THE DECEPTION OF EVOLUTION

They will say, "If only we had really listened

and used our reason, we would not have been

Companions of the Blaze."

(Surat al-Mulk: 10)

THE DECEPTION OF EVOLUTION

Darwinism, in other words the theory of evolution, was put forward with the aim of denying the fact of creation, but is in truth nothing but failed, unscientific nonsense. This theory, which claims that life emerged by chance from inanimate matter, was invalidated by the scientific evidence of clear "design" in the universe and in living things. In this way, science confirmed the fact that Allah created the universe and the living things in it. The propaganda carried out today in order to keep the theory of evolution alive is based solely on the distortion of the scientific facts, biased interpretation, and lies and falsehoods disguised as science.

Yet this propaganda cannot conceal the truth. The fact that the theory of evolution is the greatest deception in the history of science has been expressed more and more in the scientific world over the last 20-30 years. Research carried out after the 1980s in particular has revealed that the claims of Darwinism are totally unfounded, something that has been stated by a large number of scientists. In the United States in particular, many scientists from such different fields as biology, biochemistry and paleontology recognize the invalidity of Darwinism and employ the concept of intelligent design to account for the origin of life. This "intelligent design" is a scientific expression of the fact that Allah created all living things.

We have examined the collapse of the theory of evolution and the proofs of creation in great scientific detail in many of our works, and are still continuing to do so. Given the enormous importance of this subject, it will be of great benefit to summarize it here.

The Scientific Collapse of Darwinism

Although this doctrine goes back as far as ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was advanced extensively in the nineteenth century. The most important development that made it the top topic of the world of science was Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, published in 1859. In this book, he denied that Allah created different living species on Earth separately, for he claimed that all living beings had a common ancestor and had diversified over time through small changes. Darwin's theory was not based on any concrete scientific finding; as he also accepted, it was just an "assumption" . Moreover, as Darwin confessed in the long chapter of his book titled "Difficulties of the Theory", the theory failed in the face of many critical questions.

Darwin invested all of his hopes in new scientific discoveries, which he expected to solve these difficulties. However, contrary to his expectations, scientific findings expanded the dimensions of these difficulties. The defeat of Darwinism in the face of science can be reviewed under three basic topics:

1) The theory cannot explain how life originated on Earth.

2) No scientific finding shows that the "evolutionary mechanisms" proposed by the theory have any evolutionary power at all.

3) The fossil record proves the exact opposite of what the theory suggests.

In this section, we will examine these three basic points in general outlines:

The First Insurmountable Step: The Origin of Life

The theory of evolution posits that all living species evolved from a single living cell that emerged on the primitive Earth 3.8 billion years ago. How a single cell could generate millions of complex living species and, if such an evolution really occurred, why traces of it cannot be observed in the fossil record are some of the questions that the theory cannot answer. However, first and foremost, we need to ask: How did this "first cell" originate?

Since the theory of evolution denies creation and any kind of supernatural intervention, it maintains that the "first cell" originated coincidentally within the laws of nature, without any design, plan or arrangement. According to the theory, inanimate matter must have produced a living cell as a result of coincidences. Such a claim, however, is inconsistent with the most unassailable rules of biology.

"Life Comes from Life"

In his book, Darwin never referred to the origin of life. The primitive understanding of science in his time rested on the assumption that living beings had a very simple structure. Since medieval times, spontaneous generation, which asserts that non-living materials came together to form living organisms, had been widely accepted. It was commonly believed that insects came into being from food leftovers, and mice from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty piece of cloth, and it was believed that mice would originate from it after a while.

Similarly, maggots developing in rotting meat was assumed to be evidence of spontaneous generation. However, it was later understood that worms did not appear on meat spontaneously, but were carried there by flies in the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye.

Even when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from non-living matter was widely accepted in the world of science.

However, five years after the publication of Darwin's book, Louis Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, that disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin's theory. In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said: "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."1

For a long time, advocates of the theory of evolution resisted these findings. However, as the development of science unraveled the complex structure of the cell of a living being, the idea that life could come into being coincidentally faced an even greater impasse.

