How the Miracle of DNA Invalidates the Theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution faces a major impasse at the molecular level. With evidence from such fields as paleontology, geology and anthropology, the origin of life is a major problem for the theory of evolution. The insuperable problem facing its adherents is not limited to the building blocks of life, such as protein. There is also the extraordinary complexity of the living cell-which is not a mass of amino acid-based proteins, but one of the most complex systems that science has yet encountered.

Darwinists' predicament stems from the assumptions they rely on. According to their theory of evolution, life must have appeared spontaneously, when the right chemicals combined together. Thus the first living cell must have been exceedingly primitive. These erroneous beliefs have forced Darwinists to believe that volcanic gasses and lightning gave rise to DNA, and afterwards to life! According to Darwinists, millions of living cells-the like of which cannot be produced through even the most sophisticated laboratory technology, after centuries of accumulated knowledge-came together by chance to form organs with vitally important responsibilities. Moreover, by working together in flawless co-ordination, these organs came from the human body and acquire the responsibility of keeping it alive. Not only does this Darwinist myth lack any scientific backing, it also violates logic and reason. The French scientist Pierre Paul Grasse, himself an evolutionist, notes the predicament in which they find themselves:

... some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs.174

In his book How Life Began, L. R. Croft of England's Salford University refers to the way in which evolutionists underestimate their dilemma:

The fundamental problem-the origin of life-is the cornerstone of all evolutionary enquiry. Yet surprisingly, it is rarely given the attention it merits. . . the nature of the origin of life remained neglected. . . Darwin himself was dismissive on the issue.175

Darwinists have been unable to prove any of the so-called evolutionary developments that they claim, took place at the molecular level. Rather than helping evolutionists answer such questions, scientific progress has made them even more complex and insoluble.. The following pages will show statements by scientists and even admissions from evolutionists themselves of how illogical it is to maintain that any DNA molecule, with its unique structure and properties, came into being by chance, as evolutionists would have you believe.

The most comprehensive part of the cell's complex structure is DNA, which determines genetic structure. Despite many years of research and great sums of money expended, scientists are only now obtaining any valuable information concerning the structure and coding of DNA. However, the perfection of the cell's genetic structure still remains a mystery. DNA's complex structure and the essential data stored in it inflict complete despair on those who wish to ascribe the origin of life to chance. One eminent evolutionist, the biochemist Leslie Orgel, expresses his thoughts on the subject:

We do not yet understand even the general features of the origin of genetic code. The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life. . . .176

The nuclear physicist Prof. Gerald Schroeder refers to ignorance of how the coding in DNA takes place:

And yet if the fossil record is correct, the endowed wisdom of DNA seems to have been present from the very earliest stages of life on earth. How the coding that drives all life sprang into existence remains mystery. The scale of the mystery is best realized by the complexity of its product.177

Jon Cohen, a writer for the well-known journal Science, refers to the perfection of the cell's organized structure:

Why do the sugar molecules in DNA and RNA twist to the right in all known organisms? Similarly, all of the amino acids from which proteins are formed twist to the left. The reason these molecules have such uniform handedness, or 'chirality,' is not known, but there is no shortage of theories on the subject. And, as was clear at a recent meeting on the topic in Los Angeles, there is also no shortage of passion, which is understandable, because the question of homochirality speaks to the mother of all scientific mysteries: the origin of life.178

In an article titled "The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers," Prof. Klaus Dose, head of the Gutenberg University Biochemistry Institute, is just one of those evolutionists who confesses despair:

Moreover, we do not actually know where the genetic information of all living cells originates, how the first replicable polynucleotides [nucleic acids] evolved, or how the extremely complex structure-function relationships in modern cells came into existence.179

John Maddox, a former editor of the evolutionist publication Nature, says, "So it is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself."180 But actually, far from being uncertain, the origin of the genetic code is perfectly obvious. It is just one of the examples that exhibit the perfection in Allah's creation, as revealed in the Qur'an:

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

The Origin of Genetic Information Cannot Be Ascribed to Chance

Evolutionist accounts try to explain every perfection as the work of chance. The cell's magnificently complex structure is the result of a successfully accurate selection. Darwinists regard chance as the creator of all things, without thinking about what chance really is. Thus they assume that disorder gave rise to the first cell, upon which they base all their theories. However, not even the cell itself, let alone the simplest organism, can assemble itself by chance, in the manner assumed by evolutionists. The University of London cell biologist Dr. Ambrose expresses the impossibility of this:

When we come to examine the simplest known organism capable of independent existence, the situation becomes even more fantastic. In the DNA chain of the chromosome of the bacterium E. coli, a favourite organism used by molecular biologists, the [DNA] helix consists of 3-4 million base pairs. These are all arranged in a sequence that is 'meaningful' in the sense that it gives rise to enzyme molecules which fit the various metabolites and products used by the cell. This unique sequence represents a choice of one out of 102,000,000 alternative ways of arranging the bases! We are compelled to conclude that the origin of the first life was a unique event, which cannot be discussed in terms of probability.181

Mathematics proves that in the writing of the information in DNA. The chances of a single one of the 30,000 genes that make up DNA-let alone of the DNA molecule itself with its millions of rungs-forming by chance are less than impossible. Frank B. Salisbury, an evolutionist biologist, has this to say:

A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41,000 forms. Using a little algebra we can see that 41,000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.182

