How can your belief in God stand up against the theory of evolution?

It’s much more rational to believe in a God who created the universe than to suppose that life arose spontaneously out of nothingness. We can see all around us, in all places and at all times, evidence of the existence of God, the Creator of all things. We see this in His many Signs, in the cosmic order, in the creation of pairs, in the balance of nature and indeed in everything upon the face of this wide, wide earth. He has given us the Intelligence to perceive these Signs and so through them recognize Him as our Creator.

   It is Creation that holds the key to the mystery of existence. The universe could not have come into being from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing.  This is why God challenges the atheists to consider a very simple question about existence:

Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators ?

(The Mount:35)

Any rational person will tell you this. For example, if you were to see a maggot in your meat, would you assume it came from nothing? A child might and some philosophers of old thought that maggots came into being from nothing –spontaneous life they called it – but today we know that maggots are really little fly grubs that have arisen from tiny eggs laid by flies on rotting matter. Would you see an egg and conclude that it came from nothing? No. You know it had to have an origin. As such, the very existence of creation itself is testimony to God’s existence. If you can believe that the world is real, then you must also believe in its maker. The Qur’an brings this fact out very clearly when it asks man to ponder over the wonders of nature:

Do you see that (human seed) which you throw out? Is it you who create it, or are We the Creators? See you the seed that you sow in the ground? Is it you that cause it to grow, or are We the Cause? See you the water you drink? Do you bring it down from the cloud or do We? See you the fire which you kindle? Is it you who grows the tree which feeds the fire, or do We?

(The Inevitable:58-72)

  Likewise, the universe had to have a beginning. That beginning is God. In the Qur’an we read:

He is the First and the Last. The Evident and the Hidden. And he has full knowledge of all things

(Iron: 3)

Thus God is Alpha and Omega. There was nothing before Him and nothing after Him. He is All Encompassing. As the Prophet used to say:

O my Lord! You are the Beginning, and nothing existed before You

(Saheeh Muslim)

In like vein the Rg Veda declared in its Hymn of Creation:

There was neither death nor immortality, nor was there then the torch of night and day. The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining. There was one then and none else

So it is God who is the beginning of everything. Scientists today tell us that the universe originated with a Big Bang where all the matter that exists today was once squished into an infinitely dense, ultra-hot fireball called the singularity which exploded billions of years ago to give rise to what we call the universe. But they still cannot tell us how the matter that originated with the Big Bang got there. If as the basic laws of physics hold that matter cannot be created or destroyed then where do we ask did the original matter come from?

   Then take the elements, the basic fundamental units of matter as we know it. Which power in the universe gets them to combine to give us the molecules that go into the making of more complex substances? We still don’t know, which is why British Novelist D.H.Lawrence observed some time ago: “Water is H2O, Hydrogen two parts, Oxygen one, but there is also a third thing that makes it water and nobody knows what that is”.

   Again ask yourself: What power drives the electrons in the atoms or planets around the sun or even endows the little ungainly seed its ability to develop into a beautiful flower?  The sun gives us light it’s true, but then who gave the sun its light? The hen gives us eggs it’s true, but who gave the hen its eggs? And which came first, the egg or the hen? When you ponder over these questions, you can naturally come to only one conclusion, and that is that there has to be a God and that He is the Power that drives the universe and sustains all of creation.

    Everything in the universe has a marvelous design and one simply cannot imagine it coming into existence without a designer. You have only to look at snowflakes, stalactites or sand dunes in the environment around you to realize how ubiquitous such design is in nature, as if the Divine Hand had touched each and every aspect of creation. It all points out to a deliberate design, not a chaotic haphazard development as atheistic science would have us believe. So just like a matchstick needs a maker or bread a baker, the cosmos needs a creator. The universe also has order. like a clock with the most precise clockwork. There is order in the universe and anything that is ordered necessarily indicates intelligence. For example, if you were to gaze at the sky and notice a trail of smoke with the words PEACE would you conclude that this is a chance occurrence of clouds forming those letters ? No, you’ll infer that it is a very deliberate attempt to scrawl it in the sky by means of an airplane, in other words, an intelligence behind the letters that have been ordered in such a way that you could easily comprehend it. Would you ever have imagined that it happened by chance. Certainly not!