Inconclusive Efforts in the Twentieth Century

The first evolutionist who took up the subject of the origin of life in the twentieth century was the renowned Russian biologist Alexander Oparin. With various theses he advanced in the 1930s, he tried to prove that a living cell could originate by coincidence. These studies, however, were doomed to failure, and Oparin had to make the following confession:

Unfortunately, however, the problem of the origin of the cell is perhaps the most obscure point in the whole study of the evolution of organisms.2

Evolutionist followers of Oparin tried to carry out experiments to solve this problem. The best known experiment was carried out by the American chemist Stanley Miller in 1953. Combining the gases he alleged to have existed in the primordial Earth's atmosphere in an experiment set-up, and adding energy to the mixture, Miller synthesized several organic molecules (amino acids) present in the structure of proteins.

Barely a few years had passed before it was revealed that this experiment, which was then presented as an important step in the name of evolution, was invalid, for the atmosphere used in the experiment was very different from the real Earth conditions.3

After a long silence, Miller confessed that the atmosphere medium he used was unrealistic.4

All the evolutionists' efforts throughout the twentieth century to explain the origin of life ended in failure. The geochemist Jeffrey Bada, from the San Diego Scripps Institute accepts this fact in an article published in Earth magazine in 1998:

Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth?5

The Complex Structure of Life

The primary reason why the theory of evolution ended up in such a great impasse regarding the origin of life is that even those living organisms deemed to be the simplest have incredibly complex structures. The cell of a living thing is more complex than all of our man-made technological products. Today, even in the most developed laboratories of the world, a living cell cannot be produced by bringing organic chemicals together.

The conditions required for the formation of a cell are too great in quantity to be explained away by coincidences. The probability of proteins, the building blocks of a cell, being synthesized coincidentally, is 1 in 10950 (10 raised to power 950) for an average protein made up of 500 amino acids. In mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 over 1050 (10raised to power 50) is considered to be impossible in practical terms.

The DNA molecule, which is located in the nucleus of a cell and which stores genetic information, is an incredible databank. If the information coded in DNA were written down, it would make a giant library consisting of an estimated 900 volumes of encyclopedias consisting of 500 pages each.

A very interesting dilemma emerges at this point: DNA can replicate itself only with the help of some specialized proteins (enzymes). However, the synthesis of these enzymes can be realized only by the information coded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, they have to exist at the same time for replication. This brings the scenario that life originated by itself to a deadlock. Prof. Leslie Orgel, an evolutionist of repute from the University of San Diego, California, confesses this fact in the September 1994 issue of the Scientific American magazine:

It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.6

No doubt, if it is impossible for life to have originated from natural causes, then it has to be accepted that life was "created" in a supernatural way. This fact explicitly invalidates the theory of evolution, whose main purpose is to deny creation.

" Verily this (Quran) is an Admonition: therefore, whoso will, let him take a (straight) path to his Lord" (al-Muzzammil, verse 19) , aims to open up a path for those who wish to draw near to Allah, comprehend His greatness, live by the morals of the Qur’an, and benefit from the blessings of our minds.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

The author, who writes under the penname Harun Yahya, was born in Ankara in 1956. He studied arts at Istanbul's Mimar Sinan University, and philosophy at Istanbul University. Since the 1980s, the author has published many books on political, faith-related and scientific issues. Greatly appreciated all around the world, these works have been instrumental in helping many to return their faith in Allah, and, in many others, to gain a deeper insight into their faith. Harun Yahya's books appeal to all kinds of readers, regardless of their age, race, or nationality, for they focus on one objective: to broaden the readers' perspective by encouraging them to think about a number of critical issues, such as the existence of Allah and His unity, and to live by the values He prescribed for them.

Vacation And Travels

" Post-retirement usually means living a tranquil life in a place call 'home'. But why do some people uproot themselves, move to a stranger land and start over again?? " Here is a story with a participant in Malaysia My Second Home"

Samantha Jones,38, remembers vividly that moment in 2002. "We were sitting on the lanai in Pelangi Resort and all of sudden i just felt it...wow, i don't think ever felt so relaxe in my whole life", recal Jones.

Samantha and her spouse, John,50, were holidaying in Langkawi for 10 days. " On the way to the airport, I cried all the way. I just didn't want to go home." The Joneses of Somerset Country have always talked about emigrating overseas when John, a fireman, retires after 32 years ofof service. At first, they thought of moving to Spain. But on their second vacation to Langkawi, they made up their minds to move here. Back in the UK, they did some research and found out about MM2H programme via internet.

Prince Harry makes farewell speech ahead of Iraq deployment

LONDON (AP): A British newspaper reported Saturday the contents of an alleged farewell speech by Prince Harry ahead of his much publicized posting to Iraq as a British army officer.

