Most people accept everything they hear from scientists as strictly
true. It does not even occur
to them that scientists may also have various philosophical or
ideological prejudices. The fact of the matter is that evolutionist
scientists impose their own prejudices and philosophical views on the
public under the guise of science. For instance, although they are
aware that random events do not cause anything other than irregularity
and confusion, they still claim that the marvellous order, plan, and
design seen both in the universe and in living organisms arose by
chance.

For instance, such a biologist easily grasps that there is an awe-
inspiring harmony in a protein molecule, the building block of life,
and that there is no probability that this might have come about by
chance. Nevertheless, he alleges that this protein came into existence
under primitive earth conditions by chance billions of years ago. He
does not stop there; he also claims, without hesitation, that not only
one, but millions of proteins formed by chance and then amazingly came
together to create the first living cell. Moreover, he defends his
view with a blind stubbornness. This person is an "evolutionist"
scientist.

If the same scientist were to find three bricks resting on top of one
another while walking along a flat road, he would never suppose that
these bricks had come together by chance and then climbed up on top of
each other, again by chance. Indeed, anyone who did make such an
assertion would be considered insane.
How then can it be possible that people who are able to assess
ordinary events rationally can adopt such an irrational attitude when
it comes to thinking about their own existence?

It is not possible to claim that this attitude is adopted in the name
of science: scientific approach requires taking both alternatives into
consideration wherever there are two alternatives equally possible
concerning a certain case. And if the likelihood of one of the two
alternatives is much lower, for example if it is only one percent,
then the rational and scientific thing to do is to consider the other
alternative, whose likelihood is 99 percent, to be the valid one.

Let us continue, keeping this scientific basis in mind. There are two
views that are set forth regarding how living beings came into being
on earth. The first is that God creates all living beings in their
present complex structure. The second is that life was formed by
unconscious, random coincidences. The latter is the claim of the
theory of evolution.

When we look at the scientific data, that of molecular biology for
instance, we can see that there is no chance whatsoever that a single
living cell-or even one of the millions of proteins present in this
cell-could have come into existence by chance as the evolutionists
claim. As we will illustrate in the following chapters, probabilistic
calculations also confirm this many times over. So the evolutionist
view on the emergence of living beings has zero probability of being
true.

This means that the first view has a "one hundred percent" probability
of being true. That is, life has been consciously brought into being.
To put it in another way, it was "created". All living beings have
come into existence by the design of a Creator exalted in superior
power, wisdom, and knowledge. This reality is not simply a matter of
conviction; it is the normal conclusion that wisdom, logic and science
take one to.

Under these circumstances, our "evolutionist" scientist ought to
withdraw his claim and adhere to a fact that is both obvious and
proven. To do otherwise is to demonstrate that he is actually someone
who is exploiting science for his philosophy, ideology, and dogma
rather than being a true scientist.

The anger, stubbornness, and prejudices of our "scientist" increase
more and more every time he confronts reality. His attitude can be
explained with a single word: "faith". Yet it is a blind superstitious
faith, since there can be no other explanation for one's disregard of
all the facts or for a lifelong devotion to the preposterous scenario
that he has constructed in his imagination.

Blind Materialism

The false faith that we are talking about is the materialistic
philosophy, which argues that matter has existed for all eternity and
there is nothing other than matter. The theory of evolution is the so-
called "scientific foundation" for this materialistic philosophy and
that theory is blindly defended in order to uphold this philosophy.
When science invalidates the claims of evolution-and that is the very
point that has been reached here at the end of the 20th century-it
then is sought to be distorted and brought into a position where it
supports evolution for the sake of keeping materialism alive.

A few lines written by one of the prominent evolutionist biologists of
Turkey is a good example that enables us to see the disordered
judgement and discretion that this blind devotion leads to. This
scientist discusses the probability of the coincidental formation of
Cytochrome-C, which is one of the most essential enzymes for life, as
follows:

The probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as
likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can
be said that this has a probability likely to be realised once in the
whole universe. Otherwise, some metaphysical powers beyond our
definition should have acted in its formation. To accept the latter is
not appropriate to the goals of science. We therefore have to look
into the first hypothesis.2

This scientist finds it "more scientific" to accept a possibility "as
likely as zero" rather than creation. However according to the rules
of science, if there are two alternative explanations concerning an
event and if one of them has "as likely as zero" a possibility of
realisation, then the other one is the correct alternative. However
the dogmatic materialistic approach forbids the admittance of a
superior Creator. This prohibition drives this scientist-and many
others who believe in the same materialist dogma-to accept claims that
are completely contrary to reason.

People who believe and trust these scientists also become enthralled
and blinded by the same materialistic spell and they adopt the same
indifference when reading their books and articles.

This dogmatic materialistic point of view is the reason why many
prominent names in the scientific community are atheists. Those who
free themselves from the thrall of this spell and think with an open
mind do not hesitate to accept the existence of a Creator. American
biochemist Dr Michael J. Behe, one of those prominent names who
support the movement to defend the fact of creation that has lately
become very accepted, describes the scientists who resist believing in
the creation of living organisms thus:

Over the past four decades, modern biochemistry has uncovered the
secrets of the cell. It has required tens of thousands of people to
dedicate the better parts of their lives to the tedious work of the
laboratory… The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the
cell- to investigate life at the molecular level-is a loud, clear,
piercing cry of "design!". The result is so unambiguous and so
significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements
in the history of science… Instead a curious, embarrassed silence
surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. Why does the scientific
community not greedily embrace its startling discovery? Why is the
observation of design handled with intellectual gloves? The dilemma is
that while one side of the [issue] is labelled intelligent design, the
other side must be labelled God.3