Therefore, even assuming that all the requisite nucleotides were present in the environment and that all the complex molecules and binding enzymes were ready for them to attach themselves to one another, the likelihood of these nucleotides assuming the desired sequence is just 1 in 10600. In short, the odds of the DNA code of an average protein in the human body emerging spontaneously is 1 in 10 followed by 600 zeros. This number goes far beyond astronomical. I. L. Cohen, author of the book Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities, (Darwin Hatalıydı: Olasılıklar İçinde Bir İnceleme) adlı kitabın yazarı I. L. Cohen de, genetik bilginin tesadüf eseri ortaya çıkmış olamayacağını şöyle açıklamaktadır:

Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence. Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger number of nucleotides than 100 or 1,000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence-random mutations (to use the evolutionist's favorite expression).183

The impossibility of nucleotides combining in a chance manner to give rise to RNA and DNA is set out by the evolutionist French scientist Paul Auger:

We have to sharply distinguish the two stages in the chance formation of complex molecules such as nucleotides by chemical events. The production of nucleotides one by one-which is possible-and the combination of these within very special sequences. The second is absolutely impossible.184

Think of this impossibility in terms of a very simplified analogy. Obviously that a work of literature, with all its pages properly bound, cannot emerge as the result of an explosion in a library. If anyone claims that it came into existence spontaneously, you will harbor doubts about his sanity. What evolutionists maintain was achieved by chance goes far beyond this analogy, yet despite all the illogic and impossibility of claims of chance, those who remain blindly loyal to Darwin's legacy still say, "But chance accomplished it." The well-known molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote the book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, which describes the invalidity of the theory. He expresses his amazement at those who ascribe this matchless perfection to chance:

It is an understatement to say that the probability of generating by chance even one grammatical text of just a few hundred words is vanishingly small. Any such string implies intelligence . . . Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional protein or gene-is complex beyond . . . anything produced by the intelligence of man?185

Elsewhere, Prof. Denton describes this irrational belief held by Darwinists:

To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of 1,000 volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt-the paradigm takes precedence.186

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer the philosopher of University of Cambridge says that no credence can be attached to statements ascribing the origin of life to chance:

While many outside origin-of-life biology may still invoke "chance" as a casual explanation for the origin of biological information, few serious researchers still do. Since molecular biologists began to appreciate the sequence specificity of proteins and nucleic acids in the 1950s and 1960s, many calculations have been made to determine the probability of formulating functional proteins and nucleic acids. Even assuming extremely favorable prebiotic conditions (whether realistic or not) and theoretically maximal reaction rates, such calculations have invariably shown that the probability of obtaining functionally sequenced biomacromolecules at random is, in Ilya Prigogine's words, "vanishingly small . . . even on the scale of billions of years. . . "187

Despite being well aware of these impossibilities, evolutionists still hold out in the face of the facts. The truth is that the complexity and perfection in DNA's structure can be explained only by the existence of a Creator possessed of sublime knowledge and intellect-our Almighty Lord. One verse of the Qur'an states:

Do not mix up truth with falsehood and knowingly hide the truth. (Surat al-Baqara, 42)

On its Own, the Existence of DNA Serves No Purpose

The genetic system does not consist of DNA alone. The enzymes to read the DNA code, the messenger RNA to be produced by this reading, the ribosome to which the messenger RNA travels and bonds with, the transporter RNA that carries the amino acids to be used in that production to the ribosome, and the highly complex enzymes that permit countless other secondary functions-all must be present in the same environment. Moreover, such an environment can only be a cell, where all the requisite raw materials and energy are isolated, available, and completely controlled in all respects.

The Complex Structure of a Cell

A. The Complex Structure of a Cell
B. The Complex Structure of The DNA
C. Some of The Complex Processes in  The Cell

1. Chromosomes
2. DNA Double Helix
4. Histone
3. Exon
5. Intron
6. Section
7. Introns
8. mRNA
9. Cytoplasm
10. Cell

11. Nucleus
12. Chromosomes
13. Mitochondria
14. DNA
15. mRNA
16. Methylation
17. Histones
18. Acetylation
19. mRNA
20. RNA Destruction

21. Intervening mRNA
22. SIRC (complex protein)
23. Protein Synthesis
24. Crude Protein
25. "Chaperone" Protein
26. Protein Shaping
27. Protein in active state
28. Mitochondrial DNA

The genetic system does not consist of DNA alone. in  order for life to exist, there must also be enzymes to read the DNA chain, copy it and produce proteins in accord with these copies. This very important characteristic is referred to as the cell's "irreducible complexity."

An organic substance can reproduce itself only in a fully formed cell together with all its various organelles. This means that the first cell with its all extraordinarily complex structures must have come into being in a single moment. In his book Chance and Necessity, the Nobel Prize-winning French biologist Jacques Monod elaborates:

The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least 50 macromolecular components, which are themselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation themselves. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo [All life comes from an egg]. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine.188

Another Nobel Prize winner, the French scientist Andre Lwoff, states that every molecule inside the cell is a component of an interconnected whole:

An organism is a system of interdependent structures and functions. It consists of cells, and the cells are made of molecules which have to cooperate smoothly. Every molecule must know what the others are doing. It must be able to receive messages and act on them.189

Probability calculations show that complex molecules such as proteins and nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) cannot form one by one as the result of chance. For evolutionists, however, an even greater problem is that these molecules need to be present all together, and at one and the same time, for a cell to function and life to exist. This places the theory of evolution in a completely hopeless position, as is admitted from time to time by evolutionists. One of these is Douglas R. Hofstadter from Indiana University, a professor in a number of fields:

