Creation or evoIution?

Mubashir Hassan

Some people, who regard themselves as intellectual giants, engage in
absurd speculations about the origin of life. They consider that life, with all its
complexities, originated by chance. Chance seems to be a key that would open
up any enigmatic lock; a proposition that is difficult to believe. When subjected to
scientific examination, these claims miserably break down, for what science
reveals is quite contrary to such beliefs Science is misinterpreted or
misrepresented to support these claims.
Despite being aware of the inherent weaknesses of their claims, evolutionists
hold on to it adherently and console themselves and their followers by saying that
with the progress of science, evidences would be laid bare to support the theory
of evolution. The truth, however, is contrary to it: all the discoveries that have
been made since the publication of Darwin's origin of species, are contradicting
with the assumptions of evolutionists. Every new discovery makes the theory
feebler. Some of the scientific facts which disprove evolutionistic claims are
described below.
rigin of Iife:
Evolutionists fail to account for how the life originated. First evolutionists, like
Charles Darwin, simply glossed over the problem and treated it as if it required
no explanation. n those days life was thought to be simple and that it could
originate under certain favourable conditions. However, the discovery of Louis
Pasture, that living beings can't originate form non living, put evolutionists in
quagmire, but they were not ready to give in, to accept the reality. They put
forward various foolish propositions to defend their theory.
They concede that various components of a cell were formed under suitable
conditions through an element of chance and then these components came
together, again through an element of chance, giving rise to a living cell. The only
experiment, with which the evolutionists try to relate evolution, is Mill's
experiment. Mill did succeed in synthesizing amino acids under laboratory
conditions, claiming that the raw materials he used in his experiment were those
which were present in the primitive environment. But later it was realized that he
had been wrong in his selection Even if it is assumed that the amino acids were
formed somehow, evolutionists fail to explain how these amino acids combined
to form useful sequence, and it is only a useful sequence of amino acids that
constitute proteins; otherwise they are simple polypeptide chains that are of no
value to life. (t is to be remembered here that proteins are the basic components
of life.) The problem of how did amino acids combine and form meaningful
sequence perplexed Mill. He didn't proceed further.

Then Sydney Fox tried to take forward Mill's effort. He performed an
experiment to synthesize proteins from amino acids. He ended up making just a
few meaningless polypeptide chains, and never succeeded in producing a
meaningful sequence of proteins. Nor has any scientist, with all the sophisticated
instruments at his disposal, succeeded in synthesizing a single protein. Besides
a living cell doesn't consist just of the combination of proteins; there are many
more molecules which go into the making of a cell. Here a conscious, intelligent
power is seen at work, for no ordered arrangement is possible without intelligent
guidance.
Evolutionists try to account for it by describing it as a chance happening;
however, chance has its limitations. To say that chance can bring about such an
ordered thing as life (or for that matter a living cell, or even a small protein, which
could be understood only very recently) is just a lame excuse for not accepting
the truth. Even if it is assumed that all the components of a cell got formed
somehow, what rationale can there be for coming together of all these elements
and there getting adjusted in a proper order; an order which is faultless, complete
in itself.
f all the components, which constitute a cell, are brought together and put
together in the same sequence as in a living cell, it would still be a heap of
atoms. Nothing can bring it to life. The progress of science (cytology, genetics
etc.) has established that life can only originate de novo i.e. it can only be passed
on from one living organism to another. Such a revelation was sufficient to
convince the evolutionists about the presence of some living entity, that is
independent of the limitations of time and space, and who is the fountain head of
all life. Allah almighty refers to this reality in the following words: 'God- there is
no deity save Him, the Ever-living, the self subsistent, Fount of all being..'
(2:255).
enetic information:
For life to continue, the information about various life processes and modes
of life must pass on from generation to generation. A special molecule called
D.N.A., which may be present in the nucleus of a cell or may float freely in the
cytoplasm of a cell, performs this function. D.N.A. performs this action by
directing the protein synthesis, which in turn directs various life processes. The
basic unit of D.N.A. is a nucleotide molecule. t consists of a sugar molecule, a
phosphate and a nitrogenous base. There are four different types of these
nitrogenous bases and depending upon the kind of base attached, there are four
different kinds of nucleotides. The information contained in the D.N.A. depends
upon the sequence of these four kinds of nucleotides. When a cell divides, DNA
also replicates and a set of chromosomes is passed on to each daughter cell. n
this way each cell of living organism receives complete information for carrying
out its life processes.
Now let us assume for a while that a living cell somehow came into
existence, naturally it would have died after some time and the whole thing would
have come to an end. f the life were to continue it would first have required
developing a system to transfer the information to its descendent, otherwise life
would have got lost with the death of that first formed. The probability for
developing such a system is unimaginably remote and it was imperative for that
simple creature to remain alive all that time, having access to all the materials
required for the process.
This is not an end to the enigma. There are many more questions which
baffle the evolutionists! Like how it came to be decided that a particular
combination of nucleotides would serve as a code for one particular amino acid
(building blocks of proteins) and who decided all this? Certainly a cell couldn't
have decided it. The genetic code is so perfect that it couldn't have been
designed by any one other than the Perfect being, let alone its chance formation.
