:->
The neo-Darwinist model, which we shall take as the “mainstream” theory of evolution today, argues that life has evolved through two naturalistic mechanisms: “natural selection” and “mutation”. The basic assertion of the theory is as follows: Natural selection and mutation are two complementary mechanisms. The origin of evolutionary modifications are random mutations that take place in the genetic structure of living things. The traits brought about by mutations are selected by the mechanism of natural selection and this is the means by which living things evolve. When we further probe into this theory, we find that there is no such evolutionary mechanism at all, because neither natural selection nor mutations make any contribution to the claim that different species have evolved and transformed into one another. Natural selection is a natural process As process of nature, natural selection was familiar to biologists beforeDarwin, who defined it as a “mechanism that keeps species unchanging without being corrupted”.Darwinwas the first person to put forward the assertion that this process had evolutionary power, and on the basis of this assumption he erected his entire theory of evolution. The name he gave to his book indicates that natural selection was the basis ofDarwin’s theory:''The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection… '' However sinceDarwin’s time, there has not been a single shred of evidence put forward to show that natural selection causes living beings to evolve. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at theMuseumofNatural HistoryinEngland, who is also a prominent evolutionist, stresses that natural selection has never been observed to have the power to cause things to evolve: ''No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question.'' Natural selection holds the view that those living things which are more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will prevail by having offspring that will survive, whereas those that are unfit will disappear. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of wild animals, naturally those that can run faster will survive. That is true. But no matter how long this process goes on, it will not transform those deer into another living species. The deer will always remain deer. When we look at the few incidents the evolutionists have put forth as observed examples of natural selection, we see that these are nothing but a simple attempt to hoodwink. “Industrial melanism” In 1986, Douglas Futuyman published a book,The Biology of Evolution, which is accepted as one of the sources explaining the theory of evolution by natural selection in the most explicit way. The most famous of his examples on this subject is about the colour of the moth population, which appeared to darken during the Industrial Revolution inEngland. According to the account, around the outset of the Industrial Revolution inEngland, the colour of the tree barks aroundManchesterwas quite light. Because of this, dark-colored moths resting on those trees could easily be noticed by the birds that fed on them and therefore they had very little chance of survival. Fifty years later, as a result of pollution, the barks of the trees had darkened and this time light-colored moths became the most hunted. As a result, the number of light-colored moths decreased whereas that of the dark-colored ones increased since the latter were not easily noticed. On the one hand, evolutionists use this as an important evidence to prove their theory. On the other hand, they take refuge in obscurantism by window-dressing the questions regarding how the light–colored moths “evolved” into dark-colored ones. It should be quite clear that this example can in no way be used as evidence for the theory of evolution, because natural selection gave rise to a new form that had not existed before. Dark colored moths existed in the moth population before the Industrial Revolution. Only the relative proportions of the existing moth varieties in the population changed. The moths had notacquired a new trait or an organ, which would cause a ‘speciation'. In order to have a moth turn into another living species, a bird for example, new additions would have had to be made to the genes. That is, an entirely separate genetic program would have had to be loaded to include information about the physical traits of the bird. Briefly, natural selection does not have the capability to add a new organ to a living organism, remove one, or change the organism into another species – quite contrary to the image that evolutionists conjure up. The “greatest” evidence put forward sinceDarwinhas been able to go no further than the “industrial melanism” of the moths inEngland. Can natural selection explain complexity? There is nothing that natural selection contributes to the theory of evolution, because this mechanism can never increase or improve the genetic information of a species. Neither can it transform one species into another: a starfish into a fish, a fish into a frog, a frog into a crocodile or a crocodile into a bird. The biggest defender of punctuated equilibrium, Gould, refers to this deadlock of natural selection as follows: "The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase:natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well. " Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as a 'conscious designer'. However, natural selection has no consciousness. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living beings. As a result, natural selection cannot explain biological systems and organs that have the feature of “irreducible complexity”. These systems and organs are composed of the co-operation of a great number of parts and they are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. )For example, the human eye does not function unless it exists with all its details(. Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be able to figure the future in advance and aim directly for the benefit that is to be acquired at the last stage. Since natural mechanism has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing. This fact which demolishes the foundations of the theory of evolution, also worriedDarwin: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.'' Natural selection only selects out the disfigured, weak or unfit individuals of a species. That is, it cannot make anything evolve.Darwinaccepted this reality by saying: “Natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur.” This is why neo-Darwinism has had to elevate mutations next to natural selection as the “cause of beneficial changes.” However as we shall see, mutations can only be “the cause for harmful changes.”
