Part V

The Holy Quran makes a wide range of observations covering the entire span of creative processes pertaining to both the evolution of life and the preparatory stages preceding it. Some of the observations have set landmarks of unique character and it is to them that we propose to draw the attention of the reader.

However, it should be kept in mind that the brief introductory passages which follow, comprise discussions which are fully elaborated in the relevant chapters.

Of prime importance to note are the guiding principles mentioned in the following verse:

It is He Who has created death and life that He might try you—which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Most Forgiving,

The Same Who has created seven heavens in stages (Tibaqan). No incongruity can you see in the creation of the Gracious God. Then look again: Do you see any flaw?1

This is the principle verse which speaks of the plan of things covering the entire universe. The two fundamentals highlighted in this verse are as follows: a total absence of contradiction in the entire universe created by God and a stage by stage development of all that has been created. The latter is further elaborated in an attribute of God which is extensively used in the Holy Quran in relation to all creative processes. The word (

)(Rabb—a in this word is pronounced like u in but) invariably means someone who continues to evolve something from a lower to a higher stage. When a foal, for instance, is raised to the state of a fully grown horse—with special care taken to improve its potential qualities—the Arabs use the expression

(Rabb-al-Fuluwwa) meaning that someone has brought up and trained the foal excellently. Similarly, the same attribute (

) Al-Rabb is often translated as ‘The Provident’. This indicates that God the Creator also provides for all the subsequent stages of development of His creation. This leaves no doubt whatsoever as to the fact that the Quran speaks of creation only in step by step progressive stages which are well provided for, categorically rejecting the concept of spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is further rejected by the Quran because it violates the dignity of God. Thus the following verses enquire from man remonstratively:

What is the matter with you that you expect not wisdom and staidness from Allah?

The following verse from Surah Al-Inshiqaq addressing humans, promises them that theirs 1s a continuous journey of moving on from stage to stage:

This is the all-embracing plan of Creation. At different stages of evolution, the processes that governed and shaped life were different but their direction remained the same—always pointing at man.

This is an important topic which has been the subject of much debate amongst various scientists and religious scholars who seek to unravel the mysteries of the origin of life. Various scenarios have been proposed and experiments carried out which attempt to simulate the conditions resulting in the creation of organisms billions of years ago from an entirely lifeless earth. To that we shall return later. Presently we propose to confine ourselves to a brief account of the Quranic concept of how life originated and evolved on earth. Some observations relevant to this subject have been gathered from various verses of the Holy Quran. This serves the double purpose of illustrating the role of the Quran in transferring parts of the ‘unknown’ to the realm of the known and to assist the specialists in this field of knowledge to benefit from Quranic guidance.

We shall begin by noting that many a time when the Quran speaks of some earlier forms of creation, it refers to them as the creation of man while whatever was created at that time had no semblance to him. In fact, all the landmarks of creation have been likewise referred to, as human creations because right from the beginning it was man alone who was the ultimate object and purpose of the entire exercise of creation.

By way of example, we may consider the construction of an aeroplane for which many thousands of stages and processes are required. The designer while planning its production treats every component nuts, bolts, wings, seats and all—as the building of the aeroplane itself, which is the real object of this exercise. Nuts and bolts also have an independent purpose to serve other than just being the components of the plane. As such all the earlier stages are treated as merely preparatory to the consummation of the ultimate purpose. This aspect is highly essential to note because it is here that the Quran parts company with the biologists who believe in a haphazard evolution without a pre-set design. To these biologists the origin and evolution of life appear to have neither purpose nor design, nor a well-calculated plan of execution.

These various stages as mentioned in the Holy Quran shall now be introduced only briefly point by point but a fuller discussion will follow in the relevant chapters.

The Creation of Ancient Organisms

We begin with the most ancient creative phenomenon which existed prior to the biotic evolution as mentioned in the Quran. It is with reference to this age that it employs a specific term, the jinn. But in this context it is certainly not applicable to the word genie to which ordinarily the readers relate it.

Their concept of jinn (genie) as a ghostlike creature is largely superstitious. Such superstitions would have us believe that the jinn possess a mixture of part human and part hobgoblin characteristics, which can adopt as many shapes and forms as they please. They are particularly prone to haunt and possess women and the weak. They can be mastered by the so-called divines who enjoy the knowledge of such verses from various scriptures as press the jinn into their service. Once subjugated, the jinn can perform fantastic tasks at their command such as materializing anything they like out of thin air. Through the jinn they can gain control over their loved ones or acquire power to annihilate their enemies. The Quran most certainly does not speak of this superstitious human fantasy when it speaks of the pre-biotic age with reference to the jinn. Of that the reader will be given a full account in the chapter The Jinn.

The Role of Clay

In the Quran, dry dust or wet clay are also repeatedly mentioned as stages through which life passed in ancient times. In Surah Al-‘Imran, it states:

Clay is also mentioned in Surah Al-Rahman, but this time it is not wet clay which is referred to for it is clearly stated:

Here its quality is described as having a plate-like appearance dry enough to create ringing sounds, like broken pieces of pottery. Again in Surah Al-Hijr, clay is mentioned three times with the added qualification that man is created from dry ringing clay, formed out of dark fermenting mud.7

The overall scenario as presented by the Holy Quran envisions life as having been advanced step by step from dust, from water, from clay and also from fermenting blackish mud which subsequently turned into dry, ringing clay. These last two stages attract particular attention. No man of the era when the Quran was revealed could even remotely relate the creation of man to dry ringing clay made out of stagnant mud.8

Later on we shall present a brief account of what scientists say in relation to this subject. The reader is at liberty to draw his own conclusions regarding the compatibility of Quranic statements with the outcome of contemporary research. One is the scenario presented by the Quran based entirely on Divine revelation; the other is the scenario composed of various theories, claims and assertions made by many scientists who have devoted their lives to the study of the origin oflife entirely on the basis of scientific investigation. Everytime the conclusions of scientists are found to be well-established, the reader will also find them to be in perfect agreement with Quranic statements. This will be so despite the fact that, at the time of the Quranic revelation, science had not yet advanced enough to investigate the mysteries of life and its origin. The purpose of such verses is to particularly address man of a later scientific age, so that his belief in the existence of an All-Knowing Supreme Creator is aided by the knowledge he has gained.

Survival by Accident or Design?

On the issue of survival the Quranic view is diametrically opposed to that of the naturalist’s. According to the Quran accidents play no major role in the survival of species or individuals. Not only species but also individuals are well protected from a host of impending dangers, constantly surrounding them, threatening extinction at every moment of their lives. Hence their survival is in no way accidental. Instead it is a well-chalked out, well-preserved and well-implemented protective design which is in operation throughout the history of life. Among many relevant Quranic verses we choose the following to illustrate the case in point:

Allah knows what each female womb bears and whatever they secrete and reject therefrom and whatever they fostered to grow. And with Him everything has a proper measure.

He is the Knower of the unseen and the seen, the Incomparably Great, the Most High.

Equal are in His sight those of you who speak secretly and those who speak up aloud. Also those who move about under the cover of night and those who walk openly during the day.

For each of them there are sentinels in front of him and behind him, to protect him by the command of Allah … 9

Sidedness or Chirality in Nature

Among all the scriptures, the Quran is unique in highlighting the issue of sidedness in relation to socio-religious behaviour. One is surprised to read any significance attached to the right or the left. The same is observed in the conduct and instructions of the Holy Prophet(sa), where the right and left are each portrayed as playing a specialized role in a Muslim’s conduct. For instance, the right hand is selected for all good things and clean acts; one should eat with the right hand, one should start serving from the right side, one should not touch any filthy object with the right hand etc. The opposite applies to the left hand. Incidentally, when one shakes hands with a Muslim, he should be confident that he is shaking a hand which is clean. In the comparative fuller discussions of sidedness and chirality, the reader will come across amazing disclosures regarding the phenomenon of sidedness as observed in nature. The reader should bear in mind that this is strongly suggestive of the sameness of the Author of the Quran and the Creator of the universe.

The expression ‘partiality’ is generally used to indicate that a choice is made without specific reasons leading to that choice. However, in application to God, one’s lack of knowledge as to why God is partial to sidedness does not necessarily mean that there is no hidden reason for His selective behaviour.

As science continues to delve deeper and deeper into the understanding of the chain of cause and effect, many hitherto inexplicable patterns of natural behaviour are being understood.

Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest

Without ambiguity the Quran repeatedly declares that at every step of creation choices had to be made and each time the selector was not the blind operator of natural selection, but the hand of God, the All-Seeing, the All-Knowing. Again it is specifically and categorically declared:

And thy Lord creates whatever He pleases and chooses whomsoever He pleases. It is not for them to choose. Glorified be Allah, and far is He above all that they associate with Him.10

What think you of the sperm-drop that you emit? Is it you who created it or are We the Creator?

From bringing in your place others like you, and from developing you into a form which at present you know not.

If We so pleased, We could reduce it all to broken pieces, then you would keep lamenting:

These verses draw the attention of man repeatedly and emphatically to the fact that it is God Who is the Creator, and it is He alone Who makes choices. The decision making is not left to chance, nor to the things which are themselves being created. At every such moment it is God Who makes the choice and operates as the Supreme Selector.

There is no blind haphazard selection of characters as life evolves. It is God who through the trials between life and death makes it possible for life to evolve in its character, design, style and mode of survival. In this grand scheme of things there is no flaw whatsoever because it is He who governs from the seat of His majesty with absolute wisdom. Nowhere in His creation can one find any flaw or contradiction. The import of these verses is manifestly clear.

In the Darwinian hypothesis of The Survival of the Fittest as we shall discuss later, there is no guarantee for a flawless operation which must always result in the survival of the fittest. On the contrary, some of those animals which may survive in the struggle may be fit only to survive that particular challenge. As far as the more evolved qualities of life are concerned however, the mere survival of an animal in a given situation certainly does not offer a guarantee that with it these qualities will also be preserved. This is so because there is no room for a Conscious Selector in that scheme, capable of invariably choosing better characters emerging during the struggle between life and death. The Quranic vis.ion of creation speaks of a universally flawless operative system, controlled to its finest detail so there is not the least chance of flaws and defects stealing their way into this scheme of things:

It is He Who has created death and life that He might try you—which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Most Forgiving,

The Same Who has created seven heavens in stages. No incongruity can you see in the creation of the Gracious God. Then look again: Do you see any flaw?

Aye, look again, and yet again, your sight will only return to you tired and fatigued.12

A Game of Chess or a Game of Chance!

Some of the verses mentioned above, deal with the same subject creating the scenario of a guiding hand of a planner who plans and executes with absolute adroitness and dexterity. Each creature on the vast chequer board of creation is moved square after square to a predetermined destination. This vision of creation leaves no room for an ungoverned and unguided course of evolution. In fact the entire scheme of things, both biotic and pre biotic, is sketched by the Holy Quran as a coherent plan of order completely devoid of chaos.

Building the same theme of universal order, the Quran rejects the possibility of there being another God who would certainly have clashed with his adversary turning the order we observe into disorder.

So far the discussion has been introductory, now we are ready for a detailed examination of the same subjects, chapter by chapter and category by category.

