“And Allah has created every animal from water;Of them there are some that creep on their bellies;

Some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four; Allah creates what He wills For verily Allah

has power over all things.” (Quran Chapter 24, verse 45)

People have largely accepted the theory of evolution as science, however, within evolutionary circles there are some very qualifi ed and respected scientists who recognise serious problems with the theory. For example Dr. Raup states, “Instead of fi nding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually fi nd is a highly uneven or jerky fossil record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. And it is not always clear, in fact it is rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words biological improvement is hard to fi nd.” (Dr. D. Raup, ‘Confl icts between Darwin and palaeontology’. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Bulletin, vol.50 (1), 1979, pp.22-29).

Unfortunately, the problems with evolution are not mentioned in school or television. Instead, the theory of evolution is presented as a fact with all the support of science. Only, science has not proven it and science is unable to reproduce it (which is a requirement for something to be scientifi c). Evolution is not observable nor repeatable. It is a only a theory.

For life (i.e. genetic material - DNA) to spontaneously form out of nothing, there would have to be an incredible amount of time and an incredible number of combinations of molecules. The DNA molecule is so complex that a random appearance of one basically can’t happen. Many scientists say that mathematically speaking, life to form by chance is impossible.

The role of chance

For example, Sir Fred Hoyle on page 12 of his ‘Intelligent Universe’ states, “..that the random evolution of life on the earth has as much chance of succeeding as a blind-folded person solving a Rubic cube.” He further goes on to say, “..the random creation of the human bodies 200,000 proteins seem beyond imagination.”

The Second Law of Thermodynamics in physics is known as entropy and states that things will become more disordered, as time goes on, if left entirely to themselves with no external interference. The nature of the world is to deteriorate, rather than improve. If you throw a pack of cards into the air, the odds of them coming down and landing as a perfectly formed pack are zero.

common ancestor of apes and man. Bjorn Kurten, a well known palaeontologist does not think that man evolved from apes. In the preface of his book (Not from apes, Victor Gollancz Ltd, London, 1972) he writes, “I did not set out to prove the following thesis. On the contrary, they were formulated gradually in the course of my work, and many of them are contrary to my own previous beliefs.” He further writes;

a) The ancestry of hominids and monkeys has been separate for more than 35 million years; b) Man did not descend from the apes. The distinction between the two is real, man is primitive, but apes and monkeys are specialised. If we derive the hominids from apes, this would mean that the man-like teeth of the earliest forms would have to evolve into ape-like teeth, and then evolve back into man-like teeth again. To a palaeontologist familiar with evolutionary sequence, this is not a likely alternative. Then the most logical answer suggested by the fossil evidence is this - hominids are not descended from apes.

Ramapithecus - Fossils were discovered in 1934 in India and consisted merely of a handful of teeth and jaw fragments. This was considered to be a hominid solely on the basis of its dental record. However, new fossils invalidate these earlier conclusions. It is now thought to have been a distinct species of orangutan (D.R. Pilbeam, Nature, Vol.219, p.1335,1968; E. L. Simons and D.R. Pilbeam, Sci, Vol.173, p.23,1971; New York Times, February 18,1979 - Section L, p.41; Nadvi, K.S. Darwinism on trial, P.51).

Australopithecus - A skull, jaw, teeth and fragments of pelvis, limb, and foot were found by Dart in 1924. It is now thought that it is more likely to be have been a chimp rather than a human ancestor (Cherfas, J and Gribbib J. Descent of man or ascent of ape, New Sci. Vol 91, No 1269 pp 592-595; Nadvi, K.S. Darwinism on trial, P.51).

Zinjanthropus - 400 pieces of a skull were found in the Olduvai Gorge in Africa by Leakey in 1950. Zinjanthropus is now known to have been a gorilla.

Homo Erectus (Java Man) - In 1892, Dubois found a skullcap, teeth and femur about 60 feet from each other in Java. He said these were from a hominid ancestor about 0.5 MY old. However, H. Erectus has since been discredited because of the fi nd of an advanced H. Habilis which co-existed with the primitive H. erectus. If we accept the sequence Australopithecus to H. Habilis to H. Erectus to H. sapiens for human evolution this would mean the Australopithecus evolved into a very advanced H. Habilis which evolved back to a very archaic H. Erectus which again did an about turn and gave rise to an extremely advanced H. sapiens in no time at all.

This type of event is against natural law because the pack must, unless you interfere with it, deteriorate over time. Only the injection of energy (your time and effort) will put the pack back in order. If there is no such external supply of energy then entropy tells us the pack must fall even more scattered, or at best as equally disordered as when it was thrown up.

Thus, an explosion in a brick factory could never ever produce a fully formed house. A team of chimps banging out letters on a typewriter will never produce, by accident, a Shakespeare play. Steel is made by adding carbon to boiling iron under great heat, pressure and oxygen. Molten iron, carbon and oxygen are freely available in a volcano. However, when was the last time a volcano threw out a fully formed bicycle frame? We have had 4,000 million years of volcanoes, and all of the ingredients have been to hand. In that same time (say the scientists) a microbe grew into a human being. The fact is that volcanoes have not only failed to produce a single bike frame, they have yet to provide a single piece of steel! This is Entropy in action.