Another impasse faced by the evolutionists is their inability to explain the
increase in the genetic material of higher forms of life. A bacterium, for instance,
has a single chromosome while as a human being or a whale has a complex set
of chromosomes; there is a tremendous increase in the quantity and diversity of
the genetic material. Let us for argument's sake consider that a bacterium or
some other simple creature originated by chance, how were many diverse types
of genes added to it and how did they diversify and that too millions of times
(there have lived millions of species of living beings in the world and each
species has got a unique genetic set up)? All this enigma is simplified when we
consider the following verse of the Qur'an: 'Or who, originates creation, then
repeats it, and who gives you sustenance from heaven and earth?' (27:64)

iversity of Iife:
n 1801 Lamarck put forth his theory of transformation in which he stated that
living things have the ability to get transformed from simplicity to complexity. He
theorized that changes in environment bring about morphological changes in
living beings and the changes acquired during the life time of an animal are
transmitted on to its off spring.
Darwin too propounded his theory almost on the same line; he proposed that
within every species of animals there occur variations. The traits which are useful
to a species are selected by natural selection and passed on to its descendents
which ultimately lead to the emergence of a new species .Darwin put forth the
idea that originally there was a common ancestor to all the species living today
and due to the process of variation and natural selection new species of animals
emerged.
Mendel's experiments proved both Lamarck as well as Darwin wrong. His
experiment established that the acquired traits are not transmitted. Today with
the vast knowledge of genetics available, there is no scope for the theories of
Darwin or of Lamarck to be accepted. Realizing the incompatibility of the
Darwin's theory with the established facts of science, evolutionists took refuge in
the mutation theory of Hugo de Vries. According to this theory the genetic
material of living cell undergoes variation under the effect of external conditions
like the effect of radiation etc. and when fairly sufficient amount of mutations are
accumulated the result is the emergence of new organs or a modified organ
which eventually lead to the emergence of new species of animals.
For a long time evolutionists consoled themselves under the shade of this
theory. Various experiments were conducted to lend credence to the mutation
theory of transformation. The results, however, disappointed the evolutionists: it
was observed that the mutations did alter the genetic set up of an organism but
these alterations were always to the detriment of the organism and never proved
beneficial. Even the bacteria, which divide in every twenty minutes, didn't change
when these were subject to intense radiations. t goes to show that there was not
a common ancestor of all the living animals rather each living organism was
created completely and independently.
!aIeontoIogy:
Evolutionists had pinned their hopes on paleontology (study of fossils) to bear
them out. But it has dealt a death blow to their theory. f one were to believe the
logic of the evolutionists, then a paleontologists must have come across simple
life forms in the lowest strata of the earth, and more complex forms in the upper
state but this is not so. Far from bearing any compatibility with the evolutionary
scheme, the facts completely contradict it. Evolutionists say that the life
developed by stages and accordingly simplest life forms originated first then
these developed and diversified, giving rise to various complex life forms. Had
they been true there must have been various intermediate forms between the
animals which emerged from one another e.g. evolutionists claim that reptiles
emerged from fishes, so there must have been some intermediate form between
these two life forms. But no intermediate form or any of their traces have so far
been unearthed nor is there any such hope.
The fact (as revealed by the paleontology) is that all the Major Phyla (groups of
animals as per their classification) emerged almost in the same period (Middle of
the Cambrian age between 575 and 505 million years ago) and there is no
gradual increase in the complexity of life forms, as envisioned by evolutionists.
Douglas H. Erwin, a research paleobiologist at the Smithsonian nstitution's
National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., in his article "Biology's
Big Bang writes about this event:
'n a relatively brief period, a riotously diverse group of the first complex
animals appeared on Earth. t was an explosion of life unlike anything that has
occurred since..Why did the evolution of life take such a magnificent leap after
being relatively uneventful for billions of years? And why did the change occur so
rapidly? The search for the answer to these questions is taking place in fossil
beds around the world..What triggered the Cambrian explosion? Why did it
begin about 575 million years ago, and not 1 billion years ago, or 350 million
years ago? Scientists do not have the answers to these questions.'
What does all this point to? t goes to show that living beings appeared
suddenly and completely formed otherwise there would have been intermediate
forms and that different groups of animals should have appeared in different
periods of time.
CompIexity in Iife:

There are some organs present in the living beings which can not be accounted
for by gradual development .e.g. human eye is composed of various components
which work together. Evolutionists would say that all these components
developed slowly over a long period of time but no component of the eye would
have been of any help to the animal individually. f any component had
developed it would not have worked. And if these components evolved over time,
which intelligence was at work to cause the emergence of these components
separately and had imagined at the very outset that at the end of the formation of
these components, these would form a working whole and would aid each other.
And what about the migratory pattern of some birds? These birds migrate to
distant lands without any guidance and without any prior knowledge about these
distant lands or to the routs leading to them. They are lead to these new places
instinctively, and then return after a fixed period to their old habitation. The
information about these adventures is contained in the genetic set up of these
birds. Evolutionists fail to account for how this information came to be developed.
t is impossible to have evolved over time. No amount of mutation/variation can
bring about such a drastic and meaningful change. The explanation is simple: it
is the handiwork of Allah, who designed their genetic set up in such a way that
they are inspired to behave in a manner which is incomprehensible to human
beings. Allah has not provided them with the means to pass on information yet
has compensated this deficiency.
The Sonar system of a bat, which is better than that developed by our
scientists, has put the evolutionists in amazement. They are simply attributing it
to chance. Any sane person can realise how absurd they are getting. How could
such a perfect system, which is beyond our comprehension, come about by it
self?
