formed. In other words, people understand a different meaning and thought from the word “Evolution”.

Takamul

Let us try to present what we mean with a few examples.

For example, let us deal with the word “Takamul (evolvement)”. “Takamul” is used instead of “Evolution”.

“Takamul” is the gradual, i.e., step by step maturation of something over time. The chick that comes out of the egg evolves into a chicken or a rooster thanks to infinite knowledge, will and power. The apple seed evolves and becomes a sprout, sapling and fruit tree.

Starting from a cell in the mother’s womb, a person undergoes evolvement and is sent to the world as a baby in about nine months. The baby becomes a mature human being with evolvement.

The Earth did not take this shape suddenly. It was placed here by being separated from the sun; it cooled and was encrusted with evolvement, and over time it was made inhabitable.

As you can see, evolvement takes place in all beings.

To put it briefly, the law of gradual evolvement is essential in the entire animate and inanimate realm.

If you mean “Evolvement” by the word “Evolution”, it is a law, not a theory.

Tahawwul

Another word used instead of evolution is the word “Tahawwul”. It is used in the sense of change of state, changing from one state to another. The transformation of a bud into a flower or a leaf, the transformation of a flower into a fruit, and the ripening of the fruit are all forms of tahawwul.

Tahawwulat adh-Dharrat

The term “Tahawwulat adh-Dharrat” is used for the elements. In other words, it means changing of an element or atom from one state to another. For example, oxygen has the property of burning. Hydrogen is flammable. When the two are combined, they change state. In other words, they undergo tahawwul and water is formed.

The degradation of all the nutrients taken into the bodies of living beings, i.e., plants, animals and humans, and the combination of elements are all forms of transformation.

If you mean “Tahawwulat” by the word “Evolution”, it is a law, not a theory.

Another question may come to mind:

What is the issue that evolutionists and creationists disagree on?

The issue they disagree on is the usage of the term “Evolution”.

What is evolution?

Evolution is a view claiming that all plants, animals, and humans emerged from one another in succession, in the form of a living being emerging from another one and that one from yet another one.

Evolutionists imagine a family tree for it. They place a cell at the root of this tree. They accept that this cell came into being by itself from inanimate substances. Then, they divide this tree into two branches. They place the plant kingdom on one branch and the animal kingdom on the other.

Barley, wheat, corn and rye, which are described as monocots among plants, are considered primitive. Those in the form of a tree are imagined as advanced structures. In other words, barley and wheat emerged first, from which beans, potatoes and tomatoes were formed. Plants such as pear, apple and walnut tree emerged from them as they were transformed by chance.

The animal kingdom also emerged like that in succession with gradual changes over time.

The life of man, which started with a single cell and continued with a field mouse, ended in this way by chance when he was changed from the monkey in the last link of the chain.

The evolutionary family tree drawn by evolutionists according to their dreams.

Question: What is the evidence for evolutionists that living beings came into being by changing with this evolution stick just like the witch’s stick in fairy tales changing realms and beings?

Answer: It is either everything or nothing.

Everything is evidence of evolution

When Darwin put forward this view in the 1850s, that is, about 150 years ago, he promised that there would be thousands of transitional or intermediate forms showing that living beings emerged from one another in succession.

He argued that the living beings adapting to the changing environmental conditions survived and that the living beings that could not adapt were eliminated, causing different species to come into being.

For example, he claimed that when the waters began to recede in the seas, fish turned into frogs. However, he never mentioned how fish continued living at the same time.

Those who came after him and were more Darwinists than Darwin himself claimed that there were many organs of unknown functions in living beings, especially in humans, that they were in fact useless vestigial organs left over from man’s animal ancestors, and that it constituted the greatest evidence for human evolution. Apart from it, they claimed that new species were formed with intermediate forms, embryological evidence and mutations.

Nothing is evidence of evolution

Question: How many of the alleged intermediate forms have been found in the past one hundred and fifty years?

Answer: None.

Question: How does the science of genetics answer the evolutionist view of evolution in the sense of evolution?

The answer is: “No to evolution.”

The science of genetics states that each living being has been created with its own genetic characteristics.

No Changes Occurred in the Creatures Exposed to Radiation in Space

It is impossible for the genetic structure of a species to change in a way that will change the basic structure of that living being. In the last fifty years, unicellular organisms such as the coli bacteria (Escherichia coli) and multicellular organisms such as the vinegar fly (Drosophila) were taken to space. They were exposed to ultraviolet and radiation rays. In the beginning, it was imagined that they would change into different living beings but all those dreams came to naught. There was no change in the genetic structure of the organisms.

Some abnormalities were seen in the bodies of vinegar flies (Drosophila ssp). The shapes of their wings were distorted. The color of their eyes changed. There were changes in the number of feet but the organisms were still vinegar flies. The imagined new species did not come into being. Oddly enough, when those creatures were left to natural conditions on earth, it was observed that those abnormal structures in their bodies did not pass on to their offspring.

Another example is that today’s Covid-19 virus has displayed many variants, namely changes. However, it is still the Corona-19 virus. Bacteria or mice do not arise from this virus. Evolutionists call the variant microevolution in order to mislead young people regarding the issue. After that, they make a generalization and say, “That is how it happens in interspecific evolution.”

Whoever Creates the Single Cell Today and However He does it Created It Yesterday

Now let us have a look at the evolutionists’ family tree. The history of all living beings is attributed to a single cell. In other words, once upon a time, a living cell somehow emerged, and from it, living beings emerged on the earth in succession.

With how many cells do living beings come to the world today? All of them are sent to the world in the form of single cells. Did each of us not start life with a single cell in the womb? In the same way, all plants and all animals begin life with a single cell. There is no need to go back to ancient times for it.

Whoever creates the single cell today and however he does it created it the ancestor of every living being in the same way in the past. He will create future generations in the same way too.

Why Man Was Created Is More Important Than How He Was Created

By keeping man busy with how he was created, evolutionists make him forget why he was created. However, a person must know the purpose of being sent to this world and act accordingly.

Why was he sent to this world? What is his main task here? Who sent him here? Where will he go from here when he dies?

One has to find and know the correct answer to these questions first.

The Inconsistency of Evolution Claims

Before the genetic material, namely DNA, was discovered, those who defended evolutionary view said that one amino acid formed first and then other amino acids formed. They evolved, combined, and formed a protein. Those claims were first called the protein hypothesis. As we said, since DNA had not been discovered at that time, the basis of life was thought to be protein. Therefore, they said protein first. Then, they gave up on this idea because the science of genetics advanced and discovered DNA. After that, they said DNA first; then, they gave up on that too and said RNA first. I know it is a bit confusing; let us deal with this process in an understandable way.

Protein First

Amino acids combine with the command of our Lord and form a certain sequence. As a result of this sequence, proteins are created. It was claimed that those proteins could occur in the evolutionary process.

In fact, Miller claimed in his experiment that he formed amino acids in random environments. And he said that an amino acid could be formed by chance, which meant that they could form over time and combine to form a protein. Miller said he provided the coincidence conditions for this experiment. However, those conditions were prepared by Miller, who was smart, knowledgeable, powerful and willed. In other words, the event was not completely attributed to chance. On the contrary, the necessity of a person who provided those conditions was pointed out.

Brains hypnotized by positivist philosophy in the name of science

Miller’s Experiment

Let us have a look at Miller’s experiment and show its absurdity.

Let us first have a look at what kind of scholarly career Miller had.

Miller was a chemistry graduate student and he did his experiment in 1953. The discovery of DNA was in 1955. So, when he did his experiment, a lot of things about genetics were unknown.

I want to draw your attention to an issue here:

It has been about 70 years since this experiment was conducted. Why is an experiment done by a graduate student 70 years ago still given as an example of evidence for spontaneous and coincidental formation in evolution? Does it not sound strange to you?

I can tell you this much that all experiments on the issue have been unsuccessful, and it has been seen that it is impossible for organisms to arise on their own or by chance. In this regard, the Miller experiment has no concrete aspects. However, he was a graduate student after all. His scientific mistakes should not be emphasized because he was a student.

However, the truth of the issue is not like that. Many young people are conditioned in the name of evolution and are made pro-evolutionists, by being presented that graduate student’s experiment as scientific proof that living beings formed by chance. They have been successful to a great extent. Every year, tens of thousands of young people lose their way behind the fallacy of spontaneous formation, which has no basis but is presented as scientific knowledge.

That is the reason why an experiment of a graduate student that has no scientific value has been in textbooks for 70 years.

I would like to narrate a similar incident here.

Let us read a reminiscent of Rafet Kavukçu, who studied at Erzincan Primary School in the 1930s:

“The early 1940s. I was a student at a primary school in Erzincan. Once, the teacher said; ‘There is no such thing as Allah. Nature does everything. Everything is the work of mother nature. Ask Allah for candy. In the classroom, we all shouted, ‘O Allah! Give us candy.’ Nothing happened. The teacher said: Say, ‘Mother nature! Give us candy’. We shouted all together; ‘Mother nature! Give us candy.’ We looked up and saw candies falling from the hole in the ceiling of the wooden roof of the building. We later found out that the teacher had taken the school janitor to the roof and had candy thrown from there.” (see Özcan Ö. Ağabeyler Anlatıyor. Nesil Yayınları, 2018, 7/310)

That is all for the reminiscence. You can say, “What does it have to do with the Miller Experiment?”

Let us have a look at the Miller Experiment and see if there is a similarity or not.

Stanley Miller wanted to show that some amino acids could be synthesized by chance, by spontaneous assembling of gases, which are considered to be the gaseous composition of the primordial atmosphere.

He had dissolved methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in water, placed them in a glass balloon and subjected it to an electric discharge. He made the steam of the heated elements in the system pass through the cold trap he set up, enabling them to cool and condense.

In this experiment, in addition to many compounds, three amino acids, which are abundant in nature, were formed as droplets within 24 hours. They were glycine, asparagine and alanine.

Question: What was the purpose of the experiment?

Answer: To prove that amino acids came into existence spontaneously by chance under natural conditions.

Question: Was there anyone who prepared the conditions for this experiment and did it?

Answer: Yes, there was. Miller.

So, how does it prove coming into being spontaneously by chance?

Since the students did not see the school janitor who threw candies from the ceiling in the name of mother nature in the primary school reminiscence above, they believed that mother nature threw the candy. Although they also say who threw the candy, or rather did the experiment, they want us to believe that it happened spontaneously and by chance, and we wholeheartedly believe it.

That is the best indication of how positivist philosophy based on atheism hypnotizes people to believe the fallacy that it happened by itself or by chance in the name of science. Can there be a bigger error than this, or can it be thought of, in the name of science and in the world of science?

Do you think there is a difference between primary school students who believed that the candies thrown from the ceiling were sent by mother nature, and scientists who presented this nonsense as science? Accepting and defending such an idea is the biggest disgrace for science both in this century and in the past; and on behalf of scientists, it makes people feel ashamed of their humanity.

Besides, the expression “coming into being on its own” is also invalid in terms of logic because how can something that does not exist in the beginning make itself?

Probability calculations also show the impossibility of coincidence/chance.

So far, we have explained that amino acids do not come into being by chance. We have seen the Miller experiment fail.

Let us say amino acid but it does not prove anything because the random combination of amino acids only creates a pile of amino acids, not a protein.

Even if amino acids are formed by chance as Miller said, it still does not indicate that a protein will form easily because amino acids are arranged in a regular and meaningful way; as a result of it, they form a protein. Even if the order of only one amino acid were changed, the result would not be a protein but just a pile of amino acids. Could these amino acids, by chance, arrange themselves in a proper sequence and produce a protein?

For example, let us think of the hemoglobin protein. This hemoglobin protein helps carry oxygen in the blood. If the place of one of the amino acids in this protein, which forms a regular sequence, is changed, thalassemia, also known as Mediterranean anemia, occurs. Can these amino acids really form a regular protein sequence by chance?

Let us calculate now. Let us do a calculation on the hemoglobin protein. There are 564 amino acids in hemoglobin. In total, there are 20 kinds of amino acids; so, 20 kinds of amino acids will form a sequence in 564 different positions for a meaningful code. And when we calculate it, the figure is 20⁵⁶⁴. Let us write it in decimal form again to make it easier to understand. It is 10⁷³⁴; that is, you will put 734 zeros next to 10, and you will try as many times as possible so that a protein will come out.

Evolutionary thinking says it is highly improbable but it could happen in millions of years. The age of the universe is 14 billion years but we will give you 100 billion years; make this test 1000 times a second for 100 billion years. The resulting number of attempts has only 22 digits. However, the number of trials required for a protein to form has to have 734 digits. We see the inconsistency of evolution regarding the issue again.

​Irreducible Complexity

Then they said DNA first because the science of genetics advanced and DNA was discovered. Evolutionists immediately said that proteins were not the basis of life, but that proteins were produced from DNA. That is why DNA was formed first. Let us deal with the decision that they changed.