- PUBLISHER
NajimudeeN M
:->
Neo-Darwinists propound improbable new scenarios in their efforts to keep Darwinism alive Most of the scientists who believe in evolution accept the neo-Darwinist theory of slow, gradual evolution. In recent decades, however, a different model has been proposed. Called “punctuated equilibrium”, this model rejects the Darwinist idea of a cumulative, step-by-step evolution and holds that evolution took place instead in big, discontinuous “jumps”. The first vociferous defenders of this notion appeared at the beginning of the 1970s CE. Two American paleontologists, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Nay Gould, were well aware that the claims of the neo-Darwinist theory were absolutely refuted by fossil records. Fossils proved that living organisms did not originate by gradual evolution, but appeared suddenly and fully-formed. Neo-Darwinists were living with the fond hope -- they still do -- that the lost transitional forms would one day be found. Realising that this hope was groundless, Eldredge and Gould were nevertheless unable to abandon their evolutionary dogma, so they put forward a new model: punctuated equilibrium. This is the claim that evolution did not take place as a result of minor variations but rather in sudden and great changes. This model was nothing but a model for fantasies. For instance, European paleontologist O.H. Shindewolf, who led the way for Eldredge and Gould, claimed that the first bird came out of a reptile egg as a “gross mutation”, that is, as a result of a huge “accident” that took place in the genetic structure. According to the same theory, some land-dwelling animals could have turned into giant whales having undergone a sudden and comprehensive transformation. These claims, totally contradicting all the rules of genetics, biophysics and biochemistry are about as scientific as the fairy tales about frogs turning into princes! Nevertheless, being distressed by the ``crisis that the neo-Darwinist assertion was in'', some evolutionist paleontologists embraced this theory, which had the distinction of being even more bizarre than neo-Darwinism itself. The only purpose of this model was to provide an explanation for the unexplained gaps in fossil records that the neo-Darwinist model could not explain. However, it is hardly rational to attempt to explain the fossil gap in the evolution of birds with a claim that “a bird popped all of a sudden out of a reptile egg”, because by the evolutionists’ own admission, the evolution of one species to another requires a great and advantageous change in genetic information. However, no mutation whatsoever improves the genetic information or adds new information to it. Thus the “gross mutations” imagined by the punctuated equilibrium model would only cause “gross”, that is “great” reductions and impairments in the genetic information. Moreover, the model of “punctuated equilibrium” collapses from the very first step by its inability to address the question of the origin of life, which is also the question that refutes the neo-Darwinist model from the outset. Since not even a single protein can have originated by chance, the debate over whether organisms made up of trillions of those proteins have undergone a “punctuated” or “gradual” evolution is senseless. In spite of this, the model that comes to mind when “evolution” is discussed today is still neo-Darwinism, we must first examine the neo-Darwinist model and then look at the fossil record to test this model. After that, we will dwell upon the question of the origin of life, which invalidates both the neo-Darwinist model and all other evolutionist models such as “evolution by leaps”. Before doing so, it may be useful to remind the reader that the reality we will be confronting at every stage is that the evolutionary scenario is a fairytale, a great deceit totally at variance with all scientific facts and evidence. It is a scenario that has been used to deceive the world for the past 140 years. Thanks to the latest scientific discoveries, its continued defence has at last become impossible. The Quran states that Allaah will show us His signs, in the world around us and within ourselves, at which the people of understanding will have increased faith. Unlike what evolutionist scientists would have us believe, Allaah has not created the world in vain, it has a specific purpose and underlying design. In spite of misleading obscurantist agendas, it is our duty to unravel the truth and expose falsehood.