"How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate?" For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer. 190

The same truth is also admitted by Prof. Karl Raimund Popper, a 20th century philosopher of science with evolutionist views, who describes this dilemma:

What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But… the machinery by which the cell translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code. 191

As Prof. Popper stresses, all the building blocks of the cell and the information belonging to its organelles are recorded in DNA. However, in order for the information in DNA to be used, those building blocks and organelles must already be in existence. This clearly refutes the theory of evolution's claims of gradual development: Organelles cannot exist without the coded information in DNA, just as the coded information in DNA cannot be used without those organelles. Both need to be present at the same time. Therefore, the claim of a transition from simple cells to complex ones is a myth. Despite holding evolutionist views, the zoologist David E. Green and the biochemist Prof. Robert F. Goldberger have this to say in a paper in a scientific journal:

The popular conception of primitive cells as the starting point for the origin of the species is really erroneous. There was nothing functionally primitive about such cells. They contained basically the same biochemical equipment as do their modern counterparts. How, then, did the precursor cell arise? The only unequivocal rejoinder to this question is that we do not know. 192

The theory of evolution seeks to account for all of life in terms of chance, but can never explain the origin of the extraordinary information carefully and flawlessly encoded in DNA. The question, therefore, is not how the DNA chain emerged, because as you have seen, the DNA chain and its extraordinary data capacity would serve no purpose on its own. There must be enzymes to read and replicate the DNA chain, and produce proteins in the light of these copies. In order for life to exist, the data bank of DNA and the systems to reading that data must both exist together. This most important property of the cell is referred to as irreducible complexity. As Prof. Frank B Salisbury says,

Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene-its complexity-must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls.193

The absence of even one organelle from a cell, every part of which consists of interconnected systems, will mean that cell fails to function. The cell cannot wait for such a vital deficiency to be rectified gradually, through any supposed process of evolution. It is therefore impossible for a living cell to emerge by random coincidences assembling tiny components over a span of millions of years. The cell's complete unity is too complex for its components to have emerged in stages. In order to survive, the cell must exist as a complete with all its components, right from the very outset. This is another dilemma that the theory of evolution cannot explain away.

Which Came First: Proteins or DNA?

The enzymes that read DNA and engage in production accordingly are also produced according to the codes inside that same DNA. Inside each cell exists a factory that produces a wide range of products and also the structures to produce them. How could this system-a deficiency at any single point of which would render it non-functioning-have emerged on its own? That question is sufficient to demolish the theory of evolution.

The fact that DNA can be copied only with the assistance of a number of enzymes in the protein structure, and that the synthesis of these same enzymes takes place only in line with the information encoded inside the DNA, shows that the protein and DNA are mutually dependent. For that reason, they both must be present right from the outset if the DNA is to be copied itself. The science writer John Horgan clarifies this equation:

DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins.194

According to the molecular biologist Michael Denton: "At the heart of the problem lay a seeming paradox-proteins can do many things, but they cannot perform the function of storing and transmitting information for their own construction. On the other hand, DNA can store information, but cannot manufacture anything nor duplicate itself. So DNA needs proteins and proteins need DNA. A seemingly unbreakable cycle-the ultimate chicken-and-egg problem."195 Andrew Scott describes the way that proteins and the genetic code cannot be considered separately in an article in New Scientist magazine:

We are grappling here with a classic "chicken and egg" dilemma. Nucleic acids are required to make proteins, whereas proteins are needed to make nucleic acids and also to allow them to direct the process of protein manufacture itself . . . The emergence of the gene-protein link, an absolutely vital stage on the way up from lifeless atoms to ourselves, is still shrouded in almost complete mystery.196

This situation once again refutes the scenario of life emerging by chance. The American chemist Prof. Homer Jacobson has this to say:

Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth-all had to be simultaneously present at that moment [when life began]. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance. . . .197

Prof. Jacobson wrote these statements two years after James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA. However, despite all the scientific advances that have been made, this problem still remains insoluble for evolutionists. The Turkish evolutionist biologist Prof. Ali Demirsoy was forced to make this admission regarding the probability of protein and DNA coming into being together:

The probability of a protein and nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is one far exceeding probability estimates. The chances of a specific protein chain emerging are so small as to be astronomical.198

The probability Demirsoy referred is in practice zero. In a 1994 article, the evolutionist Dr. Leslie Orgel said this in the face of that:

It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.199

To say that "it is extremely improbable for life to originate by chemical means" means that it is impossible for life to emerge spontaneously. This is proof that life was created in a single moment. However, evolutionists are reluctant to accept this fact, whose proof they can clearly see, for ideological reasons. They advocate nonsensical scenarios, which they themselves know to be impossible, in order not to have to admit the existence of Allah. Another evolutionist, Caryl P. Haskins, expresses the impossibility of the DNA code forming by chance and sees this as a powerful evidence for creation:

But the most sweeping evolutionary questions at the level of biochemical genetics are still unanswered. How the genetic code first appeared and then evolved and, earlier even than that, how life itself originated on earth remain for the future to resolve. . . . Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such coincidence could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival. By a pre-Darwinian (or a skeptic of evolution after Darwin), this puzzle would surely have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation.200

Even a single-celled organism has a complexity far exceeding scientists' comprehension. This minute entity contains a genetic code with the stunning capacity capable of forming a copy of the organism all by itself. This code has a structure requiring not just organization, but also written information. Furthermore, it is not enough for this DNA code merely to be written correctly. The rest of the cell must also be able to read the code and follow its instructions. In fact, all living things possess flawless structures that carry out highly organized activities in the light of the directives they receive.