This claim of theirs, that is, the claim that DNA occurred first, is again an inconsistent claim. DNA is necessary for the formation of protein, and proteins, i.e., enzymes are necessary for the formation of DNA. So, one cannot exist without the other; it is called irreducible complexity. Proteins are already made up of DNA helixes. Therefore, no protein is formed without DNA. Enzymes are necessary for the 3.5 billion letters in DNA to come together and merge. Enzymes are also proteins. In other words, there is no DNA without protein. Therefore, it cannot be said DNA first or protein first. The claims of evolution regarding the issue are completely wrong. According to the evolutionary process, one of them must have existed before the other and evolved. However, we see that both must exist at the same time, as the creationist claim says. Evolution is inconsistent regarding this issue too.

RNA first

After that, evolutionists said something like this: Then, RNA was formed first. So, they looked for some kind of way out but this one is closed too because RNA is the most unstable molecule; it is very fragile. It decomposes in a few seconds in normal environment.

Well, how will RNA, which normally lives for a few seconds and then decomposes, wait for millions of years to evolve? It is absolutely impossible. In addition, RNA consists of a helical structure. Enzymes are necessary for the formation of this structure. As we have said, enzymes are proteins. There is irreducible complexity between RNA and proteins just like DNA. One cannot exist without the other. So, one cannot exist before the other. As creationists say, it is necessary for both to exist at the same time.

The invalidity of the three differing ideas of evolution is quite obvious.

​Antioxidant defense systems and the contradiction of evolution

There are about 50 trillion cells in our body. Our body is formed by the combination of those cells. There are 10,000 radical attacks per day on each cell. If even one of those attacks is successful, the cell either gets cancer or goes to programmed death. The Creator has appointed antioxidants to protect cells from those attacks. If antioxidants were not present, all of those attacks would be successful and it would be impossible for the cell to survive.

According to the evolutionary view, first the cell was formed and then the cell developed a defense system for itself over millions of years. How is it possible for a cell that receives 10,000 attacks a day to survive for millions of years without a defense system? Can such an imaginary idea be considered scientific?

Imagine that you have so many enemies that there are 10,000 attacks on your home every day, and these attacks are blocked by your security team every day. Is it possible for you to survive if we eliminate this security team? It is definitely not possible. Similarly, a cell that is exposed to 10,000 attacks every day cannot expect to produce a defense system for itself for millions of years without any defense system.

That is why the evolution of the cell is unacceptable.

​Confusing chimpanzee resemblance

Evolutionists say that all living beings came into being by evolving from one another. They show genetic similarity as the basis for it, for example, chimpanzees and humans. The genetic similarity is 96% and the difference is 4%. Evolution says this gap closed in millions of years. However, we will see with the calculation we will do in a moment that it is not possible for such a thing to happen in 100 billion years, let alone in millions of years.

There are nearly 50 trillion cells in the human body. Humans are formed by the combination of those cells. There is DNA in each cell, and these DNAs consist of nucleotides, which consist of 3.5 billion letters. 3.5 billion nucleotides are formed from the regular arrangement of 4 letters called Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and Thymine, like AGCT. If even only one of the 3.5 billion nucleotides, in which 4 letters are arranged in a regular manner, is wrong, genetic disorders occur. The issue is about such a delicate sequence.

We have said that there are 3.5 billion nucleotides in a cell. The genetic difference between the chimpanzee and man is 4%. In other words, 96% of the 3.5 billion letters are similar to one another, while 4% are different. Evolutionists claim that this 4% difference was closed in millions of years.

Let us see if something like that is possible. 4% of this 3.5 billion letters has to change and look like a human gene. Let us calculate if such a thing is possible. 4% of 3.5 billion is 140 million, that is, the number of different nucleotides between chimpanzees and humans. Since this sequence consists of 4 different letters, it means that 4 different letters will be arranged in 140 million different positions. According to the calculus of probability, it is one in 4^140000000.

To understand it easily, we can write it like this: 10^80000000. What does this number mean? You will put 80 million zeros next to 10 and try as many times as the resulting number.

Only then can you make the chimpanzee’s 4% non-human genes resemble human genes. So, is it possible? The universe now has a lifespan of 14 billion years, but let us give it a little more time and assume that it would be tried 1000 times per second for 100 billion years. How many times would it be it tried? There would be only as many attempts as a 22-digit number, but an 80-million-digit number of attempts would be required to close this 4% difference.

While science considers a probability of 10⁶⁰ impossible, the effort to accept 10^80000000 is in vain. The lifespan of the universe is not enough for evolution’s expectations from the world.

Mutation

One of the fundamental pillars of evolution is mutation. Mutations are sudden changes that occur in the living body. The slightest change in the DNA helix in a cell is called a mutation. Evolutionists claim that living beings evolved from one another by mutating.

Examples of these mutations are 6-fingered births and double-headed babies in humans. Only a few of the millions of letters in a single cell change places and humans can be born with double heads.

Evolution says these mutations took place over millions of years in such a way that they were beneficial. In other words, the sequence of millions of letters in that cell was distorted; and it is not enough; it is also assumed that it continued like that for millions of years.

More than 100 new mutations are observed in the human organism throughout man’s life, and some of them are passed on from generation to generation. In this context, infant anomaly that can be seen in 2-3% of babies and Mendelian Diseases seen in tens of thousands of people suggest that the DNA of the human lineage is deteriorating. It has also been shown that newly formed mutants are always featureless or even sick. Thus, mutations could not make the existing living being better equipped, let alone causing developments that could be carried out of that genus. Science has shown us that mutations make our genetic makeup worse, not better. Therefore, mutation cannot be the beginning of a new species.

Adaptation

Adaptation means an organism’s harmony with its environment. How will a living being be in harmony with the living environment? This harmony is definitely limited to the organs and feelings given to it. For example, suppose that a creature lives in a swamp. Its genetic potential was planned by Allah for the swamp. There will be some maximum and minimum conditions caused by living there. The genetic potential of this creature will determine whether it will survive within the limits of that change. According to changing environmental conditions, all changes that may occur in the structure of this creature in terms of adaptation to that environment are defined as adaptation.

The limit of these changes is the structures given to that creature by Allah in its creation. We cannot know what the genetic potential limit of each living being is by its phenotype, that is, by its appearance. To determine it, we try to understand the limits of life by artificially subjecting that creature to the maximum and minimum conditions of that environment.

For example, it cannot be said beforehand what changes can occur when a fish is exposed to a certain radiation. More precisely, such an approach would not be scientific. You take the fish and subject it to radiation at the dose you want. Then, you write the result.

It seems that Allah creates each species with a certain genetic potential according to the environmental conditions in which it can live. That being can show some shape changes within the limits of change Allah has given to it. All of this happens and is shaped by the knowledge, will and power of Allah every moment.

The task of science should not be to deny a creator, but to examine the structures of existing living beings down to the smallest detail. Otherwise, presenting some ideological and philosophical thoughts and imaginary things under the name of science and keeping people busy with unnecessary things do not suit the ethics of science at least.

Conclusion

Since the French Revolution, that is, for nearly two hundred years, scientific studies in the world have been shaped according to positivist philosophy based on atheism. According to this philosophy, there is no creator in the universe. Everything happens randomly and by chance.

From time to time, voices are raised against this education system in the Western world too but their statements are usually concealed and those scholars are discredited in society.

The statements of a few of them about the theory of evolution are as follows:

Anthropologist Walker attributes the defense of the Theory of Evolution to its rejection of a creator and states the following:

“The only reason why many scientists and technologists defend Darwin’s Theory must be sought in its denial of the existence of a creator.” (Walker, M. Quadrant. October, 1982, p. 44)

The evolution view explains the emergence of all beings through chance. Pierre Grassé complains that the concept of “chance” has been turned into a deity and says:

“The concept of ‘chance’ has become a deity worshipped under the guise of atheism.” (Grassé, PP Evolution of Living Organisms. Academic Press, New York, 1977, p.107)

This philosophical thought, which is based on irreligion, is systematically presented in educational institutions like proven scientific knowledge.

With such an approach, young people are severed from their national, spiritual, cultural and religious values and ties and are exposed to all kinds of negative propaganda and harmful habits.

It is one of the easiest ways to destroy a nation from within. Therefore, this theory of evolution should not be regarded as an ordinary theory; it should be taken into account that there are very powerful lobbies all over the world behind this theory.

Will you please click on the link given below;

It has been discovered that the genetic structure of human brain cells does not remain fixed during man's life and that it changes. Is this genetic change not evolution? Is this change in genes not transferred to the next generation?

When man was sent to earth, horses, cows, flies, bees, vineyards, mountains, mines, iron, coal, oil were waiting for man with all their charm and beauty. Allah put everything under man's command. Hz. Adam, who was the first man and also the first prophet, taught humans what to use where and how. Allah had taught Adam the names of the objects and what they were used for. As a matter of fact, the following is stated in the Quran:

“And He (Allah) taught Adam the names of all things; then He placed them before the angels, and said: ‘Tell me the names of these if ye are right.’ They said: ‘Glory to Thee, of knowledge We have none, save what Thou Hast taught us: In truth it is Thou Who art perfect in knowledge and wisdom.’” (al-Baqara, 2/31-32).

This education and leadership continued like this throughout the history of humanity. The prophets of the chain of prophets, which started with Hz. Adam, led the way to humanity not only in the spiritual field but also in the material field. Hz. Adam was a pioneer in farming and Hz. Dhul-Kifl was also a pioneer in bakery.

Hz. Dawud learned to melt metals and to soften iron like wax. Hz. Nuh was the pioneer of shipbuilding and carpentry. Hz. Idris was the pioneer of tailoring and writing. Hz. Ibrahim was the founder of woodwork and Hz. Yusuf was the founder of watchmaking.

- Were domestic animals wild at first? Did humans domesticate them when they needed them?

If you seek an answer to such a question by excluding Allah, you cannot give a good answer because it is Allah who creates humans and the beings that humans need; therefore, it is necessary to find out what He says regarding the issue.  

The benefits of animals are mentioned in various places in the Quran and it is stated that they were created for human beings. Allah states the following in some of those verses: 

“There is not an animal (that lives) on the earth, nor a being that flies on its wings, but (forms part of) communities like you…” (al-An’am, 6/38).

“Of the cattle are some for burden and some for meat: eat what Allah hath provided for you…” (al-An’am, 6/142).

“He created you (all) from a single person: then created, of like nature, his mate; and he sent down for you eight head of cattle in pairs …” (az-Zumar, 39/6).

“(Take) eight (head of cattle) in (four) pairs: of sheep a pair, and of goats a pair …” (al-An’am, 6/143)

“Of camels a pair, and oxen a pair…” (al-An’am, 6/144).

“It is Allah Who made cattle for you, that ye may use some for riding and some for food; And there are (other) advantages in them for you (besides); that ye may through them attain to any need (there may be) in your hearts; and on them and on ships ye are carried.” (al-Mu’min, 40/79-80).

“It is He who sends down rain from the sky: from it ye drink, and out of it (grows) the vegetation on which ye feed your cattle.” (an-Nahl, 16/10).

“And verily in cattle (too) will ye find an instructive sign. From what is within their bodies between excretions and blood, We produce, for your drink, milk, pure and agreeable to those who drink it.” (an-Nahl, 16/66).

“It is Allah Who made your habitations homes of rest and quiet for you; and made for you, out of the skins of animals, (tents for) dwellings, which ye find so light (and handy) when ye travel and when ye stop (in your travels); and out of their wool, and their soft fibers (between wool and hair), and their hair, rich stuff and articles of convenience (to serve you) for a time.” (an-Nahl, 16/80).

“And in cattle (too) ye have an instructive example: from within their bodies We produce (milk) for you to drink; there are, in them, (besides), numerous (other) benefits for you; and of their (meat) ye eat.” (al-Mu’minun, 23/21).

“And cattle He has created for you (men): from them ye derive warmth, and numerous benefits, and of their (meat) ye eat. And ye have a sense of pride and beauty in them as ye drive them home in the evening, and as ye lead them forth to pasture in the morning. And they carry your heavy loads to lands that ye could not (otherwise) reach except with souls distressed: for your Lord is indeed Most Kind, Most Merciful, And (He has created) horses, mules, and donkeys, for you to ride and use for show…” (an-Nahl, 16/5-8).

The following can be deduced from the verses above:

1. It is indicated that animals that are both on earth and in the sky are communities like us. In other words, attention is drawn to the different feelings, behaviors and shapes of each animal group. It is stated that they have different natures.

2. Allah created animals like horses, mules and donkeys to carry both people's belongings and people themselves from one place to another.

3. He put animals like sheep, goats, camels and cattle under man's order so that people will eat their meat and drink their and milk and use their wool for various purposes.