Some secrets about Iife:
A living cell made up of atoms, of the particular combination of the very atoms
that form our earth, and every thing around us. Earlier it was thought that an
atom was the smallest particle of the matter and that it couldn't be broken down,
but now it has been found out that an atom is not the smallest particle of the
nature and that it too can be broken down.
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon M. Lederman says about the constituents
of the matter 'There are 12 fundamental particles of matter: six quarks, named
up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom; and six leptonsthe electron,
electron neutrino, muon, muon neutrino, tau, and tau neutrino. There is a
provisional consensus that these are "the bottom line, point like particles with
nothing inside.' (Encarta Yearbook article, 1999). And who knows that a few
years later some physicist may put the world in bewilderment by discovering that
these particles too can be broken down?
Physicists are yet divided in their opinion about the reality of these sub
atomic particles. These particles are said to have dual nature i.e. they behave
both as matter as well as wave; a proposition difficult to grasp. Nobel Prize
winner Erwin Schrdinger threw light on this in a lecture in Geneva, in 1952, he
says:
'The wave-particle dualism afflicting modern physics is best resolved in favor
of waves, believes the author, but there is no clear picture of matter on which
physicists can agree...We have to admit that our conception of material reality
today is more wavering and uncertain than it has been for a long time. We know
a great many interesting details, learn new ones every week. But to construct a
clear, easily comprehensible picture on which all physicists would agree that is
simply impossible'. (Source encyclopedia Encarta 2005)
Then what is the reality of an atom? An atom is a combination of waves or
particles (uncertain nature) whose presence has been established only through
indirect inferences. Nobody has been able to comprehend their mysterious
nature. Or we can say that on the ultimate analysis a living being is made up of
insignificant waves? Can a combination of such insignificant and unconscious
atoms ( whose nature is uncertain: waves or particle) produce a conscious
being, capable of thinking and planning?
A cell doesn't lose any material thing when it dies, yet there is a world of
difference between a living cell and a dead cell. t shows that a cell is not just a
heap of molecules. Something extra, something which doesn't have any material
existence is there, which gives life to it and ability to plan, to think, to dreams, to
love and hate. Something which is afflicted by sorrow, joy and, above all, has an
instinct. A simple material thing doesn't have such properties. Can it have? The
answer is clear 'No'. So can we be content with the assertion that the life consists
simply of cells which in turn are made of atoms (which are breakable to still
smaller quarks)? No sane person can be satisfied if one were to think in an
objective manner. Life is something different, whose reality is incomprehensible
and which seems to be independent of the material basis. That can't be
produced by human efforts and is beyond physical and chemical basis, which
think are simply the external basis of life, the reality is beyond human
comprehension. That is reason why the reality of life has not been discussed by
any evolutionist or scientist.
f the evolutionists were true that life has material basis only and that various
components of a cell came together and formed a living cell, then in our age it
should not have posed any problem to create a living cell in the laboratory. Why
should today's Man, who has invented so many things which didn't previously
exist and about which he knew nothing, fail to make a living cell about which he
knows many things and knows about the material of which it is made. Life is
something else which doesn't have only material existence but is dependent on
something else for its existence. The most beautiful description of the life is given
by Him who has brought it into existence.
'He [t is Who] brings forth the living from that which is dead, and brings
forth the dead out of that which is alive, and gives life to the earth after it had
been lifeless: and even thus will you be brought forth (from death to life). ' {Al-
Qur'an. 30:19}
Who could have given such a precise description of the life except the one who
created it?
Author can be e-mailed at: mubashir_07@redifmail.com
Creation or evoIution?
Mubashir Hassan


Some people, who regard themselves as intellectual giants, engage in
absurd speculations about the origin of life. They consider that life, with all its
complexities, originated by chance. Chance seems to be a key that would open
up any enigmatic lock; a proposition that is difficult to believe. When subjected to
scientific examination, these claims miserably break down, for what science
reveals is quite contrary to such beliefs Science is misinterpreted or
misrepresented to support these claims.
Despite being aware of the inherent weaknesses of their claims, evolutionists
hold on to it adherently and console themselves and their followers by saying that
with the progress of science, evidences would be laid bare to support the theory
of evolution. The truth, however, is contrary to it: all the discoveries that have
been made since the publication of Darwin's origin of species, are contradicting
with the assumptions of evolutionists. Every new discovery makes the theory
feebler. Some of the scientific facts which disprove evolutionistic claims are
described below.
rigin of Iife:
Evolutionists fail to account for how the life originated. First evolutionists, like
Charles Darwin, simply glossed over the problem and treated it as if it required
no explanation. n those days life was thought to be simple and that it could
originate under certain favourable conditions. However, the discovery of Louis
Pasture, that living beings can't originate form non living, put evolutionists in
quagmire, but they were not ready to give in, to accept the reality. They put
forward various foolish propositions to defend their theory.
They concede that various components of a cell were formed under suitable
conditions through an element of chance and then these components came
together, again through an element of chance, giving rise to a living cell. The only
experiment, with which the evolutionists try to relate evolution, is Mill's
experiment. Mill did succeed in synthesizing amino acids under laboratory
conditions, claiming that the raw materials he used in his experiment were those
which were present in the primitive environment. But later it was realized that he
had been wrong in his selection Even if it is assumed that the amino acids were
formed somehow, evolutionists fail to explain how these amino acids combined
to form useful sequence, and it is only a useful sequence of amino acids that
constitute proteins; otherwise they are simple polypeptide chains that are of no
value to life. (t is to be remembered here that proteins are the basic components
of life.) The problem of how did amino acids combine and form meaningful
sequence perplexed Mill. He didn't proceed further.