Origin of Life—Different Theories And Propositions

For aeons, philosophers have been attempting to solve the riddle of existence and origin of the universe. In the current era, their attention has been particularly focused on the origin of life. The dilemma they face is the question of who preceded whom—was it the chicken which laid the egg, or the egg which hatched the chicken? The most difficult challenge they face is about the creation of organic material. Organic material is a product of life and life itself is a product of organic material. How did inorganic chemicals convert into organic chemicals before the creation of life?

The problem which confronted researchers was evidently of a paradoxical nature. Every problem solved gave birth to many others perhaps more difficult to resolve. Every question that was answered led to a chain of other unanswerable questions, or, so it seemed. As the research proceeded, with a growing number of participating scientists, sometimes it appeared as if some of the researchers had at last struck bonanza. Such discoveries created great excitement among some who were inclined to make tall claims at every breakthrough that favoured their conception of how things might have been. There were others however, who were far more cautious and kept warning their fellow scientists not to be overzealous in drawing conclusions. The search for such clues as could scientifically satisfy their inquiry was set in motion in every direction. To date, none of the proposed solutions have found unanimous acceptance in the scientific community. Different scientists have reacted differently to different theories. Some have rejected them entirely, propounding their own propositions instead, while some have accepted them but only partially. Yet as a whole, the general direction of the overall research has begun to emerge, becoming clearer with the passage of time. Evidence is being discovered which lends new support to some of the propositions which are finding greater favour among the scientific community.

The purpose of this exercise is not to bother the reader with overmuch scientific jargon but some of it is unavoidable, otherwise we shall fail to achieve the object of co-relating the scientific data with the relevant Quranic verses. As much as the subject would allow, care is taken to simplify the language so that even the ordinary reader, unfamiliar with science, could keep up with us provided he makes a special effort to remain alert. A difficult task indeed, but not altogether impossible we hope!

This study will help the reader to realize that none of the Quranic declarations relating to the origin of life and its consequent evolution have ever been proved wrong. On the contrary, the general trend of the research continues to support the scenario of the creation of life as presented by them. We believe this will lead the reader to a world of wonders, far more intriguing than the story of Alice in Wonderland. The wonders of Alice’s dreamland were fictional after all, but the journey we propose to undertake into our ancient past is on the wings of Divine revelation supported by scientific evidence. This is no fiction. It is a real land of wonders and mysteries of the creation of God, the Unique, the Peerless.

Origin of Life Theories

Let us visualize with the help of scientific investigation, the image of the environment and the atmosphere around the earth as it existed for three and a half billion years before the origin of life. The atmosphere at that time is believed to be anoxic—lacking free unlocked oxygen. No form of life which depends on metabolism for the release of energy through oxidation could have survived in such an atmosphere. In fact the absence of oxygen was an essential prerequisite for the synthesis of organic material from inorganic chemicals. Hence by design, as we believe, or by accident as the secular scientist will have it, it so happened that during the first three and a half billion years of the age of the earth, the atmosphere remained oxygen-free. There was no protective ozone layer in the stratosphere either. The chemical materials which must have been the precursors to stable forms of organic chemicals had to evolve without oxygen:

‘J.B.S. Haldane, the British biochemist, seems to have been the first to appreciate that a reducing atmosphere one with no free oxygen, was a requirement for the evolution of life from nonliving organic matter.’13

The absence of an ozone layer must have facilitated the high energy radiation blasts from the cosmos to reach the earth and ocean surfaces uninterrupted. The bombardment of this intense cosmic energy became largely instrumental in the creation of pre-biotic organisms which helped the transfer of material from inorganic to organic. The synthesis from inorganic chemicals in the oceans into preliminary organic chemicals such as amino acids was initially triggered off by the cosmic radiation in an anoxic atmosphere. This chemical reaction started from simple inorganic molecules such as water, carbon dioxide and ammonia. As this process advanced, according to Haldane, the primitive oceans reached the consistency of a hot, dilute soup (primordial soup).14

The outcome of Haldane’s research was published in 1929 in the Rationalist Annual but no serious note was taken of it in scientific circles. A few years before Haldane, A.I. Oparin, a Soviet scientist, had also published a small monograph in Russia in 1924, proposing similar ideas concerning the origin of life. This article too was met with no better fate. Both had simultaneously and independently worked on the problem of how organic material could have been synthesized from inorganic material before the beginning of biotic evolution.

A New Landmark

After Oparin and Haldane, other scientists rose to fame by taking up the same inquiry all over again. During this period, it was undoubtedly Harold C. Urey of the American University of Chicago, who made the greatest theoretical contribution in this field. He restated the Oparin Haldane thesis in his book The Planets15 and resurrected the interest of the scientists in their pioneer research concerning the issue of the origin of life. In practical research however, it was Stanley L. Miller, a pupil of Urey, who stole the limelight in 1953. He, in accordance with Urey’s theory recreated the atmospheric semblance of the primitive earth in a sealed glass apparatus. He filled it with a few litres of methane, ammonia and hydrogen gases, representing the atmosphere which scientists thought had then existed. To this mixture he added some water. A spark discharge device simulated lightning while a heated coil kept the water bubbling. Within a few days a reddish precipitate began to stain the glass which on analysis, to the utter delight of Miller, was found rich in amino acids.16 It is amino acids, one should remember, which link up together to form proteins, the building material from which the bricks of life are made.

At that time, the outcome of this experiment was considered the most stunning evidence that the prerequisite organic material for building the bricks of life could originate from natural atmospheric interaction with sea water, producing the ‘primordial soup’. Soon, scientific fiction began to take root in this discovery. Many a scientist, in a highly excited state of mind, began to predict that it would not be long before life itself could be conjured up in test tubes. Many years later, however, Miller himself had quite a different gloomy confession to make:

‘The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.’17

His epoch-making experiment was performed in 1953 when he was a mere twenty-three year old undergraduate at the University of Chicago. Coincidentally, it was in the same year that another highly important research was successfully carried out, which was profoundly linked with the same issue. It related to the deciphering for the first time, by Watson and Crick, of the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). DNA together with RNA, constitute the fundamental bricks of life. This led to a much bigger challenge of envisioning how life could have resulted from some primitive forms of organic material, accidentally created as scientists believed, into such profoundly complex material.

The problems were manifold. Of the many questions raised, one was how and by what game of chance, inorganic material could convert into the preliminary organic material which is a prerequisite for building the bricks of life. Returning to the early experiments of Urey, the first samples of laboratory test tube experiments were critically re-examined by many scientists. Some of them discovered grave flaws in Miller’s experiment, taking some lustre off the hitherto much glorified exercise.

One major objection levelled at his experiment was that it was carried out in a simple flask and test-tube apparatus. The water substituting sea water was kept at boiling temperature while the natural conditions could not have admitted to such a proposition. This should have required the constantly controlled boiling of sea water over billions of years.

Some scientists would much rather have a cold start for the synthesis of life than the wet start proposed by Miller. They were inclined towards favouring the synthesis of organic material based on solid state chemistry rather than on the boiling water scenario.

Some went even further to suggest that the preliminary organic chemicals need not have been created here on earth. To support this view, they referred to the study of meteoritic rocks some of which are known to have contained many amino acids. In fact, the controlled experiment of Miller could produce only thirty-five amino acids as against the fifty-two counted during the analytical study of material from space. But those in favour of a ‘wet start’, originating in the sea water, raised many counter objections against this proposition. One such objection relates to the well-known phenomenon of atmospheric friction which must have generated an immense amount of heat as the meteorites entered the earth’s atmosphere. Such friction can raise the temperature of the intruding rocks so high as to set them ablaze. Hence all organic material carried by the burning rock should have disintegrated in mid-air before reaching the earth. The evidence of amino acids found in meteoric rock, according to the critics, could have indicated only the contamination it must have received after reaching the earth and cooling down. Those who insisted that it is possible for the organic material to have reached the earth safely from space, without confronting frictional heat, proposed another mode of transport which would be free from this flaw. It was suggested that the organic material might have been carried by small particles enwrapped in protective layers of icy covers such as found in the tails of comets. They could have softly alighted upon the earth like dew.

Returning once again to the epoch-making experiment performed by Miller, and the storm it raised, it did not take very long for its dust to settle down. In the calm that ensued, many a cool-minded reappraisal was conducted by some scientists.

One most eminent scholar R.E. Dickerson, in his excellent article Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life, has critically examined at length the inferences drawn from Millers’ experiment, in a detached, unbiased study. One thing that emerges predominantly from his review is that all the facts and experimental data relating to the Miller experiment were not included in the early reports.

‘Although the simulations yield many of the amino acids found in the proteins of living organisms, they also yield at least as many related molecules that are not present.’18

Experiments, simulating Miller’s pioneer work, carried out by other scientists, revealed that out of three isomeric forms of an amino acid produced during these experiments ‘only valine appears in proteins today’. None of the seven amino acid isomers, created during spark discharge experiments has been ‘disignated as a protein constituent’ by the universal code of life on earth. He further observes:

‘ … why the present set of 20 amino acids was chosen. Were there false starts, with genetic codes that specified different sets of amino acids, in lines of development that died out without a trace because they could not compete with the lines that survived?’19

The task of creating the most highly complex and precisely sequenced proteins, the essential material for building the bricks of life—DNA/RNA, out of the simple amino acids synthesized by Miller is a ‘mission impossible’. Even if conceded that due to the interplay of limitless chances the molecules of DNA/RNA were finally synthesized, the dilemma remains far from being resolved.

Dickerson quotes the British scientist, J.D. Bernal to emphasize the problem at hand, by suggesting that the scenario of a single molecule of DNA, created by chance,

‘ … generating the rest of life was put forward with slightly less plausibility than that of Adam and Eve in the Garden.’20

Dickerson, during his summarization of the attendant problem highlights the difficulties inherent in the proposed solutions and suggests that the theorists actually rely on a wild, fantastic game of chance. But to that we shall return later.

The Jinn

Prepare now to undertake a journey upon the wings of scientific vision into the ancient past to explore the nature and identity of the jinn. The Quranic concept of jinn has been briefly discussed before in Life in the Perspective of Quranic Revelations. Arabic lexicon mentions the following as the possible meanings of the word jinn. It literally means anything which has the connotation of concealment, invisibility, seclusion and remoteness. It also has the connotation of thick shades and dark shadows. That is why the word ‘jannah’ (from the same root word) is employed by the Quran to denote paradise, which would be full of thick, heavily shaded gardens. The word jinn is also applicable to snakes which habitually remain hidden from common view and live a life secluded from other animals in rock crevices and earthen holes. It is also applied to women who observe segregation and to such chieftains as keep their distance from the common people. The inhabitants of remote, inaccessible mountains are likewise referred to as jinn. Hence, anything which lies beyond the reach of common sight or is invisible to the unaided naked eye, could well be described by this word.

This proposition is fully endorsed by a tradition of the Holy Prophet(sa) in which he strongly admonishes people not to use dried up lumps of dung or bones of dead animals for cleaning themselves after attending to the call of nature because they are food for the jinn. As we use toilet paper now, at that time people used lumps of earth, stones or any dry article close at hand to clean themselves. We can safely infer therefore, that what he referred to as jinn was nothing other than some invisible organisms, which feed on rotting bones, dung etc. Remember that the concept of bacteria and viruses was not till then born. No man had even the vaguest idea about the existence of such invisible tiny creatures. Amazingly it is to these that the Holy Prophet(sa) referred. The Arabic language could offer him no better, more appropriate expression than the word jinn.

