Scientific errors and misjudgments of Darwinists
Today human beings fail to create even a single cell with all the accumulated knowledge and advanced technology. In the words of Micheal Denton, claiming that millions of living organisms with complex systems, which modern technology can only imitate, have emerged as a result of coincidence, in other words supporting the evolution theory, “is simply an affront to reason.” For which reason, those advocating the theory of evolution display serious scientific errors or misjudgments. In this text, we will examine some of the recent examples of the misjudgments of evolutionists appearing in the popular Turkish media.
The misjudgment of “The Evolution of Ear”
Evolutionists, especially those having a blind attachment to evolution despite their very limited knowledge, assume unrelated issues to be the evidences of evolution. A recent example was displayed in the article of the evolutionist writer Veysel Atayman under the heading “Materialist “Material”, Evolutionist Material” in the Sunday addition of the Turkish daily Universal (Evrensel) on 13th June 1999. Atayman stated the following about things he assumed to be “evidences”:
“Our ear has come into being as a consequence of the evolution of endoderm, which we call skin. ( That we feel bas tones in the skin of our stomach is an evidence)”
The concept which we call sound is in fact a group of vibrations that spread in the air. Our ear, with its unusually complex system, converts these vibrations of sound into electric signals according to their vibrations. The interpretation of these electric signals in the brain form the sound. Since vibration is a physical effect, it can also be perceived by our sense of touch. Consequently, it is natural that a high and bas tone can also be felt. Furthermore, these sounds also affect substances physically. That window glass are broken in a room where powerful loudspeakers are used is an example.
What is interesting is the fact that Atayman, an evolutionist writer, assumes this physical reality to be an evidence for “the evolution of ear.”
Atayman”s logic follows: “the ear perceives the vibrations, and our skin is affected by it. This means that ear has evolved from skin” If we use Atayman”s logic we can likewise conclude. “the ear perceives the vibrations, and window glass is affected by it. This means that window glass has evolved from skin.” There is no limit to talk rubbish for evolutionists. If Atayman or another evolutionist really believes that ear came into existence as a consequence of evolution and want to provide evidence for that, they should then present consistent and reliable evidences rather than unrelated analogies.
They should provide a satisfactory explanation about how outer ear gained the feature of increasing the sound, how ear membrane, the three little special bones, together with a special organ in inner ear which has a special liquid and ten thousands of perceptive cells producing electric signals according to these vibrations on the surface of this organ came into existence by “coincidence.” Surely they fail to make such an explanation; there is no explanation for this. Evolutionists having more profound information , on the other hand, prefer to remain quite rather than ridiculing themselves like Atayman.
The Misjudgment Of Assuming Evolution “as a Matter Of Preference”
Veysel Atayman”s another misjudgment is to present evolution and creation as two distinct point of views about the world among which people can make a preference. Again in the Sunday addition of the Turkish daily Universal (Evrensel) on June 13, 1999, we read:
“While Islamists say “God has given marvelous colors to that fish”, evolutionist talks about “the colors and form fish acquired in order to adapt itself to the outer environment and to attract the attention of the opposite sex.”
Nevertheless, the question of how the colors and forms of a fish formed is one that can be answered by directly referring to scientific data. When we examine a fish or another type of living organism, we encounter a conscious design at all levels, that can not be based on natural forces or their own will. Every design is a manifestation of its designer, a mere indication of the creation of Allah.
Atayman tries to disguise this fact by presenting faith in creation as a matter of preference. According to the same logic one would also say: ” When a person looks at a book, he can say “How beautifully the writer wrote this book” while another person may well say “how beautifully the book wrote itself.” However, it is evident that only the first statement is true and the second is an unreasonable sophistry.
In the fish example of Atayman is equally unreasonable. No fish can determine its own colors or forms. In other words, it does not create itself. It is even not aware of its colors and form, let alone determining them. It is evident that they are created by a Creator. This is not a “matter of preference” but an apparent fact revealed by wisdom and science. .
The Confession that “Human Mind can not be Reduced to Matter”
In evolutionist publications, as well as misjudgments, one now and then encounters evolutionist confessions. An example appeared in Turkish Science and Utopia magazine in August 1999. In his article titled “What is conscious?”, Dr. Tugrul Atasoy, though he aimed to make a materialistic explanation, confessed that a materialistic approach can not be made to human conscious.