    Likewise we will find that everything in the universe from the tiniest atom to the vastest galaxies is so well ordered and operates in such perfection that it simply could not have come into being by random chance. Indeed, the universe is so highly ordered that were if not for the sum total of the laws of the universe operating in perfect harmony, life on earth would be all but impossible. It’s as if everything in the universe, the totality of the laws of physics, chemistry and biology had all been tailored to make life possible. Take that universal force we know as gravity. How gravity came to be, we still do not know. All that scientists can say is that as the universe began to expand following the Big Bang, atoms simply floated around in the dark void of space and that this thing called gravity emerged as if from nowhere, and began gathering them into clumps that would eventually become planets, stars and galaxies. Even then, the scientists cannot explain how this force of gravity had to be just right for it all to happen. If the force of gravity was a bit weaker, it would never have had the power to gather together the atoms to form the universe as we know it.

   If it was even a bit more stronger the atoms would simply have been pulled together into a single mass resulting in a Big Crunch. The strength of gravity had to be just right for the universe to form, and when I say ‘right’ it’s like saying that you have to be exactly a certain weight, not heavier or lighter by even one billionth of a gram. That’s the kind of difference needed to determine whether the universe comes to existence or not.

   Now consider how the earth and other heavenly bodies swim in their own orbits under the cosmic pull of the sun so that they are suspended in space like a ball in the air without going off course and disrupting the order of the universe as if a path had been laid for them in the vastness of space?

   What power in the heavens drives them and determines their course? You certainly know that life on earth would not be possible without the sun, but did you know that even if we did not have a moon, life on earth would not be possible. This is because the moon affects the gravitational force of the earth to stabilize its axis. If it did not, it would increase the earth’s rotation to such an extent that a day would be only a few hours long, making life on this planet of ours impossible. Is it any wonder then that God should remind us:

And He has subjected for you the night and day and the sun and moon, and the stars are subjected by His Command. Indeed in that are signs for a people who reason

(The Bee:12)

When we see that the laws governing the universe are in perfect order and operating in perfect harmony with one another, it is only natural to suppose that they must have been put together in an organized way – by An Organiser. This idea of intelligent Organiser is best explained by the existence of God, the Uncaused First Cause that Caused all else to come into existence. Such a Primal Cause must of necessity be eternal and self-sufficient, transcendent and unbound by the limitations of Time and Space. This Cause must also be extremely intelligent, given what little we can make out of the universe around us. This Cause we know as God. With Intelligent Design must come the Intelligent Designer and that Intelligent Designer must be One. He cannot be Two, Three or Four. This is a pre-condition of creation and of the impeccable order in our universe.

   Some of the greatest scientific minds in the West are agreed that so many exacting conditions are necessary for life on earth that they could not possibly come into being by chance. One of the wisest among them, a gentleman known as Abraham Cressy Morrison, an American Scientist who wrote an interesting little book Seven Reasons Why a Scientist believes in God, points out for instance how the earth rotates on its axis 1000 miles an hour at the equator; if it turned at 100 miles an hour, our days and nights would be ten times as long as now, and the hot sun would likely burn up our vegetation each long day while in the long night any surviving sprout might well freeze. Again the sun, source of our life, has a surface temperature of 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and our earth is just far enough away so that this “eternal life” warms us just enough and not too much! If the sun gave off only one half its present radiation, we would freeze, and if it gave as much more, we would roast.

    He further points out that the slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of 23 degrees, gives us our seasons; if the earth had not been so tilted, vapors from the ocean would move north and south, piling up for us continents of ice. If our moon were, say, only 50,000 miles away instead of its actual distance, our tides might be so enormous that twice a day all continents would be submerged; even the mountains could soon be eroded away. If the crust of the earth had only been ten feet thicker, there would be no oxygen, without which animal life must die. Had the ocean been a few feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been absorbed and no vegetable life could exist. Thus it is evident from these and a host of other examples that there is not one chance in billions that life on our planet could have been an accident.

   Then take the unique system of checks and balances that ensure life on earth is sustained. Take what this same scientist said when he observed that many years ago a species of cactus was planted in Australia as a protective fence. Having no insect enemies in Australia, the cactus soon began a prodigious growth; the alarming abundance persisted until the plants covered an area as long and wide as England, crowding inhabitants out of the towns and villages, and destroying their farms. Seeking a defense, entomologists scoured the world; finally they turned up an insect which lived exclusively on cactus, and would eat nothing else. It would breed freely, too; and it had no enemies in Australia. So animal soon conquered vegetable, and today the cactus pest has retreated – and with it all but a small protective residue of the insects, enough to hold the cactus in check forever. Such checks and balances have been universally provided. Why have not fast-breeding insects dominated the earth? Because they have no lungs such as man possesses; they breathe through tubes. But when insects grow large, their tubes do not grow in ratio to the increasing size of the body. Hence there never has been an insect of great size; this limitation on growth has held them all in check. If this physical check had not been provided, man could not exist. Imagine meeting a hornet as big as a lion!