"I am nervous wreck,'' the News of the World, a weekly tabloid, reported Harry as telling a group of friends on Friday. "I've waited a long time and just want to get out there and serve my country.''

Commanders are reportedly reconsidering their decision to allow the prince to fight in Iraq because of fears that his presence could endanger other soldiers. Harry's regiment, the Blues and Royals, is due to begin a six-month tour of duty in Iraq within weeks.

Clarence House, Prince Charles' London office, would not comment on the report. "What he does in his private time is private,'' said a spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with royal household policy.

The spokesman said reference should be made to a speech made last year by Harry to mark his 21st birthday. In it, the third in line to the thrown said he would not have gone through the rigors of officer training at the elite Sandhurst military academy "then sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country.''

The tabloid reported Harry as telling a group of around 20 close friends at a London nightclub that he is prepared to "do anything they throw at me.''

As the speculation continues whether Harry will be deployed on the front line, the 22-year-old royal reportedly told the group that he would be honored to serve the country in any capacity required, adding that a final decision had yet to be made.

"It's a great, great feeling to go to Iraq,'' he reportedly said. "I don't know what to expect. I'm nervous, excited and apprehensive ... and I'm really looking forward to it. I just want to get out there and do it.''

Harry, a second lieutenant, is a tank commander trained to lead a 12-man team in four armored reconnaissance vehicles. If deployed, he would become the first royal to serve in a war zone since his uncle, Prince Andrew, flew as a helicopter pilot in the Falklands conflict with Argentina in 1982.

Seasonal slick

What are celebrities decked out in this season? Looks like it’s skinny jeans, classics, metallics and 1980s garb for day or night.

BEING in the public eye means your wardrobe will be scrutinised, and then either vilified or copied. Though you have to remember, with celebrities, it’s hard to tell if what you see is their own personal style or the work of a really good (or bad!) fashion stylist. Whether chosen personally or by the hired help, key looks for Spring-Summer are very much on display in Tinseltown at the moment, and we present a few here.

Small is big this season. Cutesy Kate Husdon wears a mini dress from Chanel Spring/Summer paired with black tights and heels. A sure way to sizzle.

Nicole Kidman glams up skinny black pants with a shiny cropped jacket. If you don’t want to look too glitzy, one way of still wearing shine this season is to offset it with something matte.

The gorgeous Charlotte Casiraghi, daughter of Monaco’s Princess Caroline and one of Europe’s most stylish young aristocrats, pairs a shimmery dress and beige fur coat with gold platforms, conforming to one of the season’s most popular looks: metallics. She also carries a silver Tod’s Boomerang bag.

Jennifer Lopez, always the hip fashionista, wears the season’s trends from head to toe, as seen in her super skinny jeans paired with a shrunken waistcoat. To finish off, she accessorises with a row of bangles and the perfect platforms.

Move-ability is good this season. Mary Stuart Masterson goes for volume in this white dress paired with cropped boots and a gold cuff.

Beyonce pulls off the stylish trench coat in a modern day take from Tod’s by Derek Lam and pairs it with glittery platforms for a polished and chic look.

Looking at wine

In the first of a five-part series on tasting, our oenologist shares how just looking at a glass of wine can tell you much about its quality.

THERE are millions of wines in the world, thousands of new wines entering the marketplace – and hundreds of people writing about wine. So, yes, you can read all you want about wine, but it is hardly the best way to learn about it.

Sampling wine is the best approach in the seemingly immense world of wine. And it is the most practical, as most people would seldom taste wine alone; it’s natural to gather like-minded friends who can share the cost of purchasing bottles.

Wine tasting groups can be formed anywhere – ask your friends if they are interested to take part. Form a group at your workplace, as wine tasting can be a good team building exercise. Contact your local wine merchant and he/she might have clients like yourself, looking to form a wine “club’’. Ultimately, in tasting with a few others, you get to exchange ideas and broaden perspectives through discussion.

Holding a glass of wine against a white background, like your notepaper, is a good way to really examine the colour of the wine. –

If you are a beginner, resist the temptation to taste a wide variety of wines. Instead, choose just one or two varieties. That way, you can taste various versions (vintages, diverse producers, different country/region, origins) of the same variety.

Advanced tasters might use similar wines. But they would be examining the wine in detail to learn about the intricate aspects of the wine. For example, whether natural yeast fermentations of the same variety might taste different from a wine fermented using freeze-dried yeast; whether the same variety, aged in American oak tastes different to that aged in French oak barrels.