Then Sydney Fox tried to take forward Mill's effort. He performed an
experiment to synthesize proteins from amino acids. He ended up making just a
few meaningless polypeptide chains, and never succeeded in producing a
meaningful sequence of proteins. Nor has any scientist, with all the sophisticated
instruments at his disposal, succeeded in synthesizing a single protein. Besides
a living cell doesn't consist just of the combination of proteins; there are many
more molecules which go into the making of a cell. Here a conscious, intelligent
power is seen at work, for no ordered arrangement is possible without intelligent
guidance.
Evolutionists try to account for it by describing it as a chance happening;
however, chance has its limitations. To say that chance can bring about such an
ordered thing as life (or for that matter a living cell, or even a small protein, which
could be understood only very recently) is just a lame excuse for not accepting
the truth. Even if it is assumed that all the components of a cell got formed
somehow, what rationale can there be for coming together of all these elements
and there getting adjusted in a proper order; an order which is faultless, complete
in itself.
f all the components, which constitute a cell, are brought together and put
together in the same sequence as in a living cell, it would still be a heap of
atoms. Nothing can bring it to life. The progress of science (cytology, genetics
etc.) has established that life can only originate de novo i.e. it can only be passed
on from one living organism to another. Such a revelation was sufficient to
convince the evolutionists about the presence of some living entity, that is
independent of the limitations of time and space, and who is the fountain head of
all life. Allah almighty refers to this reality in the following words: 'God- there is
no deity save Him, the Ever-living, the self subsistent, Fount of all being..'
(2:255).
enetic information:
For life to continue, the information about various life processes and modes
of life must pass on from generation to generation. A special molecule called
D.N.A., which may be present in the nucleus of a cell or may float freely in the
cytoplasm of a cell, performs this function. D.N.A. performs this action by
directing the protein synthesis, which in turn directs various life processes. The
basic unit of D.N.A. is a nucleotide molecule. t consists of a sugar molecule, a
phosphate and a nitrogenous base. There are four different types of these
nitrogenous bases and depending upon the kind of base attached, there are four
different kinds of nucleotides. The information contained in the D.N.A. depends
upon the sequence of these four kinds of nucleotides. When a cell divides, DNA
also replicates and a set of chromosomes is passed on to each daughter cell. n
this way each cell of living organism receives complete information for carrying
out its life processes.
Now let us assume for a while that a living cell somehow came into
existence, naturally it would have died after some time and the whole thing would
have come to an end. f the life were to continue it would first have required
developing a system to transfer the information to its descendent, otherwise life
would have got lost with the death of that first formed. The probability for
developing such a system is unimaginably remote and it was imperative for that
simple creature to remain alive all that time, having access to all the materials
required for the process.
This is not an end to the enigma. There are many more questions which
baffle the evolutionists! Like how it came to be decided that a particular
combination of nucleotides would serve as a code for one particular amino acid
(building blocks of proteins) and who decided all this? Certainly a cell couldn't
have decided it. The genetic code is so perfect that it couldn't have been
designed by any one other than the Perfect being, let alone its chance formation.
Another impasse faced by the evolutionists is their inability to explain the
increase in the genetic material of higher forms of life. A bacterium, for instance,
has a single chromosome while as a human being or a whale has a complex set
of chromosomes; there is a tremendous increase in the quantity and diversity of
the genetic material. Let us for argument's sake consider that a bacterium or
some other simple creature originated by chance, how were many diverse types
of genes added to it and how did they diversify and that too millions of times
(there have lived millions of species of living beings in the world and each
species has got a unique genetic set up)? All this enigma is simplified when we
consider the following verse of the Qur'an: 'Or who, originates creation, then
repeats it, and who gives you sustenance from heaven and earth?' (27:64)

iversity of Iife:
n 1801 Lamarck put forth his theory of transformation in which he stated that
living things have the ability to get transformed from simplicity to complexity. He
theorized that changes in environment bring about morphological changes in
living beings and the changes acquired during the life time of an animal are
transmitted on to its off spring.
Darwin too propounded his theory almost on the same line; he proposed that
within every species of animals there occur variations. The traits which are useful
to a species are selected by natural selection and passed on to its descendents
which ultimately lead to the emergence of a new species .Darwin put forth the
idea that originally there was a common ancestor to all the species living today
and due to the process of variation and natural selection new species of animals
emerged.
Mendel's experiments proved both Lamarck as well as Darwin wrong. His
experiment established that the acquired traits are not transmitted. Today with
the vast knowledge of genetics available, there is no scope for the theories of
Darwin or of Lamarck to be accepted. Realizing the incompatibility of the
Darwin's theory with the established facts of science, evolutionists took refuge in
the mutation theory of Hugo de Vries. According to this theory the genetic
material of living cell undergoes variation under the effect of external conditions
like the effect of radiation etc. and when fairly sufficient amount of mutations are
accumulated the result is the emergence of new organs or a modified organ
which eventually lead to the emergence of new species of animals.