    All this my friend is not coming from me, but from one of your greatest scientists. Isn’t this itself reason enough for you to at least reconsider the fact that God must of necessity exist? When such scientists conceive of God, they think in terms of a universal, all merciful God, not the vengeful tribal deity the Jews have made him to be or the confusing trinity most Christians think Him to be.

    God Almighty reminded us of this wonderful order of the universe well over a thousand years before scientists like Cressy could even put their minds to it:

No want of proportion will you see in the creation of the Most Gracious. So turn your vision again. See you any flaw?

(The Dominion:3)

Little wonder that Werner Von Braun, the German-born founder of the U.S. space program and one of the twentieth century’s greatest scientists who pioneered rocketry and developed the Saturn V rocket that took man to the moon, had this to say:

              For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must one really light a candle to see the sun? Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize God. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet, it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airlines through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him?

                Yes my friend, evolution is unproven and unprovable. The Only reason why materialist scientists cling on to it is that the only other alternative is Divine Creation, which to them is simply unthinkable. Can random chance explain why the natural laws that govern the universe exist, like why the heavenly bodies are all rounded, or why planets orbit stars or why they exert gravitational pull on objects? Can it explain what life is or how it came into existence? Can it explain what power on earth makes the heart beat to ensure we live, pumping blood a 100,000 times a day, a whopping forty million times a year without stopping? Can it explain how the sexes came to be, how the sex organs of male and female came to fit one another so well as if they were deliberately designed one for the other, like key and keyhole, and that too in rapturous delight? Can it explain what impels one sex to be drawn toward the other by the magnetic pull of love and attraction or from where a single impregnated cell gets its power to replicate itself over and over again to form an organism, splitting and growing till it becomes a single, integral and yet multicellular being issuing forth from its mother’s womb; what power drives cells that have their beginnings as alike as peas to differentiate so as to form different organs of the body like the eye, brain, bones and skin?

                   Can it explain what we call the ecological balance or how the food chain operates. How come prey and predator evolved simultaneously, one nourishing the other throughout the ages and surviving to the present day. How is it that plants emerged at the same time and place to be eaten by herbivores and herbivores had to be there to be eaten by carnivores? Isn’t it worse than having to ponder over which came first, the hen or the egg ?

    Can evolution explain how nature came to have the wonderful equilibrium we see all around us, if not for which life would be all but impossible, like how animals came to use up oxygen for respiration, turning it into carbon dioxide while at the same time plants came to use this carbon dioxide to process their food through photosynthesis, turning it into oxygen, each doing its part for the other’s survival? How I ask could this cycle upon which life depends have been created by such life itself ?

  Can evolution explain what scientists call ‘the balance of nature’, the notion which holds that of necessity that there must be some animals who hunt, and some who are hunted; some who eat plants and some who eat flesh. Scientists tell us that if all animals were plant-eaters, there would be so many of them that they would eat the world bare and there would not be enough food to go around. By having some animals feed on others, their number is kept down so that life on earth is not threatened by some mass starvation event.  What these scientists don’t ask themselves is how the meat eaters came to be. Did they suddenly decide to switch from vegetarian to meat-eater anticipating mass starvation if they didn’t. That’s hard to believe as we know that herbivores remain herbivores and carnivores carnivores and this has been so from the age of the dinosaurs. So if they did not evolve, we have to ask ourselves, who put them there?

    Can evolution explain the beauty we see in nature, like the marvelous designs we see in the wings of the butterfly with its geometric patterns so very even or the beautiful coat of a spotted leopard? If as evolution tries to explain butterflies with an eye shape on their wings survived because predators from high feared them, how come other butterflies without the trait survived?

    Can evolution account for the mystery of sex, this unique bifurcation of almost every species of animal and plant into male and female. How did it come to be and what was the reason for it? Why are males attracted to females and females to males and why do they need to unite to produce offspring? How is it that everything in nature is geared towards this end, this manic obsession to reproduce one’s kind?  How is it that the plumage of male birds is brightly coloured for courtship displays while that of the females is drab? How is it that insect pollinated flowers are brightly coloured, well scented and produce nectar to attract insects which feed on the nectar in the process becoming covered with the pollen grains and transfer to the next flower they visit. How is it that wind pollinated flowers produce lighter pollen grains that are blown by the wind to other flowers? How is it that succulent fruits are brightly coloured to entice animals and tasty enough to be eaten by them so that their seeds are dispersed to a wider area to spread their kind far and wide rather than take root near its parent and threaten the survival of the entire species? How is it that dry fruits have wings or parachutes to disperse in air or even hooked pericarps to aid dispersal in animal fur?

