DARWINISM CAN NOT EXPLAIN THE HUMAN SOUL
Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, two biologists in Victorian England, claimed that all living species were descended from one another as a result of chance processes, and that they continued developing by those same changes until human beings finally emerged.
The first study on evolution by way of natural selection was jointly prepared by Darwin and Wallace. Instead of competing with one another on the subject of the theory of evolution, each admitted the other's contribution to this fantastical theory. Wallace even supported Darwin's theory of natural selection in his book entitled Darwinism.
When he heard of the book, Darwin's response was, "You should not speak of Darwinism for it can as well be called Wallacism." 1
However, the two biologists were shortly to take different paths with regard to their illusory theory.
The theory of evolution maintains that living species descended from one another, with all their differing anatomical and physical characteristics, by way of natural selection-a chance and therefore unconscious process. According to this claim, life that began with a bacterium gave rise to the whole variety of more than a million life forms existing today. (For detailed information, see The Evolution Deceit by Harun Yahya.)
Darwin believed that the principle of natural selection did not account for only the emergence of morphological features such as toes or the nose, but that it also determined brain structure and therefore, mental capacities. In Darwin's view, natural selection was the force that altered and developed human beings' abilities in music, art and literature and which influenced their ability to think and take rational decisions. However, Wallace did not share that view. He thought that Darwin's principles could account for fingers and toes or simpler features, but believed that it was impossible for superior human abilities such as mathematics and music to be the work of blind coincidence.
The main reason why Wallace opposed the idea that blind coincidence could be the source of a Mozart's abilities was the element that can be described as "potential intelligence." Wallace suggested that we imagine that we have taken a young member of Aborigines unable to read or write. Let us then educate that youngster in a modern state school in Rio, New York or Tokyo. There will of course be no difference between that youngster and children brought up in those cities. As Professor Vilayanur Ramachandran explained: "According to Wallace, this means that the aborigine or Cro-Magnon possesses a potential intelligence that vastly exceeds anything that he might need for coping with his natural environment. This kind of potential intelligence can be contrasted with kinetic intelligence, which is realized through formal education. But why the devil did this potential intelligence evolve? It couldn't have arisen for learning Latin in English schools. It couldn't have evolved for learning the calculus, even though almost anyone who tries hard enough can master it. What was the selection pressure for the emergence of these latent abilities?" 2
Since Wallace believed that organisms evolved by being descended from one another via unconscious processes, he wanted to discover how this imaginary theory could account for the development of human intelligence. However, since such a thing never actually happened, he was unable to come up with any logic to back up that claim.
In Wallace's words:
...when all modern writers admit the great antiquity of man, most of them maintain the very recent development of intellect, and will hardly contemplate the possibility of men equal in mental capacity to ourselves, having existed in prehistoric times. 3
Ramachandran provides the following clarification:
Both the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon cranial capacities were actually larger than ours, and it's not inconceivable that their latent potential intelligence may have been equal to or even greater than that of Homo sapiens. 4
In fact, even Darwin openly admitted that his theory could not explain the development of human intellect, and stated that his theory could be deemed invalid for that very reason:
...as man differs so greatly in his mental power from all other animals, there must be some error in this conclusion [i.e., that man descended from some lower form]. 5
Darwin's theory of evolution maintains that tigers, antelopes, rabbits-in short, all the living things on Earth-came into being by chance, with no conscious intervention involved. Darwinism regards chance as a false deity capable of performing miracles of evolution.
This theory, which is very definitely unsupported by science and is constructed on the most illogical foundations, has suffered a total defeat in the face of the perfect attributes of living things. Sublime, complex features prove Allah's perfect creation of all things.
That being so, what was the explanation for this major development that evolution could not account for? Wallace's answer was this: It was done by Allah. According to him, human grace was an earthly expression of "Divine grace." 6
At this point, there was a parting of the ways between Wallace and Darwin, who insisted that natural selection was the propulsive force of evolution and that even the most mysterious mental characteristics developed without being created by a Sublime Being. Darwin regarded Wallace's claims as a grave threat to his own theory, and said this about natural selection in a letter he wrote to Wallace in 1869: "I hope that you have not murdered too completely your own and my child." 7 This conclusion Wallace reached was of course incompatible with the theory of evolution, launched in order to be able to deny the existence of Allah and which drew its strength from materialism. For that reason, Wallace's ideas were swiftly swept under the carpet. Materialist circles needed to bring to the fore the idea that everything came into being through unconscious processes, and Darwin led the way in that regard.
The Lack of Evolutionary Evidence and the Biological Collapse of the Theory
Ever since the 19th century, materialists' main focus has been propaganda on behalf of Darwin and Darwinism. In the 19th century, which was far more scientifically backward compared to today, it was easy to claim that natural selection gave rise to the development of all living species. The fossil strata had not been examined in depth, and the principles of genetics had not yet been discovered. It was not hard for Darwin and his supporters to distract people with imaginary scenarios given the relative ignorance, at that time.
Yet even then, people were aware of the fact that human consciousness could not be explained in terms of evolution-as noted by Wallace, despite his being one of the founders of the theory of evolution. No mechanism that operated unconsciously could account for the existence of consciousness. Evolutionists maintained that events taking place by chance, and therefore permitting no room for consciousness, in some way gave rise to consciousness, awareness, and creativity.
Twentieth-century science also put an end to the theory of evolution in the fields of paleontology, biology and genetics. The theory's lack of proof and invalidity has been made clear, and it has been proven that living things were created with all their complex structures.
For this, there was no logical explanation. The theory of evolution suffered a major surprise in the 20th century. First, paleontology declared that the missing intermediate-form fossils that Darwin had been sure would be discovered in the future did not exist in the geologic record. Almost every sedimentary stratum in the world had been excavated, yet none of the intermediate forms expected by Darwin and his supporters had been found.
