Aspect of The Cell Discovered In the 20th Century

In the second half of the 20th century, advances in the field of molecular biology entirely altered our perspective on the miniaturized world inside the cell. With today's rapidly developing technology, biologists have become aware of the flawless and complex mechanisms possessed by the cell, realizing that these could not have come into being by chance or spontaneously. Most of the systems that constitute the cell are smaller than the wavelength of visible light. Some details in the cell can be examined only by advanced techniques such as X-ray crystallography. However, at the time when Darwin launched his theory, the level of science was extremely backward. Not even the basic structure of the cell had been revealed, let alone the discovery of the helix structure and data capacity of the DNA molecule, which James Watson and Francis Crick revealed nearly 100 years after the publication of Darwin's book The Origin of Species

Darwin had no means of foreseeing the advances that molecular biology would subsequently make. Clearly, his theory of evolution built on fundamentally flawed knowledge and hypotheses cannot account for the existence of a structure like DNA, which amazes scientists.

The well–known Cambridge University philosopher Dr. Stephen C. Meyer compares modern science with that of Darwin's day:

During the last half of the twentieth century, advances in molecular biology and biochemistry have revolutionized our understanding of the miniature world within the cell. Research has revealed that cells--the fundamental units of life-store--transmit, and edit information and use that information to regulate their most fundamental metabolic processes . . . biologists now describe cells as, among other things, "distributive real-time computers" or complex information processing systems. Darwin, of course, neither knew about these intricacies nor sought to explain their origin. Instead, his theory of biological evolution sought to explain how life could have grown gradually more complex starting from "one or a few simple forms" . . . in the 1870s and 1880s, scientists assumed that devising an explanation for the origin of life would be fairly easy. For one thing, they assumed that life was essentially a rather simple substance called protoplasm that could be easily constructed by combining and recombining simple chemicals such as carbon dioxide, oxygen, and nitrogen.5

However, some scientists, the heirs of Darwin, still consider that atoms spontaneously combined to give rise to complex living things. In the light of the extraordinary advances made in the field of molecular biology especially over the last 50 years, it is quite astonishing that Darwin's claim should have survived this long. This state of affairs is admitted in a statement by Dr. Richard Lewontin, an evolutionist and Harvard University biologist and geneticist:

... evolution is not a fact, it's a philosophy. The materialism comes first (a priori), and the evidence is interpreted in light of that unchangeable philosophical commitment. 6

Because of their devotion to materialism, the inheritors of the theory of evolution are generally unable to accept scientific facts. They therefore insist on trying to carry an outdated 19th-century scientific conception into the present day. However, the facts are too evident to be covered up by any superstitious philosophy.

In the Qur'an, Allah reveals that there will be those who "use fallacious arguments to deny the truth" (Surat al-Kahf, 56). In another verse, He tells us:

Rather We hurl the truth against falsehood and it cuts right through its brain and it vanishes clean away! Woe without end for you for what you portray!  (Surat al-Anbiya', 18)

Darwin was Ignorant of DNA 5. William A. Dembski, James M. Kushiner, Signs of Intelligence, Brazoss Press, ABD, 2001, ss. 103-104; [Bölüm 8: Stephen C. Meyer, Word Games: DNA, Design and Intelligence]. 6. Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds, InterVarsity Press, Illionis, 1997, s. 81.