    Can evolution account for the long neck of the giraffe to eat from tall trees or the beautiful plumage of the peacock to attract the peahen? Can it account for the bright lights the firefly uses to attract her mate? Can it explain how human mothers who give birth to a single infant or twins at a time have two nipples to nurse their babes, while cats and dogs that give birth in litters have several, one teat to nurse each offspring?

    Can the dazzling beauty of birds, of fish, of flowers all be the product of natural selection ? Can the perfectly hexagonal combs bees make be explained on this basis? How is it that every single organ of an animal has a purpose, for does not even so trifling an organ as the tail of a cow serve the purpose of a fly-flapper. How is it that weak-sighted bats make up for their low visual ability by uttering shrill sounds, the equivalent of an advanced sonar or radar, to help them to find their way ? How is it that carnivorous plants use bright colours and scented nectar to attract their prey?

   Indeed, can evolution explain the unique phenomenon we call sight, a faculty shared by most creatures on this earth. Think about it, what a wonderful sense this is? This faculty by which we perceive our external environment and make out objects, discern distances and even enjoy the beautiful colours of life, which we otherwise would have absolutely no idea of. What gave rise to the unique organ we call the eye and how come we all have a pair of eyes for better perception?  How come teeth got its enamel and the tongue its taste buds? How come the eyes got its eyelids and the brain its skullcase?  How come each hand has five fingers and each foot five toes? Can evolution explain it all?

    Ask yourself, could life simply have come into existence from non-life – from inanimate chemical matter?  How could living things have originated from non-living elements, in this case inanimate clumps of carbon and other atoms which exhibit well defined physical properties even when they combine with one another to form molecules irrespective of the influence of time or space, none of which show any hint of life whatsoever. In fact, making sense of life at the molecular level is impossible, nay unthinkable.

   Let’s just take a single living cell, the assembling ‘blueprint’ of which is locked, so to say, into the DNA present in its nucleus. This DNA dictates the order of assembly of the amino acids and the RNA carries it out. But there’s a problem here. Proteins which are the building blocks of life cannot form without DNA, but at the same time neither can DNA form without proteins. So we have a conundrum here just like the classical one of which came first, the chicken or the egg?

    Nature is full of such paradoxes that even stupefy seasoned scientists. Could such a blueprint for life have come into being without simultaneous planning? Nobody, even in the most advanced laboratories of the world, has ever managed to manipulate inanimate substances to produce a living cell, however much they have managed to replicate the conditions of a primitive earth.

    Indeed, did you know that scientists themselves have calculated that the probability of life evolving from a primeval soup of organic matter is one in 1040000. Why? Because there are over 2,000 independent enzymes necessary for life. The probability of building any one of these is less than one in 1020 and the likelihood of getting them all by a random trial is one in 1040000. Such a small probability could not be possible even if the entire universe comprised of an organic soup. A typical enzyme consists of 100 amino acids and since there are 20 kinds of amino acids, they add up to 20,100 possible combinations The possibility of a specific enzyme forming by chance in a single step from among so many possible combinations is 1 in 10130. It is extremely improbable that such complex proteins arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. And yet that is what we would have to suppose if we held on to the evolutionists views.

    To illustrate the enormity of the problem, let us take the respiration enzymes. We’ll have to assume they all existed completely in the cell before it first came into contact with oxygen. This is because those failing to use oxygen fully, in the intermediate level would disappear as soon as they react with oxygen. So we would have to assume that all enzymes necessary for the cell entered it at once by some coincidence or else were formed in that cell all at once, both of which go against the grain of the evolutionary model. There is no absolutely no way that the components of this complex system could have formed all at once, in the right place, at the right time, so as to be compatible with one another.

    How can one explain the manner in which a human develops from a tiny fertilized cell that keeps on splitting and splitting to form millions of cells with the same genetic material that eventually take on different functions, coalescing to make tissues that form skin to clothe our bodies, muscles to protect our organs, bone to give us support, stomach to absorb our nutrition and heart to beat and pump blood to convey life giving oxygen to the other parts of the body and as if that were not enough know exactly when to stop developing when our term is up to come out into the world. If not for it, we would become monstrosities with the cells not knowing when to stop replicating. It’s as if it had all been pre-programmed, this phenomenon scientists call mitosis. But who or what on earth put it there!