A second surprise for the theory of evolution was the newly discovered science of genetics, which soon showed that life forms were far too complex and had structures that were far too stable to have come about by way of the natural selection envisaged by Darwin.
Advances in science revealed that the cell was not a fluid-filled balloon, as Darwin had imagined, but an irreducibly complex structure consisting of many highly complex organelles and possessed of intelligent mechanisms.
150-million-year-old fossil Coelacanth
The discovery of DNA represented perhaps one of the most lethal blows to the theory of evolution. This giant molecule, containing all the genetic information of living things, was far too complex to have developed by chance, and also had too delicate a structure to permit any change to take place within it. According to evolution, living things changed in their descent from one another by acquiring entirely new structures, organs, and features belonging to other life forms. The facts revealed by the science of genetics, however, showed that this could not happen in the manner claimed by Darwin. No scientist could dispute the complexity revealed by genetics.
Accordingly, Darwinists felt the need to concentrate on elements that might lead to alterations in the genetic structure. The only mechanism they could find for that purpose, in their own eyes at least, was mutations. They quickly adapted a new theory, neo-Darwinism, and claimed that the "mechanism" of mutations brought about genetic change.
However, these people-all of them scientists-interestingly ignored that 99% of mutations are harmful or even fatal to the organisms, while the other 1% have no effect at all. Even under controlled laboratory conditions, it was impossible to bestow new genetic information on organisms by way of mutations, much less to turn them into more advanced life forms. On the contrary, every mutation either deformed an organism or led to its death. It thus became obvious what kind of effect mutations would have in an uncontrolled natural environment.
The conclusions revealed by paleontology and the facts demonstrated by genetics forced evolutionists to make constant new adjustments to their theories. Once genetics eliminated the possibility of evolution by means of natural selection, they put their hopes on mutations. And as paleontology revealed the truth about the fossil record, they resorted to the concept of "punctuated equilibrium." All the undeniable evidence against evolution revealed by science left the theory of evolution with no explanations to offer and left it totally bankrupt. The new modifications made to the theory never led to the results evolutionists had hoped for, not a single piece of evidence supports evolution.
Every claim made by the theory was discredited. All the claims made by evolutionists were scientifically refuted. Yet evolutionists knew that one subject in particular demolished all their claims right from the outset, and they openly admitted it. This was "consciousness," which Alfred Wallace described as being impossible to have developed by way of evolution, even as he proposed that very theory.
Consciousness Cannot Be Explained in Terms of Any Darwinist Claims
...In the physical realm, any theory of human evolution must explain how it was that an ape-like ancestor, equipped with powerful jaws and long, dagger-like canine teeth and able to run at speed on four limbs, became transformed into a slow, bipedal animal whose natural means of defense were at best puny. Add to this the powers of intellect, speech and morality, upon which we "stand raised as upon a mountain top" as Huxley put it; and one has the complete challenge to evolutionary theory. 8
-Evolutionist science writer Roger Lewin
After Darwin, evolution's proponents tried various explanations for the subject of consciousness, something which was utterly inexplicable in Darwin's terms. They claimed that imaginary primitive humans had encouraged the evolution of the brain by establishing communication with one another and by beginning to hunt and use tools. They then maintained that with the supposed development of the brain, language developed and that the ability to speak gave rise to rational thought-the most important difference between the human and the other animals.
But these claims lacked any scientific foundation. The fossil record provided not a single finding that constituted evidence for any of them. Scientific research, and experiments regarding language and consciousness, eliminated any possibility that such developments could have occurred.
All Darwinists had to offer were claims, which in roughly the same manner as all evolutionist literature, were described in terms of a dynamic scenario, but which referred to no scientific evidence. Why? Because evolution never happened.
Despite being an evolutionist, Henry Gee, editor of the well-known magazine Nature, makes the following comments concerning the illogical nature of this evolutionist claim:
...the evolution of Man is said to have been driven by improvements in posture, brain size, and the coordination between hand and eye, which led to technological achievements such as fire, the manufacture of tools, and the use of language. But such scenarios are subjective. They can never be tested by experiment, and so they are unscientific. They rely for their currency not on scientific test, but on assertion and the authority of their presentation. 9
In addition to being unscientific, this claim is logically inconsistent. Evolutionists maintain that the intelligence-which supposedly emerged by way of evolution-developed the use of tools, and that intelligence then developed thanks to the use of those tools!
Evolutionists need to be able to account for the contradiction inherent in this chicken-and-the-egg scenario. This only emphasizes the dichotomy into which Wallace fell as he proposed his theory of evolution, but it still applies to the theory of evolution today.
Phillip Johnson, one of the most influential critics of Darwinism, writes on the subject:
A theory that is the product of a mind can never adequately explain the mind that produced the theory. The story of the great scientific mind that discovers absolute truth is satisfying only so long as we accept the mind itself as a given. Once we try to explain the mind as a product of its own discoveries, we are in a hall of mirrors with no exit. 10
Robert Jastrow, Chairman of George Marshall Institute, comments:
It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors. 11
Darwinists must have realized that their claims regarding the evolution of human consciousness, based solely upon interpretation, were inadequate, inasmuch as they felt the need to dress the matter up with scientific terminology. They therefore suggested a concept they called "the phenomenon of emergence," which, they claimed, played a role.
According to Darwinists, a pure chance phenomenon could lead to the unexpected emergence of something else. They claimed that water was a classic scientific example. On their own, hydrogen and oxygen do not bear any water-like characteristics, but the water molecules that emerge when these chemicals are combined in a specific ratio exhibit properties that could not have been predicted beforehand, from either gas.