The Unscientific Myth of Darwinian Evolution and the Quran
In the preceding chapter we have studied the conflicting situation between the scientists and Christendom and inspiratory role of the Qur’ān towards the promotion of scientific learning. The Qur’ān repeatedly invites our attention to acquire awareness about the developments around us through our perception. In this way the hidden secrets of the entire universe and the realities pertaining to man’s creation are comprehensively assimilated. The Muslim scientists and scholars, influenced by the Qur’ānic concepts on man’s life, explored new avenues of scientific development. This is also a fact that Islamic thought has played a vital role in the development of Western philosophies. Putting aside the illogical, irrational rather whimsical Darwinian theory of evolution here we scientifically probe into special creation of man, which is scientifically investigated compatible with the revealed truths.
Larmarck, Malthas, Mendle, Darwin, Wilson and others who have presented evolution as Lamarckism. Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism all have based their conclusions on certain similarities found between humans and certain animals. These similarities are of the following nature:
1. Biological similarities.
2. Anatomical similarities.
3. Biochemical similarities.
4. Genetic similarities.
These similarities, discovered after a great deal of scientific research had already been pointed out by the Qur’ān 14 centunes ago in verse 38 of’Surah 6 of the Holy Qur’ān:
And the animals on the earth and the two-winged birds which fly in the sky, they are creations similar to you (O’Mankind). 
The word amthalukum(similar to you) indicates different kinds of similarities between animals, birds and humans. However, the Qur’ān does not agree with the inference drawn from these similarities, nor do all the scientists agree on this. Also they could not prove their theory conclusively. They acknowledge the lack of continuity in their theory. This discontinuity is called “Missing links.” Due to many such missing links, there are several contending and contradicting interpretations of the theory of evolution and no single unified theory has been put forward.
We would see here that, whatever aspects of scientific research are in line with the Qur’ānic concepts, it will smoothly reach its conclusion in a natural way. On the other hand, any idea or research which contradicts the Qur’ān will never get out of the cobweb of confusion and doubts.
According to Dr. Nūrbāqī, about a hundred years ago, Charles Darwin a clergyman, graduated from Christ’s College, Cambridge University and with no previous background in medicine or biology, claimed that man was an animal who had evolved from unicellular organisms and had descended from the apes. A lot of scientists jumped on his bandwagon, and soon the myth called evolution was going full speed. This view was taught for years in all educational institutions as if it were a fact of science.
According to one modem scientist, Duane Gish, evolution (i.e. the descent of man from an animal) is a philosophical notion without any scientific basis. In fact R.B Geldschmidt, a professor of biology and one of the most fervent proponents of evolutionism, is honest enough to admit that no unequivocal scientific evidence exists in favour of evolution, and that it is simply a way of thinking. The Oxford Dictionary states that for a theory to be scientific, it must embody observed facts within a framework of general laws.
The Most Progressive Evolutionists
Not everybody realizes that as the crushing scientific evidence against Darwinism and Neo-*Darwinism continues to pile up, opposition to evolution, long considered to be the domain of cranks, is in the last few years being joined by a progressively increasing number of main stream biologists. As Jeremy Rifkin points out in his recent erudite and devastating critique of the evolution myth, eminent biologists and zoologists such as C.H. Waddington, Pierre-Paul Grasse, and Stephen Jay Gould have played their part in exposing evolution for the pseudoscience (the epithet is Grasse’s) that it is.
Prof Goldschmidt and Prof Macbeth make it clear that there is no scientific proof of evolution. This is the truth behind the theory of evolution, which the semiliterate assume to be established science. Some of the pictures given in books by evolutionists are total fabrications. Despite these eliminatory facts, I would like to explain the inside story underlying certain biological phenomena which evolutionists believe support their case, so that no door should be left open to concession in the minds of those reading the verses and their interpretations.
1. In accordance with their earlier conceptions, evolutionists still classify cells as primitive or evolved. After 1955, however, it was realized that 99% of cellular structure is identical, and that this value is 100% for DNA, the chemical building block. The difference between cells, lies in their mathematical programs. That is, a plant cell is programmed to process Oxygen, while a liver cell is geared to produce bile. Since one cannot speak of computer. programs serving different purposes as being primitive or evolved versions of one another, evolution, i.e. the gradual attainment of perfection, is not a valid statement. Evolutionists should first disabuse themselves as regards the relation between a cell and its mathematical program.