Although materialists deny the existence of the soul, they accept the human conscious to be a product of brain. They claim the being we call “myself” to be only the neurons (nerve cells) in the brain and the chemical reactions taking place among them. However, scientific data reveals that mind is something beyond brain that can not only be limited to it. On the contrary, they reveal that there is a supra-material being beyond it that controls it. Materialist writer Atasoy accepts this fact:
“Today we are unable to make a definition of conscious. We try to define it only by defining its components. Yet still we know that conscious is always more than what its components are…”
In other words, the brain is more than the functions of its “components”, namely the center of sight, center of touch, and other centers. Under such circumstances, a materialistic point of view falls short of providing an explanation for conscious. It is interesting that Atasoy accepts this and comments that the materialistic standpoint which is prevalent since the 19th century should be amended to provide a satisfactory explanation for conscious:
“Yes, but what is conscious? As stated earlier in this article, today we still lack a full and right definition. In order to make this definition or, at least, to have a better understanding for it, it seems that there is a need for a scientific revolution that will abolish the established paradigms of today.”
If Atasoy assumes an attitude based on more research and follows the recent developments, he would see that “the scientific revolution” which he says “there is need for” is currently being carried out, and many scientists all over the world free themselves from the thrall of the materialist dogma.
Grave Misjudgments of a Biology Teacher
In Turkey, those who attempt to write articles to advocate the theory of evolution have one feature in common: they know very little about the theory. For this reason, claims, eliminated from the evolutionist literature decades ago and which have been rejected by evolutionists themselves, are being enthusiastically presented by these “writers” as great evidences for evolution.
Necla Türkel, a biology teacher is one of these writers. Her article titled “The fact of Evolution is still out of the curriculum” which appeared in Turkish Cumhuriyet (Republic) daily on July 7, 1999 was a recent example. A person responsible for instructing hundreds of students in biology, unfortunately presents the invalidated claim of “Embryological Recapitulation”:
“Many organs of human embryo initially resemble the adult phase of fish and frog in their initial form. Later, through evolution they take the structure of the interior organs of reptiles and fish and finally transform into the structure of a human. (This is the evidence of evolution)…A fertilized egg forms the embryo. The embryo forms the adult living organism after going through various stages. This is ontogenetic evolution. Ontogenetic evolution is very similar to the evolution of living organisms.”
What Turkel alleges to be the “evidence of evolution” was put forward by Ernst Haeckel, an evolutionist biologist, at the beginning of the 19th century and rejected in the second half of the same century. In the years since then it has been proven that this theory is completely bogus. It is now known that the “gills” that supposedly appear in the early stages of the human embryo are in fact the initial phases of middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus. Today, the prominent advocates of the evolution theory accept this fact. Furthermore, it was understood that Haeckel was a charlatan who falsified his drawings in order to support the theory that he advanced. (This fact was explained in details in the evolutionist magazine Science on May 9, 1997 under the title “The Forgery Uncovered”.) Necla Türkel can refer to the book Evolution Deceit by Harun Yahya for further information on this issue.
The invalid evidences Turkel provided for her thesis was not limited to Haeckel”s invalidated theory. She also referred to another invalid evolutionist claim “vestigial organlar” as an evidence of “evolution “:
“The vestigial end of the spinal column and appendix, an advanced organ in herbivorous animals responsible of digestion is an evidence of evolution.”
The concept of vestigial organs was put forward by evolutionists a century ago. The claim actually rested upon limited medical knowledge of the day. These “non-functional organs” were in fact organs whose “functions had not yet been discovered.” With the advancement of science, however the functions of these so-called “non-functional ” organs were discovered. The best indication of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists” long list of vestigial organs.
For instance, the end of the spinal column, Necla Turkel deems to be non-functional, supports the bones around the basin and is a point of conjunction of some minor muscles. On the other hand, appendix is a part of the lymphatic system.
S. R. Scadding, himself an evolutionist, states the following: “Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that “vestigial organs” provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.”(S. R. Scadding, “Do “Vestigial Organs” Provide Evidence for Evolution?”, Evolutionary Theory, Volume 5, May 1981, p. 173)
One point deserves mention here: some scientists or instructors in Turkey advocate such claims disproved a long time ago. We suggest that, if they are committed to defend evolution, then they should work on it seriously. This way, they can see that the theory has no aspect to defend.