It is certainly impossible for unconscious cell organelles to learn the language of these codes by themselves, or to unravel them as the result of chance. The existence of the code, its decipherment, the transmission of the information it contains, the accurate use made of it-every stage requires consciousness and intelligence. But how can enzymes and ribosomes in the cell know how to perform these activities? Even if we assume that they do know, how can they decipher the codes in a structure of which they are ignorant, without making any mistakes? Such questions not only emphasize the insoluble dilemma facing evolutionists, but also display the infinite intellect and knowledge in creation. In the Qur'an it is stated that:

Your Lord creates and chooses whatever He wills. The choice is not theirs. Glory be to Allah! He is exalted above anything they associate with Him! Your Lord knows what their hearts conceal and what they divulge. He is Allah. There is no deity but Him. Praise be to Him in this world and the Hereafter. Judgment belongs to Him. You will be returned to Him.  (Surat al-Qasas, 68-70)

The Invalidity of the "Chemical Evolution" Claim

Darwin maintained that if certain chemicals representing the raw material of life were present in a warm lake, proteins could form, and would multiply and combine to give rise to a cell.201 Thousands of scientists attempting to make Darwin's hypothesis a reality and to provide an evolutionary explanation for the origin of life have ventured down that same dead-end road.

In the 1920s, the Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin and the British geneticist J. B. S. Haldane put forward their theory known as "chemical evolution." They maintained what Darwin had imagined-that with the addition of energy, the molecules comprising the raw material, life could develop spontaneously and form a living cell. However, no evolutionist, Oparin included, was able to come up with any evidence to back up the claims of chemical evolution. On the contrary, every new discovery made in the 20th century showed that life was far too complex to have come about by chance. The well-known evolutionist Leslie Orgel makes this confession: " . . . at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means."202

Leaving aside the cell for a moment, it is impossible for the nucleotides in DNA's basic structure to have emerged by chance and maintained their chemical properties under the conditions of the primeval Earth. The magazine Scientific American, which follows a pro-evolution line, expresses evolutionist admissions on the subject:

Even the simpler molecules are produced only in small amounts in realistic experiments simulating possible primitive earth conditions. What is worse, these molecules are generally minor constituents of tars: It remains problematical how they could have been separated and purified through geochemical processes whose normal effects are to make organic mixtures more and more of a jumble. With somewhat more complex molecules, these difficulties rapidly increase.203

The German scientists Reinhard Junker and Siegfried Scherer note that the synthesis of the molecules essential for life require very different conditions. This, according to them, shows that there is no possibility of the many different substances necessary for life combining together:

Until now, no experiment is known in which we can obtain all the molecules necessary for chemical evolution. Therefore, it is essential to produce various molecules in different places under very suitable conditions and then to carry them to another place for reaction by protecting them from harmful elements like hydrolysis and photolysis. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance, and has often been ascribed to divine intervention.204

In his book The Origin of Life, Dr. John Keosian admits the despairing position in which evolutionists find themselves:

Claims of chemical evolution are unreal. We are asked to believe that biochemical compounds, biochemical reactions and mechanisms, energy metabolism, and storage, specific polymerizations, codes, transcription and translation apparatus, and more, appeared in probiotic [inaudible word], with a function they would have, in a living thing, before there were living things. Chemical evolution has become an end in itself. In many cases it represents contrived or ingenious laboratory syntheses which have no counterpart in abiotic organic chemical synthesis in an acceptable range of probiotic conditions . . . there has been an good deal of uncritical acceptance of experiments, results and conclusions which we are all too ready to acknowledge because they support preconceived convictions. . . All present approaches to a solution of the problem of the origin of life are either irrelevant or lead into a blind alley. Therein lies the crisis.205

 The structure of the DNA molecule also confirms the impossibility of the chemical evolution scenario because when left to itself, the DNA molecule loses its stability. External factors can easily impair the molecule's structure. To a large extent, DNA is stable inside the cell because that it is monitored and repaired by specialized enzymes. It is impossible for the DNA molecule to remain stable and preserve its structure outside the cell, while swimming in the primeval oceans, as evolutionists claim. On the contrary, in the supposed primeval ocean, the molecule would be impaired far more quickly than the rate at which it was synthesized.206 Thaxton, Dr. Roger L. Olsen and Prof. Walter L. Bradley mention how the substances essential for life could not preserve their stability: "It seems probable that in an oceanic chemical soup, the synthesis of RNA and other essential biomolecules would have been short-circuited at nearly every turn by many cross-reactions."207

In fact, when biochemists separate DNA from the cell or synthesizes it in the laboratory, they do not leave it in water-which would cause it to dissolve-or in a jar on the bench at room temperature. In all probability, they store it in a tube with a tightly closed stopper, and in liquid nitrogen in a deep freeze. Yet even under these conditions, the chemical bonds inside the molecule gradually fall apart, and biological effectiveness is gradually lost.208

Evolutionists totally ignore the fact that DNA, RNA and protein molecules would soon be eliminated under natural conditions in the supposed primeval ocean. In his book The Origins of Prebiological Systems, Dr. Carl Sagan admits that the existing scenarios regarding the origin of life are unsatisfactory:

