A documentary called “Killer Instinct: Grassland ” was aired on the National Geographic TV channel on March 23, 2003. Examples are given in that documentary of various animals living on the African plains, and the program particularly deals with relationships between hunter and hunted out on the veldt. The most “practical” method in the attempt to impose the theory of evolution on society emerged during this documentary. An evolutionary myth was related regarding the eye, one of the most complex structures in living things, without a shred of evidence being supplied. This article will reveal the scientific dilemmas within that account.
That part of the documentary dealing with leopards concentrated on these animals” superior eyesight. The TV channel claims that the feline eye emerged by evolution, and the following comments appear:
“Cats have undergone certain changes to be able to see at night. Their pupils allow three times more light to enter than ours do, and a disc behind their eyes reflects the light back within the eye to be used again.”
The claim that the cats” eyes reached their present state by undergoing changes is an obvious deception, because with its “irreducibly complex” structure the eye actually deals one of the most serious blows to the theory of evolution. It is impossible for the eye to emerge in stages, as evolutionists would have us believe. The absence of any one of its constituent parts will mean that the whole organ is unable to function. The eye consists of some 40 separate parts, and will be unable to see if just one of these components is absent, the retina for example. For that reason, if the eye is to be able to see then these 40 component parts all need to be present at the same time, along with the other systems which make sight possible, and that is only possible with creation.
Contrary to what evolutionists claim, it is impossible for sight to emerge as a result of these components coming together gradually, one by one, over millions of years. The eye, which will be unable to see in the absence of just one of these components, will “atrophy,” according to the evolutionists” own view, and will disappear before it ever forms. The irreducibly complex structure of the eye forced Darwin to confess his unease over that very subject: “The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder (1) … To recur to the eye. I really think it would have been dishonest, not to have faced the difficulty. (2)
In the same way that evolutionists never raised these statements by Darwin, they also avoided making any comment as to how the eye might have evolved, and even warned Darwin on this issue. The famous geologist Sir Charles Lyell had this to say in a letter to Darwin:
The first page of this most important summary gives the adversary an advantage, by putting forth so abruptly and crudely such a startling objection as the formation of “the eye,” not by means analogous to man”s reason, or rather by some power immeasurably superior to human reason, but by super induced variation like those of which a cattle-breeder avails himself. Pages would be required thus to state an objection and remove it. It would be better, as you wish to persuade, to say nothing. Leave out several sentences, and in a future edition bring it out more fully. (3)
Although a century or so has passed, evolutionists still persist with this mentality of “concealing the truth.” National Geographic also persists with tales of change, without giving any account of by what stages the eye might have evolved. It is evident that the television channel, which claims to be a scientific one, is acting not in the light of the scientific facts but of its own Darwinist expectations. The message at the end of the documentary is also noteworthy from the point of view of revealing this Darwinist propaganda:
“Everywhere they have encountered difficulties animals have evolved in such a manner as to overcome these difficulties. If you live amongst these animals, whose lives are based on competition, the best way to survive is to be designed to kill.”
The claim that living things evolved in such a way as to overcome difficulties is an unscientific one, since the Darwinism upon which it rests is itself an idea that has suffered a scientific collapse. Darwinism maintains that there is a constant struggle in nature, and that this struggle for survival shaped the evolution of living things. Natural selection and random mutations are put forward as the mechanisms of this alleged evolution. Yet neither natural selection nor random mutations have any evolutionary force at all. Natural selection cannot turn living things into other species by playing a role in their struggles against obstacles. In other words, rabbits running away from foxes cannot gradually turn into antelopes. All that can happen is for foxes to bring about faster and stronger individuals by eliminating slower-running rabbits. It is impossible for one species to turn into another as the result of natural selection.
As genetic science advanced, it was realized that genetic information was passed on unchanged from one generation to another. That meant that evolutionists were forced to accept that natural selection could not transform one species into another. Another mechanism needed to be modeled in order to keep the theory alive. This led evolutionists to embrace mutations. Mutations are random changes which take place in the nucleotide string in DNA. Nucleotide strings are like the letters set out in a text. Thanks to this special string, however, genetic “information” emerges. Evolutionists envisage that the DNA which sets out all the features of present-day living things took its present form as a result of chance mutations. The fact is, however, that mutations play no evolutionary role. Alongside external factors such as radiation and poisoning, when mutations, stemming from infrequently seen copying errors in the cell, come into play they lead to living things being born either dead or deformed. Due to this destructive effect none of the countless mutation experiments on living things in laboratories have ever been observed to give rise to healthier and more developed forms.
The dilemmas posed by natural selection and mutations are enough to bury the claim that there is an evolutionary process in nature. The fact that National Geographic TV is still airing evolutionist statement stems entirely from ideological concerns. The channel is denying the scientific realities and repeats outdated Darwinist claims in order to keep alive the materialist philosophy which denies the existence of Allah. Our advice to the channel is that it abandons Darwinism, an outdated belief, and accepts that creation and not evolution are the origin of life.
1- Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. II, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1888, p. 67
2- Ibid., p.90
3- Ibid., p. 3