4. Many other beneficial aspects of animals like horses, cattle, sheep and goats are pointed out; and it is stated that there is a separate beauty in their arrival and departure in the morning and evening.

5. It is indicated that the animals listed above graze in the pastures that grow by the water given by Allah.

6. It is stated that sheep, goats, camels and cattle were produced for us. We make use of everything of those animals including their manure. Therefore, we are reminded that those animals were sent to people as mercy.

7. It is stated that two pairs of sheep, goats, camels and cattle were created.

Allah Almighty attracts attention to the creation of man first in verse six of the chapter of az-Zumar. He states that He created Adam, our ancestor, at the beginning and that He created his mate from him afterwards. Then, attention is drawn to the creation of sheep, goats, camels and cattle in the next part of the verse. He does not say, "We created them." He says "We created them in pairs." It is stated in the chapter of al-An’am again that sheep, goats, cattle and camels were created in pairs. That is, each one of these animals was created directly out of nothing. However, before we ask, "How will that the species of animals reproduce from this first single being?", Allah gives the answer immediately. "We created them with their mates (out of nothing)."

In the first creation, it was expected that the male and female would be created directly since law of reproduction could not come into effect. As a matter of fact, this is pointed out in the verse. After that, the continuation of human species has taken place in the realm of both plants and animals as well as humans based on the law of reproduction in which offspring is produced from a male and a female. 

Nevertheless, reproduction without mother and father, called "asexual reproduction", can be seen both in the plant kingdom and in the animal kingdom.

Thus, it is indicated that domestic animals are created directly with their mates in their own shapes and out of nothing. In other words, Allah tells us that He created sheep as sheep, camels as camels, cattle as cattle and goats as goats.

It would be wrong to think that domestic animals, which were created so purposefully and wisely for humans, were domesticated by trial and error. Besides, their natures, i.e. their inborn characteristics, show that they were put directly under the command of man. As a matter of fact, some wild animals return to their natural lives again after a while even if they are accustomed to humans for a while. Sometimes they even run away by savaging their tamers. However, Allah has given domestic animals such a characteristic and beauty that He shows that they are put under the command of man with their meek and obedient state.  

Hz. Adam’s sons Habil (Abel) and Qabil (Cane) were shepherds and farmers. In other words, they plowed with oxen and grazed sheep and goats. These animals were put directly under the command of them, that is, humanity.  Hz. Adam was informed by Allah where and how to use them.

When the first man, Hz. Adam, came to the earth, he did not find the sheep in the pen and the horses in the stable. All the animals were waiting for people in the pastures. Hz. Adam took some animals to the stable, some to the pen and some to the coop based on what was notified to him. Today’s diversity emerged as a result of the methods of selection and improvement made among those animals.

The claim put forward as evolution of lizards is just yellow press news.

It is claimed that when lizards that are fed at home for a while are released to nature, certain changes occur in their bodies and their heads grow larger. It is claimed through generalization that this will lead to new species in millions of years.

For, no one can see and test such a long period.

The reason for the growth of head of the lizard is attributed to the propulsive force of evolution.

Let us ask:

-What is the evidence for evolution?

-The growth of head of the lizards that are released to the wild and some small changes occurring in their digestive system.

-Well, do these changes transform the lizard into another animal?

-No.

-For example, are there any changes like, firstly, %100 lizard, then %90 lizard and %10 snake, after that, %80 lizard, %20 snake, and then %70 lizard and %30 snake?

-There are not.

There are thousands of genes that control the genetic structure of a living being. It is impossible to change of even a single gene. How does this lead to another living being by changing thousands of genes?

We ask again:

-What causes this change in living beings like the lizard?

-The propulsive force of evolution.

In other words, the desire of change that comes from the inside of living beings provide this force.

-Is this propulsive force, which is claimed to lead to evolution and to come from the inside of the living being a new idea?

No, it is an opinion put forward by Darwin. In 1850, approximately 160 years ago, Darwin said, “The woman quit her hairy skin of ape to make herself liked by men and assumed her current shape. “

That is, what saved the woman from the hairy skin of ape was the inner desire to be beautiful and to change.

According to this evolutionary idea, if you are also disturbed, for instance, by the beard in your face, why do you want not to get rid of the beard and have a beardless face?

That is the main idea on which evolutionists base their thoughts, which they call propulsive force of evolution and with which they misguide the youth.  They are fairytales to make children sleep. However, it has nothing to do with science.

Various stones and tools were used by people throughout human history. We have never heard a claim that they were made and used by monkeys. If the person who asked this question had not made it up, it is necessary to ask the person who put forward this question.

Making tools and using them is a characteristic peculiar to man. Everybody agrees on it. To claim the opposite is not a scientific thought, but nonsense.

It is claimed that the tools that were made or used are 2.500.000 years old. There is no agreement on it. For, the methods that are used for determining ages are not very reliable. Sometimes mistakes of millions of years are made.  

Click the link below in order to get detailed information about the methods that are used for determining ages.

Are Geological and Archeological Carbon Dating Methods Reliable?

If the evolution theory is accepted, this question and this problem will arise. For, according to evolutionists, those who cannot adapt to living conditions have to undergo natural selection. In this case, the following can be said, "Why did not Allah create some beings in accordance with the conditions of life?"

The second delusion of evolutionists is mutations, which express the transformation of some species into other species. As there are different types of apples, as well as different varieties of pears, it is possible that some living things will also change as a result of a certain divine law in the course of time. However, as evolutionists say, for example, the claims that a monkey turns into a human, a camel turns into a cat, a mouse turns into a horse, and a butterfly turns into a lamb are nonsense. For, according to this claim, there is a transformation of beings with different natures and qualities into a nature other than their own nature. However, " it is impossible for the realities to change."

As for the real question, it is a fact that things were created based on a certain law of evolution. It is stated in the Qur'an that the heavens and the earth were created in six days (in two astronomical, four geological periods). This shows the wisdom of Allah, not His weakness. Because, the following is also stated in the Qur'an: "And your creation or your resurrection is in no wise but as an individual soul… Truly that is easy for Allah." It means the power of Allah is enough for everything.

Something that is pre-eternal cannot have an opposite that can intervene and weaken it. Allah’s knowledge and power are pre-eternal like all His attributes, and there is no ignorance in question that is opposite them. Therefore, Allah knows everything, how they will be perfect in every aspect; There is nothing He will learn in time and with experience – God forbid - He does not need it.

Although all attributes of Allah are infinite, they consider the decrees of one another like concentric circles. For example, Allah can do anything, but He does not create unnecessary, absurd things because His attribute of wisdom does not allow it. If Allah wishes, He can inflict all kinds of cruelty on His servants – God forbid -, and no one can prevent it; however, He does not do such a thing because His attributes of compassion and justice do not allow it.

It is a necessity of His wisdom that Allah does not create everything at the perfect level in an instant, and that He creates according to the law of perfection that is present in the universe. For, the world is the land of wisdom, it has been designed and arranged according to the network of causes. It is for this reason that a child stays in the womb of the mother for months; he is born after a few months in a weak and ignorant state, becoming perfect after many years of life adventure. For, there are reasons that satisfy one's mind in this gradual route. If there was no system of wisdom suitable for divine wisdom, neither medicine nor astronomy, neither physics nor chemistry, and not even sciences such as sociology would come to light. For, they all mention certain causes, wisdom, cause and effect relationships.

We think that the truth will be understood when the subject is viewed from this perspective.

There are some charlatans who defend atheism, who use evolutionism, which has nothing to do with science and scholarship, as a screen to try to divert young people from their faith and channel them in the direction they want. Their scenario is this:

All living beings, including human beings, evolved from one another by chance. There is no creator. Everything is the work of coincidence and nature. According to them, such thinking is scientific knowledge.

The unimaginable frauds these charlatans have committed in the name of science to prove their claims have been revealed over time.

Many scientists who defend atheism have admitted after the scientific studies they carried out that living beings did not evolve from one another as it is claimed, but that each species was created with its own unique characteristics.

Now we will try to present the evidence put forward by those atheist charlatans in the name of science and how they were refuted by atheist scientists and their statements that each species was created independently by citing their sources.

1. Fossils of the Oligocene Period

Information about Parapithecus is based on two molars found in Egypt. The fossils found in the Oligocene period, which are said to belong to Parapithecus, are both very scanty and controversial [1].

Fossils from the Oligocene period are scanty. The fact that the existing ones are generally jaws with lost teeth and fragmented skulls makes it difficult to make an accurate decision about them [2].

They do not belong to a single creature; they were formed as a result of small fossil fragments of various creatures being put together accidentally [3].

In fact, fossils from the Oligocene period do not provide clear information about the ancestry of either today’s apes or Aegyptopithecus. They are not similar to today’s apes either. They are thought to be on the way to apes only in terms of some of their characters [4].

2. Fossils of the Miocene Period

The fossils that are accepted to characterize this period can be grouped in the Dryopithecinae family. This group is believed to be the ancestor of the present day Pongidae and Hominidae.

Dryopithecus were found in Europe and Asia. Dryopithecus africanus (Proconsul), Dryopithecus nyanzae and Dryopithecus major were found in Africa. Those found in Europe and Asia are grouped under the names Dryopithecus fontani, Dryopithecus sivalensis and Dryopithecus punjabicus.

It is claimed that orangutan, chimpanzee and gorilla were formed from this group [5].

3. Fossils from the Pliocene Period

Ramapithecus (Long-armed ape)

It is suggested that this primate, known from its jawbone and assumed to have lived in the Pliocene Period “may have come from Dryopithecus”. It is understood from its jaw fragments that the teeth became rounded, that the canines became relatively smaller and that the upper part became flattened. [5].

24 different measurements were made on the teeth of two species belonging to Ramapithecus and Dryopithecus (Fossil ape), which are considered to be hominids, and the results that were obtained were compared with those of chimpanzees of similar species in Liberia. It was found out that fourteen of the twenty-four measurements were smaller, one was the same and nine were larger than the chimpanzees. In conclusion, the difference in tooth size between living chimpanzees was found to be greater than that between Dryopithecus and Ramapithecus. [6]^,[7],[8]

Theropithecus galada, a species of baboon living in the highlands of Abyssinia, has incisors and front teeth relatively smaller than those of African apes. It shares with Ramapithecus and Australopithecus the rather compressed and worn lateral teeth, strong masticatory muscles and a less deep facial feature [9]^,[10].

It is generally accepted that Ramapithecus is not a hominid, and that this fossil is morphologically, ecologically and behaviorally similar to a chimpanzee or gorilla among the advanced apes. There is no evidence that it walked upright [11]^,[12].

4. Australopithecus (Ape of the South)

This name was given to various fossils found in East Africa by Louis Leakey and many others. The fossils found by Dart were named “Australopithecus africanus” (African man), and later Zinjanthropus, Paranthropus, Pleisanthropus, Telanthropus and Homo habilis were included in this group.

Australopithecus is considered to be a hominid that lived two to three million years ago, walking upright and using crude tools. Its brain volume is about 500 cc, the same as in some advanced apes. Its teeth are similar to those of Ramapithecus.

Zinjanthropus boisei, found by Louis Leakey in the Olduvai Gorge region of Tanzania, was found to be a variety of Australopithecus robustus. After that, Australopithecus was grouped under two species. One is Australopithecus africanus and the other is Australopithecus robustus.

4.1. Australopithecus Africanus (African Man)

It was found in Africa by Dart in 1924. It has small teeth, small jaws and a slender build. Its skull volume is estimated to be about 1/3 of today’s human, i.e., 500 cc, and its age is estimated to be 1.8-2.6 million years.

4.2. Australopithecus Boisei (zinjanthropus)

This form is considered a variety of Australopithecus robustus. It was found in 1959 by Leakey in Tanzania. It has very thick teeth, thick jaws and protruding upper temporal bones as in gorillas and orangutans. The dental arch and jaw arch are very parabolic. It is similar to orangutans and chimpanzees among advanced apes. The volume of the skull is 500 cc and the age is 2 million years.

It is claimed based on some pieces of the pelvis, arm and foot bones of both Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus robustus that Australopithecus was an upright walking creature.

Criticism of Australopithecus

Almost none of the fossil material from the past is complete. In other words, the fossil material available represents a very small part of the organism to which it is claimed to belong. The fact that fragments of different organisms were brought together based on the assumption that they belong to a single species plays a major role in it. In addition, there can be very big mistakes in fossil age determinations. Therefore, during the evaluation of the organisms to which fossil materials belong, such issues should be taken into consideration and definitive statements should be avoided. As a matter of fact, the authorities in this field have expressed the opposite views about Australopithecus africanus.

