Books that demolish the theory of evolution

Documentaries that demolish the theory of evolution

Websites about the collapse of the theory of evolution

Books on the fact of creation

Documentaries on the fact of creation

Articles on the fact of creation

The logic that nothing, but chance, is scientific is a flawed one. It is a logical dead-end. If brand-new civilizations were discovered in outer space, would the logic of Darwinism and chance be employed in all of them? Would it be claimed that chance established civilizations everywhere? The portrayal of this miserable logic as scientific is the shame and disgrace of the current century.

Vol I:
Acrobat (pdf)
MS Word (rtf)
Vol II:
Acrobat (pdf)
MS Word (rtf)
Vol III:
Acrobat (pdf)
MS Word (rtf)
Vol IV:
Acrobat (pdf)
MS Word (rtf)

67 / -0001-11-30

Evolutionists maintain that birds are descended from reptiles. There is no evidence for that claim, however. On the contrary, there is a great deal of evidence to show that such an evolution is impossible.

For instance, the question of how reptiles, land-dwelling animals, began to fly remains unanswered, and this is a matter which has given rise to considerable speculation among evolutionists. There are two main theories. The first is that birds gradually evolved from land-dwelling ancestors which glided from tree to tree, in other words that they descended from the trees (the arboreal theory). The other maintains that they evolved from the land upwards (the cursorial theory). According to the latter theory, the fore-arms of land animals which ran after their prey and frequently flapped those fore-arms in the process gradually turned into wings, and those creatures became birds and took to the air. Both theories, however, rest on entirely speculative grounds. Both are devoid of any scientific evidence. Yet the existence of a land animal which somehow managed to fly is “assumed.” Professor John Ostrom, of the Yale University Geology Department, describes this approach by saying,

No fossil evidence exists of any pro-avis. It is a purely hypothetical pre-bird, but one that must have existed. (John Ostrom, "Bird Flight: How Did It Begin?," American Scientist, January-February 1979, vol. 67, p. 47)

The scenarios of bird evolution carried in the media rest not on any scientific finding but on the preconceptions of researchers who have adopted evolution as a dogma and maintain their devotion to the theory for philosophical reasons. The really interesting thing is that the scientific findings definitively refute these Darwinist claims. With their feature of “irreducible complexity,” the unique structures in birds refute evolution and verify intelligent design. Let us now examine this rather closer.

The Irreducibly Complex Structure of the Avian Lung

Dinosaurs are part of the reptile family. When birds and the reptile family are examined they can be seen to possess very different physiologies. In the first place, although birds are warm-blooded, reptiles are cold-blooded. The metabolism of cold-blooded reptiles works very slowly. Birds, on the other hand, expend a great deal of energy in such a tiring activity as flying. Their metabolisms are much faster than those of reptiles. The provision of oxygen to the cells takes place very rapidly in birds. For that reason they have been equipped with a special respiratory system. By always flowing in the same direction in the lung the air loses no time in bringing oxygen to the organism. In reptiles, on the other hand, air is exhaled through the same channel as it is inhaled. This unidirectional air canal is a structure peculiar to the avian lung. It is not possible for such a complex structure to have come into being in stages. That is because in order for an animal to survive the unidirectional air channel system and the lungs must have existed in a flawless form and at every moment. The molecular biologist Michael Denton, known for his criticism of Darwinism, says on this subject:

Just how such a different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design without some sort of direction is, again, very difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of the organism. (Michael J. Denton, Nature"s Destiny, Free Press, New York, 1998, p. 361)

(For greater detail on the avian lung see: The Unique Structure of Avian Lung Refutes Evolution)

The Irreducible Complex Structure of Bird Wing

Accepting the imaginary evolution of flight presupposes that at certain stages the wings were “primitive” and therefore insufficient for the task. However, an insufficient wing is insufficient for even the smallest amount of flight. In order for flight to take place, a living thing’s wings need to be flawless and fully formed. This is admitted by the evolutionist biologist Engin Korur:

The common feature of eyes and wings is that they can only function when fully developed. To put it another way, one cannot see with an incomplete eye, nor fly with a half-wing. The question of how these organs came into being has remained one of the unsolved mysteries of nature. (Engin Korur, "Gözlerin ve Kanatlarin Sirri" ("The Secret of Eyes and Wings", Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology Magazine), October 1984, No. 203, p. 25)

Stephen J. Gould, a palaeontologist who has shown how the fossil record refutes the Darwinist model of gradual evolution, says that it is impossible for the bird wing to have developed gradually:

But how do you get from nothing to such an elaborate something, if evolution must proceed through a long sequence of intermediate stages, each favored by natural selection? You can"t fly with 2% of a wing… [I]n other words, can natural selection explain these incipient stages of structures that can only be used (as we now observe them) in much more elaborated form?( S. J. Gould, (1985), "Not Necessarily a Wing," Natural History, October, pp. 12, 13)

Korur and Gould are quite right about the dilemmas facing the gradual development model of the bird wing. However, there is another very important point which needs to be emphasised here. According to the theory of evolution, a feature needs to be functional if it is to be selected. Most importantly, it is a prerequisite that the gradual development of random changes should constitute a “functional whole” in order for the organism to survive.