For a long time evolutionists consoled themselves under the shade of this
theory. Various experiments were conducted to lend credence to the mutation
theory of transformation. The results, however, disappointed the evolutionists: it
was observed that the mutations did alter the genetic set up of an organism but
these alterations were always to the detriment of the organism and never proved
beneficial. Even the bacteria, which divide in every twenty minutes, didn't change
when these were subject to intense radiations. t goes to show that there was not
a common ancestor of all the living animals rather each living organism was
created completely and independently.
!aIeontoIogy:
Evolutionists had pinned their hopes on paleontology (study of fossils) to bear
them out. But it has dealt a death blow to their theory. f one were to believe the
logic of the evolutionists, then a paleontologists must have come across simple
life forms in the lowest strata of the earth, and more complex forms in the upper
state but this is not so. Far from bearing any compatibility with the evolutionary
scheme, the facts completely contradict it. Evolutionists say that the life
developed by stages and accordingly simplest life forms originated first then
these developed and diversified, giving rise to various complex life forms. Had
they been true there must have been various intermediate forms between the
animals which emerged from one another e.g. evolutionists claim that reptiles
emerged from fishes, so there must have been some intermediate form between
these two life forms. But no intermediate form or any of their traces have so far
been unearthed nor is there any such hope.
The fact (as revealed by the paleontology) is that all the Major Phyla (groups of
animals as per their classification) emerged almost in the same period (Middle of
the Cambrian age between 575 and 505 million years ago) and there is no
gradual increase in the complexity of life forms, as envisioned by evolutionists.
Douglas H. Erwin, a research paleobiologist at the Smithsonian nstitution's
National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., in his article "Biology's
Big Bang writes about this event:
'n a relatively brief period, a riotously diverse group of the first complex
animals appeared on Earth. t was an explosion of life unlike anything that has
occurred since..Why did the evolution of life take such a magnificent leap after
being relatively uneventful for billions of years? And why did the change occur so
rapidly? The search for the answer to these questions is taking place in fossil
beds around the world..What triggered the Cambrian explosion? Why did it
begin about 575 million years ago, and not 1 billion years ago, or 350 million
years ago? Scientists do not have the answers to these questions.'
What does all this point to? t goes to show that living beings appeared
suddenly and completely formed otherwise there would have been intermediate
forms and that different groups of animals should have appeared in different
periods of time.
CompIexity in Iife:

There are some organs present in the living beings which can not be accounted
for by gradual development .e.g. human eye is composed of various components
which work together. Evolutionists would say that all these components
developed slowly over a long period of time but no component of the eye would
have been of any help to the animal individually. f any component had
developed it would not have worked. And if these components evolved over time,
which intelligence was at work to cause the emergence of these components
separately and had imagined at the very outset that at the end of the formation of
these components, these would form a working whole and would aid each other.
And what about the migratory pattern of some birds? These birds migrate to
distant lands without any guidance and without any prior knowledge about these
distant lands or to the routs leading to them. They are lead to these new places
instinctively, and then return after a fixed period to their old habitation. The
information about these adventures is contained in the genetic set up of these
birds. Evolutionists fail to account for how this information came to be developed.
t is impossible to have evolved over time. No amount of mutation/variation can
bring about such a drastic and meaningful change. The explanation is simple: it
is the handiwork of Allah, who designed their genetic set up in such a way that
they are inspired to behave in a manner which is incomprehensible to human
beings. Allah has not provided them with the means to pass on information yet
has compensated this deficiency.
The Sonar system of a bat, which is better than that developed by our
scientists, has put the evolutionists in amazement. They are simply attributing it
to chance. Any sane person can realise how absurd they are getting. How could
such a perfect system, which is beyond our comprehension, come about by it
self?
Some secrets about Iife:
A living cell made up of atoms, of the particular combination of the very atoms
that form our earth, and every thing around us. Earlier it was thought that an
atom was the smallest particle of the matter and that it couldn't be broken down,
but now it has been found out that an atom is not the smallest particle of the
nature and that it too can be broken down.
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon M. Lederman says about the constituents
of the matter 'There are 12 fundamental particles of matter: six quarks, named
up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom; and six leptonsthe electron,
electron neutrino, muon, muon neutrino, tau, and tau neutrino. There is a
provisional consensus that these are "the bottom line, point like particles with
nothing inside.' (Encarta Yearbook article, 1999). And who knows that a few
years later some physicist may put the world in bewilderment by discovering that
these particles too can be broken down?
Physicists are yet divided in their opinion about the reality of these sub
atomic particles. These particles are said to have dual nature i.e. they behave
both as matter as well as wave; a proposition difficult to grasp. Nobel Prize
winner Erwin Schrdinger threw light on this in a lecture in Geneva, in 1952, he
says:
'The wave-particle dualism afflicting modern physics is best resolved in favor
of waves, believes the author, but there is no clear picture of matter on which
physicists can agree...We have to admit that our conception of material reality
today is more wavering and uncertain than it has been for a long time. We know
a great many interesting details, learn new ones every week. But to construct a
clear, easily comprehensible picture on which all physicists would agree that is
simply impossible'. (Source encyclopedia Encarta 2005)
Then what is the reality of an atom? An atom is a combination of waves or
particles (uncertain nature) whose presence has been established only through
indirect inferences. Nobody has been able to comprehend their mysterious
nature. Or we can say that on the ultimate analysis a living being is made up of
insignificant waves? Can a combination of such insignificant and unconscious
atoms ( whose nature is uncertain: waves or particle) produce a conscious
being, capable of thinking and planning?