Oxnard and Zuckerman, who investigated the Australopithecus fossil for years, state that Australopithecus is not an upright walking being. Oxnard and Zuckerman’s multi-faceted statistical research on Australopithecus africanus’ hand, wrist, foot, shoulder and pelvic bones shows that they do not resemble man, but orangutan and chimpanzee [13],[14],[15]^,[1---6].

Furthermore, the statement of Zuckerman, who worked with a team on Australopithecus africanus for 15 years, is definite:

It is impossible for Australopithecus africanus to be the ancestor of man [17].

All Australopithecus are completely similar to the advanced apes in terms of their cranial structure [18].

To put it briefly, the fossils that are claimed to belong to the Australopithecus group belong to different creatures and were shaped according to the ideas of evolutionists and plaster models were made accordingly.

Java man, Peking man, Heidelberg man and Meganthropus are grouped under the name “Homo erectus”. It is accepted that they lived approximately 500 thousand years ago. It is stated that they walked upright and their brain volume was approximately 1000 cc.

5. Java Man (Pithecanthropus Erectus)

Shortly after Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1858, Ernst Haeckel, inspired by Darwin, published his book entitled The History of Creation. In this work, Haeckel proposed the Mute Ape Man as the “ancestor of man”. He also gave it a Latin name: Pithecanthropus alalus. When this imaginary being would be found as a fossil, it would resemble a human being in some characteristics and an ape in others. They also specified where the remains of this being would be found: The hypothetical ancient Lemuria continent, stretching from Madagascar to India and from the Indian Ocean to Indonesia [19].

In 1887, the Dutch anatomist Eugene Dubois set out with his wife and children to Java, a Dutch colony in East India, as “a health care worker for the Dutch army”. Dubois was on his way to find the Mute Ape Man that Haeckel had suggested, in the same place they had shown. Two years after his arrival in Sumatra, Dubois convinced the government to conduct paleontological excavations in Java. Some prisoners were sent to the excavation by the Solo River near the village of Trinil, and soldiers were assigned the duty of controlling of the excavation. It is stated that Dubois did not participate in the field work in these excavations and that he examined the findings of the workers brought to him periodically at home [20].  

In 1891, Dubois made two important discoveries among the bones that came to him. They were a tooth and a skull found in the same fossil bed a month apart. However, their exact location could not be determined because they were not recorded during the excavation. At first, Dubois thought they belonged to a chimpanzee. A few months later, however, the prisoners found a femur at the same site. It was the femur of a person walking upright. Dubois combined these pieces to form Pithecanthropus erectus (Upright Walking Ape-Man). The brain volume of this being was about 900 cc. A small molar tooth was found in 1898. It was stated that those teeth also belonged to Pithecanthropus. The age of this being was estimated to be 500 thousand years.

When Dubois introduced those fossils at the International Congress of Zoology held in Leyden in 1895, the British zoologists claimed that those fossils belonged to a human, the Germans claimed that they belonged to human-like apes, and the French stated that they belonged to a transition form between a higher form of ape and man.

Criticism of Java Man

Koenigswald is of the opinion that the big molar tooth of Java Man belongs to an orangutan and the small one to a human. He states that the skull is similar to that of chimpanzees and gibbons [21].

In 1906, a major excavation was carried out in the place where Dubois found the fossils, but nothing was found except a small piece of bone. It is said that the being called “Java Man” is in fact a chimpanzee or gorilla type of ape, that the skull of the ape was combined with the human thigh bone and that it was given the name “Pithecanthropus erectus” [22].

It is noteworthy that the confession of Dubois, who found the Pithecanthropus fossil in 1922, was not taken into consideration. In his book named "Mankind in the Making" Howells, states that Dubois found two skulls with brain volumes somewhat similar to those of modern humans in the same place where he found the first fossil. However, Dubois did not reveal these skulls he found for thirty years. He professed thirty years later that the being he presented as Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus) was actually a big gibbon monkey [23].

This explanation of Dubois is included as follows in the Encyclopedia of Archeology:

At first, there was much opposition to the status implied by the name the ape-man, ‘who walked erect’, but it became generally accepted though Dubois himself finally changed his mind and said that the fossils he found belonged to a giant ape, but this skull gained general acceptance” [24].

6. Nebraska man (Hesperopithecus Haroldcookii)

In 1922, a large molar was found by Henry Fairfield Osborn in western Nebraska and was named Hesperopithecus Haroldcookii (Nebraska Man).

It was suggested that this creature, which is estimated to have lived approximately 500 thousand years ago, belonged to the prehistoric ancestor of man and was half ape and half man. However, later on, it was realized as a result of detailed research that the molar called Nebraska Man belonged to a pig [25]^-[26].

Although it was proved that the molar belonged to a pig, animations have been made with half ape and half man pictures drawn as Nebraska Man and movies have been made; and it has been advertised as the first ancestor of man in order to deceive young people.

7. Piltdown Man (Eanthropus Dawsoni)

Arthur Smith Woodward, the director of the London Museum of Natural History, and Charles Dawson, a medical doctor, dug out a jaw and skull fossil with a ceremony from a gravel pit near Piltdown, England in 1912. The jaw bone was very similar to that of the monkey, and the teeth and skull were very similar to that of human beings. Those materials were called “Piltdown Man” (Eanthropus dawsoni). The age was determined to be 500 thousand years.

In 1950, the amount of fluoride absorbed by the bones from the soil was tested in order to determine the age of Piltdown Man. If the fossil had allegedly remained in the soil for 500,000 years, it would have contained a lot of fluoride. However, there was no fluoride in that fossil... Thus, it was discovered that the material of Piltdown Man was not a fossil, and that it had not remained in the soil for more than a year when it was discovered.

Later, it was found that the bones, which were subjected to a serious examination, were stained with potassium dichromate to give the appearance that they belonged to the past. Teeth on the jaw bone had been rasped so that they would have a worn and torn appearance [27].

Thus, they had combined the jaw of a 10-year-old orangutan with human skull and placed human teeth on the jawbone to make it resemble a being between an ape and a human.

When the people who were responsible for this hoax were searched, no one took the blame. Arthur Smith Woodward and the medical doctor Charles Dawson, who planned this hoax and dug the bones out of the gravel pit with a great ceremony, had died. The journals and other publishing organizations that presented the issue did not accept responsibility.

In the 1930s, the discussions about “did man’s brain or body develop first?” were answered by bringing evidence from Piltdown Man. As a matter of fact, Smith indicates this issue and states the following:

The most interesting aspect of “Piltdown Man” is that it justified the idea that ‘the brain was first in the evolution of man’. The idea that human beings got rid of being apes thanks to the development of the head structure is the most realistic view. Man is an orangutan whose brain is highly developed. The importance of the Piltdown skull lies in its strict validation of those judgements [28].

Clark Howell attracts attention to the fact that the scientific circles were deceived by Piltdown Man for 50 years:

Piltdown man was nothing more than a being that consisted of a human skull and an ape’s jaw. It was a hoax placed on purpose. They declared it as the common ancestor of man and ape that lived 500,000 years ago. Some 500 books were written on it. The paleontologists were fooled for 50 years with that discovery [29].

The fact that the Piltdown hoax could not be understood for about 50 years despite the research of the greatest authorities of the world increased the doubts about the other fossils. S. Zuckerman holds the view that when the Dubois fossils of Java Man is examined seriously, the result will be no different than the Piltdown Man [30].

8. Pekin Man (Sinanthropus Pekinensis)

Dr. Davidson Black found two molar teeth in 1921 in a depression in the village of Choukoutien, 40 km away from Beijing, China, and called them “Sinanthropus pekinensis”. W. C. Pei found a third molar tooth in 1927, and several skull fragments and two pieces from the jaw in 1928. Black said those fossils belonged to Peking Man [31].

Peking Man fossils were found in Choukoutien in a large cave whose ceiling collapsed and was filled with sediments left by the waters. Human fossils are considered to be in the same place and in an upper cave. The cave where Peking Man was found was 200 meters wide and 50 meters deep, and there was a lime quarry there. This lime quarry collapsed and everything in this two-story cave was buried under thousands of tons of stone. The skull of Peking Man was found in this pile of debris and buried ashes [32].

According to O’Connell, the fact that the stones were brought from far away and used in the buildings and the presence of a lime quarry and huge ash heaps indicate that lime was burned there. The fact that there was lime production in Choukoutien shows that the houses were built in a certain way and order [33].

As a matter of fact, Breuil reported that two thousand roughly worked stones were found under the heaps of ashes in the debris containing the skulls of Peking Man and the bones of about 100 different animals in a pit 132 meters wide and 12 meters deep in the same place. The tools found there are not primitive in nature. Carving and digging works, the structure of other tools and fine craftsmanship were not found in France until the Upper Paleolithic period. Afterwards, 10 fossils belonging to modern man were found in the same place where the skulls of Peking Man were found [34].

In 1936, three more skulls were found in the same place by F. Weidenreich and Pei, who led the German excavations. Although the volume of the first skull that was found was reported to be 900 cc, it was reported to have increased to 1200 cc in 1936.

The lower jaw and all characteristics of the teeth in the fossils alleged to belong to Peking Man resemble those of apes. The canines are distant from the neighboring incisors, as in some chimpanzees and gorillas. Similarly, the upper canines are considerably longer than the other teeth. The lower canines are small and correspond to the large anterior teeth. Thus, except for a few, the jaw and dental characteristics of these fossils are similar to those of orangutans and chimpanzees [35].

The materials belonging to Peking Man were lost between 1941 and 1945, except for two teeth. None of them have been found to date. Many stories concerning the disappearance of this material have circulated. The most common one is that they may have been lost or confiscated by the Japanese during the Second World War. However, none of these stories has been verified. No living person apparently knows what happened to the materials.

When Davidson Black died in 1934, his work was continued by F. Weidenreich. Weidenreich stated that he based his Peking Man models on the skulls that were found by Pei in 1936 and that were later lost [36].

Weidenreich’s models have been met with skepticism and severe criticism by some. Gish expresses it as follows:

“There is no evidence other than models and descriptions of those materials left by a few investigators. All of those investigators are evolutionists are totally committed to the idea that man had evolved from animal ancestors. Even if a scientist is as completely objective as humanly possible, the model of description he fashions on the basis of scanty and incomplete material with reflect to a critical degree what he thinks the evidence ought to show is doubtful. All we have available are the models fashioned by Weidenreich. How reliable are these models? Are they accurate casts of the originals, or do they reflect what Weidenreich thought they should look like? [37]

O’Connell believes that the fossils of Peking Man were not taken by the Japanese but that they were planned to be lost during the war. According to him, the Japanese did not enter Choukoutien. He claims that Weidenreich and Pei continued to excavate until 1940 and that Pei destroyed the fossils that did not fit the models made for Peking Man before the Chinese government returned to Beijing [38].

All researchers agree that Peking Man was killed and eaten by hunters because the brains of all the skulls were struck with force and broken. Their brains were probably removed and eaten. According to O’Connell, Peking Man was either a large baboon or a large macaque killed and eaten by the workers in the old quarry [39].

In 1952, Boule and Valois, concluded after a detailed study of plaster casts of Peking Man that Java Man and Peking Man were very similar. The two groups were combined into a single species and the Java Man fossil was named Pithecanthropus erectus and Peking Man was named Pithecanthropus pekinensis. Afterwards, they were united under the name Homo erectus [40].

9. Human Skull (Skull 1470)

In 1972, a skull and a leg bone were found by Richard Leakey by Lake Rudolf near Turkana, Kenya. Leakey states that this fossil is 2.8 million years old and that the shape of the skull and the cranial wall are similar to modern humans. It is noted that the skull does not have eyebrow ridges and even contrasts with the protruding eyebrows of Homo erectus. Although the 1470 man was three times older than Homo erectus, his brain was almost the same size [41].

This fossil of Leakey’s disproved the claims that “Austrolopithecus was the ancestor of man” because it is superior to Australopithecus both in terms of brain capacity and skeleton [42].

Besides, the 1470 man is 2.3 million years older than the 500,000-year-old Sinanthropus pekinensis and Pithecanthropus erectus but it has a more modern appearance than them. On the other hand, 300 stone crushing and breaking tools were recovered from the strata in which 1470 man was found, which shows their high level of intelligence and skill [43].

10. Neanderthal Man (Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis)

It was discovered by Dr. Fuhtrott in the Feldhofor cave of the Neanderthal valley in Düsseldorf, Germany in 1856. The skull size of the Neanderthal Man, a race of Homo sapiens, is about as big as that of modern man. It is estimated to have lived 35 thousand to 100 thousand years ago. Neanderthal Man has been described and presented for more than a hundred years as “a thick-eyed being with a coarse nature, wild-character that walked in a curved state”. In fact, the difference between Neanderthal Man and today’s man is less than the difference between the current people of different tribes [44].