    Yes, life is that complex, from the teeniest cell to our brains which is by far our most complex organ. Indeed could the immense complexity of the human brain or any brain for that matter have come into being by random chance?  Think about the kind of intelligence that would have gone into its making, for the mind to think, for the neurons to act and the different parts to function to control our movements and absorb sight, taste and smell and discharge functions which even a super computer cannot. Artificial intelligence still remains in the realm of science fiction. And mind you, it was the complexity of the brain alone which prompted Atheist Alfred Russel Wallace to switch from godlessness to a belief in a Creator.

    The same holds true of every bodily function, each presenting its set of problems science finds insurmountable. Take sight for example.  Did you know that the eye is composed of 40 essential components such as the retina, lens and light sensitive cells. If even a single component did not exist, the eye will fail to function. For an eye to be able to see, it has to form simultaneously with all these 40 components that make vision possible together with the other factors that make sight possible such as light sensitive optical nerves which convert incoming the light impulses to an image the conscious mind can comprehend . For instance acquiring a lens will have no meaning in the absence of a retina.  It could simply not have been a step-by-step process since in the absence of even one, an eye that is unable to see will become vestigial and disappear before it can fully form. It would be useless until the full structure was in place. In other words an eye can perform its functions only when fully developed, just as the wings of a bird or butterfly. Thus all these components had to come about simultaneously which needless to say is surmounted by immense obstacles that evolutionists themselves cannot explain in a rational way. After all, which random process could possibly explain such a complex development? Could it be blind chance?  Certainly not, because life is no random event or accident of nature. It is an enigma that can only be explained by a deliberate and intelligent act of creation.

  Then take human hairlessness when compared to the apes. Why should humans have shed their fur for naked skin? Did shedding body hair offer the ‘evolutionary advantage’ of freeing humans from the burden of parasites like fleas, ticks and lice as some would contend or as Darwin could simply contend “man or rather primarily woman, became divested of hair for ornamental purposes” just as he theorized that the peacock’s tail was the evolutionary product of the peahens’ choices. Some might venture to suggest, ingeniously combining the two ideas, that human hairlessness evolved because of mating choice as it was a sure sign that no parasites were lurking in the fur of their mates. But then, we ask, what happened to the rest if this were so. Do we see a hairy variety of men or for that matter women among us. What happened to them?  Could this preference have swept through the population eliminating these undesirables like the wave of a wand? Did the hairy ones face some sort of mass extermination? Or did they run and hide in the caves never to emerge again?

    Can evolution explain why a newborn babe is so dependent on its mother, unlike the apes whom it supposes men descend from. Does not this go against the very grain of evolutionary theory of the survival of the fittest which holds that only positive features survive while negative traits are eliminated through natural selection over time?

   Can evolution explain why almost all animals on the face of this earth, including humans, dogs, cats, mice, cows and elephants, have a pair of eyes, the better to see with, two ears, the better to hear with, nose to smell with, mouth to eat with, limbs to hold and walk with and even similar looking genitalia to copulate with?  Would not this mean, if we are to explain it through evolution, that the ancestral form of all these creatures should have also had all these features? One can only picture how this proto creature – or should I say proto-evoluture, since evolutionists don’t believe in creation, but evolution- must have looked like since no fossils exist of such a fellow. We must also ask ourselves, how could this one beast have evolved into so many different forms? Could mutation account for all these forms when there must have been constant mating and in-breeding among them from the earliest times.

   Indeed it’s all so puzzling that many scientists today admit that the evolutionary theory faces impossible quandaries that are outside the bounds of natural science. This is why you often see them employ the term “Mother Nature”, as if nature were a living entity, directing the course of evolution, even to the extent of bestowing necessary organs and removing redundant organs or giving creatures special impulses like instinct to organize themselves as groups or communities, notwithstanding the general thought in evolutionary circles that nature is not a benevolent force but a living battlefield where the survival of the fittest comes first.

    If evolution had indeed taken place, why don’t we have intermediate forms of flora or fauna ? If evolution were an ongoing process, why don’t we see evidence of it today, taking place even at the present moment?  Not only that, we don’t even see forms between life and non-life, between animate forms and inanimate substances. Rather nature, from amoeba to man, is more or less fixed and each species has its own characteristics. In other words each and ever species is a dead end. And if it’s a dead end, the only assumption is that it had to have an abrupt beginning. Creatures may acquire immunity or evolve longer beaks over time, but that doesn’t change what they essentially are.