The problem we're discussing is a very general one. We use energy sources to make organic molecules. It is found that the same energy sources can destroy these organic molecules. The organic chemist has an understandable preference for removing the reaction products from the energy source before they are destroyed. But when we talk of the origin of life, I think we should not neglect the fact that degradation occurs as well as synthesis, and that the course of reaction may be different if the products are not preferentially removed. In reconstructing the origin of life, we have to imagine reasonable scenarios which somehow avoid this difficulty.209

In the absence of a cell with the mechanism to read the information in DNA-and to act on those instructions and manufacture protein-the information in DNA will be meaningless. Even if we assume the completely impossible, that the DNA molecule did form spontaneously under the primitive world conditions suggested by evolutionists, the existence of DNA by itself would be meaningless. Despite being evolutionists, Prof. David E. Green and Prof. Robert F. Goldberger express the invalidity of the idea that the cell emerged gradually and spontaneously:

… the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area, all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet.210

In an article titled "Life's Origins Get Murkier and Messier," published in The New York Times in June 2000, the science writer Nicholas Wade wrote, "Everything about the origin of life on earth is a mystery, and it seems the more that is known, the more acute the puzzles get."211 The biochemist Prof. Michael J. Behe summarizes the position of science in terms of the evolutionary scenario:

In private, many scientists admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of life. On the other hand, many scientists think that given the origin of life, its subsequent evolution is easy to envision, despite the major difficulties outlined in this book. The reason for this peculiar circumstance is that while chemists try to test origin-of-life scenarios by experiment or calculation, evolutionary biologists make no attempt to test evolutionary scenarios at the molecular level by experiment or calculation. As a result, evolutionary biology is stuck in the same frame of mind that dominated origin-of-life studies in the early fifties before most experiments had been done: imagination running wild. Biochemistry has, in fact, revealed a molecular world that stoutly resists explanation by the same theory so long applied at the level of the whole organism. Neither of Darwin's black boxes-the origin of life or the origin of vision or other complex biochemical systems-has been accounted for by his theory. Darwin never imagined the exquisitely profound complexity that exists even at the most basic levels of life.212

The point that evolutionists seem determined not to acknowledge is that Darwin was an amateur scientist whose knowledge was too superficial to foresee the molecular complexity of life, and whose analyses were based solely upon observation. Many scientists blindly attached to the theory of evolution are in the same state of ignorance today. Since they lack the courage to tell the truth, out of a fear of losing their prestige, and since they are also unwilling to admit the existence of Allah, they have become part of a mass deception. However, the facts are so evident that apart from a few admissions, evolutionists are left quite speechless. Despite being an evolutionist, the contemporary biochemist Klaus Dose admits the impossibility of life forming spontaneously in the so-called primeval environment:

A further puzzle remains, namely the question of the origin of biological information, i.e., the information residing in our genes today. . . not even the physical building blocks required for the storage of the information can construct themselves: The spontaneous formation of simple nucleotides or even pf polynucleotides which were able to be replicated on the pre-biotic earth should now be regarded as improbable in the light of the very many unsuccessful experiments in this regard.213

Saying that it is "improbable" for life to have emerged by chemical means is tantamount to saying that it is impossible for life to have emerged by chance. Therefore, the theory of evolution, which seeks to account for the origin of life in terms of chance, collapses right at the outset. Since chance cannot represent the origin of life, science clearly demonstrates that life has been created in a flawless manner. Not only the earliest organisms, but all the different living classes on Earth were created individually. Indeed, the fossil record confirms that all species on Earth emerged in a single moment and with all their own particular structures, and without undergoing any previous process of evolution.

Consciously Directed Experiments Cannot Represent Evidence for Evolution

Whenever experiments regarding the origin of life are mentioned, the first one to come to mind is the Miller Experiment. In evolutionist sources, this is portrayed as supposed evidence that allegedly sheds light on the origin of life. Yet the details of the experiment-conditions that do not reflect the true facts-are generally neglected. The American chemist Stanley Miller carried out the experiment under artificial conditions he established himself, and which bore no relation to the primeval Earth's atmosphere. Since his synthesis of amino acid was carried out on the basis of a contrived environment, it cannot provide any scientific findings.

Moreover, Miller was able to synthesize amino acid in this experiment only. Yet the emergence of amino acids under any condition whatsoever does not argue for the formation of life. Amino acids are building blocks of proteins, the body's basic building materials. Hundreds of amino acids are combined in a specific sequence inside the cell, and thus a given protein results. Cells consist of an average of several thousand different types of protein. In contrast, amino acids are the simplest and smallest components of living things. The invalidity of Miller's experiment was the subject of a great many scientific papers in later years.214 (For more details, see The Evolution Deceit , Ta-Ha Publishers, United Kingdom, 1999.)

With the Miller Experiment, evolutionists unwittingly demolished evolution, because the experiment proved that amino acids can only be obtained by means of conscious intervention under laboratory environment in which all the conditions are strictly controlled. In other words, what produces life is creation, not unconscious coincidences.

Evolutionists are reluctant to accept this evident truth since they cling to a number of prejudices that fly in the face of science. Indeed, Harold Urey and his student Stanley Miller, who organized the experiment together with him, made the following admission:

All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.215

None of the other experiments which evolutionists claim to duplicate the origin of life bears any relation to the facts. While seeking to account for the origin of life in terms of random, unplanned events, evolutionists perform their experiments under highly planned controls. Nothing in the laboratory environments they create is left to chance.