The protrusion of the mouth and eyebrows, which are the characteristics of the Neanderthal race, is typical of the black race. Neanderthal man has a curved skeletal structure. In his article called “Neanderthals Had Rickets”, Ivanhoe states that this structure is not due to kinship with apes without tails, but due to the joint and bone disease caused by lack of vitamin D.

It is known that Neanderthal Man grew plants, painted pictures with elegant tools, had some religious beliefs, buried the dead and used a kind of scripture [45].

Today Neanderthal Man is classified as “Homo sapiens” (today’s man). It is stated that Neanderthal Man could not be distinguished from other people if he walked in our streets wearing overalls [46].

Paleontologist Erik Trinkaus draws attention to the fact that there is no difference between modern man and Neanderthal Man and states the following:

Neanderthal ruins and detailed comparisons made between Neanderthal bones and modern human bones show that there is no difference in Neanderthal’s anatomy or in terms of his movement, instrument use, intelligence or speech.” [47].

It is claimed that Neanderthal Man was absorbed by dominant races over time [48].

There are many different opinions and thoughts about Neanderthal Man. Noting that almost everyone has a comment on this issue, Wells states the following:

“Currently in the news is the never-ending controversy over Neanderthals. Were they our ancestors? Were they a separate species, now extinct? Or were they a race of humans, eventually absorbed into our modern global family? Almost every month, a proponent of one view or another takes to the print media or the airwaves, declaring the matter settled. Wait a few months, however, and someone will probably say the opposite with equal confidence [49].

Mentioning the same issue, James Shreeve says:

I talked to one hundred and fifty scientists—archaeologists, anatomists, geneticists, geologists, dating experts—and sometimes it seemed I had come away with one hundred and fifty different points of view about the place of Neanderthals in human evolution. Any theory about Neanderthals is like the weather in many parts of the country: If you do not like it, wait a little while and it will change! ^[50]

11. Cro-Magnon Man (Homo sapiens)

It was found near Eyzi in France in 1868. They are considered to have lived twenty thousand years ago. Their height is 1.85 and brain volume is 1500-1600 cc. They have a dolichocephalic head structure. It is claimed that they “came to Europe from Africa and suddenly disappeared”. Since it is a dominant race, it is stated that the Neanderthal race was assimilated in this race. It is stated that Cro-Magnon Man is very similar to the present-day European Man, and that it is almost impossible to distinguish between them [51].

The fossil called Homo Florensis probably belongs to a race of human beings in appearance. In other words, its Latin name should be Homo sapiens too. However, it is difficult to say anything definite since some parts were filled with plaster. Researchers are not allowed to examine these fossils. Therefore, it is possible that it is not a separate species, but a race within the human species.

To conclude, species and even individuals are so perfectly created and they are adorned with such feelings and emotions that it is impossible for an iota of coincidence and randomness to interfere with them. Each human being is like a realm. His miraculous creation, structure and feelings cannot be explained by such evolutionary quackery. The claim that he came from the evolution of other living beings is also a fallacy. It has no scientific value.

If Allah wanted, could He not create one living being from another, as evolutionists claim? He could. For creationists, it is not a problem at all. Allah can create a horse from a dog and a dog from a horse but there is no scientific evidence for it. Allah has made the genetic structure of each group of living beings immutable. The genetic structure of any living being does not change in such a way to give rise to another living being.

The genetic makeup of a species is called its gene pool. For example, the genetic makeup of all human beings constitutes their gene pool. Small changes occur within this gene pool. We call them variations. Human beings are not all the same like photocopy paper. They have many differences from one another but they all fall within the basic human type.

You can consider other living things in this way. For example, rabbits have a different gene pool, horses have a different gene pool.  That is, rabbits have a different basic type and horses have a different basic type. Genetically, it is not possible for them to be genetically distant or close to each other. That is what science tells us about these laws set by Allah. however, some people consider their dreams, not science, as truth and present their dreams as scientific knowledge.

References:

[1] Guyer, M. F. Animal Biology. New York. Harper; Brothers, London. 1937.

[2] Katz, S. H. Biological Anthropology. Readings from Scientific American. San Fransisco, 1974.

[3] Shipman, P. Baffling Limb on the Family Tree. Discover, 1986, September.

[4] Şengün, A. Evrim. Sermet Matbaası. Kırklareli. 1984, p.142.

[5] Demirsoy, A. Kalıtım ve Evrim. Meteksan Yay. No.11. Ankara. 1984

[6] Pilbeam, D. R. Nature. 1968, Vo1.219 p.1335.                    

[7] Simons, E. L. and Pilbeam, D. R. Folia Primatol. 1965, Vo1.3. p. 81.

[8] Eckhard, R.B. Population Genetics and Human Origins. Scientific American. 1972, Vol.226

[9] Pilbeam, D. R. Gigantopithecus and Origins of Ho­minidae. Nature. 1970, Vo1.225. p.518.

[10] Broom, R. and Schepers, G. W. H. Transv. Mus. Mem. 1946, Vol.2. pp.1-272.

[11] Shipman, P. Baffling Limb on the Family Tree. Discover, 1986, September.

[12] Eckhard, R.B. Population Genetics and Human Origins. Scientific American. 1972, Vol.226.

[13] Oxnard, C. University of Chicago Magazine, 1974, pp.8-12.

[14] Oxnard, C. The Place of the Australopithecines in Human Evolution:  Grounds for doubt? Nature. 1975, Vo1.258. pp.389-395.

[15] Zuckerman, S. Journal of the Royal College of Sur­geons of Edinburg. 1966, Vol.1. pp.87-115.

[16] Zuckerman, S. Beyond the Ivory Tower. Top­linger Publ. Co. New York. 1970, pp. 11-12,64,75-94.

[17] Zuckerman, S. Beyond the Ivory Tower. Top­linger Publ. Co. New York. 1970, pp. 11-12,64,75-94.

[18] Montagu, A. Man: His First Million Years. Word Publishers. Yonkers. 1957, pp.51-52.

[19] Richard, M. Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. Transl. İ. Kapaklıkaya. Son Tartışmalar Işığında Darwinizm’in Mitleri. Gelenek Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2003

[20] Richard, M. Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. Transl. İ. Kapaklıkaya. Son Tartışmalar Işığında Darwinizm’in Mitleri. Gelenek Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2003

[21] Boule, M. and Valois, H.M. Fossil Man. The Dreyden Press. New York. 1957, pp.118-123.

[22] Gish, D.T. Evolution: The Fossils Say No! 1981. Transl. Â. Tatlı, Fosiller ve Evrim. Cihan Yayınları, İs­tanbul. 1984.

[23] Howells, W.  Mankind in the Making. Doubleday and CO. Garden City N. Y. P. 1967, 155-156.

[24] Cottrell, L. The Concise Encyclopedia Arc­heology. Hawthorn. New    York. 1960, p. 394.

[25] Gregory, W. K. American Museum of Natural His­tory. Science.1927, Dec.Vol.66. pp.579-581.

[26] Ivanhoe, F. Neanderthals Had Rickets. 1970, Nature. 8.Aug.

[27] Smith, G. S. Woodward’s Folly. New Scientist. 1979, 5 April, p.44.

[28] Smith, G. S. Woodward’s Folly. New Scientist. 1979, 5 April, p.44.

[29] Howell, C. Early Man New York: Time Life Books, 1973, pp.24-25.

[30] Zuckerman, S. Beyond the Ivory Tower. Top­linger Publ. Co. New York. 1970, pp. 11-12,64,75-94.

[31] Boule, M. and Valois, H.M. Fossil Man. The Dreyden Press. New York. 1957, pp.118-123.

[32] Gish, D.T. Evolution: The Fossils Say No! 1981. Transl. Â. Tatlı, Fosiller ve Evrim. Cihan Yayınları, İs­tanbul. 1984.

[33] Richard, M. Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. Transl. İ. Kapaklıkaya. Son Tartışmalar Işığında Darwinizm’in Mitleri. Gelenek Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2003

[34] Lintor, R.The Tree of Cu1ture. New York. 1955, pp.8­9,110.

[35] Richard, M. Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. Transl. İ. Kapaklıkaya. Son Tartışmalar Işığında Darwinizm’in Mitleri. Gelenek Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2003

[36] Gish, D.T. Evolution: The Fossils Say No! 1981. Transl. Â. Tatlı, Fosiller ve Evrim. Cihan Yayınları, İs­tanbul. 1984.

[37] Gish, D.T. Evolution: The Fossils Say No! 1981. Transl. Â. Tatlı, Fosiller ve Evrim. Cihan Yayınları, İs­tanbul. 1984.

[38] O’Connell, P. Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis. Hawthorne, CA. 1969.

[39] O’Connell, P. Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis. Hawthorne, CA. 1969.

[40] Boule, M., Valois, H. M. Fossil Men. New York: Dreyden Press, 1957.

[41] Leakey, R. E. Skull 1470. National Geographic. 1973, Vo1.143. pp.819-828.

[42] Waechter, J. Prehistoric Man. London. Octopus Books Limited. 1977.

[43] Leakey, R. E. Skull 1470. National Geographic. 1973, Vo1.143. pp.819-828. 

[44] Dobzhansky, T. Changing Man. Science. 1967, Vol.155, p.  410.

[45] Use of Symbols Anteclates Neanderthal Man. Science Digest.Vol.1.73.1973. p.22.  

[46] Gish, D.T. Evolution: The Fossils Say No! 1981. Transl. Â. Tatlı, Fosiller ve Evrim. Cihan Yayınları, İs­tanbul. 1984.

[47] Trinkaus, E. Hard Times Among the Neanderthals. Natural History, Vol. 87, December 1978, p.10

[48] Şengün, A. Evrim. Sermet Matbaası. Kırklareli. 1984, p.142.

[49] Wells, J. ibid. p. 206.

[50] Shreeve, J. The Neanderthal Enigma. New York: William Morrow, p.252, 1995.

[51] Gish, D.T. Evolution: The Fossils Say No! 1981. Tercüme; Âdem Tatlı,  Fosiller ve Evrim. Cihan Yayınları, İs­tanbul. 1984.

It is useful to remember something here. Sperm and ovum cells play a role in the sexual reproduction of living things. These two cells merge to form a unicellular zygote. It develops, giving a multicellular living thing. Chromosome numbers are halved before sperm and ovum cells merge. Thus, when two cells whose chromosome number is halved are combined, the number of chromosomes belonging to that living thing remains unchanged. The halving of the chromosome number in male and female cells before fertilization occurs in the same way in plants, animals and humans in the form of a law.

Mutation is the changes that happen in genetic structure of a living thing. These changes can happen in chromosomes or in genes. The changes in chromosomes occur in the numbers of chromosome or in its structure. The number of chromosomes in every living thing is constant. Changing in chromosome number can take place in the form of increasing and decreasing. For instance, in a plant with forty chromosomes, this number can change due to improper division or transportation to an inappropriate place during reproduction. For example, this number can be forty-one, forty-two, thirty, or thirty-eight. The individuals with a change in number cannot have a healthy life. Most of the time, they become extinct and, these types of changes usually lead to the abnormality of the living thing and cause its death.

Another change can be the increase in the number of chromosomes as two-fold or half. During the reproduction of a plant with forty chromosomes and during the formation of pollen and egg cells, the number of chromosomes have to reduce by half because when the pollen that represents the male and the ovum unite, the number of chromosomes remains constant as forty.

During the reduction of chromosomes in cells, the reduction can be prevented by interfering. This reduction can be done in ovum cells or sperm cells or in both. In this case, the individuals with sixty or eighty chromosomes, instead of forty will occur. The increasing of chromosomes in this way does not cause to death. Their generations continue too.

This type of chromosome change is called beneficial mutation. People benefit from this method especially in plant and animal breeding. For example, corn whose chromosome number has doubled or quadrupled becomes bigger and larger grained than normal individuals. Likewise, there are similar applications in the animal kingdom to increase milk and meat yield.

Other mutations are harmful and generally lethal, whether they take place in genes or in chromosome structure or number.

Conclusion

The beneficial mutations are those that increase in the form of multiples of the number of chromosomes. This method is used for obtaining big fruits in plant breeding and increasing meat and milk yield in animal breeding. However, it is not possible for a new and different living thing to emerge from them. When corn has increased the number of chromosomes by two times, corn with big grains and large cobs is obtained; the corn remains as corn, and no beans from the corn.

It is not only human beings and mammals that are similar. Plants, animals and human beings show great similarity in terms of cell structure, which forms the basis of living beings. Chromosomes, which are located in in the cell nucleus and constitute the basis of heredity, and DNA molecules are similar to a great extent. The foundations of DNA are made up of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen atoms.

The books that fill our bookcases are written with the twenty-six letters of the alphabet; similarly, Allah writes the material structure of the universe with 114 elements.

The fact that the basic structure of beings is similar shows that Allah is the owner and creator of all beings.