A single protein is more complex than the entire wiring circuit of a mainframe computer, and a protein is one of the smallest building blocks in humans and animals. To assume that one single example of animal life came about through a group of microbes bumping into each other in a volcanic ocean is to assume that every wire, brick and pane of glass in London was created by accident. Yet, this is exactly what some scientists propose. To say that human life started on this planet by chance is statistically impossible and denies a fundamental Law of Physics. The case for a random chance event is beyond weak, it is desperate and illogical.

The Ape-Men

The so called ape-men or missing links are frequently used by scientist to show that man has evolved from apes. However, as you will see the evidence is weak and the missing links have been largely discredited. The historical evidence for the human ancestor line (hominid line) falls into three categories: pure ape, pure man, and fakes. In fact, when the evidence is scrutinized we find that the evolutionary line of man is non-existent. The following is a brief outline of the main contenders to date.

Propliopithecus, Aegyptopithecus and Dryopithecus - The oldest known hominid (human evolutionary ancestor) fossils are known to be those of Propliopithecus (25-35 million years old, MY) and Aegyptopithecus (28 MY old). The fossils of the oldest known pongid, Dryopithecus, are thought to be roughly 20-10 MY old. Some evolutionists think that Dryopithecus was the ancestor of modern apes, while others hold that it was the

This sequence of events is impossible from a structural point of view and there is no real time gap between the three forms. In 1936 Dubois fi nally admitted that he had found the remains of a giant gibbon. Apparently he had failed to mention that he had also found two human skulls nearby in virtually the same level of burial (W. Howell, Mankind in the Making, Doubleday and Co. Garden City, N.T. 1967, pp.155-156 as cited in Evolution the Fossils Say No, p.125, by Duane T. Gish Ph.D.: Nadvi, KS., Darwinism on trial, P.51: Fix W.R., The bone peddlers, P112).

To make matters worse for evolutionists, ancient human skulls closely resembling their modern counterparts have been discovered in Swanscombe and Steinheim (0.25 MY old) and in Vertesszollos (0.7 MY old). Although these discoveries were made in the sixties, one hardly ever hears about these. Why this blackout of unfavourable evidence? Possibly because it makes the ancestor of H. Erectus look even more questionable, as Vertesszollos man was a contemporary of H. Erectus. (Nadvi, K.S., Darwinism on trial, pp.30-55).

Piltdown Man - In 1912 Charles Dawson found a skullcap, jawbone, and teeth in Sussex, England. In 1953 scientists discovered that the jawbone actually belonged to a monkey and the skullcap was really the kneecap of an elephant. The fakery fooled the experts for many years. (S. Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower, Taplinger Pub. Co., New York, 1970, pp.75-94).

Link Fossils

The complete absence of any links between distinct groups of animals and plants is no longer a disputed issue among biologists. Species have appeared in quick succession and without any clue to their ancestors. In fact, none of the evolutionary lines of animals, birds, fi sh, or plants is established. Archaeopteryx, for example was hailed as clear evidence of evolution, but recent research has shown that it was a true bird which at most combined characteristics of both ancient and mosdern birds, it certainly is not a link between reptiles and birds. Similarly, the coelacanth was said to be a link between fi sh and land-animals because of its limb-like fi ns. The coelacanth was thought to lurch on the land in search of food, staying there longer and longer until 70 MY ago when it disappeared from the fossil record. However, when several coelacanth were discovered off the coast of Madagascar a few years ago, looking exactly like their ancestors, perfectly adapted to their environment and showing no signs of evolution this was quietly dropped from the so called ‘evidence’ for evolution.

The Question of EvEvolution

EXHIBITION

I S L A M

Rather than a gradual progression the fossil record shows the sudden emergence of species. One of the biggest of such explosions occurred in the Cambrian era (600 MY ago) when many differing invertebrates emerged on the world scene simultaneously, without showing any signs of evolution. When higher invertebrates fi rst appeared in the record, all their complex organs and organ systems also emerged in their fi nish-ed forms. Molluscs, for example, had eyes that were as complex as vertebrate eyes, complete with cornea, lens, retina and nervous systems. There is no theory of evolution that can explain so early the arrival of such complex organs in their fi nished state.

These fi ndings led to the punctuated equilibria theory which states that the reason there are no fossilised evolutionary links between species is because evolution took huge sudden jumps in 100,000 or 300,000 year increments, during different periods of Earth’s history. This is a clear admission by scientists that the fossil record is so incomplete that a theory explaining huge regular gaps has had to be formulated. Darwin’s suggestion that evolution came about through small successive modifi cations or changes cannot be applied to every observed creature. Darwin admitted, “if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifi cations, my theory would absolutely break down.”

If scientifi c conclusion is supposed to be based on hard evidence, then why have we allowed speculation to run amok in the case of evolution? Is it because it appears to be true or seems reasonable? Not very long ago the Sun appeared to revolve around the Earth but that was not true. Man, mammals, birds, reptiles, fi sh and invertebrates may appear to be arising from the preceding organism but this is not true either. Every species has instincts of its own specifi c kind and there are no intermediate fossils linking different groups together. It suited the mental climate of the 19th century, when scientists thought that matter was the only reality. In this century, however with the explosion of knowledge and science, when previous theories lacking hard evidence have been discarded, it is really surprising that scientists are still clinging on to the shaky hypothesis of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution. Nature and our study of nature, both proclaim the fact that there is One God, Allah, who, in His Wisdom, has created and continues to sustain the universe. The very existence of the universe, with its superb organisation is inexplicable except as having being brought into existence by a Creator - a Being with an infi nite intelligence rather than a blind force.

For further information on our services please visit:

www.exhibitionislam.com