Evolution and the theory of God

By Dr Fereydun Rafiq Hilmi:

Part One (of two)

Evolution theory is more dependent on blind faith than the religion which it supposedly disproves. Like religion it uses selected facts to prove imaginary concepts with flawed arguments which are taken at face value by many who have been brainwashed into this; just as religious theory is hammered into people by asking them to cancel normal human reasoning, logic, scrutiny and analysis and take things on faith and at face value because the work of God cannot be queried.

Questions about what Darwin meant

The theory itself, like religion, is left vague and flexible with loop-holes to use against those who express doubt.

For example, it is not certain whether Darwin actually stipulated that the Fittest and only the fittest survive. If he did then we can see that he was completely wrong because, to believe that, we must believe that the millions of creatures now living and that have been for millions of years are all the “fittest” – which is clearly nonsense.

So, did he actually stipulate that man is a descendent of ape or that man is similar to ape? If he said the first thing then, not only did he not have any material evidence of this, but also we have proof that our 60 million ancestors are still with us and have not evolved in any way to anything like man in intelligence or abilities. Our ancestors still live in the jungle and they are so distant in development even though they started at the same point as us that they have to be kept iron cages refusing to speak a word or look after themselves, to keep clean, treat sickness and injuries, etc.

If we did make an evolutionary jump then why did only a proportion of all living creatures do so, when did that happen and why – these are questions which Darwin could not answer.

Darwin stipulated that evolution is a very slow process. Very fast processes could not be seen easily but a slow process will be seen quite easily. Man’s jump (if there was any) would have to be very fast and involving every individual of the species for it to have been missed and immediately stopped. The jury is still out on the so called Neanderthal man who we have not met and, apart from a few bones, know nothing about. All we have been offered is literally a handful of skulls of different shapes and sizes representing creatures that lived millions of years apart – but we are asked to believe a detailed story concocted from the imagination of some evolutionists hungry for a new religion they might call scientific.

Why is evolution so slow?

If the evolution process is so slow that we still have not witnessed it in action because it occurs over millions of years, then mankind will never be able to structure it or even model it because one state of any cell and its subsequent state would be a million years apart and there is no way of saying that it is the same cell. So now they tell you in a theological manner that evolution is not about the individual organism evolving but about the species as a whole changing form. This of course is an even more ridiculous idea because it is saying that there is a communal will of all individuals of a specie to change form. Gone, then, is the business of natural selection in favour of community-will action.

Is evolution a conscious, intelligent process or a dumb, random one?

We know as humans that our will is a conscious and not involuntary. The other part is controlled by the reaction of the involuntary system dealing with the physical environment. That part of course is not a planning or designing mechanism and it certainly cannot process the abstract logic necessary to deal intelligently with nature. We are, after all, talking about millions of processes recurring with absolute accuracy, rhythm and chronology using the most precise knowledge of the physical environment, not just in the immediate area of an evolving cell, but also of things that such a cell could not possibly know about. How would a cell with no sensors know about colour, shape and regular patterns that would evolve to a plant that produces the most breath-taking beautiful flower in all its glorious details and where did it get the necessary knowledge about flowers, their perfume and colour, let alone the process of “manufacturing” all the stages leading to the creation of the flower and then produce only that flower a million times in exactly the same quality, colours and perfume? What kind of a scientist will accept a theory that all that  – and millions of other millions of such examples – is the result of dumb, random processes triggered off in the primitive cells which found themselves in a prepared soup and that led to all that design, order, chronology and beauty and that those cells determined their own life spans and purpose in life and proceeded to create everything by themselves? What would be required to implement just one billionth of those achievements which evolutionists attribute to a dumb cell could not be achieved by a human with an IQ of 1000+ and expertise of hundreds of PhDs in every aspect of the physical world.

Is evolution a conscious or an involuntary process? The answer to this question will determine whether creatures evolve from single cell organisms and continue to do so as a community of cells in a body of a more advanced creature at random and without external help or intervention. We know that the first sub-divisions will produce identical cells but somehow after that they start grouping together to create the parts of the creature and these groups start undertaking specific tasks to complete the creation. Such organisation and division of tasks to create a living, complex and functioning creature is still not matched by any systems or engineering group. We must remember that these cells have no knowledge or training and now we must also add to this the fact that the cells themselves are the material as well as the equipment to convert the material into the final product. It is rather like steel cells creating a bridge but by using themselves as cranes, lifts, energy generators, designers, manufacturer quality-control engineers, organisers etc. Thus we see that creation can never be the result of random, involuntary processes and there must be a blueprint, an external super intelligence aiding that process. This concept is an everyday occurrence. We teach our children, make all sorts of products that function according to our designs and structures that we spend long times to modify and improve – and yet the evolution theory says there is a possibility that things started by themselves without external help. If, however, the processes are voluntary, deliberate and pre-planned then that implies that a deaf, dumb, blind and sensor-less cell embarked on this monumental action going from one intelligent design to an absolutely brilliant and impossibly complicated process and that is quite impossible and defies all logic and reason.