Ultimately, you need a structured approach when tasting wines. We covered some of these aspects in various instalments of Uncorked but here’s a checklist for assessing wines by sight. I have also included some additional facets of wine that “advanced’’ tasters should look out for.

Eyes can inform

Limpidity – is the wine clear, limpid or crystal-clear, gassy or cloudy or hazy?

Brilliance – is it dazzling and does it reflect light, is it bright or dull, flat and murky?

Intensity – is it deep, or pale and lacking in intensity?

These are the tint and colour descriptors you should get to know:

White wines – white-gold, green-gold, pale-gold, golden, pale yellow, light yellow, canary yellow, green-yellow, gold-green, grey-yellow, water-green, amber-yellow, straw, old gold, rose.

Red wines – violet, purple, scarlet, garnet red, peony, deep purple, cherry red, dark cherry, bright cherry, ruby, bright red, brick red, orange-red, brown, mahogany, tile red.

Rosé wines – light scarlet, raspberry, light claret, orange tint, salmon, apricot. Quality rosé wines often show a purple edge when the glass is tilted. Sparkling wines – similar to descriptors for white or rosé wines, but also including a description of the size of bubble, quantity, rate, duration.

Condition – wines that are unusually brown (white wine) or too light coloured (red wine) for their “age” may have been adversely affected by premature oxidation or by improper storage (heat, light, etc).

Inferring from look, colour, tint

Maturity of wine – As the wine matures, colours change due to slow oxidation in the bottle. Ageing of wines in oak barrels is an oxidative process too. Red wines turn from red to ruby, brick red to mahogany and then tawny or amber brown. As tannins fall out in the sediment, so do the anthocyanins and colours. White wines turn a darker shade that changes from straw to gold and then to brown from slow oxidation.

Grape variety – for example, the thick skins of Zinfandel provide more colour, the thin skins of Pinot Noir provide less colour.

Maturity of fruit – colour builds up as the fruit approaches optimum ripeness.

Soil type – soils rich in iron produce more scarlet colour.

Growing temperature – cool climate grapes have relatively thicker skins and provide more pigments and colour. Warm dry summers produce more scarlet colour.

Extraction – The extraction of phenolic compounds, including anthocyanins, from grape skins during fermentation and maceration provides colour in wine. Higher fermentation temperatures extract more colour; and you can surmise that aromas are affected by higher temperature fermentations, and that the wine might taste more jammy rather than fruity or floral.

Others – The condition of the wine, whether it has been filtered or is there a lot of suspended particles in a young wine; the pH and its reactions with sulphur dioxide in wine, etc.

Telling age from colour

White wines – if they look green, they’re less than two years old; yellow means wine with a few years maturation; gold means well aged wine more than six years old.

Red wines – violet means youthful wines between one and three years old; ruby red are wines matured two to fours years in the bottle; tile red means mature wines, five to as much as 15 years old.

Rosé wines – whitish pink ones are less than two years old; pinkish grey means wines matured for two to fours years in the bottle; amber means a mature wine.

Ed Soon is a qualified oenologist and has run wine shops and worked as a winemaker in various countries. He now writes and teaches about wine around Asia.

Spiderman-3

Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) has finally found some measure of peace in his life. He has learned to strike a balance between his devotion to M.J. (Kirsten Dunst), and his duties as a friendly neighbourhood superhero.

But his seemingly perfect life may just be disrupted by that thing called er, ego. Of course, it may be he’s acting strange because of an alien symbiote (posing as a superhero costume); the perfect catalyst to start a storm a-brewin’ on the horizon.

As his masked alter-ego Spider-Man basks in the public's adulation for his accomplishments, Peter is pursued by the lovely Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard), who competes with M.J. for his affections.

All this attention goes right to Pete’s (Web)head -- he becomes overconfident and overbearing; a spider jerk who starts to neglect the people who care about him most.

When he finally realises that his new black costume has a life of its own, and is taking charge of his, he tries to get rid of it. But then there are still a new breed of supervillains - Sandman (Thomas Haden Church), The Green Goblin, and Venom (Topher Grace) – to contend with. Is this then, the end of Spider-Man?

Bird Flu Death

A 14-years old Indonesian boy has died of bird flu, a senior health ministry official said yesterday, citing result from local test. The boy was admitted to South Jakarta hospital on Wednesday and died on the same day.