- PUBLISHERNajimudeeN M
:->
Morals in Islam are the set of principles and guidelines that govern human conduct according to the divine revelation. This is so that man's life will be regulated in a way that perfectly achieves the goal behind his existence in this world. Thus, the Islamic system of morality is characterized by two distinctive facets: firstly, it has a divine nature, which means that it follows the will of Allaah The Almighty. Secondly, it coincides with our innate nature, which indicates that human beings exert an effort and play a role in practically determining that system, in part. This code of ethics aims at realizing a good life for mankind. It constitutes the best mode of behavior and manner of dealing with the self, Allaah The Almighty and society as a whole. In the Islamic moral system, the practical and theoretical aspects are integrated, as it is not only a part of Islam, but its essence and spirit, which comprises all its aspects. Thus, generally speaking, Islam is founded on its moral principles, which are the crux of the divinely revealed Messages. The Prophet, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, said:“Verily, I was sent to perfect good manners.”]Ahmad[ Hence, the underlying reason of the message of the Prophet, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, is to correct morals and spread all that is good. Furthermore, the goal of all divine Messages is similarly a moral one, for religion, itself, is ]possessing[ good manners. Allaah The Almighty and His Messenger, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, connected faith and etiquette, because of its significance. When he, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, was asked about the best among the believers in terms of faith, he replied,“]He is[ the one who has the best manners among them.”]At-Tabaraani[ In fact, Islam considered faith as righteousness, as Allaah The Almighty Says )what means(:}Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but ]true[ righteousness is ]in[ one who believes in Allaah , the Last Day, the angels, the Book and the prophets...{]Quran 2: 177[ And,“righteousness is having good manners”, as the Prophet, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, said. ]Muslim[ Therefore, righteousness encompasses all virtuous actions; it may also be defined as a comprehensive name for all forms of goodness. Since there is a relation between morals and faith, so, too are morals and worship linked. That is because worship is, in essence, a moral spirit, because it is a fulfillment of divine obligations. This is much more evident in relation to transactions, which constitute another aspect of the Islamic Sharee‘ah. Accordingly, we notice that all aspects of Islam are interconnected through a moral code for the attainment of a principled goal. Thus, ethics represent the core of Islam and its legislative system is an entity that embodies it. Conducts are of two kinds: the good, which is demonstrated by polite and virtuous manners, which result in noble words and deeds, according to reason and Sharee‘ah; and the bad, which presents in discourteousness and vice, and results in, what are logically and Islamically, evil speech and actions. It is only the former, then, which constitute the best means that enable people to win the love of the Prophet, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and attain closeness to him on the Day of Resurrection, as he, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, said:“The most beloved among you to me and the nearest to me on the Day of Resurrection are those who have the best manners.”]At-Tirmithi[ Morals in Islam are not based on, nor shaped by, doctrinal theories, personal interests or environmental factors. Rather, they flow from the spring of faith, whose light shines the soul and is reflected inside out. They are not independent virtues; instead, they represent rings linked together within a single chain. Consequently, the creed of a Muslim is ]steeped in[ morality and his Sharee’ah is morals; if he or she disconnects any of these chains, it will result in a violation of his or her faith. The Prophet, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, said:“When an adulterer commits illegal sexual intercourse, he is not a believer during ]that time[. And, when someone drinks alcohol, he is not a believer at the time of his drinking. And, when a thief steals, he is not a believer when he robs.”]Al-Bukhaari[ Similarly, he, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, was asked, “Does the believer tell lies?” He replied in the negative and then recited the Saying of Allaah The Almighty )what means(:}They only invent falsehood who do not believe in the verses of Allaah, and it is those who are the liars.{]Quran 16: 105[ Good manners are the proof of Islam and its practical representation. The stronger the faith is, the sounder one’s manners. Therefore, morals are not forms of luxury that one can dispense with, because of changes in one's environment. They are not like a garment that a person wears when it is in style and then discards by the next season. Rather, they are as firm as the orbits in which planets move; they do not alter with the course of time, because they represent man’s Fitrah )natural inclination to truth(. Allaah The Almighty Says )what means(,}]Adhere to[ the Fitrah of Allaah upon which He has Created ]all[ people. No change should there be in the creation of Allaah.{]Quran 30:30[
- PUBLISHERNajimudeeN M
Share ::-