Cherry trees here blossom based on the same laws as the cherry trees in France and Australia. The sheep here give birth to lambs in the same way as the sheep in Malaysia do. The eggs of the chickens here are the same as the eggs of the chickens in America. All these similarities show that their creator is the same.

The owner of a signature in a document is understood from the similarity of the signature in other documents; likewise, Allah uses the same signature and seal while creating the beings in the universe so that we will not have any difficulty in understanding that they belong to Allah.

There are definitely many wisdoms behind and reasons for the creation of beings similarly. Everyone can put forward some reasons according to their ability. However, it cannot be said that the reasons for and purposes of the creation of beings similarly are only the ones that we put forward.

Besides, this creation has an aspect belonging to Allah. It is not possible for us to penetrate it. We can only know as much as we are informed.

Our knowledge is like a drop in the ocean compared to His knowledge. It is not possible to understand the ocean with one drop; similarly, it is not possible for us to understand fully the deeds of Allah in the universe and the wise purposes behind the creation of beings.

It is regarded real knowledge to understand that we cannot fully grasp His wisdom and purposes in the creation of beings.

In order to answer your question, let us briefly explain, ‘how does sexual reproduction happen in living beings?’

In all living beings, in other words, plants, animals and humans, God Almighty imposed the same law for sexual reproduction, that is, offspring coming into being from a mother and a father.

Let us take human beings as an example. In every human, there are averagely one hundred trillion cells and there are 46 chromosomes in each cell. 23 of them come from the mother and the other 23 of them come from the father.

As it is known, the ovum of a mother must combine with a sperm of a father. If sperm is created from a cell with 46 chromosomes, the chromosome numbers are reduced by half by division. Therefore, there are 23 chromosomes in each sperm.

The cell with 46 chromosomes that gives the ovum of the mother is reduced by half by division. Eventually, an egg with 23 chromosomes forms. During reproduction, these two cells combine with each other and zygote with 46 chromosomes emerges. This cell is the first cell of the baby. This one cell divides and becomes two cells.

Naturally, because their chromosomes are also divided, each cell has 46 chromosomes again.

These cells reproduce by division in this way and in the meantime, they begin to differentiate. In other words, some cells differentiate to produce the heart, some the brain and some the eyes. However, all of them keep the 46 chromosomes. However, when the ovum and the sperm emerge, Allah reduces the number of chromosomes by half.

Why does efficient offspring not come into being when different types of species combine?

Chromosomes that come from the same mother and father are similar. In other words, if the chromosome coming from the from mother is like the right hand, the one from the father is like the left hand. This is why they are called similar or homologous chromosomes.

For example, suppose that you have two prayer beads with 33 beads. Assume that the two ends of these beads are not tied to each other, and they are in straight position. Each bead is the same as the one opposite it. It means that the eighteenth bead of the first line and eighteenth bead of the second line are similar to each other. However, 18 is different from 19 and 19 is different from 20.

Each of these beads is like one chromosome. One of them comes from the mother and the other one comes from the father.

If the gene representing the eighteenth bead in the first chromosome comes from the mother and if it includes the shape, color and the other characteristics of the eye, the eighteenth gene coming from the father in the second chromosome also carry characteristics of the eye.

You can liken it to information that you encrypt in a flash disk.

If the information in two similar flash disks is encrypted as opposite copy of each other, they form a whole when they come across; and their information encrypted in the similar genes of the same characters from the mother and the father are like this.

Thus, the genes of every species are encrypted in a way that is peculiar to the members of that species. If the right-hand side of this code is from the mother, the left-hand side is from the father and they have the same shape, structure and place on homologous chromosomes.

That is the crucial point. 

If the mother and the father are of different species, the offspring cannot come into being because the number and shape of their chromosomes, the location of the chromosomes carried by the genes as well as the code of their shape do not fit each other. Even if an offspring comes into being, efficient offspring will not come into being because their chromosomes cannot match with each other when they encounter.

For this reason, sexual reproduction does not allow the formation of new and different species.

-Accordingly, how do evolutionists reach the conclusion of a common ancestor by combining different chromosomes of a human and a monkey?

You will find the information that we have tried to give above in any biology book because this reproduction law of God Almighty is the same in all living beings.

The evolutionists claim that humans emerged from monkeys. They cannot explain this by science, and they try to explain it through the magic wand of “time” just like the witches producing various things by the magic wand in fairy tales. They say, “It took place over time.”

Answer 1:

First, it is necessary to understand very well what is meant by evolution because evolution is used in many different senses.

The word evolution is used in place of many words and phrases that are different from each other like metamorphosis, differentiation, gradual development and change and progress. 

Some of the words and phrases used in place of evolution are as follows: takamul (perfection), istihala (differentiation), tatawwur (moving from one state to another), tahawwul (changing from one state to another), tabdil (changing the shape of something), tabaddul (exchange), taghyir (transformation), taghayyur (metamorphosis), taraqqi (improvement), sudur (occurrence), zuhur (appearing), tajdid (renewal), ontogeny, phylogeny and evolvement. Each of those terms has a different meaning from others. We will only explain the meaning of takamul (perfection) and tahawwul (changing from one state to another) here.

Takamul

Takamul is used in the sense of reaching maturity and becoming perfect.

If what is meant by the term “evolution” is “takamul”, that is, the gradual change of the individual from embryo to adulthood, evolution in that sense is a law, not a theory. 

For instance, an apple seed becoming a sprout, then a sapling and finally a tree with fruit is an example of a gradual change.

Similarly, the development of human embryo beginning from zygote, followed by multicellular embryo, baby, youth and adult is another example of gradual development. 

In this sense, all living beings are subject to the laws of change, metamorphosis and differentiation all the time.

Tahawwul (Change of State)

Tahawwul is used in the sense of changing state, changing from one state to another.

If what is meant by evolution is tahawwul, that is, change of state, it is a law, not a theory. The change of state in elements is expressed as the transformation of particles.

To put it briefly, the existence of atoms and molecules in the bodies of living beings by changing from one state to another occurs within the framework of a number of laws of biology and physics. Therefore, the elements’ changing of state like that is a law, not a theory. For example, hydrogen is flammable and oxygen causes burning. When they merge, water forms and these elements have now changed. 

Man is made up of about one hundred trillion cells. Three thousand different reactions take place in each cell per second. After a second, a person is not the same as that person a second before. Many elements have undergone change and transformation in his body.

All living beings are constantly changing. These changes and metamorphoses and similar ones are expressed as "evolution". All the changes and metamorphoses in this sense are laws, not theories.

All these changes occur with the infinite knowledge, will and power of Allah. It is not possible to explain this in any other way in terms of reason and logic.

The main thing that causes a dispute here is the use of evolution in the sense of evolvement.

In the evolution used in the sense of evolvement, the creator is excluded and it is claimed that all living beings are formed in a sequence from one another and by chance. Such a claim has no scientific value and is the product of a positivist philosophy entirely dependent on atheist ideology.

Nothing is fixed the universe. Everything changes any moment. All these changes, differentiations and metamorphoses are the work of Allah.

The value judgments put forward by science or philosophy regarding the creation of both human beings and other living beings change over time depending on research and interpretations. We call all these value judgments information.

Some or all of this information may or may not correspond exactly to what the Quran states about creation. We obtain information about the value judgments of science. That is, we know to some extent of the information that interests us based on our own means and capacity. However, we believe in what Allah informs us.

Knowing an issue of creation in the way that theories or scientific studies explain makes man only acquainted, that is, informed. Believing is a completely different subject.

When you know the Christian religion, you do not become a Christian; similarly, when you know some philosophical thoughts and opinions about evolution, it does not make you exit the religion. However, if you believe that that information is correct, it should not conflict with what the Quran states.

Answer 2:

It is understood that the people who lived in the past had bigger and more vigorous muscles and bodies and that their lives were longer than those living today. However, it does not exclude them from being humans. The first man, Hz. Adam, is also the first prophet, and he resembles today's people in all aspects. His genetic structure has all the colors and racial characters that are present today; the genetic structure of every individual living now consists of a combination of his genetic structure.

This has nothing to do with the evolutionary view of evolutionists who advocate the philosophical view that human beings came from lower level living beings by chance.

However, evolution in the sense of change and differentiation that is seen constantly in man with the infinite knowledge, will and power of Allah is a law, not a theory.

There is no need to go back to Hz. Adam for such a change. According to the calculation that three thousand different reactions occur in each cell of a person in one second, if the existence of the average a hundred trillion cells in man is taken into consideration, the magnitude of the change that takes place in one second in man will be understood. If you call this change evolution, it is not a theory but a law that is formed based on Allah's infinite knowledge, will and power.

For the formation of a living being, another living being that will cause its formation is definitely necessary. It is wrong to claim that any living being can form when there is a suitable medium. As it is known, there was a conviction that living beings formed when there was a suitable medium. However, Pasteur observed that living beings did not form in closed jars in the seventeenth century and showed that a living being could form only from another living being.

Allah can create a living being as a miracle without needing another living being. As a matter of fact, the first creations took place like that; for instance, the creation of Hz. Adam and Hz. Hawwa (Eve). However, this world is a world of testing; therefore, Allah attributed everything to a cause. A mother and father are necessary as causes for the birth of a child. The same thing is valid for a lamb, bird and bacterium. Thus, Allah attributed the formation of a living being to another living being, not a medium, as a cause.

That all laws of physics, chemistry and biology function in the same way in living beings shows that their Creator is the same, not their evolution. Although every being shows the existence and oneness of their Creator, the people who do not want to accept a single Creator try to attribute everything to evolution as if looking through the other side of the binoculars.

Firstly, let us take a look at the glycolysis cycle. In the glycolysis cycle, energy is obtained by the burning of nutrients during respiration in living beings. In the meantime, carbohydrates break into pieces of oxygen and carbon dioxide. One phase of this chemical reaction is called glycolysis cycle. This respiration is common for all species, not just only for bacteria and humans. In other words, this phase of respiration is seen in both plants and animals as well as humans. The laws of respiration, digestion, excretion, development, growth, and differentiation are the same in all of them. Even the cell structures are similar to a great extent. The basic structures and functions of mitochondria, ribosomes, RNA and DNA in the cell are the same. In fact, not only living beings, but also non-living beings are made up of common 114 elements such as carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron and sulfur. Just as there are 26 letters in the English alphabet and all books are written with these 29 letters so too are the material structures of the beings in the universe made up of 114 elements. In other words, all beings in the universe are written with 114 letters.

The creation of all living and non-living beings from atoms to galaxies in an artistic and measured way and continuation of the life of the living beings show a Creator who has limitless knowledge, will and power.

When it is claimed that a signature or writing belongs to an individual, the first thing to do is make that individual sign and write few lines. If the writing and signature style are similar, it is decided that the alleged writing and signature belong to that individual. Thus, the existence of the same signature and similar seal in all living beings in the realm is not evidence of their evolution, but evidence that the signer and the writer of the article is the same being.

In conclusion, the fact that the same biological laws are seen in plants, animals and humans all over the world, that is, that their creation is similar, indicates that their Creator is the same, not their evolution. That all chickens, all cows, all flies, all fish, all butterflies, all roses and all people breathe the same air and are subject to the same biological laws, they show the existence and oneness of their creator just like the existence of light showing the sun.

Prof. Dr. Adem Tatlı

Artificial selection occurs as a result of controlled breeding of domestic animals and plants. When it is decided what animal or plant to be produced by human hand, it will also be decided what genes will be transferred to future generations.

It is a fact that the genetic structures of organisms are changed. Whether this is religious or not does not eliminate this fact.

Getting the technological machines to do what the chicken does does not mean creating a law. On the contrary, it means to come to the conclusion by forming the conditions foreseen for the incubation period by Allah in another mechanism. Likewise, artificial selection, changing genes, changing hormones, and cloning take place with Allah's creation.

It is another issue whether Allah is pleased with them or not because there are two types of will of Allah. The first one is about creation, and the other one is about religious life. It is also up to Allah to create the things that the “willpower” about religious life is not pleased with.

For example, Allah states in the Qur'an that He does not show consent a person killing another person unfairly. However, Allah takes the lives of all those who are killed unfairly.

The summary of it is as follows: The causes coming together is actual prayer; and this thing happens after Allah accepts that prayer.

Similarly, all changes that have been made have to occur with the framework of actions, essences, and laws created by Allah. It is unthinkable that Allah shows consent to the changes - material or nonmaterial - which are harmful to humans. However, even if the actions of people are harmful, the creator of them is also Allah. It is Allah who makes the killer succeed in murder, the thief in theft - although He does not show consent to these actions - as a criterion of the fairness of the testing, who gives man what he wishes with his free will and who invents the points of creation.