On the contrary, all experiments conducted to bring an evolutionary explanation are carried out by intelligent, knowledgeable scientists with the use of advanced laboratory technology. In such a controlled environment, it is obvious that chance effects bear no relation at all to such stages as the splitting of genes from DNA using various special enzymes, the subsequent replacement of these inside the cell and then the selection of the most advantageous ones. For that reason, evolutionists once again demonstrate that there must have been intelligence, consciousness and information behind the origin of life. In his book Darwin's Black Box, the molecular biologist Michael Behe has this to say:

The big problem is that each nucleotide "building block" is itself built up from several components and the processes that form the components are chemically incompatible. Although a chemist can make nucleotides with ease in a laboratory by synthesizing the components separately, purifying them, and then recombining the components to react with each other, undirected chemical reactions overwhelmingly produce undesired products and shapeless goop on the bottom of the test tube.216

All the experiment carried out prove that during every stage involved in the formation of life, conscious control is needed. Prof. Werner Gitt says this about the Miller experiments, portrayed as evidence of evolution:

No protein has ever been synthesized in such an experiment; they refer to proteinoids and not proteins as such. Even if they succeed in obtaining a true protein with a long amino acid chain and the correct optical rotation, it would still not be the start of evolution. There must be a coding system to store information about this protein so that it can be replicated at a later stage. A coding system can never originate in matter. The Miller experiments thus do not contribute to an explanation of the origin of life.217

The well-known physicist Prof. Paul Davies refers to the approach adopted in the experiments performed being flawed right from the very beginning:

The living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer-an information processing and replicating system of astonishing complexity. DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff-hardware-but as information, or software. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won't work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.218

This all goes to show that everything in the cell must be present in complete and perfect form, and in just the right place, from the very first moment. The slightest deficiency or change will spell the death of the entire cell. It is impossible for the kind of trial-and-error process posited by the theory of evolution to give rise to a living cell, even if the process lasted not for just billions of years, but for trillions upon trillions. There is absolutely no possibility that unconscious natural phenomena gave rise to the irreducibly complex structures and systems inside the cell, in one single event. The way that some still ascribe divine status to chance, despite seeing these clear scientific facts, is an empty deception. Allah reveals the superstitious beliefs of such people in the Qur'an:

He to Whom the kingdom of the heavens and the Earth belongs. He does not have a son and He has no partner in the Kingdom. He created everything and determined it most exactly. But they have adopted deities apart from Him which do not create anything but are themselves created. They have no power to harm or help themselves. They have no power over death or life or resurrection. (Surat al-Furqan, 2-3)

Neo-Darwinism Is No Solution to the Impasse Facing Evolution

Neo-Darwinism attempts to prop up Darwin's theory by adapting it to scientific advances, and combining it with the genetic inheritance laws of the Austrian biologist Gregor Mendel. Also known as "the modern synthesis," neo-Darwinism actually makes Darwin's ignorance clear for all to see. Darwin sought to account for the variety in species through natural selection, but he was not aware that living things pass on their characteristics to subsequent generations by way of genetic inheritance. This new version of the theory of evolution results from an attempt to cover up that ignorance. But no matter how much neo-Darwinists may attempt to modernize their theory, they have never been able to succeed, since the theory is built on unsound foundations from the outset.

Like Darwin himself, neo-Darwinists maintain that the variety in life came into being spontaneously, by chance.222 In addition to this flawed logic, they depicted mutations –random genetic changes– as the origin of life. Since the errors arising during the replication of DNA were the smallest mutations possible, neo-Darwinists imagined that they could base their theories on that.223 But even the smallest replicaton error-a change in a single nucleotide-gives rise to extremely serious consequences.

Neo-Darwinists said that small changes in genetic information take place first in one site, then in another.224However, the biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner emphasizes that the theory is not true: "The NDT says that large changes will eventually result. It's like becoming a millionaire by saving enough pennies."225

Prof. Marcel-Paul Schützenberger-a member of the French Academy of Sciences and a mathematician, biologist and doctor of medicine from Paris University-has refuted neo-Darwinism with mathematical proofs. In his book Mathematical Challenges in the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, he reaches this conclusion:

We believe that there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.226

According to neo-Darwinism, random genetic mutations represent the raw material of evolution. But as many scientists today agree, the level of complexity in life cannot be acquired through the processes of trial and error hypothesized by neo-Darwinism. Dr. Lee Spetner sets out the impossibility of this: "But if their variations are random, they too cannot account for a build up of genetic information. The chances are almost nil . . . you cannot expect to get a large adaptive genetic rearrangement by chance."227

How Does the Cell Sound the Alarm

When There is  an Impairment in the DNA?

1. RNA copies the entire genome.
2. Introns are removed.
3. When introns are removed so that only exons remain, the cell adds a molecular note to the site where two adjacent exon sequences are attached together.
4. The ribosome extracts these notes as it moves along the copied segment.
5. If the ribosome stops before the final note, it emits a signal that the process has been prematurely terminated.
6. STOP
7. Ribosome

All the explanations that evolutionists put forward for the origin of life are irrational and unscientific. One of the outspoken eminent authorities who admit as much the French zoologist Pierre Grassé, former head of the French Academy of Sciences. Though an evolutionist, Grassé nevertheless maintains that Darwinian theory cannot account for life, and says this regarding the logic of chance that forms the basis of Darwinism:

The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur. . . There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.228

In addition, the mutations that they allege increased the information in DNA over the course of time, leading to variation, is no solution to the predicament in which Darwinists find themselves. Mutations are harmful breaks and changes of place of genes in the living DNA molecule, resulting from radiation or chemical effects. Since mutations damage the nucleotides or cause them to change places, they generally lead to damage too great for the cell to repair. For example, X-rays penetrate deeply in the body and cause major DNA damage. When DNA starts to be wrongly replicated, such faulty replication can manifest itself in the body as cancer. The mutagenic energy in sunlight can cause skin cancer, and various substances in cigarettes causes lung cancer. Incorrect replication in the 21st chromosome in the reproductive cell, for instance, leads to Down syndrome.