Another important observation made by the Quran is in relation to the creation of the jinn. They are described as having been born out of blasts of fire (from the cosmos).

And the Jinn We created before that (the creation of man) from blasts of fire (naris-samum).21

Here the adjective used to describe the nature of the particular fire from which the jinn were created is Samum, which means a blazing fire or a blast that has no smoke.22 We find a similar statement in another Quranic verse:

Having established that the word jinn applies here to some type of bacterial organisms, let us again turn our attention to the verses quoted above that speak of the jinn as having been created out of fire. The prime candidates for the application of these verses seem to be such minute organisms as drew the energy for their existence directly from hot blazes of lightning—Samum—and cosmic radiation.

Dickerson inadvertently agrees with the Quranic view when he observes that the most ancient organisms:-

‘ … would have lived on the energy of lightning and ultraviolet radiation … ’24

This scenario of cosmic radiation is not specifically mentioned in the work of other scientists in their search for the pre-biotic organisms. But they too have corroborated the idea that whatever organisms existed before biotic evolution must have drawn their energy directly from heat. Of all the categories of bacteria classified as the most ancient only ‘prokaryotes’ and ‘eukaryotes’ were mentioned by previous generations of scientists. However, that conclusion proved to be a hastily drawn one, according to Karl R. Woese and his colleagues. They observed:

‘Simply because there are two types of cells at the microscopic level it does not follow that there must be only two types at the molecular level.’25

For the benefit of the lay reader the difference between the two bacteria, known as the prokaryotes and eukaryotes, is explained in terms as simple as possible. It relates to the presence or absence of a nucleus in them. The prokaryote type of bacteria, despite having a well-defined cell membrane, have no distinct nucleus. The eukaryotes on the other hand, possess well-defined and well-developed nuclei occupying the centre of each cell.

It was considered that these were the only two ancient forms of bacteria which gave birth to others and evolved into organisms which could be referred to as the ancestors of life. However, Woese published the findings of his pioneer research in Scientific American, June 1981, claiming that archaebacteria, could be rightly considered as the earliest form of organisms. He and his colleagues informed the scientific community that they were a third distinct line which preceded all others. Thus it is they who should be entitled as the most ancient ancestors of life. Woese and his collaborators continued to pour strong evidence into this discovery and as the ice began to thaw, according to Woese:

‘Although a few biologists still dispute our interpretation, the idea that archaebacteria represent a separate grouping at the highest level is becoming generally accepted. ’26

‘This implies that the methanogens are as old as or older than any other bacterial group.’27

‘ … the archaebacteria are related to the earliest life forms, which appeared about 4 billion years ago, when there was little oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere.’28

‘Since 1977 more and more differences between archaebacteria and other prokaryotes have been found, so much so that microbiologists now favour the term archaea, to emphasize that these organisms are distinct from bacteria.’29

The organisms referred to as jinn in the Quran seem to fit the above description. But, though scientists unanimously describe these bacteria as possessing the potential of drawing their energy from heat, they are not mentioned as having been originally created directly by the cosmic rays and blasts of lightning by any scientist other than Dickerson. The rest however, continue to unveil more mysteries with further research.

‘ … in undersea vents, hot springs, the Dead Sea, and salt pans, and have even adapted to refuse tips.’30

On the issue of antiquity, though Woese and his colleagues have no doubt that the archaebacteria are the prime claimants. According to some scientists they may have evolved from some unknown parenthood simultaneously.

But these are issues which fall outside the domain of this exercise. Whether the other bacteria evolved out of them or not is irrelevant to the discussion. The relevant point is that all forms of most ancient bacteria draw their energy directly from heat. This is a tribute of no small magnitude to the Quranic declaration made over fourteen hundred years ago:

According to the accepted scientific studies, direct heat from fire had to play a vital role in the creation and maintenance of pre-biotic organisms. This, in fact was the only mode of transfer of energy for the consumption of organized forms of existence during this era. As they multiplied during their uninterrupted proliferation lasting over billions of years, their death must have polluted the oceans while they decayed and fermented turning the oceans into the primordial soup. This will be discussed at greater length in the following chapter.

The Essential Role of Clay and Photosynthesis in Evolution

Enough of fire. Let us now turn our gaze upon water—its opposite number, and the role it played in the creation of life.

The era of the jinn comes to a close and a completely different phase begins which intermediates between this phase and the final act of photosynthesis. This intermediary phase can be referred to as the preparatory stage for the synthesis of material which was prerequisite for the creation of the living. A careful study of the following will be helpful for correctly visualizing all that transpired during this period.

Chemistry is largely divided into two major branches—inorganic chemistry and organic chemistry. Inorganic chemistry relates to compounds which are mineral in nature and are not the product of life. The mere presence of carbon does not entitle them to be called organic. Water, sodium chloride and potassium are inorganic because they are also widely found outside living cells. However, carbon dioxide is considered inorganic, despite the fact that it is manufactured by living organisms during respiration.

Except for carbon dioxide which is inorganic, carbon is found in all organic compounds which are not necessarily the product of living things.

This chapter deals with all the preparatory steps which were needed before the creation of bio-units. We briefly quote the Quranic account in our words of what happened during this critical intermediary phase: after the end of the most ancient period of jinn, water played a vital role for the preparation of material needed for moulding the living. This material consisted of organic compounds mentioned as stagnant mud.

Some outstanding scientists have attempted to resolve the riddle of the preparation of organic compounds prior to the beginning of life on earth. The essence of the problem was that all organic compounds were a product of the living. How could they have been prepared in sea or dry land while, during that period, only inorganic compounds were known to have existed? There were no advanced chemical laboratories which could synthesize organic compounds from the inorganic, like we find today in the modem pharmaceutical industry. Great pioneer work has already been carried out by Bernal, Haldane, Dickerson, Miller, Urey, Cairns-Smith, Oparin and many others. It is a great tribute to their genius that they have attempted to rebuild this amazing story of how organic compounds could have been synthesized from the inorganic without controlled laboratory conditions. Following is the amazing story of their success and failure. This failure they themselves confess, but this confession is another tribute to their greatness. This chapter entirely deals with how various attempts were made to solve this riddle and how various solutions were suggested during this period of research. It is not just an exercise in presenting the great works of biochemistry to which we draw the attention of our reader. We draw the attention of the reader to the fact that the Quranic account to which we referred above is fully corroborated by the most advanced scientific research on this matter.

The scientific exploration revolves around the preparation of organic material for life. They mostly remain confined to prove a watery beginning. In this much they agree with the Quran. But the Quran additionally mentions a separate earlier beginning on dry land.

The crux of the matter is simply this, that although organic chemicals could have been synthesized in a watery solution of prehistoric oceans, they must have reverted to their original elementary form by the influence of hydrolysis. It was a challenge to propose how this threat could be avoided and a more advanced organic material could be prepared which would not revert to its elementary form. This means that as long as this preliminary organic material remained in water, the transfer of a hydrogen atom to the newly born chemicals would have broken them into their earlier, simpler forms perpetually. This must have resulted in a vicious circle by which no sooner was the organic material gained than it was lost. For the benefit of such readers as would demand a more scientific description of this account, we venture to present the following:

All the amino acids needed by the bricks of life are formed from aldehydes by a well known mechanism known as the Strecker Synthesis. The Strecker Synthesis of amino acids is a two-step sequence. The first step is the reaction of an aldehyde with a mixture of ammonia and HCN to yield an aminonitrile. Further hydrolysis of the aminonitrile results in the amino acid.

But the problem is that the two steps involved in the Strecker Synthesis are reversible. How the evolution of these unstable elementary compounds could become possible, is the major challenge which scientists confront. Various solutions have been proposed but they raise many more questions than they answer.

There is a growing consensus among the scientific community that somehow a dry stage has to be envisioned, whereby the elementary unstable organic chemicals in the primordial soup could be given a chance to develop into more advanced irreversible organic compounds. Moreover the formation of proteins and nucleic acids from the elementary amino acids, inevitably requires the elimination of a molecule of water from every couple of amino acid molecules and nucleotides. This is called polymerisation. But the problem is that despite the fact that it occurred in sea water, the presence of water should certainly have reversed this reaction. Hence all this polymerisation would be depolymerised.

It means that in the primitive solution each molecule had to be dehydrated within water, an extremely complicated and difficult, if not impossible, task. Most condensation reactions in the laboratory invariably give better results when the mixture is allowed to dry. This suggests that the evaporation of primitive solutions must have taken place after it was splashed on rocks, mud and beaches. This may well have been an essential stage between the rudimentary compounds created in water and the more highly evolved ones which would no longer remain reversible to their elementary forms.

Of all the throwires tackling this problem, the most interesting and probable are those which present the scenario of surface catalysts, like silica and clay, to have played their part in this process. This was first pointed out by John Bernal in 1951. He writes in his book The Physical Basis of Life:

‘ … the adsorption of clays, muds and inorganic crystals are powerful means to concentrate and polymerize organic molecules … ’32

‘ … Sidney, W. Fox showed that amino acids were capable of polymerizing fairly easily to yeild polypeptides under various conditions simulating those which may have prevailed on the primitive Earth. This polymerization may have been induced by electrical discharges, by heat (geothermal energy for example) or by contact with certain types of clay and polyphosphates.’33

Cairns-Smith took this idea even further. While Bernal had proposed that not only clay, but also silicon was necessary to help the formation of organic molecules, Cairns-Smith suggested that clays were the material, perhaps the sole material, out of which the necessary organic compounds were made. His theory was vividly summarized in the opening statement of his 1966 paper.

Some scientists however, insist that the evolution of organic material did not have a wet start, which, because of the constant threat of hydrolysis, could not carry the reactions beyond a reversible vicious circle. They insist that it is solid state chemistry we should be looking for.

Despite the differences of opinion as to how the problem of hydrolysis was finally overcome, one thing is certain that no scientific theory of chemical evolution is conceivable without proposing an initial or intermediary dry stage. This stage was reached when the oceanic pre biotic soup was concentrated and dried in the form of laminated micro-thin layers of clay. The Quran is evidently on the side of those who support a wet beginning with an intermediary stage of dryness where concentrated primordial soup was moulded into plates like dry ringing clay, such as broken pieces of earthenware.

The research of Noam Lahav, David White and Sherwood Chang further illustrates the importance of clay as playing a pivotal role in the synthesis of organic material. They showed how clays subjected to cycles of wetting and drying can link molecules of the amino acid known as glycine. The cycling transfers energy from the environment to the organic molecule.34

Their proposed solution was very close to the one presented by the Quran but it was Cairns-Smith who even more clearly and unreservedly supported the Quran while he was absolutely unaware of any Quranic statement on this subject.

And, surely, We created man from dry ringing clay made from stagnant blackish mud.37

It is worthy of note here that these verses clearly state that the material used for the making of pottery-like plates was decayed organic matter—stagnant blackish mud.