It is understood from the Quranic verse below that people will make some changes in the creation of Allah through the suggestions of devils: “Satan said: … I will order them to deface the (fair) nature created by Allah.” (an-Nisa, 4/119)

In conclusion, we can say that no matter how the changes are made on organisms, we are grateful to Allah in return for the blessings we have received. For, the only Creator is Allah. However, the fact that Allah created them - as a necessity of being the only god and only creator - even if they are bad does not free the people who disrupt our health from responsibility.

The animal that is closest to man in terms of intelligence is the horse. The monkey is close to man in terms of anatomy. 

The fact that living things are similar and that DNA and cell structures have a lot in common is not an evidence for evolution but that the creator of all of them is the same.   

You know that the laws of growth, development and differentiation, and even reproduction in all plants, animals and humans are similar. Respiration and the use of air in living organisms take place based on the same laws in all living things. Most importantly, cells are renewed and changed all the time in all living things; biological changes continue until they die.

Endless knowledge and will, and endless power are necessary in order to do and manage them properly. Allah, who created them for the first time, is the one that will do them.

They cannot be the work of chance and nature.

It is necessary to know the levels of intelligence of both the ape and man in order to compare them in terms of intelligence. It is possible to present them in outline but it is not so easy to present their true values.

Some researchers claim that human beings can use only ten percent of their intelligence capacity. The measurement and function of intelligence is the subject of the researchers in this field. Research on these issues will probably continue until Doomsday but no one will be able to claim that they have settled it. For, when you solve something unknown, many other unknown issues emerge from it. 

The universe is thoroughly equipped with knowledge. What man needs to do is explain the book of the universe and to know its creator, worshipping Him and prostrating before Him by praising Him.

Those who want to use science in favor of the positivist philosophy based on atheism are interested in the theory of evolution more than others and they make a lot of fuss about it. For, the advocates of the philosophy of evolution do not accept a creator and attribute the emergence of man to chance and to the evolution of inferior life forms.

Heavenly religions declare that everything is the work and art of Allah, that even an atom is not unattended, that man is created directly as a human being in the most perfect way. They state that man has an obligation to obey and worship his creator, that the world is a place of testing, that man will be questioned for what he does or for his duties that he does not fulfill and that there is reward and punishment in the hereafter.

Man is tested through everything and any moment. The presentation of the philosophy of evolution under the name of scientific knowledge is one of the greatest tests today. Many people are under the influence of propaganda that science has proved evolution and hence there is no creator.

This is why the theory of evolution is insistently defended. In other words, they aim to deny and ignore the creator. 

An American science journal states that there are many transitional forms and that Tiktaalik is only one of them. Is it true?

It is not true. Tiktaalik is not a transitional form. It has nothing to do with reality and science.

Tiktaalik roseae is a species belonging to the extinct tetrapods (four-limbed) that lived during the Devonian period, that is, approximately 330,000,000 years ago.

Evolutionist scientists claim that it is a transitional form between fish and reptiles.

We have only the skull of Tiktaalik as a fossil. The eyes are on the skull, just like in crocodiles. The majority of scientists agree that it has the same structure as crocodiles and therefore this fossil belongs to a crocodile.

Evolutionist geologists and painters gave the skull of Tiktaalik a shape that resembles the appearance of a being that is half fish and half reptile by adding pieces of fish and reptile fossils found in the same layer as it, and filling the remaining parts with plaster. They claim this fraud of science to be a transitional form.

They present it those who are not in the field of biology as if it is a fact; besides they propagate that there are many transitional forms like that. What they do is not science, but an ideological study. Their goals and efforts aim to eliminate the creator and creation and to attribute everything to chance and nature.

Evolutionists carry out a great propaganda and campaign in the world in favor of evolution and against creation. Unfortunately, science is used as a tool for it to a great extent.

Impartial scientists in America complain that not only science journals but also religious journals are in the hands of the supporters of evolution and that facts are reversed.

All of the questions above are about Archaeopteryx's being a transitional form between reptiles and birds or not. A fossil discovered by the museum director Widword in 1861 was named Archaeopteryx and it was proposed as a transitional form between reptiles and birds. It was claimed as a result of the detailed studies done afterwards that the feather marks of this fossil on the stone were made manually, that is, they were fake, and that the fossil itself belonged to a lizard.

It is stated that this archaeopteryx fossil lived about 140 million years ago. However, a fossil called “the first bird” (Protoavis) that lived 225 million years ago was discovered by Sankar Chatterjee in the West Texas Desert. (Time, August 25, 1986, p. 36)

This fossil, which is understood to have lived on the earth 85 million years ago before the Archeopteryx, has the structure of a bird and is regarded as the ancestor of birds. In that case, Archaepteryx cannot be a transitional form.

I am not an expert on birds. We get this information from relevant resources and present them to you. Now I will quote from Alan Feduccia, who is an expert on birds, and present his views: Feduccia states the following:

“I have studied bird skulls for twenty-five years. I do not see any similarities whatsoever between them and dinosaurs. The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century” (Shipman, P. Birds Do It…Did Dinosaurs? New Scientist, 1 February, 1997, p. 28)
When an expert talks about an issue, the others need to keep silent.

There is something about which I am curious. Are the friends who are asked these questions and who express them and deal with these kinds of issues experts on birds, or are they the ones who want to satisfy their curiosity and get information and benefit from the evolution studies on this issue? I have nothing to say to those in the first group. They examine the evidences that are put forward as a necessity of their profession, evaluate them and express their opinions.

If they are from the second group, I will give them the following advice: If you expect to get information and findings that will enlighten you and offer you rich and vast knowledge and benefit from here, I can definitely say that you are wrong. This field of evolution philosophy will batter you. It will destroy your eye and mind and sound ideas in you because people who do not have sufficient expertise and investigative beliefs related to these issues have always fallen into confusion spiritually and mentally. Something like that is definitely awaiting you.

I may explain what I mean here with an example: Suppose that one researcher found a fossil with the features of half a bird and half a reptile. Evolutionists who defend atheism will put forward this fossil as evidence for their claim that that birds evolved from reptiles by chance. What will you do in that case? Will you accept that living beings emerged from one another by chance as evolutionists claim and deactivate the creator? If you do so, it is inevitable for you to go mad in this field.

“Just as Allah creates every living being from a single cell today so too did He create such a living being in the past. Such abnormal structures cannot be the beginning and origin of a systematic chain.” If you can say that, there is no problem. Then, you will be safe from confusion and madness.

State the same thing in order to eliminate your hesitations and expectations regarding the issue and say, “The control of everything is in the hands of Allah. Even an atom is not outside His knowledge, will and power. Just as He creates the living and non-living beings of today so too did He create the beings in the past; He will create the beings in the future in the same way. Our duty is to examine those works of art and thank and praise Him for all the beings He bestowed upon us in this universe."

If you try to test whether Allah exists or not based on the evidence for the existence or non-existence of a number of fossils in the past, you will lose at the beginning. For, none of those who entered this field with such an expectation was able to survive. You cannot be an exception. Therefore, do not dive blindly into the quagmire whose depth you do not know. Your regret will be too late.

That the living beings have similar structures (two eyes, two ears and one nose) is evidence for planned and programmed creation, not for evolution.

Let us consider the two eyes in man: If the eyes had formed by coincidence and by chance as evolutionists claim, the number of the eyes could have been one, three, four, five, etc.

Having two eyes is one of the infinite possibilities. Suppose that you had two eyes by chance. Your brother’s having two eyes is one of the infinite possibilities too. In short, having two eyes in all humans is an infinite possibility. This means that the presence of two eyes in every human being shows a creator that has infinite knowledge, will and power.

Now let us have a look at the shape of the eye: The eyes in man could have been like a cow's eyes or like a fly’s eyes. In short, there is an infinite possibility of sizes along with its present size.

All those possibilities did not take place and your eyes, your brother's eyes and other people’s eyes were determined to have the same size.

The eye could have been in any place on the body. If everything had been the work of coincidence and chance as evolutionists claim, one eye could have been in the hand and the other at the back of the head. One of the eyes of your brother could have been in his hand and the other under his foot.

In short, the places of the eyes would have been as different as the number of the people. However, you can see that it is not like that. Every human eye has the same characteristics in terms of both number, place and function.

The same thing is valid for the ear, tongue, brain and foot. They all show that the one who created them is one, and that He has infinite knowledge, will and power.

That a product produced under a brand is of the same type and structure proves that they are not produced coincidentally; it proves that they have the same planner and master.

The existence of system and order everywhere, from an atom to a cell, from a cell to a fly wing, from a fly wing to moving stars and galaxies, does not leave any room for polytheism and partnership. It eliminates the possibility of formation through coincidence and unconscious nature. It shows Allah's existence and unity.

Since it is not possible to show the existence or non-existence of the umbilical cord in the first human beings, an interpretation can be made only according to some causes and the wisdom in creation.

As it is known, a person is fed through the umbilical cord in the mother’s womb. Since he is fed orally when he comes to the world, this opening in the navel closes in time and only a certain trace remains. Since there was no feeding from the mother in the creation of the first man, the umbilical cord should not exist. God Almighty gives man’s sustenance without the umbilical cord too. Allah, who feeds and develops the chick in the egg without an umbilical cord, definitely fed and developed the first man and our father Hz. Adam, and Hz. Hawwa our mother.

Atheists try to mislead people by demagogy and wordplay here. Man develops from a cell and differentiates, assuming a human form, whether he has an umbilical cord or not. What is more, thousands of cells of each person are changed and renewed every moment. The person one second later is not the same person as one second before. We call these changes and differentiations evolution in the sense of perfection; that is, attaining perfection by developing and differentiating. This kind of development is a law. This law is valid for all beings in the living and non-living universe. If they call this evolution, they must express their claim that a living being comes into being by chance from another living being by using another word. They call both of them evolution through demagogy. However, changes in the sense of differentiation and perfection are a law.

The change and differentiation that they claim to have occurred in the sense of evolution is not based on facts. It is a hypothetical and philosophical thought.

Science means knowledge about a being. In science, it is essential to know, not to believe. Therefore, we need to correct the question above as “someone who knows the theory of evolution” not “who believes in”. Then, it will be seen that the answer is already in the question.

For, knowing an issue is something and believing is another thing. A person who knows Christianity is not a Christian; a person who knows Islam cannot be a Muslim unless he believes in some of the basic principles of Islam.

From this point of view, knowing the theory of evolution, learning what the claims and evidences of evolutionists are and teaching someone the theory of evolution as a necessity of one’s duty is a scientific method and way of working. If such a person believes that the information he has obtained related to this subject is completely true, such a belief will definitely contradict the religion of Islam since there are certain points in this belief that contradict the clear decrees of the Quran.

The evolutionists who advocate atheism, first of all, build their theory of evolution on a view that rejects a creator and present everything as the work of chance and nature. Can a thought that begins by denying Allah have an aspect that is compatible with religion?

Atheistic evolutionists claim that all living beings originated from one another in a chain as a result of the evolution of a single cell by chance. They accept man as the last product of this chain of evolution. Although they use the word evolution in the sense of the evolution of species here, they also use it for all kinds of change and metamorphosis along with some laws and principles that are valid in the universe in order to cause a chaos of evolution, to confuse the minds and to spread their own superstitious and purely philosophical thoughts. Thus, it is not understood who means what with the word evolution.

All kinds of change, metamorphosis and differentiation take place in the universe through Allah's infinite knowledge, will and power. Therefore, it is pointed out in the Quran that all beings assume different structures gradually, that is, in the course of time. For example, it is stated that a person who starts to develop in the womb from a cell passes from stage to stage. It is pointed out that the Earth was initially together with the sun and then separated from it.

The cells and structures of humans, all other plants and animals change all the time. They express all these changes with the word evolution. However, these changes are in the form of a law; it has nothing to do with the word evolution that atheistic evolutionists use; all changes are made by Allah. However, they reject Allah at the beginning.

There is nothing contrary to Islam in the belief that accepts that everything is the work of Allah and that does not contradict the clear decrees of the Quran about creation, and in the belief in change and metamorphosis, and expressing them with the word evolution.

All beings in the universe are the work of Allah. Since the world is a world of testing and wisdom, God Almighty creates everything based on a reason. He made the apple tree a reason for the apple, the chicken for the egg, the lamb for the sheep, and the mother and father for the child. In fact, it is Allah who creates the causes and reasons too.

Although creation that takes place today is like that, it is not possible to explain the issue of the first creation of each living species based on the causes today. That is, a frog and its egg are the causes for the frog to come into being. However, since they were absent in the first creation, one should not seek a cause in the creation of the first frog.

What is meant by the frog’s coming into being suddenly is to express that it did not form as a frog after existing in a number of different living bodies, but that it was created directly as a frog. We do not know the truth about it. There might or might not be a period, a gradual development in the first creation of the frog and every other living species.