   That is why there are no ‘missing links’ between one species and other. They simply don’t exist. For example, despite the much hyped story that man evolved from apes, not one shred of evidence of a missing link between ape and man has been found. The only ‘missing link’ ever presented, the remains of Piltdown man retrieved from a gravel pit in Piltdown, England, in 1912 proved to be a fake. The specimen given the Latin name of Eoanthropus dawsoni (“Dawson’s dawn-man”) after its collector  Charles Dawson was shown to be an elaborate forgery in 1953. It was formed of a lower jawbone of an orangutan deliberately fused with the cranium of a modern human.

    Darwin’s theory of natural selection holds that survival of a species depends on how they best adapt to the prevailing environment and that those that lack these advantages will become extinct with time. For instance, in a herd of giraffe threatened by scarce food, those able to stretch their necks the furthest will naturally survive. The others will simply starve to death and the result will be the remaining herd of long-necked giraffe.  Yet one must bear in mind no matter how long this process continues, it will never turn a creature into any other species. Can you in your wildest stretch of imagination imagine a giraffe originating from a horse. Horses always remain horses and never become anything else.

    Ask yourself whether acquiring a new physical trait, say for instance, the longer beaks of birds that have evolved to drink milk from milk bottles change the genetic structure of a creature? It simply cannot. In the supposed transition from sea to dry land which evolutionists postulate, one may ask how could fishes’ gills have turned into lungs and their fins into legs, and that too all at once? How could birds have evolved from reptiles, when their wings differ so much structurally from the scales of reptiles? How could they, when reptiles are cold blooded and birds warm blooded?

    Notwithstanding this obstacle, evolutionists hang on to mutations that could give rise to new species. But little is it known that mutant genes are almost always harmful and hardly if ever give rise to good traits. Scientists pursuing this elusive dream have exposed countless generations of fruit flies to radiation to evolve a higher species, but only obtained sterile, defective or hideous creatures with legs protruding from their heads. Further, we must ask ourselves whether we have been sitting around for millennia just waiting for favorable mutations to occur and then anxiously guard ourselves against others that are harmful when it is beyond our control to do so. One might as well say that a magic wand suddenly appeared from nowhere to change the frog to a prince.

   The fact is that life on earth emerged all of a sudden and not through a series of mindless accidents. The oldest fossil record, that of the Cambrian, said to be about 500 million years old, contains very advanced forms of life with eyes, gills and other organs all of which seem to have emerged suddenly without any primitive forms preceding them. This explosion of life all of a sudden has baffled scientists. Trilobites for instance had extraordinarily complex eyes consisting of hundreds of comb-like components and a double-lens structure. And snails, crustaceans, starfish and sea urchins of the time show the exact structures they do today. Where then are the intermediate forms in the fossil record? Surely there would have been countless forms of them, but none are to be found.

    The same holds true of plants. Not a single fossil has been found showing any evidence of one plant evolving into another. There exist no intermediate forms. Despite so many plant fossils been unearthed, not one has been shown to be the ancestral form of another. They are all perfectly formed, flawless and beautiful as their counterparts are today. They are also structurally very different from one another. Indeed can one imagine that weeds, grasses, plants and trees so vastly different from one another have emerged from a common source ? Certainly not.

   Although we know that in nature instances of evolution do take place like the long beaks of birds that have evolved in response to pinch milk from milk bottles, they do not cross their bounds to transform one species into another. Rather we have to look upon such developments as an emanation of the boundless mercy of God, in providing these poor birds the ability to get their sustenance. How else could they have got their long beaks? As the old saying goes: God gave us teeth, he’ll give us bread!

    What all this shows is that all life originated in a single act by an Intelligent Creator rather than evolving from a lower to a higher state as the evolutionists would have us believe. Yet little do they realize that in their zeal in deceiving others, they are only deceiving themselves. Honest scientists are taught never to overlook anything, but yet they overlook the fact of God, denying even the first principle of science.

    The fact of the matter is that the most scientific explanation for the world around us is divine creation. To believe in evolution is like saying you could turn out a beautiful castle Disneyland style complete with spires and chandeliers by continuously bombarding a range of rugged mountains from high.  Yet, the more we dive into the wellsprings of the natural order, the more convinced we become that the greatest problems in science cannot be solved without believing in God. It restores our faith rather than making us doubt it.


Check Also

Does Islam tolerate religious minorities?

True, Islam is a missionary faith that, like Christianity, obliges its followers to carry its …