As the translators could not visualize how man could have been moulded out of pottery, they inferred that the pottery was only mentioned because pieces of pottery struck against other pieces of pottery would emit a ringing sound. Thus they thought that the relevant verse hinted at the human faculty of speech. This is a very far-fetched interpretation which twists the word al-fakhkhar beyond recognition. Now when we begin to understand the nature of the intermediary preparatory stages which synthesized the material for building, it has become within our grasp to understand this term better. This is the true significance of the word al-fakhkhar.

The scientists believe that upon further drying, the clay must have crystallized asymmetrically thus becoming laminated into extremely thin layers, set one upon the other, to form plates resembling pieces of pottery. It should be noted with interest that this thin lamination also serves another very important purpose—that of enlarging the area of reaction. Micas and clays comprise laminated sheets of silicate with layers of water molecules separating these sheets. They are only 0.71 nanometres apart (a nanometre is ten-millionth of a centimetre). This increases the surface area for adsorbing molecules enormously. Hence a cube of dry clay of this formation, as small as one centimetre on each side, can provide a total surface area of around two thousand eight hundred square metres—about three quarters of an acre.

A brief account of what scientists have been engaged in during their search for clues leading to the creation of material required for life has already been given. What happened from then on till the end of their journey is produced below with reference to Coyne’s profound research on this subject.

Coyne, University of California, discussing the role of kaolinite clays in the early stages of chemical evolution, argues that they can gather energy from the environment, (by radioactive processes), store it, and then release it when the clay is suitably disturbed, by repeated wetting and drying.38

The journey of exploration is far from over. In fact, the entire research of scientists and their efforts to unravel the riddle of the origin of life are no more advanced than the very primordial organic soup, the mysteries of which they are attempting to fathom. What happened and how it happened, during the misty dawn of creation in the primordial soup of the oceans, is as yet a study at its nascent stage.

Having examined the amazing significance of dry ringing clay at the preparatory stages of biotic evolution, let us pause and wonder for a while at the dazzling brilliance of the Quranic claim made over fourteen hundred years ago. The idea of the participation of dry ringing clay in the creation of man is so bizarre and unique, and is diametrically opposed to the then prevalent popular tale of the genesis of Adam. One can easily understand the workings of a simple mind, under the influence of such popular tales, to think of God as mixing earth with water, drying it up to a degree, until it achieved the consistency of modelling clay. What remained to be done was the simple exercise of moulding it into the shape of man. And Lo! Adam is raised from dust, complete with all his organic constituents! In that instant sprang into being the entire complex of his body cells furnished with DNA, RNA, chromosomes, genes, somatic cells, reproductive cells etc. Ears, nose and eyes were formed, blood vessels were created, and heart and lungs with all their complexities were completed and set in place. Also, of course, the central nervous and immune systems were completed that instant!

All that miracle was created, according to some naive readers of the scriptures, within the space of a single breath of life which, as they understand, the Creator blew into the statue of clay which He had moulded as Adam. This belief is as devoid of brain as blind evolution is devoid of sight. The evolutionists who believe in creation without a God, without a Conscious Supermind, may scorn at the naivety of those who take the account of the Old Testament over literally. They forget however, that their stance is equally lamentable. If the scripture scenario is literally accepted, then the only conclusion one can draw is that God the Creator is Almighty, but not All-Wise! An All-Wise God could not have conceived such a brainless scheme of creation, in which even a skilful potter could beat Him at His own game!

The plan of evolution which antecedes the creation of man is a masterpiece of creative wonders and a work of beauty which knows no parallel. For such a Creator to have forgotten altogether the intricate laws of nature which He Himself had framed, and the bricks of life which He had so dextrously designed and moulded, and the profound wonders He packed into their tiny cells, is absolutely inconceivable. How could He have forgotten a billion years of the history of the evolution of life? Little did he remember, as he was engaged so seriously in shaping another Adam out of clay, all anew, that he had already created and perfected him a hundred thousand years before in a far more sensible manner. The earth was already abounding in Homo sapiens—and with what amazement they must have watched him engaged in this futile exercise in the garden of Eden!

However disdainfully one may reject this naive vision of the creation of man, as held by religious zealots, the case of the secular scientists is no less deplorable. They know full well the limitless intricacies involved in the scheme of creation and the most exquisitely executed plan of evolution. All the same they attribute this most wonderful masterpiece merely to ‘chance’ who is not only brainless, but is also blind, deaf and dumb! Little does it behove them to laugh and scorn at the religious zealots. The vision of their god, however senile he may have become—after executing his tremendous plan of creation—is out of all proportion superior to the evolutionist’s concept of the creative force at work. The most exquisite and unimaginably intricate plan of creation, they believe, was conceived and executed merely by a sightless brainless fashioner of man, the ancient thrower of dice.

The image of God as emerges from the Book of Genesis, when taken literally, presents Him no doubt as a doting senile but what the scientists would have us believe is even more exasperating. All through the journey of a billion years of biotic evolution, only a brainless phantom of chance occupied the driving seat, the naturalists insist, steering the wagon of evolution through the uncountable number of twists and turns it took before reaching its ultimate goal.

But unfortunately all their profound search for truth comes to a naught when they reach the point where life should begin to emerge in an oxygen-free atmosphere, which then existed, according to Haldane. In agreement with his theory, the scientists believe that a transformation did take place from a non-biotic era to a biotic era despite the absence of oxygen. We believe, on the other hand, that despite their denial of the existence of free oxygen, one must visualize its presence in the atmosphere somehow to the degree that it could support life. For this we have no alternative mechanism to suggest, but our failure to do so does not prove that it did not happen.

There are many examples of unresolved mysteries of a certain age which in the light of discoveries of later ages became understandable. A specific example can be quoted in relation to the rapid extinction of dinosaurs. This problem remained unresolved for a very long time. Scientists could not understand why dinosaurs disappeared at all while other much weaker species of life continued to evolve uninterrupted. Finally, this mystery was resolved when they discovered that the impact from a fairly large asteroid hitting the ocean some sixty-five million years ago disrupted the entire life system of the planet, particularly to the disadvantage of dinosaurs. Under the changed environmental conditions it became progressively harder for them to survive. Until this knowledge was gained, there was no satisfactory explanation as to why the era of the dinosaurs came to such a swift end.

The transformation of an atmosphere devoid of free oxygen into the one comparatively rich in it, could as well be a case similar to that of the extinction of dinosaurs. But only the future will tell how far we are wrong, if the scientists are right. If they are right, then the problems which will emerge will be so enormous as to put to doubt the very existence of the new era of photosynthesis.

We must clearly visualize what may have happened at the time of transition when the age of photosynthesis had just dawned. All oxygen was found bonded to inorganic materials like carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H2O) and silicon dioxide (SiO2) according to the prevailing scientific opinion. In other words, the emergent bio-units must have manufactured oxygen themselves for their own consumption. After presenting the unrealistic manner in which this is supposed to have happened—but could not have happened, we will return to a more serious discussion on the nature of photosynthesis and that of chlorophyll, and the immense problems attendant upon the complexities of chlorophyll.

Imagine the scenario of a few pioneer biotic molecules suddenly emerging on the primitive seashore of evolution in an atmosphere totally devoid of oxygen to become the ancestors of all forms of life to come. It is an idea as beautiful as it is bizarre! There are many inherent problems and mysteries which remain unsolved. Their survival could not be possible merely because of photosynthesis. The energy converted from sunlight had to be stored and utilized by catabolism which was dependent in turn upon the availability of free oxygen, which during the said period was not available, or was extremely hard to come by. It was a period of storms and chaotic atmospheric conditions. How could the newly emergent life generate the oxygen itself and chase it to reabsorb it into its system for catabolism to work. How on earth, therefore, could our ancient ancestors begin their journey of life? The only supply of oxygen on which their survival depended had to be created by them themselves through photosynthesis. It is indeed a strange idea to visualize them springing into life and maintaining it without oxygen, as though they held their first breath till the time they were capable of producing the vitally needed oxygen—and catching it back from the air!

This means that if they were luckily ushered into life on a bright sunny morning, only then could photosynthesis start functioning, leading to steps which could produce oxygen. But that was not sufficient either. It was essential that the newly released oxygen should have remained within the easy reach of the bio-units for immediate consumption. In the most stormy and violent atmospheric conditions which then prevailed, it is most unlikely that the minute trickle of oxygen which they had just started producing, would remain hovering around them until it was consumed through respiration.

Every atom that was synthesized must have been carried away faster than it was produced on the wings of tempestuous winds. Can anyone imagine the utter dismay with which the bio-units must have watched that oxygen drift away before they could jump into the air to catch their first breath of life? But that is not all. The day must have ended at last, however bright, sunny and calm it might have been.

On the issue of prehistoric days and nights, let us turn to the Old Testament to catch a glimpse through Divine Scriptures as to what was happening in that remote period:

‘And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.’39

It must have been a bright day, like the one described, during which the early bio-units emerged for the first time with a fighting chance for them to survive on earth. But that day must have ended at last and, before the beginning of the second day, photosynthesis must have ceased altogether.

How could the poor bio-units completely destitute in the supply of oxygen have survived the first night of their precarious existence? Even the most competent yogis cannot hold their breath for that long. For the poor bio-units it was not the sun of light, but the sun of life which must have set!

Different scenarios are proposed indeed and natural selection is casually mentioned while no practical solution is offered. Natural selection has become a cliche for the scientists who want to escape into obscurism when confronted with the challenge of explaining how by chance complex things took place in precise sequence. Dickerson has enumerated some of the problems confronting them, which they have not as yet been able to resolve.

Before closing this chapter, we should like to add a few more examples of how scientists are baffled by the dilemma of life as though originating by itself. There are millions of stages involved, of tiny invisible steps, through which the chemical evolution must have carved its course. It is not just the enormity of the challenge to comprehend how these chemical steps were taken in a certain direction and under what natural influences. There are also immense problems to visualize and discover the rationale of how these steps were sequenced in a well-designed and worked out chain—linking each ring with the other at the right place—the only place where it should have been linked. How easy it sounds for a scientist to declare that the age of bionts, drawing their energy from fermentation, came to an end and at that point began the new era of photosynthesis. But how difficult indeed it is to visualize and solve the problems attendant upon this transition from one age to another.

The presence of phosphorus in every living cell must also be justified in view of the fact that phosphorus is a rare element. Add to this the case of molybdenum and some other even rarer elements, essentially used in life building processes, and the dilemma is further compounded. Some scientists attempting to explain this have even been driven to believe that life must have come from the cosmos, because phosphorus and molybdenum are found in comparative abundance there. But they still cannot answer the question as to how life, having been shaped and designed in outer space, once transported to the planet Earth could continue to be uniformly fed by phosphorus and molybdenum all over the globe. How could it continue to prosper unhindered in an unfriendly climate where phosphorus and molybdenum, the two essentials, were no longer freely available?

Another intriguing problem confronting the scientists relates to two coexisting phenomena responsible for the maintenance and continuity of life. A living cell has two central talents—a capacity for metabolism and a capacity for reproduction. But the problem is that the nucleic acid cannot replicate without enzymes and enzymes cannot be made without nucleic acid. According to Watson and Crick, DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without catalytic proteins or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering over the origin of life, it is another classic chicken and egg problem—which came first the proteins or the DNA?