Today, chicks emerge from chicken eggs after a certain time. In the creation of the first chicken, a chick may have emerged from an egg. There is no difference in terms of creation between the creation of that single first egg and the formation of the chicken from the egg, whether it happened in a single moment or in a certain amount of days.

Since nobody saw the first creation of living species and since it is not possible to repeat it under those original conditions, it is impossible to prove it scientifically. It is necessary to show respect to every idea and thought to be put forward as long as it attributes the creation of every living species to Allah and it does not contradict what the verses of the Quran and hadiths state. Each one may have some truth. Islam encourages research, thinking and reasoning at this point on the condition that the universe is seen as the work of Allah.

In conclusion, the first creation of each living species may have taken place gradually, like the hatching of a chick from a chicken egg in twenty-one days, that is, in a certain period of time, or they may have been created in a single moment. However, in this creation, it is not possible for a living species to form another living species by changing in terms of biological and genetic structure. The genetic structure of each living species is peculiar to itself, and it is not scientifically possible for it to remain unchanged and to produce another living being at the same time by changing completely; that is, a fish cannot remain as a fish and form a frog at the same time by changing.

The answer to them is within the question. Look what they say:

“Fish is a taxonomic class. There are 28.000 living and hundreds of thousands of extinct fish species. They all have different characteristics but there is a smooth transition between them.”

We say the same thing. There are thousands of fish. They are not the same as if they are photocopied paper. Besides, no members of a living group are the same. Are people the same as photocopy paper? If it were so, how would we distinguish people?

The genetic structure constituted by each species can be considered to be a pool. It is called a gene pool. For example, if a Chinese and an Arab got married, their genetic characteristics coming from their ancestors since Hz. Adam would be assumed as a gene pool. An individual is created based on matchings and interactions among those genes. This individual will not resemble any other relative 100%. Each individual will have characteristics with certain proportions.

That is what they call smooth transition. That is, this individual is neither a Chinese nor an Arab fully in terms of race. They are the changes that science shows and are seen by our eyes. Nobody has an objection to it. They show combinations within a species or in the gene pool as evidence that new and different species will occur and suggest that they claim that this change will take place over a long period of time. According to them, time is a magic pool. If a cat entered that pool, it would become a lion, a wolf, etc. Such a thought is nonsense, not knowledge.

Similarly, there will definitely be many differences in the gene pool formed by fish. However, the fish to occur will be fish again no matter what its form, shape and length are like. Unlike what they claim, frogs from fish, snakes and crocodiles from frogs did not and will not occur immediately with the ebb of the water.

Finches are like that too. There are species with beak structures of different lengths. When there is food shortage in some arid years, the number of short-billed finches decreases; it increases in rainy years. Finches have no other characteristics. Nobody has witnessed a nightingale coming from a finch so far.

Instead of spending time with this type of internet gossip, if you fulfill your duty to know Allah and to worship Him, which is the purpose of man’s being sent to the world, you will be saved from the penalty of Hell awaiting you and you will enter the path of eternal Paradise. If you are very curious about the creation of man and other beings, you should listen to Allah and the Prophet as much as you listen to scientists and philosophers because they are the authority in this issue. For, it is Allah Who created all beings, and it is His Prophet who knows about it.

You will not be asked how fish and finches were created when you go to the hereafter. You know about it, too. You will be asked whether you worshipped or not, whether you read the Quran or not and whether you learned and practiced the Sunnah of the Prophet or not.

Satan and some demonized people keep you unnecessarily busy by putting forward the views of the atheists about the occurrence of beings and humans so that you will go to the hereafter with empty hands and by regretting.

It is important to know that regretting there will be of no good. Satan and the demonized people will move away from you there. They will be busy with their own trouble.

A sane person prepares for the hereafter when there is time. He does not spend time with unnecessary and useless rumors.

Aristotle is a great philosopher that lived between 384 BC and 322 BC and that influenced the ages after him with his views and thoughts. It is necessary to apply to our book called “İnsanlık Tarihi Boyunca Evrim” in order to be able to understand his idea and thought system. We will mention his thought briefly here.

One of the main views of Aristotle aims to know both the past of the existing forms of objects and to determine the future goals: For example, to explain how a seed is formed and what form it will assume in the future. This view is an important foundation on which Aristotle's scientific studies, primarily biology and cosmology, are based. According to him, every object in living and non-living nature has a goal that it is directed toward. It is possible to call it the ultimate goal, the final point, or the point of perfection that the being can reach.

According to him, Allah created the beings in the form we see by setting a target in matter. Form is not only a geometric feature. It is the form of the object that we perceive and that distinguishes it from others. Every object reaches its current form according to its goal it hides inside as a seed.

It can be said that, with the term form, Aristotle tried to indicate the genetic structure today. Today we know that it is the genetic structure of every living being that will reveal their ability and talent, and all the forms they will take in the future.
Aristotle connects every change to a cause outside the object because the cause of the change cannot be the change itself. According to him, Allah does not change, but He is the cause of change. Change in the world of objects is only possible through a factor other than change itself. Aristotle attributes realization of the potential goal every object contains to four causes. They are as follows:

1. Material cause
2. Formal cause
3. Efficient cause
4. Final cause

He gives a statue as an example of it. According to him, the materials such as bronze and marble used for making the statue are material causes. The human form, for example, that is desired to be given to the material, is the formal cause. It is the effective cause the sculptor who processes the marble wants to do. What the sculptor working on the statue wants to make is the final cause. Thus, the marble takes the shape of a statue and hence the question "Why did marble take the shape of a statue?" is also answered.
The biggest contribution of Aristotle to biology is the importance he gave to empiricism. He clearly states while evaluating his biological studies that observation has priority over theory and that theory can only be valid if it is compatible with observations. This essentialist approach of Aristotle also influenced Linné’s biological theory. Linné regards the duty of the biologist as to determine the essences created by Allah in the species and the species that depend on them.
Aristotle also has a special place in that he is the first to one understand the importance of comparison in scientific studies. The works of Aristotle called History of Animals, On the Generation of Animals and On the Life-Bearing Spirit are important in terms of biology. The accuracy of many observations he made on animals was understood only in the 19th century. In his studies related to birds, mammals and even fish living in deep seas, he made a detailed determination of the behaviors of these species including their mating.

It can be said that Aristotle is the most influential biologist in history with his works that affected a process of more than two thousand years. Nobody before him had made such a serious classification of animals. He classified animals based on the criteria like lifestyles, organs and behaviors. His work formed the basis of several fields of biology like morphology, physiology, embryology, systematic and animal behavior.
There is no room for leaps, unexpected destructions and reconstructions in Aristotle’s philosophy of biology. Living beings, carry their final form in the universe in their current forms. All kinds of evolutionary ideas including the idea that complex living beings emerged from simpler living things are contrary to his thinking.

According to him, it is necessary to for theology and physics to work together along with experience in order to understand how natural, that is, physical events take place. Physics opens the way for metaphysics to us. He points out that physics will be meaningless without metaphysics. Metaphysics provides the knowledge of knowledge. According to him, Allah creates His works purposefully; there is no randomness or coincidence. The purpose here is to create what is beautiful. There is no being that is not beautiful. In Aristotle's metaphysics, the prime mover, or the pure form, is the capable being. It is the highest and the best of all beings and essences. This pure form is Allah. Allah is completely immaterial and incorporeal.

What we have been tried to present so far is a summary of Aristotle's view on creation and biology. As it can be seen, Aristotle states clearly that all species were created in the most perfect way by Allah, and that coincidence and random change were not involved in the creation of living beings.

However, Darwinian thought rejects the existence of Allah, explains everything with coincidence and randomness, and claims that species emerged from one another through change and by chance. Therefore, Darwinian thought and philosophy, and the philosophy of Aristotle are completely opposite to each other.

The view that the organs that are used develop and the organs that are not used atrophy and disappear was put forward by Lamarck in his book called “Philosophy of Biology” published in 1809. As a matter of fact, it was claimed based on this view that the neck of the giraffe was initially short and it got longer over time because it extended its neck to obtain its food from high branches.

However, the studies on the genetic characteristics of living beings for the past fifty years have shown that changes in body cells that are called soma cells are not transferred to offspring. That is, they have no hereditary features. For example, a person whose arm or foot has been amputated in any way does not pass this feature to their offspring.

Only a change in the genetic structure of the gametes called sex cells or a change that can occur in the genetic structure of the zygote formed by the combination of these cells when it is still a single cell is transferred to offspring.

In short, scientific studies show that the organs that are used or not used cannot be evidence for evolution because the change in an organ in this way is not transferred to offspring since there is no genetic change.

Therefore, the eyes of bats are not vestigial organs transferred to them by their lower level ancestors, as evolutionists claim. They were created directly as bats and their eyes were created like that. There are bat fossils dating back to millions of years ago. They have the same structures as the bats today.

The duty of revealing why those eyes were created and what roles they play in that living being belongs to science. It will be understood by research. Evolutionists prefer the easy way and present their philosophical thoughts like this one, which are not based on any laboratory research, as scientific knowledge by calling the organs whose duties have not yet been discovered vestigial organs.

What you should say to them is that there is no scientific evidence for the claim that unused organs are atrophied and that this view is a positivist philosophical thought completely dependent on atheist ideology.

Every living thing, including whales, snakes and dogs, has been created according to a multi-purpose program. There is no extra or missing organ in their bodies. An organ generally has more than one duty.

The duty of biologists is to show the functions and duties of each organ. However, some biologists take the easy way out and describe the organ whose duty they do not know as unnecessary and extra. They even acts a bit ideologically and claim that the organs that they regard as having no duty remained from those animals’ primitive ancestors that they claim those animals evolved from.

The view ‘if an organ is used, it will develop, and if it is not used, it will atrophy’ put forward by Lamarck in the last century has no scientific value. Changes in the soma cells of a living being do not pass to its offspring. For example, the children of a person whose arm has been cut off will not be born without arms.  However, the changes in reproductive cells and zygotes pass on to the offspring. Therefore, no organ of the whale atrophied because it was not used in the past generation and took its present form.

The structures included in the question that are claimed to constitute evidence for evolution are always dealt with the ideology of Lamarck and they are considered as organs remaining from ancestors of these creatures supposed to have lived in the past. If the biologists had done serious research on what the functions of those organs were instead of claiming that they were unnecessary, it would definitely have been revealed that those organs had more than one duty for those living beings and that they were vital organs.

It should be known that this type of opinion, which is claimed as evidence for evolution and which claims that some extra organs are useless has no scientific value and should not be taken seriously. For, an issue that does not enter the laboratory and cannot be tried is a philosophical thought, not scientific knowledge.

Let alone an extra organ, even an atom is not unnecessary in a living being. Each atom has at least one specific duty in the living being it exists. How can an organ be considered unnecessary for a living being even if an atom is not unnecessarily present in its body?

Allah has created nothing in vain and at large. As a necessity of the His name Hakim (the All-Wise), everything is created based on measurements, a system, an order, a plan and wisdom.

What is meant in this question is the claim that some speciation was observed among wasps arising from feeding differences.

First of all, the feeding difference of bees is not a new phenomenon. In other words, it is not something observed by preparing a new food medium in the laboratory.

It was previously thought that the feeding of wasps was based only on the fruit fly that fed on hawthorn trees. It was understood in the 1850s that bees also preferred fruit flies that fed on apple trees. In other words, it is understood that the wasps observed among the wasps and expressed as six species existed in the past too.

Even if all this is not taken into consideration, intra-species differentiations are always possible because not all members of a species are the same as if they were photocopied.

Every individual has a number of different characteristics and structure differences. Therefore, the sum of the characters of the members of a species is called a gene pool.

As a result of the mating of individuals in this gene pool, it is possible for new structures and characteristics to emerge as a result of the combination of differences each individual takes from their parents. However, these variations do not display a change that is enough to go beyond that basic type.

For instance, a child's eye color consists of a combination of the eye color characteristics that his mother and father have. The eye color of his mother and father is a combination of the characteristics of all of his ancestors beginning from Hz. Adam.

It is necessary to view the issue like that.

It is not scientific to make a generalization that there are transitions between large groups and basic units acting upon intra-species variations.

Each large group of living beings was created separately because the genetic structure does not show a big change to bring about different groups as it is claimed.

For instance, there are variety differences among the types of corns such as flint corn, sweet corn and starch corn. New varieties or types are expected when they are crossed over or crossbred. It is no evidence for evolution in the sense of the claimed evolution. That is, it is not scientific to claim that large, basic, different genetic types such as beans from corn, wheat from beans and potatoes from wheat occurred with these changes.

Likewise, the differences that occur due to some feeding differences among the wasps keep them within the borders of wasps. For instance, 6 species that are known today in the basic bee type of wasps may just as well be 16 species for a number of reasons. However, all of them are within the basic type of wasp.

In other words, it is not possible for another basic type like a bird to occur through the evolution of wasps.