A cell doesn't lose any material thing when it dies, yet there is a world of
difference between a living cell and a dead cell. t shows that a cell is not just a
heap of molecules. Something extra, something which doesn't have any material
existence is there, which gives life to it and ability to plan, to think, to dreams, to
love and hate. Something which is afflicted by sorrow, joy and, above all, has an
instinct. A simple material thing doesn't have such properties. Can it have? The
answer is clear 'No'. So can we be content with the assertion that the life consists
simply of cells which in turn are made of atoms (which are breakable to still
smaller quarks)? No sane person can be satisfied if one were to think in an
objective manner. Life is something different, whose reality is incomprehensible
and which seems to be independent of the material basis. That can't be
produced by human efforts and is beyond physical and chemical basis, which
think are simply the external basis of life, the reality is beyond human
comprehension. That is reason why the reality of life has not been discussed by
any evolutionist or scientist.
f the evolutionists were true that life has material basis only and that various
components of a cell came together and formed a living cell, then in our age it
should not have posed any problem to create a living cell in the laboratory. Why
should today's Man, who has invented so many things which didn't previously
exist and about which he knew nothing, fail to make a living cell about which he
knows many things and knows about the material of which it is made. Life is
something else which doesn't have only material existence but is dependent on
something else for its existence. The most beautiful description of the life is given
by Him who has brought it into existence.
'He [t is Who] brings forth the living from that which is dead, and brings
forth the dead out of that which is alive, and gives life to the earth after it had
been lifeless: and even thus will you be brought forth (from death to life). ' {Al-
Qur'an. 30:19}
Who could have given such a precise description of the life except the one who
created it?
Author can be e-mailed at: mubashir_07@redifmail.com
Hassan

Some people, who regard themselves as intellectual giants, engage in
absurd speculations about the origin of life. They consider that life, with all its
complexities, originated by chance. Chance seems to be a key that would open
up any enigmatic lock; a proposition that is difficult to believe. When subjected to
scientific examination, these claims miserably break down, for what science
reveals is quite contrary to such beliefs Science is misinterpreted or
misrepresented to support these claims.
Despite being aware of the inherent weaknesses of their claims, evolutionists
hold on to it adherently and console themselves and their followers by saying that
with the progress of science, evidences would be laid bare to support the theory
of evolution. The truth, however, is contrary to it: all the discoveries that have
been made since the publication of Darwin's origin of species, are contradicting
with the assumptions of evolutionists. Every new discovery makes the theory
feebler. Some of the scientific facts which disprove evolutionistic claims are
described below.
rigin of Iife:
Evolutionists fail to account for how the life originated. First evolutionists, like
Charles Darwin, simply glossed over the problem and treated it as if it required
no explanation. n those days life was thought to be simple and that it could
originate under certain favourable conditions. However, the discovery of Louis
Pasture, that living beings can't originate form non living, put evolutionists in
quagmire, but they were not ready to give in, to accept the reality. They put
forward various foolish propositions to defend their theory.
They concede that various components of a cell were formed under suitable
conditions through an element of chance and then these components came
together, again through an element of chance, giving rise to a living cell. The only
experiment, with which the evolutionists try to relate evolution, is Mill's
experiment. Mill did succeed in synthesizing amino acids under laboratory
conditions, claiming that the raw materials he used in his experiment were those
which were present in the primitive environment. But later it was realized that he
had been wrong in his selection Even if it is assumed that the amino acids were
formed somehow, evolutionists fail to explain how these amino acids combined
to form useful sequence, and it is only a useful sequence of amino acids that
constitute proteins; otherwise they are simple polypeptide chains that are of no
value to life. (t is to be remembered here that proteins are the basic components
of life.) The problem of how did amino acids combine and form meaningful
sequence perplexed Mill. He didn't proceed further.

Then Sydney Fox tried to take forward Mill's effort. He performed an
experiment to synthesize proteins from amino acids. He ended up making just a
few meaningless polypeptide chains, and never succeeded in producing a
meaningful sequence of proteins. Nor has any scientist, with all the sophisticated
instruments at his disposal, succeeded in synthesizing a single protein. Besides
a living cell doesn't consist just of the combination of proteins; there are many
more molecules which go into the making of a cell. Here a conscious, intelligent
power is seen at work, for no ordered arrangement is possible without intelligent
guidance.
Evolutionists try to account for it by describing it as a chance happening;
however, chance has its limitations. To say that chance can bring about such an
ordered thing as life (or for that matter a living cell, or even a small protein, which
could be understood only very recently) is just a lame excuse for not accepting
the truth. Even if it is assumed that all the components of a cell got formed
somehow, what rationale can there be for coming together of all these elements
and there getting adjusted in a proper order; an order which is faultless, complete
in itself.
f all the components, which constitute a cell, are brought together and put
together in the same sequence as in a living cell, it would still be a heap of
atoms. Nothing can bring it to life. The progress of science (cytology, genetics
etc.) has established that life can only originate de novo i.e. it can only be passed
on from one living organism to another. Such a revelation was sufficient to
convince the evolutionists about the presence of some living entity, that is
independent of the limitations of time and space, and who is the fountain head of
all life. Allah almighty refers to this reality in the following words: 'God- there is
no deity save Him, the Ever-living, the self subsistent, Fount of all being..'