This is the predicament of the atheist evolutionist scientists you see
in magazines and on television and whose books you may be reading. All
the scientific research carried out by these people demonstrates to
them the existence of a Creator. Yet they have become so insensitised
and blinded by the dogmatic materialist education they have absorbed
that they still persist in their denial.
People who steadily neglect the clear signs and evidences of the
Creator become totally insensitive. Caught up in an ignorant self-
confidence caused by their insensitivity, they may even end up
supporting an absurdity as a virtue. A good case in point is the
prominent evolutionist Richard Dawkins who calls upon Christians not
to assume that they have witnessed a miracle even if they see the
statue of the Virgin Mary wave to them. According to Dawkins, "Perhaps
all the atoms of the statue's arm just happened to move in the same
direction at once-a low probability event to be sure, but possible."4

The psychology of the unbeliever has existed throughout history. In
the Qur'an it is described thus:

Even if We did send unto them angels, and the dead did speak unto
them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they
are not the ones to believe, unless it is in God's plan. But most of
them ignore (the truth). (Surat al-Anaam : 111)

As this verse makes clear, the dogmatic thinking of the evolutionists
is not an original way of thinking, nor is it even peculiar to them.
In fact, what the evolutionist scientist maintains is not a modern
scientific thought but an ignorance that has persevered since the most
uncivilised pagan communities.

The same psychology is defined in another verse of the Qur'an:

Even if We opened out to them a gate from heaven and they were to
continue (all day) ascending therein, they would only say: "Our eyes
have been intoxicated: Nay, we have been bewitched by sorcery." (Surat
Al-Hijr : 14-15)

Mass Evolutionist Indoctrination As indicated in the verses cited
above, one of the reasons why people cannot see the realities of their
existence is a kind of "spell" impeding their reasoning. It is the
same "spell" that underlies the world-wide acceptance of the theory of
evolution. What we mean by spell is a conditioning acquired by
indoctrination. People are exposed to such an intense indoctrination
about the correctness of the theory of evolution that they often do
not even realise the distortion that exists.

This indoctrination creates a negative effect on the brain and
disables the faculty of judgement and comprehension. Eventually, the
brain, being under a continuous indoctrination, starts to perceive the
realities not as they are but as they have been indoctrinated. This
phenomenon can be observed in other examples. For instance, if someone
is hypnotised and indoctrinated that the bed he is lying on is a car,
he perceives the bed as a car after the hypnosis session. He thinks
that this is very logical and rational because he really sees it that
way and has no doubt that he is right. Such examples as the one above,
which show the efficiency and the power of the mechanism of
indoctrination, are scientific realities that have been verified by
countless experiments that have been reported in the scientific
literature and are the everyday fare of psychology and psychiatry
textbooks.

The theory of evolution and the materialistic world view that relies
on it are imposed on the masses by such indoctrination methods. People
who continuously encounter the indoctrination of evolution in the
media, academic sources, and "scientific" platforms, fail to realise
that accepting this theory is in fact contrary to the most basic
principles of reason. The same indoctrination captures scientists as
well. Young names stepping up in their scientific careers adopt the
materialist world view more and more as time passes. Enchanted by this
spell, many evolutionist scientists go on searching for scientific
confirmation of 19th century's irrational and outdated evolutionist
claims that have long since been refuted by scientific evidence.

There are also additional mechanisms that force scientists to be
evolutionist and materialist. In Western countries, a scientist has to
observe some standards in order to be promoted, to receive academic
recognition, or to have his articles published in scientific journals.
A straightforward acceptance of evolution is the number-one criterion.
This system drives these scientists so far as to spend their whole
lives and scientific careers for the sake of a dogmatic belief.
American molecular biologist Jonathan Wells refers to these pressure
mechanisms in his book Icons of Evolution published in 2000:

... Dogmatic Darwinists begin by imposing a narrow interpretation
on the evidence and declaring it the only way to do science. Critics
are then labeled unscientific; their articles are rejected by
mainstream journals, whose editorial boards are dominated by the
dogmatists; the critics are denied funding by government agencies, who
send grant proposals to the dogmatists for "peer" review; and
eventually the critics are hounded out of scientific community
altogether. In the process, evidence against the Darwinian view simply
disappears, like witnesses against the Mob. Or the evidence is buried
in specialized publications, where only a dedicated researcher can
find. Once critics have been silenced and counter-evidence has been
buried, the dogmatists announce that there is scientific debate about
their theory, and no evidence against it. 5

This is the reality that continues to lie behind the assertion
"evolution is still accepted by the world of science". Evolution is
kept alive not because it has a scientific worth but because it is an
ideological obligation. Very few of the scientists who are aware of
this fact can risk pointing out that the king isn't wearing any
clothes.

In the rest of this book, we will be reviewing the findings of modern
science against evolution which are either disregarded by
evolutionists or "buried in specialized publications", and display of
the clear evidence of God's existence. The reader will witness that
evolution theory is in fact a deceit-a deceit that is belied by
science at every step but is upheld to veil the fact of creation. What
is to be hoped of the reader is that he will wake up from the spell
that blinds people's minds and disrupts their ability to judge and he
will reflect seriously on what is related in this book.

If he rids himself of this spell and thinks clearly, freely, and
without any prejudice, he will soon discover the crystal-clear truth.
This inevitable truth, also demonstrated by modern science in all its
aspects, is that living organisms came into existence not by chance
but as a result of creation. Man can easily see the fact of creation
when he considers how he himself exists, how he has come into being
from a drop of water, or the perfection of every other living thing.

2 Ali Demirsoy, Kalýtým ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara:
Meteksan Publishing Co., 1984, p. 61.
3 Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, New York: Free Press, 1996,
pp. 232-233.
4 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, London: W. W. Norton,1986, p.
159.
5 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of
What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Regnery Publishing, 2000, pp.
235-236.

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter2.php