1. Healthy DNA helix

2. Excess nucleotide copies due to mutation

3. Flawed DNA helix

When the DNA is imperfectly copied, this gives rise to various diseases. These errors can never, as evolutionists maintain, bestow greater ability and improvements.

In order for the theory of evolution to account for the origin of life on Earth, it must point to some mechanism that adds new, useful characteristics, not damaging and destructive ones. How can a living thing acquire a new characteristic? The only answer evolutionists have is "By mutation." They maintain that all species emerged through random mutations acting on the DNA of a single germ cell-either egg or sperm. Yet mutations-the foundation of evolutionists' claims-do not cause living things to become more developed and perfect. Therefore, mutations are not the kind of mechanism as is needed by the theory of evolution, nor can they produce new characteristics. We shall consider only the broad outlines of how mutations do not, and cannot contribute to a species' evolution (For detailed information, see Harun Yahya's Darwinism Refuted , Goodword Books, 2002; and The Evolution Deceit, Ta-Ha Publishers, United Kingdom, 1999.)

Mutations Are Harmful:

Since they occur in a random manner, mutations almost always damage the organism concerned. Any random intervention in a complex structure will damage it rather than improve it. Indeed, there is not one single valid example of a beneficial random mutation of the kind proposed as an evolutionary mechanism.229 The changes brought about by mutations are only like those suffered by the residents of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl: death, genetic handicaps, and disease.

Since mutations occur at random, they almost always damage the organism. Any unconscious intervention in a complex structure will damage that structure rather than improving it. 

Prof. Walter L. Starkey from Ohio University makes clear the invalidity of claims regarding useful mutations:

Do you think it would be wise for you to spend hours near X-ray machine, or inside of a nuclear power plant? Would it be wise for you to go to Chernobyl, in Russia, where a nuclear power plant exploded? Should we actively try to destroy the ozone layer that shields us from radiation? If such radiations are likely to cause you to evolve, and develop new beneficial futures, then you should seek to be bombarded as much as possible by these sources of radiation. Maybe you could get a new eye in the back of your head. In reality, if you are smart, you will avoid such radiations, because they are much more likely to damage you than to improve you.230

All the mutations observed in human beings are harmful. All the mental and physical defects described in medical textbooks as examples of mutation such as Down syndrome, albinism or dwarfism, or diseases such as cancer, reveal mutations' destructive effects. Obviously, any process that handicaps people or causes them to become ill cannot be a mechanism that develops living things. DNA has a very complex order, and so any random effects in this molecule can only damage the organism. Prof. Starkey says this about these damaging effects of mutations:

Being bombarded by mutation-causing radiation, would be like shooting a new car with a 30-caliber rifle. Let's assume that it would be beneficial if the ballast resister in your ignition system were located inside the interior of your car, under the dashboard, rather than out near the hot engine . . .mutations caused by DNA copying errors would have a similar result. . . mutations are harmful by a ratio of at least 10,000 to one.231

Bacterial DNA Refutes The Myth of The Primitive Cell

Much as the theory of evolution seeks to organize life according to a transition from the primitive to the more advanced, it assumes that bacteria are primitive cells and that multi-celled organisms evolved from them. However, single-celled organisms are not primitive at all, as evolutionists wish to believe. On the contrary, a bacterium has a structure so complex as to astonish anyone examining it. Professor of zoology James Grey states: A bacterium is far more complex than any inanimate system known to man. There is not a laboratory in the world which can compete with the biochemical activity of the smallest living organism.1

A bacterium has around 2,000 genes, each containing up to 100 letters, or codes. This means that the information in its DNA must be at least 2 million letters in length. This calculation shows that the information in a bacterium's DNA is equivalent to 20 novels, each containing 100,000 words.2 Dr. Lee Spetner says the following regarding bacteria's extraordinary data capacity despite their minute size: The bacterial cells are so small that a trillion of them could fit into a teaspoon. Yet it takes a lot of information to define a bacterium.3

Any change in a bacterium's DNA will be so significant as to impair the bacterium's entire system. A flaw in bacteria's genetic codes will mean the impairment of its operating systems, and therefore death. Even a single bacterium is one of the evident proofs of the existence of Allah, Who reveals in the Qur'an that:

... Whom not even the weight of the smallest particle eludes, either in the heavens or in the Earth; nor is there anything smaller or larger than that which is not in a Clear Book. (Surah Saba, 3) 

1- Sir James Gray, Science Today, 1961, p. 21.

2- Mahlon B. Hoagland, The Origins of Life, p. 25.

3- Lee M. Spetner, Not By Chance, Shattering The Modern Theory of Evolution, The Judaica Press Inc., 1997, p. 24.

Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, spent decades convinced that life was born by chance:

From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. At the moment, I can't find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God. We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation-and not accidental random shuffling.244

In that case, the first life on Earth can only have come from the creation of Allah, the Lord of Life. Life begins, continues and comes to an end only through His willing it. Evolution, on the other hand, cannot explain how the materials necessary for life formed and combined with one another, let alone to explain how life itself began. In the Qur'an, our Lord asks:

Is He Who creates like him who does not create? So will you not pay heed? If you tried to number Allah's blessings, you could never count them. Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Allah knows what you keep secret and what you make public. Those you call on besides Allah do not create anything. They are themselves created. (Surat an-Nahl, 17-20)

174. Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, p. 8.

175. L. R. Croft, How Life Began, p. 34.

176. Leslie E. Orgel, “Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life”, New Scientist, Vol. 94, 15 April 1982, p. 151.

177. Gerald L. Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God., p. 191.

178. Jon Cohen, "Getting All turned Around Over the Origins of Life on Earth", Science, ol.t 267, 3 March 1995, p. 1265.

179. Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers”, InterDisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, no. 4, 1988, p. 348.

180. John Maddox, "The Genesis Code by Numbers", Nature, Vol. 367, 13 January 1994, p. 111.

181. Wendell R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, pp. 302, 303.

182. Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts About The Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution", American Biology Teacher, Vol. 33, September 1971, p. 336.

183. I. L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong, 1984, p. 205.

184. Paul Auger, De La Physique Théorique à la Biologie, 1970, p. 118.

185. John W. Oller, “A Theory In Crisis”, Institute for Creation Research, Impact no: 180, July 1988.

186. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 351.

187. William A. Dembski, James M. Kushiner, Signs of Intelligence, Brazoss Press, ABD, 2001, p. 109.

188. Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny, p. 293.

189. Werner Gitt, In the Beginning was Information, p. 106.

190. Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, Vintage Books, New York, 1980, p. 548.

191. K.R. Popper, 1974, "Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science," In F. Ayala and T. Dobzhansky, eds., Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 270.

192. Green, David E., Robert F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights into the Living Process, Academic Press, New York, 1967, p. 403.

193. Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, Vol. 73, September 1971, p. 336.

194. John Horgan, "In the Beginning", Scientific American, Vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119.

195. Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny, p. 293.

196. Andrew Scott, "Update on Genesis", New Scientist, Vol. 106, 2 May 1985, pp. 31, 32.

197. Homer Jacobson, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life", American Scientist, January 1955, p. 125.

198. Ali Demirsoy, Kalıtım ve Evrim, p. 39.

199. Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth", Scientific American, Vol, October 1994, p. 78.

200. Caryl P. Haskins, "Advances and Challenges in Science in 1970", American Scientist, Vol 59, May-June 1971, p. 305.

201. http://ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext00/2llcd10.txt; [Charles Darwin to J.D. Hooker, Down, 29 March 1863]

202. Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth", Scientific American, p. 78.

203. Alexander G. Cairns-Smith, "The First Organisms", Scientific American, June 1985, Vol. 252, p. 90.

204. Reinhard Junker, Siegfried Scherer, Entstehung und Geschichte Der Lebewesen, Weyel Verlag, 1986, p. 89.

205. Duane T. Gish, Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, Institute for Creation Research, ABD, 1993, p. 262.

206. Ibid., p. 270.

207. Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin, Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis and Stanley, Teksas, 2nd edi­tion, 1992, p. 57.

208. Duane T. Gish, Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, Institute for Creation Research, 1993, USA, p 270.

209. Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin, p. 103.

210. Duane T. Gish, Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, p. 275.

211. Nicholas Wade, "Life's Origins Get Murkier and Messier; Genetic Analysis Yields Intimations of a Primordial Commune", New York Times, 13 June 2000.

212. Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, The Free Press, New York, 1996, pp. 172-173.

213. Werner Gitt, In the Beginning was Information.

214. Peter Radetsky, "The Crucible of Life", Earth, February 1998, pp. 34-41.

215. W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325.

216. Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, p. 171.

217. Werner Gitt, In the Beginning was Information, pp. 126-127.

218. Paul Davies, "How We Could Create Life", Guardian, 11 December 2002; http://www.guard­i­an.co.uk/com­ment/sto­ry/0,3604,857635,00.html

219. Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 1984, p. 233.

220. Jeffrey S. Wicken, "The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion", Journal of Theoretical Biology, April 1979, Vol. 77, p. 349.

221. Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Summit Books, New York, 1986. p. 207.

222. Lee M. Spetner, Not By Chance, Shattering The Modern Theory of Evolution, p. 50.

223. Ibid., p. 60.

224. Ibid.

225. Ibid., p. 57.

226. M. P. Schutzenberger, Mathematical Challenges in the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, 1967, pp. 73-75.

227. Lee Spetner, Not By Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, p. 180.

228. Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, p. 103.

229. Walter L. Starkey, The Cambrian Explosion, p. 157.

230. Ibid., p.158.

231. Ibid.

232. Werner Gitt, In the Beginning was Information, p. 127.

233. Phillip E. Johnson, The Wedge of Truth, pp. 46-47.

234. Stephen Jay Gould, "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?", Lecture at Hobart & William Smith Colleges, 4 February 1980.

235. Walter L. Starkey, The Cambrian Explosion, p. 159.

236. Ibid.

237. Ibid.

238. Ibid.

239. Phillip E. Johnson, The Wedge of Truth, p. 127.

240. Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, p. 97.

241. Walter L. Starkey, The Cambrian Explosion, p. 157.

242. Gerald L. Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God, p. 99.

243. Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, p. 88.

244. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Interview in London Daily Express, 14 August 1981.