One dumb cell evolving is a bloody miracle but what about millions doing so?

Furthermore, it implies that millions of cells managed to achieve this great capability and went on to create different species of a myriad of shapes and designs at the same time leading to the members of the animal and plant kingdoms. That still leaves everything else in nature that is lifeless, complex, enormous and follows precise order and the laws of physics, chemistry, etc. … which someone must have put there.

How many cells started life on the planet?

Did a single cell start the entire animal and plant kingdoms? Did two cells start the animal and plant kingdoms?

Let us say that a single cell evolved, not only into a 2- 4- or 8- cells and so on organism, but that these cells managed right from the start to replicate (clone) themselves – a process which scores of scientists even today have not managed anything like – without any external help or knowledge. We know that today many millions of years later the sophisticated and learned human mind has only managed to implant the DNA of one cell into another empty cell to produce a clone with some success using highly sophisticated techniques, laboratories and very long research and trial and error in test tubes and with computer assistance. But we have to accept that a single cell – that never went to school, has no brain or even a single test tube to experiment, no eyes to see with, ears to hear with nor any other sense organs – somehow cloned itself, not once but millions of times.

How did single cells achieve such intelligence?

Our super genius cell also at some stage decided to created sensors, legs and arms, eyes etc. and to act. To make insects which again, with not a single day in school, decided to recreate themselves into two distinct genders and invented the various processes of procreation while continuously evolving in un-witnessed and unseen jumps from one species to another. Furthermore the other original cell decided a different route and specialised in becoming green vegetation advancing into a billion types of plant, shrubs, grass, trees, etc.

Our single cell of course needed nourishment and the converting of this into fuel to generate energy which all organisms and plants require. Now if I ask anyone to produce nourishment out of mud when that person has no brain, intelligence, means, knowledge, etc. I think you will agree that he will fail. Yet our primordial cell managed to feed itself as well as carry out those impossible tasks that I described above.

Swiss cheese logic of evolution

Evolution theory just skims over any details by simply assuming that they not only might have happened but that they happened without any external help, leading to the ridiculous conclusion that it was nature and living organisms that did it all and NOT a creator or God, if you like. That to me is even more far-fetched than saying God has human feelings and priorities, needs to be worshipped and loved and will send you to hell and heaven, depending on how you appeased him or her as religious theory stipulates.

Nature, it is is said by evolutionists, created it all – but who created nature? Without nature there would be no active life on any planet and there are billions of these planets. Galaxies etc. Who created nature in all its fantastic structures, laws and behaviour?

Now let’s again turn to the business of the single or multiple cells evolving. If evolution assumes multiple cells, then how did they come into being as multiple cells independently? Evidently if evolution is to have any credence then it is assuming a single cell from which all branches started. The first cell we must assume did not have a beginning (if we are to believe in the absence of a creator). But that assumption itself implies a creator and we have said that nature if credited with the creation of the cell must have been created by another creator and ultimately we are back to the theological theory.

Cells exhibiting communal intelligence

If multiple cells were present on Day One then what would make them evolve in the same way to, say, ape rather than camel, wolf or bacteria – and remain doing so over 60 million years? We are told camels evolved to camels, but from what no one is prepared to say. Man is said to have evolved from ape, but apes are still here with us and there has never been any sighting of an ape turning into man, physically or mentally. After 60 million years apes are still apes: eating, procreating, living and doing everything apes do, defying all attempts by misguided evolutionists to turn them into pseudo-humans. No amount of dressing up in human clothes of sleeping them in beds or living in the house has ever been able to change their hard-wired nature. Moreover, they still communicate, if at all, through screams and sharp sounds that we have no real understanding of.

Man to ape to …? Similarities between species is no evidence of evolution 

Just how did we come out of apes, suddenly a few hundred thousand years ago, and now live in luxury apartments, travel by airplanes and super cars, use computers, plan and build – and apparently we have been doing this mental evolution without changing species or becoming different creatures?

There is evidence of mental evolution and increase in intelligence but that has not led to a change of species.

Furthermore, evolution does occur from single cell to full human being but almost invariably in nine months and only as a result of deliberate procreation acts. That, however, must not be misinterpreted as Darwinism because it has nothing to do with long, random, dumb progression from one species into another. In fact, other than through the normal process, no man has ever been born of a single cell evolving over millions of years.

The similarity of creatures does not mean they are copies of each another or model improvements since whoever created nature and its creatures would be well capable of creating different models with similar parts, just as a car manufacturer uses common parts in different models. That does not mean that the latest models were actually old models that evolved by themselves.

There are no comments yet. Be the first and leave a response!

Leave a Reply

Wanting to leave an <em>phasis on your comment?

Trackback URL https://kurdistantribune.com/evolution-theory-of-god/trackback/