To wriggle out of this dilemma some propose that both DNA and proteins developed separately, in parallel, until somehow they started a new phase of interdependence. A brilliant stroke of genius it seems, to some, but when examined more closely they will find neither an element of brilliance nor a trace of genius in this proposition. They shut their eyes to the question of how they could have developed and run parallel to each other while at every step their survival depended on the other.

It could not have happened merely by the chance interplay of all the necessary factors which could make this apparent impossibility possible without the supervision of experienced scientists. Such scientists needed a most advanced laboratory apparatus without which they could not have achieved any success, while the paradox quoted above is known to have happened outside any controlled conditions. Those who conducted the said experiments did so with reference to a similar paradox, which concerns self replication of RNA without the essential presence of proteins and enzymes which it has to produce itself. But they had to admit that their success was no success indeed, in relation to the paradox which they attempted to resolve. Horgan confesses that these scientific experiments are too complicated to represent a plausible scenario for the origin of life.

is the admission of Orgel who conducted these experiments. What he and Horgan agree upon is that their success under strict laboratory conditions does not prove anything happening under open conditions which prevailed before the origin of life. J. Szostak separately conducted similar experiments successfully but again under strictly controlled laboratory conditions.

Harold P. Klein of Santa Clara University expresses his doubt in the following words:

We only object to the word almost. Instead he should have clearly confessed it was absolutely impossible without the existence of God.

According to Dickerson existence of mutual recognition is most essential. Mentioning many attempts to find a complimentary process between protein sequences and nucleic acid sequences he admits that none of them have been satisfactory.

Further elaborating the complexities of a coexistence of two parallel mechanisms in which each gives birth to the other, he again likens this impossible situation to the chicken-and-egg paradox. But the solution he proposes to solve this problem is absolutely untenable. He proposes that both egg and chicken should have separately developed and evolved independent of each other.

All those who hold Dickerson in high esteem for his priceless pioneering work in attempting to solve the riddle of life would certainly be astounded by this naive statement. The only concession one can give Dickerson is that he must have been dead tired after his long laborious pursuits to find a way out of this dilemma without admitting to the existence of God. But there is no way out for anyone without Him! With Him at the command of things, there is no paradox in nature. The omission of scientists to see the hand of the. Supreme, All-Knowing, All-Powerful Creator behind the intricacies of creation is un-understandable without suggesting they are wilfully turning a blind eye to manifest realities. The so-called paradoxes become unreal when one admits the existence of God.

Who has created seven heavens in stages. No incongruity can you see in the creation of the Gracious God. Then look again: Do you see any flaw?

Aye, look again, and yet again, your sight will only return to you tired and fatigued.42

The problem with Dickerson and other scientists who take pride in their secular stance is simply their determination never to permit God to play any creative role in the scheme of things. Of course there is no dilemma in nature. But the dilemma begins the moment the idea of God is tossed out of the realms of His own creation. An example of the exasperation that naturally follows can be found in the solution hinted by Dickerson mentioned above. This in reality is tantamount to the admission of utter frustration.

We repeat that RNA molecules are understood to work as messengers for the transfer of information and instructions given by DNA to be carried across to other specific intended sites where the command is precisely delivered and responded to. When scientists endeavour to unveil the methodology adopted by nature for the performance of this task, they are not only amazed at the complexity of the exercise but also find themselves facing another paradox. A charging enzyme is required to attach a specific amino acid to a transfer RNA molecule, which must be received at the other end by an anticodon. But the problem is that the charging enzyme which triggers off this translation mechanism is itself synthesized by the very mechanism it produces—another egg and chicken paradox.

A perusal of the above would imply that DNA is the mother of RNA. The replication of RNA is encoded in the genetics of DNA yet scientists are positive that in some cases, at least, RNA proceeded DNA. Call it yet another chicken and egg problem, call it by any name, the existence of RNA prior to the existence of DNA will always remain an enigma.

Thus every avenue the scientists explore leads them to the same age-old dilemma. It seems as if a stone wall is obstructing the passage of research from any further development beyond it. Dickerson, however, has attempted to extricate himself out of this tight comer by suggesting that both must have developed in parallel. If so, then we shall have to envisage a scenario of eggs giving birth to eggs and chickens giving birth to chicks separately on parallel lines for millions of years. Thus they lived on without interdependence, when one fine morning the chicken thought of laying eggs instead, and the eggs decided to break open into chicks and so the story came to a mutually advantageous conclusion. Together they both lived happily ever after, producing each other!

We profoundly respect Dickerson for his tremendous service in the cause of science and laud him for his balanced unbiased attitude in resolving scientific problems. Yet for Dickerson to suggest this, leaves one absolutely astounded! Perhaps it was not a well-calculated conclusion of the scientist but merely a cry of an anguished soul that Dickerson possessed, frustrated by the impossibility of a situation which could only be resolved by paying homage to the existence of God.

We have just mentioned the confession of great scientists that despite their best efforts they have not been able to resolve the enigma of life. But nowhere will the reader find any reference by them to the complexities of chlorophyll which they simply dismiss by referring to it as ‘a green pigment’. Nor has ever an attempt been made to visualize its evolution like they have visualized the evolution of complex organic compounds. It is so because chlorophyll never evolved. Not a trace of its evolution can be detected on land, air or sea.

As life began on earth, all vegetative growth which contains a green pigmented material—chlorophyll—entrapped the incident sunlight, converting it to chemical energy to synthesize organic compounds from inorganic compounds. During this process they manufactured carbohydrates from carbon dioxide and water releasing oxygen simultaneously:

Chlorophyll is of two types, chlorophyll a (C55H72MgN4O5) and chlorophyll b (C55H10 MgN4O6) . The composition of these formulae has the exact placing of each element in a certain sequence which is reminiscent of the composition of haemoglobin—being no less wonderful in its complexity. Thus writes Steven Rose in his book The Chemistry of Life:

‘Although chlorophyll is by no means the only photosynthetic pigment, it is the only essential one … The polar head part of the molecule is in fact very similar in design to that of the haem of the cytochromes and haemoglobin. Like haem it consists of a linked series of four carbon-and-nitrogen containing rings (‘pyrrole rings’) joined together to form a sort of doughnut with a hole in the middle. This hole is filled in haem by the metal iron: in chlorophyll on the other hand the jam in the doughnut is made of magnesium. The ring structures contain a series of alternating double and single bonds, and the absorption of a given small amount of light (a quantum) of a particular wavelength causes a sort of vibration, or resonance around these bonds. Because of the close packing and stable orientation of the pigment molecules within the lamellae, this resonance energy can be transferred from one pigment molecule to another until it is eventually channelled into a slightly different chlorophyll molecule from which it cannot escape. This final energy-trapping type of chlorophyll can receive an input from as many as 300 of the standard chlorophyll molecules. The energy from the light is thus very highly concentrated at a single site, giving the second molecule the ability to transfer an electron to a non-pigment receptor which in turn passes it, via an intermediate set of carriers, to NADP …

But the essential point to note is that, with the exception of the chlorophyll-containing apparatus responsible for the splitting of water and hence providing the primary energy source, all the reactions of photosynthesis, fixation of carbon dioxide, and synthesis of sugars follow pathways with which we are already familiar in the biochemistry of the animal cell.’43

In the most complicated huge molecule of chlorophyll, there is an immensely long chain of atoms precisely arranged in a sequence which if altered, at even a single link, will completely destroy the very function and significance of chlorophyll. Life in every form owes its existence to this fundamental trap of energy, but carbohydrates thus produced cannot be utilized by life directly. The chain of all chemical reactions that follow depend on ATP and ADP, chemicals which essentially contain three or two phosphate groups. In both these chemicals the phosphorus groups play the central role. It is this most important ingredient which is present in every living cell of both plants and animals. It runs the immensely vast factory which provides a multitude of organic chemicals needed by the living.

In the preceding discussion we have in fact touched upon three mysteries of creation which the routinely familiar eyes of the scientists do not register. But all the great scientists who have tried to unravel the mysteries of the origin of life register these facts and attempt to resolve them. Chlorophyll is an exception to the rule. Instead of attempting to solve the enigma presented by this pigment, they bypass the issue altogether and proceed on to discuss some other hurdles regarding which they have at least some partial solutions to offer.

They bypass the issue of chlorophyll because they must have fully realized that this extremely complex pigment could not have suddenly jumped into existence out of nowhere. If on the other hand it had evolved, it must have left behind a very long trail of its evolution. Most certainly it should not have begun to exist out of nothing. But it does exist, and hurls a challenge to all the atheists, philosophers and scientists to explain its sudden emergence and existence. It is easier to conceive the haemoglobin to have evolved. But it is next to impossible to justify the existence of this little pigment.

Survival by Accident or Design?

The issue of the survival of all living creatures is not as easy and simple as normally understood by the Darwinian cliche of the ‘Survival of the Fittest’. This term can only be understood in depth when applied to specific, concrete examples. Otherwise there is a danger that this popular cliche will mislead people rather than lead them to the truth. The snag lies in the word ‘fittest’. Without defining what it means, one cannot put this claim to test. As to its role in advancing life, invariably from lower forms to higher forms, it is certainly likely to fail the test.

To declare a character of life to be better than another is a complex problem which may vary from situation to situation. Many a time it happens that a superior, far more highly placed species of life is far less capable of surviving the challenge of a given crisis than a species of life which is placed at a much lower order. As such, nature would automatically give its verdict in favour of the latter at the hour of struggle and inclement conditions.

At the time of a severe drought, many animal species of the lower order survive easily, while man perishes unable to withstand the pressures. Natural calamities such as sudden unexpected changes in temperature, volcanic eruptions, tornadoes and typhoons, wild fires, floods and earthquakes are seldom partial in their treatment to various species of life.

It is not at all unlikely for them to take away in a few seconds, minutes or hours what it took hundreds of millions of years for evolution to create. Yet, under the same devastating conditions many lower forms of life will flourish and multiply unhindered. The question as to who is the fittest and by what yardstick it could be declared the fittest, remains unanswered.

It is a simple case of survival and no more. It is not the fittest who always survive and whoever survives is not always the fittest. All that we can sensibly conclude is that there are certain species of life that are fittest to survive under certain conditions, and there are some other species of life which are fittest to survive under essentially different conditions. Hence mere survival is no competitive test between the species for judging their respective values. Now we analyse the case of struggle for existence which occurs within a species when members of the same species are put to various trials of natural calamities. Many of them are eliminated, overwhelmed by the dangers they confront. Many others display an innate strength against the befalling calamities; some fare so well as to treat them with scant respect. They happily outlive such trials as had destroyed their fellow members. Consider for example a severe epidemic of dysentery. It is likely for it to kill an eminent naturalist while it may altogether spare a farm labourer with only strong guts to his credit, without any other faculties of head and heart to be proud of. Again the same people who survive a specific epidemic may not be able to survive other contagious diseases. Some may die during a spread of cholera while survivors from it may be despatched to death by the yearly recurring disease of influenza or even lesser diseases.