(2:255).
enetic information:
For life to continue, the information about various life processes and modes
of life must pass on from generation to generation. A special molecule called
D.N.A., which may be present in the nucleus of a cell or may float freely in the
cytoplasm of a cell, performs this function. D.N.A. performs this action by
directing the protein synthesis, which in turn directs various life processes. The
basic unit of D.N.A. is a nucleotide molecule. t consists of a sugar molecule, a
phosphate and a nitrogenous base. There are four different types of these
nitrogenous bases and depending upon the kind of base attached, there are four
different kinds of nucleotides. The information contained in the D.N.A. depends
upon the sequence of these four kinds of nucleotides. When a cell divides, DNA
also replicates and a set of chromosomes is passed on to each daughter cell. n
this way each cell of living organism receives complete information for carrying
out its life processes.
Now let us assume for a while that a living cell somehow came into
existence, naturally it would have died after some time and the whole thing would
have come to an end. f the life were to continue it would first have required
developing a system to transfer the information to its descendent, otherwise life
would have got lost with the death of that first formed. The probability for
developing such a system is unimaginably remote and it was imperative for that
simple creature to remain alive all that time, having access to all the materials
required for the process.
This is not an end to the enigma. There are many more questions which
baffle the evolutionists! Like how it came to be decided that a particular
combination of nucleotides would serve as a code for one particular amino acid
(building blocks of proteins) and who decided all this? Certainly a cell couldn't
have decided it. The genetic code is so perfect that it couldn't have been
designed by any one other than the Perfect being, let alone its chance formation.
Another impasse faced by the evolutionists is their inability to explain the
increase in the genetic material of higher forms of life. A bacterium, for instance,
has a single chromosome while as a human being or a whale has a complex set
of chromosomes; there is a tremendous increase in the quantity and diversity of
the genetic material. Let us for argument's sake consider that a bacterium or
some other simple creature originated by chance, how were many diverse types
of genes added to it and how did they diversify and that too millions of times
(there have lived millions of species of living beings in the world and each
species has got a unique genetic set up)? All this enigma is simplified when we
consider the following verse of the Qur'an: 'Or who, originates creation, then
repeats it, and who gives you sustenance from heaven and earth?' (27:64)

iversity of Iife:
n 1801 Lamarck put forth his theory of transformation in which he stated that
living things have the ability to get transformed from simplicity to complexity. He
theorized that changes in environment bring about morphological changes in
living beings and the changes acquired during the life time of an animal are
transmitted on to its off spring.
Darwin too propounded his theory almost on the same line; he proposed that
within every species of animals there occur variations. The traits which are useful
to a species are selected by natural selection and passed on to its descendents
which ultimately lead to the emergence of a new species .Darwin put forth the
idea that originally there was a common ancestor to all the species living today
and due to the process of variation and natural selection new species of animals
emerged.
Mendel's experiments proved both Lamarck as well as Darwin wrong. His
experiment established that the acquired traits are not transmitted. Today with
the vast knowledge of genetics available, there is no scope for the theories of
Darwin or of Lamarck to be accepted. Realizing the incompatibility of the
Darwin's theory with the established facts of science, evolutionists took refuge in
the mutation theory of Hugo de Vries. According to this theory the genetic
material of living cell undergoes variation under the effect of external conditions
like the effect of radiation etc. and when fairly sufficient amount of mutations are
accumulated the result is the emergence of new organs or a modified organ
which eventually lead to the emergence of new species of animals.
For a long time evolutionists consoled themselves under the shade of this
theory. Various experiments were conducted to lend credence to the mutation
theory of transformation. The results, however, disappointed the evolutionists: it
was observed that the mutations did alter the genetic set up of an organism but
these alterations were always to the detriment of the organism and never proved
beneficial. Even the bacteria, which divide in every twenty minutes, didn't change
when these were subject to intense radiations. t goes to show that there was not
a common ancestor of all the living animals rather each living organism was
created completely and independently.
!aIeontoIogy:
Evolutionists had pinned their hopes on paleontology (study of fossils) to bear
them out. But it has dealt a death blow to their theory. f one were to believe the
logic of the evolutionists, then a paleontologists must have come across simple
life forms in the lowest strata of the earth, and more complex forms in the upper
state but this is not so. Far from bearing any compatibility with the evolutionary
scheme, the facts completely contradict it. Evolutionists say that the life
developed by stages and accordingly simplest life forms originated first then
these developed and diversified, giving rise to various complex life forms. Had
they been true there must have been various intermediate forms between the
animals which emerged from one another e.g. evolutionists claim that reptiles
emerged from fishes, so there must have been some intermediate form between
these two life forms. But no intermediate form or any of their traces have so far
been unearthed nor is there any such hope.
The fact (as revealed by the paleontology) is that all the Major Phyla (groups of
animals as per their classification) emerged almost in the same period (Middle of
the Cambrian age between 575 and 505 million years ago) and there is no
gradual increase in the complexity of life forms, as envisioned by evolutionists.
Douglas H. Erwin, a research paleobiologist at the Smithsonian nstitution's
National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., in his article "Biology's
Big Bang writes about this event:
'n a relatively brief period, a riotously diverse group of the first complex
animals appeared on Earth. t was an explosion of life unlike anything that has
occurred since..Why did the evolution of life take such a magnificent leap after
being relatively uneventful for billions of years? And why did the change occur so
rapidly? The search for the answer to these questions is taking place in fossil
beds around the world..What triggered the Cambrian explosion? Why did it
begin about 575 million years ago, and not 1 billion years ago, or 350 million
years ago? Scientists do not have the answers to these questions.'