In one article published in American Zoology magazine, the professor of biology and ornithologist Walter J. Bock wrote:

Organisms at every stage in the evolutionary sequence must be functioning wholes interacting successfully with selective demands arising from the particular environments of the organisms at each stage in the evolutionary sequence. (Walter j. Bock, “Explanatory History of the Origin of Feathers”, American Zoology, 40: p. 482, 2000) (our emphasis)

Here there appears a major discrepancy with the claims of the evolution of the wing. That is because mutations which might occur in the fore arm will not only fail to provide the creature with a functioning wing, but will also deprive it of its fore arms. That means that this creature will possess a body which is disadvantaged (in other words handicapped) in comparison to other members of its species. Of course a living thing whose fore arms functioned neither as proper feet nor as proper wings would be unable to perform such vital activities as defending itself from predators, hunting or mating as it had before, and would thus be eliminated on account of that disadvantage.

(For further information on the bird wing see: The Irreducible Complexity of Wings Refutes Evolution.)

The Natural History of Birds and Archaeopteryx

In the same way that the anatomy of birds reveals “intelligent design,” the fossil record shows that they “emerged suddenly.”

The oldest known bird fossil is the 150-million-year-old Archaeopteryx. This creature was a flying bird, with flawless flight muscles and feathers suitable for flight. No fossil of a half-bird half-reptile has ever been found. We may therefore say that Archaeopteryx was the first bird, and that with the same “flight” structure as modern birds it constitutes evidence against the theory of evolution.

Evolutionists have been engaging in speculation about Archaeopteryx ever since the 19th century. The presence of teeth in its mouth and nails resembling claws on its wings, and its long tail, led to these aspects of the fossil being compared to reptiles. A great many evolutionists described Archaeopteryx as a “primitive bird” and even claimed that the animal is closer to reptiles than to birds.

However, it gradually emerged that this myth was very superficial, that the animal was not a “primitive bird” at all, that on the contrary its skeleton and feather structure were ideally suited to flight, and that those features compared to reptiles are found in some other birds which lived in the past and which are even still living today. The evolutionist speculation about Archaeopteryx has today to a large extent fallen silent. Professor Alan Feduccia, from the Biology Department of North Carolina University and one of the world’s most eminent authorities on ornithology, has stated that, "Most recent workers who have studied various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx have found the creature to be much more birdlike than previously imagined," The “semi-reptile creature” portrait drawn of Archaeopteryx has been shown to be false. Again according to Feduccia, until recently, "the resemblance of Archaeopteryx to theropod dinosaurs has been grossly overestimated." (Alan Feduccia, The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 1999, p. 81)

In short, bird evolution is not a consistent thesis based on biological or palaeontological evidence, but is a totally illusory and unrealistic claim stemming from Darwinist preconceptions. The subject of bird evolution, which some experts delight in portraying as if it were a scientific fact, is nothing more than a fairy tale expounded for philosophical reasons. The truth revealed by science is that the flawless design in birds is an entirely intelligent one, in other words that birds were created by God.


The way that all of Europe has become acquainted with Atlas of Creation and the declaration of the fact that living creatures have remained unchanged for millions of years and that evolution is devoid of any scientific worth have led to a major change of belief among the people of Europe. Independent polls conducted by well-known publishing institutions in different European countries have revealed a major drop in the numbers of people believing in Darwinism and that belief in Allah now dominates Europe. >>

In order to create, God has no need to design

It's important that the word "design" be properly understood. That God has created a flawless design does not mean that He first made a plan and then followed it. God, the Lord of the Earth and the heavens, needs no "designs" in order to create. God is exalted above all such deficiencies. His planning and creation take place at the same instant.
Whenever God wills a thing to come about, it is enough for Him just to say, "Be!"
As verses of the Qur'an tell us:
His command when He desires a thing is just to say to it, "Be!" and it is. (Qur'an, 36: 82)
[God is] the Originator of the heavens and Earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, "Be!" and it is. (Qur'an, 2: 117)

Home | Books | Documentaries | Articles | Audio | Contact us | Subscribe

2007 Darwinism-Watch.com
Our materials may be copied, printed and distributed, by referring to this site.