Such are the trials of life. The survival is only relative to the context of a precise situation which does not always adjudge the survivors to be fittest in all qualities of life. The real reasons why natural selection prefers some animals as against others who are apparently doomed by it are unknown to scientists. There is no single yardstick by which every case can be equitably adjudged. Unconscious natural selection could not take into account all the positive and negative points before it could pass judgement in favour of some or against some others. The most important thing to note is that the laws of life and death are not directly governed by natural selection in the ordinary course of the phenomenon of survival and destruction. The final outcome is influenced by innumerable factors which spare or kill an animal for reasons which are in fact governed by a universal Divine scheme of things. This scheme of things could not have served the cause of evolution without the conscious role played by a Supreme All-Knowing Creator Who governs everything in accordance with His Divine Plan. Those who deny this have to be predetermined in their denial. It is tantamount to the denial of evolution itself, if they honestly recognize the problems involved in believing in evolution without believing in the Creator.

As we study life at all stages from its beginning to its ultimate culmination when humans were formed, what we observe is that survival is an exception, and the rule is death. But the factors which cause death are innumerable and very often go hand in hand with the factor of chance. These factors, if identified and located, would make life miserable if not impossible. The living would have to suffer through a state of fear and terror constantly hovering over them. Fortunately death moves stealthily and man remains most often forgetful of its impending threat. But for his propensity to live in a state of oblivion to the inevitable decree of death, man’s life would turn into a perpetual nightmare.

If bacteria of which drinking water is seldom free, were visible to man, to quench one’s thirst would become a punishment rather than a pleasure. If we begin to see what living organisms we inhale with each breath of air we take, breathing would become a torture.

If we could somehow see with the naked eye the creatures which jump into the air with every step we take upon a well cleaned Persian rug, for many, the ordinary process of breathing would become a torture. Little do people know that the common household mite in carpets, if magnified to visible proportions, would appear more horrendous than the ugliest of the dinosaurs that ever grazed upon planet earth.

The air we breathe abounds in so many different forms of bacteria which, if they happen to take root in our system, could cause tuberculosis, pneumonia, lung cancer, liver cancer, all forms of dysentery, diarrhoea, septicaemia, eczema and other deadly diseases related to all major human organs. Yet we inhale them and most often do not fall prey to them. There has to be a protective system to keep them at bay from us without their free unrestricted access to our inner organs. This is fitness which is precisely designed to safeguard survival—survival is not a chance product of fitness.

There is far more to it than we have briefly indicated. Each movement we make, each thought that crosses our mind bequeaths to our nervous system a waste residual of consumed energy which, if not immediately taken care of could cause instantaneous death. Hence, during every fraction of our living seconds we confront and survive death. This is the true meaning of the survival of the fittest. And this fitness is not a product of a mere game of chance.

At every step, highly intricate and complex measures are taken which must be well-designed to ensure protection to life from the innumerable threats surrounding it. The case of the role of oxygen in plant and animal metabolism presents an ideal example to help understand this phenomenon.

The term metabolism is subdivided into two categories, anabolism and catabolism. Anabolism is instrumental in building new living tissues out of available nutrients. It is also responsible for the storage of extra energy in the form of fats. Catabolism is the opposite of anabolism. It breaks down complex molecules into simpler ones with the consequent release of energy.

Complex molecules which are rich in calories, when broken down into smaller constituents release energy, a process during which the sum total of their mass and weight is reduced and the apparent loss is gained in the form of energy which the living organisms utilize for their survival. Although catabolism is referred to as destructive metabolism, it is highly essential for the maintenance of life, because it is through this process that all the daily needs of energy are met. All physical movements, emotional agitation and mental processes require energy. It is catabolism which provides this vital need.

All lower forms of biotic organisms, even those which have neither lungs nor blood vessels, have somehow been provided with an alternative arrangement for respiration. Hence their need of oxygen is also met with in a manner similar to the animals which possess lungs.

The mere availability of nutrients is useless without catabolism. The importance of catabolism is apparent in the daily human experience. Man can live without food for weeks and without water for days but without breathing he cannot survive even for a few minutes. The moment the supply of oxygen is cut off, catabolic activity ceases forthwith and all living cells begin to die—the first to be hit is the brain.

Before we begin to discuss the extremely harmful effects of oxygen and describe how highly effective protective measures are taken against them we would like to remind the reader that oxygen is vitally essential for life in every sphere of its activity. This presents the fantastic measures adopted by nature to create balances. Everything which is beneficial may also have harmful effects to a degree that if not kept at bay they will entirely wipe out the beneficial effects. This paradox, paradox as it is, is still highly essential for the existence of life on earth. This is the story of creation which is repeated on and on limitlessly. Not a single faltering step can be heard even by the keenest ear of a merciless critic. The subject of oxygen will be discussed at greater length later on.

At present we should like to draw the attention of the reader to an allotropic form of oxygen called ozone. Ozone (O3) is the only gas among gases which possesses a molecule with three atoms—a unique property which is not shared by any other gas. This is a most highly needed life supporting element which at the same time is most lethal against it. This is another example to illustrate that the survival of life on earth is not left to chance, but adequate and precise measures are taken, not only to support life, but also to protect it from the very factors which are required to support it.

There was once a time when the atmosphere close to the earth was kept free from unlocked available oxygen. This has become common knowledge now, but when Haldane first bought it to light it created a great stir of excitement among scientists who were searching for clues which could resolve the mystery of the beginning of life. An extremely long time had elapsed prior to the beginning of biotic evolution which kept confronting scientists with a most puzzling enigma. If the atmosphere, as it then prevailed, had any freely available oxygen, the type of organisms which must have preceded biotic evolution should have been completely destroyed by their interaction with oxygen. If precise steps were not taken to protect them from oxygen, no organism could survive on earth. The discovery that during that period there was no free oxygen was, therefore, an epoch-making discovery. To conceive the surrounding atmosphere close to earth as completely empty of free oxygen was a great breakthrough. Yet at the same time other problems arose out of this solution which were even more puzzling.

The solution suggested by Haldane took care of unlocked oxygen roaming about freely in the atmosphere close to earth. But what of the preventive measures against constant bombardment of cosmic rays, a problem which was further highlighted by the absence of free oxygen. How could they be taken care of? The cosmic radiation could only be prevented from destroying organisms on earth if free oxygen had existed in the earth’s atmosphere. This presents an apparently insoluble paradox. The choice is simple but lethal either way. If you decide to protect organisms by removing free oxygen altogether from the atmosphere this will naturally result in their being destroyed by lethal cosmic rays instead.

As will be presently shown, it is the presence of free oxygen in the atmosphere which becomes indirectly instrumental in preventing destructive cosmic rays to reach the earth. It should also be remembered that like all other gases oxygen contains only two atoms to each molecule—being lighter by one atom to its allotrope ozone. One should normally expect that, being heavier, ozone should be close to earth, while oxygen, even if present, being ‘lighter’ should have been hurled to the higher stratosphere. That is one dilemma, but another even more perplexing is the fact that if there was no free oxygen at all, how could it give birth to its child ozone and toss it up to the very top of the stratosphere where it was so direly needed? Riddle as it is, it is also a joke. In the Punjabi language they say:

This literally means that the mother is not yet born while the son is already running about on the top of the roof. In Punjabi it is an unrealistic joke indeed, which highlights the impossibility of an opponents proposition. But here we face a proposition which is impossible, yet exists according to scientists. This problem could not have been resolved without a set purpose and creative design. During the period we are discussing, oxygen, the mother of ozone, was not yet born but its child ozone was running about at the top of the stratosphere.

It is of special interest to note, here, that ozone is not permitted to destroy ultraviolet rays altogether. At their broadest wavelength, the ultraviolet rays are permitted to pass through the ozone barrier and reach close to the global surface because at this wavelength they do not pose any threat to the dwellers of earth. On the contrary at this wavelength, they are beneficial being largely responsible for the synthesis of vitamin D in mammals including human beings. One really wonders as to how many billions of chaotic chances must have colluded to create this wonder, and how? Everything is so precisely calculated, so superbly designed and so dextrously executed!

The scenario of natural selection as against the scenario of purposeful design, would require hundreds of thousands of variant atmospheres, accidentally created by the interplay of billions of chances over millions of earths, of which only one could be rightly proportioned to support life on earth. Another interesting aspect of ozone relates to its synthesis. Ozone is created by intense ultraviolet rays striking at oxygen. As they do so, the oxygen molecule is split into its ionic form—that is atomic oxygen. The free atoms of oxygen then merge with each other creating a molecule of O3 which is ozone. While ozone is synthesized by the direct effect of ultraviolet rays on oxygen, the ozone in turn destroys its benefactor—ultraviolet rays—in the process. What a fantastic scheme indeed, to make the two prime enemies of life come to grips with each other and get locked in a grim battle of mutual destruction while neither can gain supremacy over the other—an amazing parity is maintained.

Returning to the scenario of the pre-biotic age when life was just about beginning to take shape, the absence of the ozone layer must have created an enormous problem. An uninterrupted bombardment of cosmic radiation must have constantly kept destroying pre-biotic organisms. Hence some ozone had to be formed in the upper stratosphere before the beginning of biotic activities. That must have been, but how, is the question which is conveniently avoided. This brings us to the conclusion that life is indeed surrounded by diametrically opposed forces which are simultaneously friendly and inimical. Yet the presence of both is essential for life, so somehow it must have been carried across these hazards in the lap of Divine protection.

He among you who conceals his word or pronounces it loudly and he who hides himself under the cover of night or walks openly during the day, each one is equal in the sight of God.

For each there are those who constantly move along in front of him and behind him protecting him by the decree of God … 44

There are many other similar verses in the Quran to the same effect that life has to be protected by God, every moment of its existence, or it will cease to be.

If man looks down from the dizzy heights he occupies on the ladder of life, at the innumerable steps below him in the chain of evolution, seldom will he realize that for him to have survived the hazards he faced at each of these steps, was no less than a grand miracle. We owe gratitude to the many generations of dedicated biologists who with their hard work have helped us to understand, to some degree, the inexhaustible mysteries of life! But alas, few among those who themselves unravel the mysteries ever realize how much they owe to the infinite mercy of God and His limitless creative Wisdom.

To further illustrate the case in point, once again we invite the attention of the reader to the extreme intricacies of human physiology. In fact every human is a microuniverse in himself. This microuniverse does not survive by itself, but requires millions of protective, well designed, precise measures at every level of its existence.

Physiologists have discovered a host of factors within the human system which could severally or collectively cause spontaneous death, if countermeasures had not been designed. These difficulties and challenges are, in fact, oversimplified. To devise and implement a plan to take countermeasures against all the hazards confronting life is an immensely formidable challenge which requires many a lifetime of research on the part of future generations of scientists.