What does all this point to? t goes to show that living beings appeared
suddenly and completely formed otherwise there would have been intermediate
forms and that different groups of animals should have appeared in different
periods of time.
CompIexity in Iife:

There are some organs present in the living beings which can not be accounted
for by gradual development .e.g. human eye is composed of various components
which work together. Evolutionists would say that all these components
developed slowly over a long period of time but no component of the eye would
have been of any help to the animal individually. f any component had
developed it would not have worked. And if these components evolved over time,
which intelligence was at work to cause the emergence of these components
separately and had imagined at the very outset that at the end of the formation of
these components, these would form a working whole and would aid each other.
And what about the migratory pattern of some birds? These birds migrate to
distant lands without any guidance and without any prior knowledge about these
distant lands or to the routs leading to them. They are lead to these new places
instinctively, and then return after a fixed period to their old habitation. The
information about these adventures is contained in the genetic set up of these
birds. Evolutionists fail to account for how this information came to be developed.
t is impossible to have evolved over time. No amount of mutation/variation can
bring about such a drastic and meaningful change. The explanation is simple: it
is the handiwork of Allah, who designed their genetic set up in such a way that
they are inspired to behave in a manner which is incomprehensible to human
beings. Allah has not provided them with the means to pass on information yet
has compensated this deficiency.
The Sonar system of a bat, which is better than that developed by our
scientists, has put the evolutionists in amazement. They are simply attributing it
to chance. Any sane person can realise how absurd they are getting. How could
such a perfect system, which is beyond our comprehension, come about by it
self?
Some secrets about Iife:
A living cell made up of atoms, of the particular combination of the very atoms
that form our earth, and every thing around us. Earlier it was thought that an
atom was the smallest particle of the matter and that it couldn't be broken down,
but now it has been found out that an atom is not the smallest particle of the
nature and that it too can be broken down.
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon M. Lederman says about the constituents
of the matter 'There are 12 fundamental particles of matter: six quarks, named
up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom; and six leptonsthe electron,
electron neutrino, muon, muon neutrino, tau, and tau neutrino. There is a
provisional consensus that these are "the bottom line, point like particles with
nothing inside.' (Encarta Yearbook article, 1999). And who knows that a few
years later some physicist may put the world in bewilderment by discovering that
these particles too can be broken down?
Physicists are yet divided in their opinion about the reality of these sub
atomic particles. These particles are said to have dual nature i.e. they behave
both as matter as well as wave; a proposition difficult to grasp. Nobel Prize
winner Erwin Schrdinger threw light on this in a lecture in Geneva, in 1952, he
says:
'The wave-particle dualism afflicting modern physics is best resolved in favor
of waves, believes the author, but there is no clear picture of matter on which
physicists can agree...We have to admit that our conception of material reality
today is more wavering and uncertain than it has been for a long time. We know
a great many interesting details, learn new ones every week. But to construct a
clear, easily comprehensible picture on which all physicists would agree that is
simply impossible'. (Source encyclopedia Encarta 2005)
Then what is the reality of an atom? An atom is a combination of waves or
particles (uncertain nature) whose presence has been established only through
indirect inferences. Nobody has been able to comprehend their mysterious
nature. Or we can say that on the ultimate analysis a living being is made up of
insignificant waves? Can a combination of such insignificant and unconscious
atoms ( whose nature is uncertain: waves or particle) produce a conscious
being, capable of thinking and planning?
A cell doesn't lose any material thing when it dies, yet there is a world of
difference between a living cell and a dead cell. t shows that a cell is not just a
heap of molecules. Something extra, something which doesn't have any material
existence is there, which gives life to it and ability to plan, to think, to dreams, to
love and hate. Something which is afflicted by sorrow, joy and, above all, has an
instinct. A simple material thing doesn't have such properties. Can it have? The
answer is clear 'No'. So can we be content with the assertion that the life consists
simply of cells which in turn are made of atoms (which are breakable to still
smaller quarks)? No sane person can be satisfied if one were to think in an
objective manner. Life is something different, whose reality is incomprehensible
and which seems to be independent of the material basis. That can't be
produced by human efforts and is beyond physical and chemical basis, which
think are simply the external basis of life, the reality is beyond human
comprehension. That is reason why the reality of life has not been discussed by
any evolutionist or scientist.
f the evolutionists were true that life has material basis only and that various
components of a cell came together and formed a living cell, then in our age it
should not have posed any problem to create a living cell in the laboratory. Why
should today's Man, who has invented so many things which didn't previously
exist and about which he knew nothing, fail to make a living cell about which he
knows many things and knows about the material of which it is made. Life is
something else which doesn't have only material existence but is dependent on
something else for its existence. The most beautiful description of the life is given
by Him who has brought it into existence.
'He [t is Who] brings forth the living from that which is dead, and brings
forth the dead out of that which is alive, and gives life to the earth after it had
been lifeless: and even thus will you be brought forth (from death to life). ' {Al-
Qur'an. 30:19}
Who could have given such a precise description of the life except the one who
created it?
Author can be e-mailed at: mubashir_07@redifmail.com