2. According to the evolutionists, the reason why evolution cannot be observed today is that it takes place very gradually, in million of years. In 1965, however, a new island (Surtsey) was born near Iceland in submarine volcanic upheavals, and hundreds and thousands of insects and plant species emerged there within an interval of a year. It is still not understood how and whence they came.
3. According to evolutionists, evolution has occurred through mutation, that is, the alternation of genetic traits. This claim is a distortion of the truth in the clearest sense of the term. Mutation is never constructive; it is destructive. In the experiments of Muller, who discovered mutation, there was no gene alteration, but rather, gene destruction. The same is true for all subsequent mutation experiments: traits are not altered, but destroyed. Either cancer or death is the result, or else the impaired trait leads to a weaker organism (like Muller’s green-eyed flies). In spite of the thousands of experiments conducted today, no one has yet obtained a new organism from the mutation of another. In the bone marrow, on the other hand, millions of different cells are produced from a parent cell each second. Surely if there had been any truth in mutation, the phenomenon should have been firmly established by this time.
4. Evolutionists claim that skeletons linking man and the primates exist. Piltdown Man, the most famous of these, was proven to be a fake by radioactive experiments, and thrown out of the British Museum together with the trash. Furthermore, the brain of a primate weighs l3Og, whereas, that of a human being weighs 1350g. According to evolutionary theories, there should be at least ten intermediate organisms in between. It is inconceivable that none of these have survived. We must ask the evolutionists: since the ape itself still survives in all its varieties, where are these ten types of organism on the road from primate to man?
5. Evolutionists have gone so far as to declare that the appendix in the human gut is a useless left-over of evolution. The appendix is, however, one of the most active organs in the body, serving as the ‘tonsils’ of the lower abdomen, it secretes intestinal fluid and regulates the types and quantities of intestinal bacteria. There are no useless organs in the body; quite to the contrary, each organ performs several different tasks simultaneously.
6. The question of the purpose of evolution: evolutionists do not believe in God, yet look for a purpose in evolution. They assume increasing complexities and perfection in the chain from primitive to (in their view) elevated organisms. But to assume such as ascent is both arbitrary and subjective. What is meant by perfection? In terms of decorative colours, for example, the butterfly is at the zenith. In terms of electronic equipment, the bat is unrivalled, with the terrific radar-vision system in its possession. The most developed organism capable of memory retention in terms of brain weight is the dolphin, and the most evolved animal in terms of warfare is the termite, which is smaller than an ant. The weapons used by termites are poisons with a boiling point of 100oC that can kill an organism in their environment. Who, then, has evolved from whom? In terms of chemical warfare, the ape is a more retarded organism than a termite.
7. Evolutionists contend that organisms are subject to natural selection or to the ‘survival of the fittest’, and give dinosaurs as examples of species that have become extinct. But among the one and a half million species of organisms, those which have become extinct do not reach a hundred. What is really significant here is the fact that organisms have survived under the most difficult circumstances of life for millions of years. I would like to give three outstanding examples of this.
1. Blind fish: a kind of fish lacking visual apparatus lives at the bottom of the ocean. Fish possessing sonar (sonic radar) systems and fish that ‘see’ by electric fields also live in the same ecological niche. If the evolutionists were correct, the blind fish should have been displaced by the other two. But the three varieties of fish have peacefully coexisted for millions of years.
2. The blind snake is actually a kind of lizard. Since it lacks appendages, life is especially difficult for this creation; yet it too has survived for millions of years. It neither becomes extinct, nor evolves into a lizard. Where are the principles of the fable called evolution?
3. A species of Australian Porcupine carries its offspring over its belly like a kangaroo. Why doesn’t it mutate to get rid of the bothersome quills sticking into its stomach and find peace like other porcupines? The reason is that God has willed it that way, and the porcupine is reconciled to life and servanthood. The evolutionist can never understand this mystery, for he is caught in a whirlpool of blind logic.
There is no such phenomenon, then, as natural selection; God has created all species in his endless exhibition of organisms.