Every living thing in the world has been equipped with flawless systems and immaculate harmony. The impeccable biological characteristics and systems that living things possess to protect themselves, reproduce, feed or hunt, and their compatibility with their environmental surroundings, is definitive evidence of the existence of a single Creator.
The planned activity that even a tiny caterpillar demonstrates in order to protect and camouflage itself, the combs that honeybees construct using sophisticated mathematical calculations, and the muscles possessed by the mosquito, and equipment which today's technology can only imitate as a general concept, accurate down to millimetrical levels, through which it is able to beat its wings 1,000 times a second, all introduce us to the supreme and extraordinary artistry of our Omniscient Lord.
No evolutionist can explain how these characteristics came into existence, because mechanisms such as random mutations and natural selection cannot give rise to these perfections. Evolutionists are in fact perfectly well aware of this. But some are reluctant to say so, for the sake of their ideology, while others express their despair in the face of all the miraculous attributes they observe in all living things. They have generally had to admit that such perfection exists in these living creatures, for which reason a conscious Intelligence has been manifested in these.
Darwin himself was one of the first to admit this.
Charles Darwin:
I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man... I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws... All these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think, the more bewildered I become.417I am conscious that I am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance…418I could give many most striking and curious illustrations in all [biological] classes; so many that I think it cannot be chance.419You have most cleverly hit on one point, which has greatly troubled me; if, as I must think, external conditions produce little direct effect, what the devil determines each particular variation?420I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of complaint... and now trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick.421
Roger Lewin is a well-known evolutionist science writer and former editor of New Scientist magazine:
Much of evolution looks as if it had been planned to result in man, and in other animals and plants to make the world a suitable place for him to dwell in. Like Wallace, Broom also saw a spiritual guiding hand behind the whole process.422
Prof. Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and a mathematician at Cambridge University:
Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate.423Rather than accept that fantastically small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act. By "better." I mean less likely to be wrong.424
David M. Raup:
It is certainly true that one would be most unlikely to develop a functioning flying insect, reptile, or bird by a chance collection of changes. Some sort of guidance is necessary.425
Prof. Cemal Yıldırım:
According to some critics, equating evolution with natural selection alone is like expecting a cat or a pigeon sat at a typewriter keyboard to be able to write Shakespeare's Hamlet or Goethe's Faust by tapping the keys for a million years. When we examine even the simplest life form, however, we cannot ignore the fact that a sublime intelligence has played an active role in it.426It is far from being convincing to attribute this order in living things, which seems to have a particular purpose, to chance or coincidence.427
Niles Eldredge is an evolutionist paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History:
Indeed, the only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation.428
Hoimar Von Ditfurth is a German professor of neurology and psychiatry and a well-known evolutionist science writer:
These two polymers [egg white and nucleic acids] have been constructed in such a complex manner and, as if that were not enough, their structures exhibit such a high level of individuality that to imagine these came to that level by acquiring wealth solely as the result of chance goes far beyond being even an astronomically and inconceivably small possibility.429The statistical impossibility of the living structures in question emerging as the result of chance alone is a rather current example of the present-day level of development of science. Indeed, looking at those extraordinary individual features in the formations of a single protein carrying out biological functions, it appears impossible to explain a large number of atoms combining together, all in the correct and requisite sequence, at the right time and moment and with the right electrical and mechanical features, all in terms of chance.430No matter how large the universe may be, chance giving rise to the birth of protein and nucleic acid is [an] impossibility that...431It is of course possible to account for the story of the birth of the world in all its details, and the emergence of the complex structure of the building blocks of living organisms in particular, with the possibility of a planned course being followed and the direct intervention of a supernatural power. In fact, we can ascribe the conditions on Earth, and ask why subsequent developments occurred in such an astonishing way as to meet the requirements of life, as if this had been foreseen beforehand, only to the intention to create life from one end of the world to the other of a Creator existing beyond nature, omnipotent.432The question posed in a mocking tone of voice by one ever-present celebrity during a debate on the origin of life constitutes a well-known example on this subject: "How long would a human being's 1,000 trillion atoms have to be mixed up for a Volkswagen to emerge by chance?" Another variation of the same question is "How long would 100 monkeys have to sit randomly tapping the keys of a typewriter until they produced a single one of Shakespeare's sonnets?" Such objections are really astonishing.433The life span of the Earth would be insufficient for cytochrome-C (or any other enzyme currently in existence) to be manufactured once again in exactly that form out of coincidences.434It is more reasonable seeming to think that the development of animate and inanimate nature is the work of a single moment, a flash of creation...435Attempting to produce a conclusion on the basis that life is the work of a miracle may more reasonable in the current state of affairs.436
Pierre-Paul Grassé is a French biologist and former president of the French Academy of Sciences:
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 … 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.437Chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshiped.438
Susumo Ohno is an American geneticist:
As far as I am concerned, the uniqueness of the immune system lies in its ability to cope with all sorts of previously unexperienced contingencies, thus giving an impression of having evolved in anticipation of future needs. The Darwinian concept of evolution by natural selection does not predict the development of a system that can cope with the future.439
In essence, the probability of the formation of a cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realized once in the whole universe. Otherwise some metaphysical powers beyond our definition must have acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate for the scientific cause. We thus have to look into the first hypothesis.440
Douglas Futuyma is professor of ecology and evolution at the State University of New York:
Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.441
San Francisco Chronicle:
What really astounds me is the architecture of life.... The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed.... There's a huge intelligence there.442
417- Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 105.
418- Ibid., p. 146.
419- Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I, p. 455.
420- Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 28.
421- Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, p. 101.
422- Lewin, R., In the Age of Mankind: A Smithsonian Book of Human Evolution, Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Books:, 1988, p. 26.
423- Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, p. 141.
424- Fred Hoyle, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections," in Engineering and Science, November 1981, pp. 8, 12.
425- David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50 (January 1979), 26.
426- Cemal Yildirim, Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik [ "Evolution Theory and Bigotry"], p. 62.
427- Ibid., p.108.
428- Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985, p. 29.
429- Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorlar›n Sessiz Gecesi 1, ["The Silent Night of the Dinosaurs 1"], p. 122.
430- Ibid., p. 123.
431- Ibid., p. 126.
432- Ibid., pp. 126-127.
433- Ibid., p. 260.
434- Ibid., p. 265.
435- Ibid. p. 27.
436- Ibid., p. 91.
437- Pierre-P Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, p. 103.
438- Ibid., p. 107.
439- Ohno, Susumo, "The Significance of Gene Duplication in Immunoglobulin", Immunoglobulin, ed. G.W. Litman and R. A. Good, 1978, p. 199.
440- Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim ["Inheritance and Evolution"], p. 61.
441- Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, New York: Pantheon Books, 1983. p. 197.
442- San Francisco Chronicle, 19 February, 2001.
No comments:
Post a Comment