Take for example the impending dangers to the inner chambers of every living cell from the surrounding liquid in which it is suspended in the form of colloidal solution. Nature has worked out plans to the minutest detail to save the nucleus from random adsorption of water through osmotic pressure which could prove fatal. Also, it has devised an exquisite plan to transport into the inner chamber, the much needed sugar along with the required amount of insulin. Again, it has perfectly designed the system for the excretion of waste material which occurs during the continuous chemical reactions within these cells. It should be clearly understood that the watery solution of the blood in which the cells are suspended, can cause their instantaneous death if it is permitted to penetrate into their inner chambers. To eliminate the threat of stray entry of water molecules into the cellular chambers, a double cover of lipids are created with a masterly design. They can prevent unwanted material entering the cells with perfect efficiency. Yet they do not obstruct the passage of the required food supply etc., which has to be constantly transported across the lipid covers into the inner chambers. But this defensive step in itself poses other very serious problems. If the double protective layer of lipids will not permit any liquid to penetrate, how can sugar and oxygen be transported into the cell where they are vitally needed is the most crucial question which arises here. In each millisecond of their existence, cells require a constant supply of sugar, insulin, oxygen and other essential salts for their survival. Considering the extremely minute size of the blood cell and the paradoxical nature of the problems involved, it requires a profound knowledge of the laws of nature and highly advanced technical know-how to successfully meet this challenge.

On the one hand the nuclei and the protoplasm in the cellular chambers are fortified by this impervious double protective layer of lipids against the possible penetration of the surrounding plasma. On the other hand they need a constant supply of energy to be transported across the lipid covers. To meet this essential requirement, the measures taken by nature are so amazingly profound and intricate as boggles the mind.

It is inconceivable for these measures to have been planned and executed by a mere blind collusion of chances. In fact, the intricate internal structure and order of arrangement of the transporter protein, which delivers glucose molecules to the cells, had to be exactly designed to do the needful. Again, complementary measures had to be taken for each recipient cell to harmonize perfectly with the working of the transporter protein. As some readers unfamiliar with scientific terminology may find it difficult to keep track of this subject, every effort is being made to make it generally comprehensible even for the lay reader.

This system of transportation is such a masterpiece of scientific designing and structuring as to keep complete silence over it may indeed be unfair. The Creator has specifically designed this system so that each transporter protein is interwoven in the lipid covers and consists of a chain of 492 amino acids which are arranged in 25 segments. Thirteen of these segments are hydrophilic which means that they have a special affinity for water. The remaining 12 are hydrophobic, which means that they detest and repel watery solutions. The hydrophilic segments promote the absorption of liquid and welcome the outer watery surroundings, while the hydrophobic segments repulse water and prefer the inner cellular environment. Together both are organized to weave back and forth twelve times45 within the space of two lipids changing their conformation, during which whatever proteins, sugars etc. they carry are delivered first into the protoplasm across the membrane through a special porous arrangement. Then whatever is to be transferred from the protoplasm to the outer bloodstream is done through this spiral conformation which transfers the specific material from the protoplasm to the outer lipid wall which through another complex porous arrangement delivers the material to the bloodstream. Thus the transporter oscillator:

‘ … shifts the binding pocket for glucose between opposite sides of the membrane. Kinetic studies, including several performed at Dartmouth Medical School … indicate that such oscillation is extraordinarily rapid … When glucose is bound to the transporter, the rate is even greater, about 900 times per second.’46

Without a Perfect Knowledgeable Organizer, whose existence they do not recognize, this scheme of ‘hows’ could not be designed and precisely executed by itself. Spectroscopic evidence has established that the entire protein is coiled into a helix, and in this helical-cylindrical arrangement the hydrophilic segments are arranged on one side of the cylinder and hydrophobic segments on the other. The methodology of this exercise is highly intriguing and fascinating! This complex mechanism is by no means a product of chance, but had to be purpose-built.

Apart from the energy requirement of the cell, there is an additional problem of maintenance of the ratio of salts inside and outside the cellular chambers. The essential salts present in the cell have to maintain a certain proportion. This ratio is different by a large margin from the one found in the electrolyte solutions surrounding the cell. Sodium ions, for example, are ten times more concentrated outside than inside the cell. If a simple open pore arrangement were made for the transportation of glucose into the cell it would simultaneously promote the free access of sodium ions as well, thereby disturbing the ratio by a factor of ten, which could prove disastrous. A constantly controlled supply of sodium ions is also essential for the survival of the cell which is well taken care of—a technological miracle of no small magnitude! Special inlet valves are created in the lipid covers, which when opened, permit about ten million sodium ions per second across the cell membrane. This is one hundred thousand times faster than the glucose transportation.47 Some speed indeed! And the story is not over as yet.

It becomes manifestly clear from this study that life, even at its most rudimentary level, needs to be constantly protected. In another area of operation of natural laws, however, we observe a different design to serve the same purpose. There, death is repeatedly employed to serve the cause of life in an entirely different manner. Here, death outnumbers survival by enormously large proportions. This apparently is the opposite of what we have discussed above, but in reality it further supports the contention that in the story of life nothing is left to chance or accident.

Every law which is created, every process that is designed, is to support life in one way or another. What we have in mind here is the Darwinian principle of the ‘Survival of the Fittest’. According to this principle, for the advancement of the quality of life, nature has worked out an automatic method of sifting. This slow continuous process of selection becomes pronounced when a species confronts challenges to its survival. It works in every area of animal activity. The predators, when they chase their prey in air or on land, continue to eliminate the weaker and less capable of survival among them. Of course they do not discriminate intentionally, but the stronger, the faster and also the comparatively more clever members of the species naturally stand a better chance of escape.

Likewise, in the area of reproduction, the stronger and more powerful male members of a species at a time of mating, stand a much higher chance of succeeding than those who are weaker or suffer from other disadvantages. Hence, in the ultimate analysis, it is the hand of death which serves the cause of life. At this level this phenomenon is easy to observe and natural to operate, requiring no specific design for it to prevail. But this principle is not only at work in relation to the competition between members of different species; it also operates more subtly and far less perceivably in an inner area of the functions of life.

For every child which is conceived by a mother, billions upon billions of chances of conception are sacrificed. Most people do not know the fact that every healthy male has been gifted with a reproductive potential capable of producing billions of offspring during an average life span. But it is only a few sperm during the entire lifetime of a man which are fortunate to succeed in fertilizing a female ovum which results in the possible birth of a child. Even if a man can boast of having produced a hundred offspring in a primitive society, where unrestricted polygamy is practised, the number of his reproductive sperm, potentially capable of fertilizing a female egg, outnumber the actual conceptions by an enormously large proportion. But even the billions of sperms which fail the test of natural selection, do not die in vain. Their death guarantees that only the most competitive and the most worthy of survival is ushered into the next generation of species. Incidentally, it leaves one to wonder by what stroke of chance only one ovum is created in the female instead of billions, like the sperms created in the male. If it had so happened, the number of offspring which every married or unmarried couple would gift to the world would have created some problems for the already overburdened economics of the world, struggling hard for their survival in the modem competitive world.

Hence, in the course of the struggle for existence, a very large number of contestants had to be sacrificed for the sake of every small gain in the quality of life. Yet, once the threshold of death is crossed successfully, it is not the end at all. Every living moment of their lives, those who pass the test of survival once, continue to face death. It is this perpetually impending danger from which the Quran declares that the living are saved consciously at the command of God by the angels of life. Hence, neither death is accidental, nor life. They go side by side like night and day to weave the yam of conscious existence.

The protective system which we are discussing covers the entire span of the operation of life, both at its visible outer level as well as the invisible deep recesses. This complementary design of advancement and protection along the course of evolution is an all-pervasive law covering the entire scheme of things. As we look back at the journey of life from the time of its origin to the present day, we observe it to have travelled through many a different unfriendly, even hostile, terrain. It could also be portrayed as attempting to move across a large expanse of quicksand with stepping stones at convenient distances. If the traveller was a blind, senseless creature, how many chances, if at all any, would one give him to move safely across, step by step, in the right direction, without wavering and without making a single faux pas? If the distance to be covered is a billion steps across this lethal journey—where every stepping stone is surrounded by the quicksand of death—who would bet on him reaching safely across to the shore of his ultimate destination? Always stepping in the right direction, never failing to plant his feet firmly on the next pedestal of survival has to be the greatest miracle performed by the ancient blind traveller of chance.

It is evolution of course, but not blind evolution. At every cross-section of their journey, it was never the living who made their choices as to the bearing they should take. There was no fixed destination, if there was no conscious Designer and Creator of life. Hence, every step which life took, could have moved in any direction. A single step to be taken in the right direction is an outside chance. For each step to move invariably in the right direction, a billion times over and to pursue unfalteringly the course which could only lead to the creation of man, is something so bizarre and unreal that even the phantom figures of fairy tales would not believe in it. Yet, there are some scientists who do!

If God is removed from this intricate scheme of things the only identity which remains to be fixed is that of the Creator. Let alone the mysteries of the inanimate universe, the living wonders of the tiny planet Earth will cry out for the Hand that shaped them and filled their existence with fathomless intricacies. Rule God out and their cries will forever remain unheard, unanswered. Man can only be sure of one thing, that Life did not create itself, and Death could not create Life.

Chirality or Sidedness in Nature

What is sidedness, what significance does it possess if any and why sidedness at all, are the questions to which we shall presently turn our attention. When moving in circles whether we begin to turn from right to left, or left to right, the quality of this exercise is not in the least altered in whichever direction we initiate the tum. If we pick up an object with our right hand or pick it up with our left, so long as it is lifted the question of right or left loses significance. The question of right or left will acquire significance only if we understand its underlying wisdom. But surprisingly, both in Islamic teachings and in some manifestations of natural laws, sidedness seems to be rigidly enforced without any apparent reason for its preference. In the chapter Life in the Perspective of Quranic Revelation we briefly mentioned that many verses of the Holy Quran speak of sidedness with a religious significance. This Quranic attitude is further elaborated to some detail in many traditions of the Holy Prophet(sa) which instruct the believers as to how they should conduct themselves in their everyday social and religious practices. They display a decided trend in favour of the right over the left.

Why such partiality in matters so trivial, as the mere preference of one side over the other, is a question intriguing enough in its application to religious teachings. But when addressed to a similar universal phenomenon of sidedness in nature, the enigma assumes astronomical proportions. Religious instructions are invariably dictated by a conscious human mind, or Divine teachings. No such Conscious Creator is recognized by the secular scientists to have designed any code of natural conduct. Why then this intriguing similarity between religion and nature in the area of sidedness? If not due to a common origin, could it be reasonably dismissed as mere coincidence? But that is not all. The more we study the manifestations of sidedness in nature, the more we are overwhelmed by the element of wonder it generates. There is no known scientific rationale for its existence. Why nature should display such selective propensity of preferring one side over the other is a question which has not been answered until now and may yet remain unanswered for many a decade to come.

It should be worthy of note here, that according to the Quran every natural behaviour should be rationally explainable. The Quran categorically rules out any scenario of creation which is haphazard, disorderly or accidental. Hence, if not today, the dawn of that tomorrow may not be too far away when scientists will be able to fathom the deep underlying reasons beneath all expressions of sidedness in nature, however shallow they may appear at present.

Before proceeding further, it seems appropriate to explain at some length the phenomenon of sidedness, or chirality, as found operative in nature. It can easily be understood with reference to some group displays of children which highlight the excellence of their physical training. Children of some groups organized in circles of equal number are required to run clockwise while those of some other groups are instructed to run counterclockwise. To enhance the spectacular effect they are generally so paired that if one of the pairs runs in one direction, then the other runs in the opposite one. Visualize just such a pair and you will grasp the meaning of sidedness or chirality in scientific terms. Although similar in all other respects, the image of the group moving from right to left cannot be superimposed on the group moving from left to right because of the opposite direction of their movement. Likewise, though all molecules spin, all do not spin in the same direction. Some move from right to left, while others do so from left to right. Some compounds of exactly the same chemical formula may contain both the right spinning and the left spinning molecules suspended together in a single solution; while some others are composed only of such molecules as move in just one direction. But chirality is not confined to the molecular level alone, even the tiniest of subatomic particles display chirality.

The evidence of chirality in nature came to light only some one hundred and fifty years ago. It was Louis Pasteur, the great French scientist who discovered chirality in the spin of molecules in 1848. It is a great tribute to his exceptional intelligence and keen observation that while examining a certain salt of tartaric acid he noticed that there were two types of crystals, each a mirror image of the other. He carefully separated the two, dissolved them in water and made a beam of light pass through the solution. He was surprised to discover that the polarized light was rotated differently by the two specimens. One was rotated clockwise and the other anticlockwise. This clearly meant that the molecules of the two separated specimens of tartaric acid were either spinning to the right or to the left—neither could be superimposed on the other. This was the first ever case of chirality observed by scientists at the elemental level.48

Another singularly significant discovery in the same field was made yet again by Pasteur in 1857. One day he noticed the growth of a mould in a chemical solution lying in a jar. Instead of throwing away the solution as contaminated, he made a beam of light pass through it to examine the effect, if any, of that mould on the solution. He was astounded to discover that the solution, though inactive in relation to light prior to its contamination, had suddenly become active and started polarizing light. It was inactive in relation to light for the simple reason that it was composed of an equal number of right spinning and left spinning molecules each neutralizing the other’s effect on light. Hence the polarity displayed by the contaminated specimen could only mean that the mould had eaten up only such molecules as spun in the same direction and left completely untouched those which spun in the opposite. One mystery was thus resolved but only after having given birth to another much more complex one. How could a mere mould detect the spin of molecules with such unfailing exactness and why was it at all partial to the molecules spinning in any specific direction? These were the questions which baffled the mind of Pasteur then and still baffle the minds of scientists today. For how long they remain unanswered, the scientists know not. The magnitude of the dilemma is enormous. The molecules of any element or compound, right spinning or left spinning, share exactly the same chemical and physical properties. What or who dictates their propensity to spin in any particular direction is a brain-twister enough, but when it comes to the most uncanny ability of life to detect which molecules are spinning in which direction, the question acquires bizarre astronomical proportions. None of the five senses bestowed to man are equipped with any known mechanism which can determine the spin of molecules. The spinning molecules leave no imprint on the property of matter to become detectable through human sensory organs. But what of moulds which have no known sensory organs; all they have is a diffused sense of awareness?

This amazing tale of chirality in nature does not end here. It just begins. Since the time of Pasteur, research on chirality has made tremendous progress and many more extremely perplexing examples have come to light testifying that chirality can be unmistakably detected by different species of life.

By now chirality is discovered to operate at every level of material existence. Yet the manner of how and why it so behaves is far from understood. Until 1957 it was believed that the four fundamental forces which govern the interaction of elementary particles were parity conserving. This simply means that all particles at elementary level had chiral-symmetry. However, in 1957 Chien-Shiung Wu and her colleagues at Columbia University discovered that beta particles emitted from radioactive nuclei did not display chiral-symmetry. The left-handed electrons far outnumbered the right-handed ones. It was further discovered that the tiniest subatomic particles, neutrinos and anti-neutrinos, which are electrically neutral and move at the speed of light, also display a certain spin. But unlike electrons which predominantly prefer left-handed spin, anti-neutrinos are always partial to the right-hand. The contrary is not found in nature. No one knows why chiral asymmetry exists at such fundamental levels of existence at all.

Many hypotheses are being presented but most are found to be simply preposterous when examined more minutely. However, there is one suggestion which seems to have provided scientists with a clue to the factor possibly at work at the most rudimentary level of chirality in nature. Yet at this level, it is too ethereal to be demonstrated or verified. It is related to a theory which unifies the weak and electromagnetic forces first propounded by Dr Abdus Salam, Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow in 1960. That theory predicted a new electroweak force which does not conserve parity. This disparity according to scientists could possibly be responsible for the right-handed spin of anti-neutrinos and left-handed spin of neutrinos, as well as that of electrons. But this weak electric force cannot be contemplated as the causative factor to produce the right sided or left sided behaviours at all other levels of chirality. The behavioural difference between the two sometimes perplexes scientists, particularly in relation to the role they play in biotic evolution. The problem is further compounded when we observe that the two right sided and left sided components of exactly the same chemical formula exert a completely different influence on life in odd ways. The following are some fascinating examples:

Limonene is a compound found both in lemons and oranges. There is not the slightest difference in their chemical formula, yet the spin of limonene molecules in lemons is invariably opposite to the molecular spin of limonene found in oranges. Limonene in lemons is always right spinning while in oranges it is always left spinning. How on earth could lemons and oranges always pick the limonene of a specific spin for their consumption while the difference between their limonene is merely that of molecular spin? It needs to be emphasized yet again that both the right sided and left sided specimens of limonene contain exactly the same chemical and physical properties. How the olfactory glands of the human nose can ever detect the difference of the spin in oranges and lemons and ascribe to them completely different smells is absolutely astounding. Of course there has to be some reason but as yet we cannot identify it.

Another example relates to the influence of chirality on life of a rather sinister nature. This came to light in 1963 when a drug, thalidomide, was introduced by a pharmaceutical company for the cure of morning sickness in pregnant women. Many were cured, but for many others it proved disastrous. Horrible congenital defects were found in the babies born to some mothers treated by the same drug. A subsequent intensive research revealed that the pharmaceutical company which manufactured thalidomide had inadvertently manufactured two types of thalidomide compounds of the same formula. While the molecules of one type spun in one direction, those of the second type spun in the other. While one type cured morning sickness without producing any adverse effect on the embryo, the other type produced the most horrible congenital deformities instead of curing the morning sickness. The most profound side-effect was the deformities of the lower limbs among the infants born under its influence.

Another intriguing case of the detection of the spin and the preference of one spin over the other is found at the most fundamental level of life. Although there were several hundred amino acids freely available in the primordial soup from which such proteins were created as made the fundamental bricks of life (DNA and RNA), ‘nature’ selected only twenty amino acids out of them and they were all left spinning!

In the case of selecting molecules for building sugars however, the choice was reversed. The molecules of all the four different forms of sugars responsible for the provision of energy to all forms of life are, without exception, right spinning. This means that all natural sources of sugar available to life, like sugar cane, beet root, fruit, etc., manufacture sugar consisting only of right spinning molecules.

Nevertheless, a successful experiment was conducted a few years ago for synthesizing sugar comprising only left spinning molecules. It was discovered that this artificially synthesized sugar, though exactly the same in taste, chemical properties and cooking behaviour, was totally rejected by the human digestive system. Not a molecule was assimilated. This gave rise to the bizarre idea of manufacturing sugar consisting of only left spinning molecules on a commercial scale, not only for the benefit of diabetics but also for the pleasure of gourmands and gluttons. They could consume mountains of sugar without the fear of accumulating even a molehill of fat. The only snag is that, at present, the cost of manufacturing left spinning synthetic sugar is prohibitive. A mountain of money would be needed to produce a mere molehill of such sugar. Perhaps only the royal highnesses of oil rich monarchies sitting upon mountains of oil wealth could afford this luxury.

The apparently arbitrary preference for right or left also manifests itself in many other ways. Most humans are right-handed and the arrangement of the heart and liver is universally left sided and right sided respectively, barring a few rare individual exceptions of course. Roger A. Hegstrom and Dillip K. Kondepudi in their jointly authored article The Handedness of the Universe published in Scientific American, January 1990, present many examples of handedness in nature without any apparent reason for preference. While observing that most people are right handed, they fail to recognize any reason

‘ … why right—and left—handed persons are not born in equal numbers.’49

But it is not a prerogative of the human race alone to display definite trends with regards to handedness.

On partiality to sidedness as found in the animal kingdom and vegetative behaviour, they write:

‘Right-handed or dextral shells dominate-on both sides of the Equator. Among these right-dominated animals, left-handed individuals exist only as a result of mutations, which appear with a frequency ranging from about one in hundreds to one in millions, depending on the species.’50

In contrast to them, the lightning-whelk of the Atlantic coast are predominantly left-handed. In plants, the honeysuckle winds around its support in a left-handed helix while the bindweed prefers winding from right to left. Even in bacteria some of their colonies spiral from right to left yet as the temperature increases they reverse the spiral direction to left-handed turns.51

These are but a few cases. At every level of evolution we find many other outstanding examples of how life displays partiality to the spin of molecules. Their study excites wonderment and leaves one bewildered. There has to be a Conscious All-Wise Supreme Selector who made choices at every stage of decision making or one has to ascribe this role to the haphazard vagaries of blind nature!

We feel that at the end, the purpose of this exercise needs to be emphasized once again. The basic issue of discussion is whether revelation can play any role in transferring information from the realm of the unknown to the realm of the known. Every discussion under different titles in this treatise is invariably related to this issue. In this chapter the relevance may not have been clearly understood, hence the need for further elaboration of this point. We have already pointed out that in the entire comity of religions Islam stands out in its emphasis on sidedness in religious behaviour and conduct. We respectfully draw the attention of the reader that in all other religions the opposite number of right is wrong, not left.

In Islam however, the word ‘right’ is not employed exclusively to indicate goodness, it is also employed to indicate ‘the side’ literally. As such, in this context the term ‘right’ is not used against ‘wrong’; it is used against ‘left’. This is clearly sidedness. In many Quranic verses right is decidedly mentioned in its preference over the left. It is these verses which must have provided the guidelines for the Holy Prophet(sa) to direct the believers to prefer right over left in day-to-day religious conduct. His established practice was to always commence good things from his right side or by his right hand. The believers are told to perform ablution, for instance, with the right hand first. When they wear their shoes, they should insert the right foot first. In the seating arrangements at a table, the guest of honour is seated on the right side of the host. At the birth of a child in Islam, the Muslim call for prayer (Azan) should be whispered into the right ear before whispering Al-Takbir in the left. Such instructions were not accidental but were specific down to the minutest detail. According to his instructions and his own personal consistent example, the Muslims are required to always use the right hand for touching and holding clean things, while the rest are left to the left hand. Hence when a Muslim shakes hands with others he is expected to do so with full confidence that he is offering a clean hand.

Instructions such as these clearly indicate that the concept of sidedness in religious and social behaviour were purposefully incorporated in Islam. It is also in this sense that the prophecies concerning the future of mankind use the terms ‘rightist’ and ‘leftist’. Hence the political and economic division in the contemporary age, based on the rightist philosophy or the leftist philosophy, tally clearly with the Quranic prophecies regarding the future of mankind.

Why is it that it is Islam alone which emphasizes sidedness so strongly while other Divinely revealed religions do not even mention it?

In answer to this question, it should be well understood that according to the Quran, the age of all other religions had come to an end with the dawn of Islam. Polarity and sidedness are the trends which had not yet been born in human affairs in the age prior to it. It was only Islam which was to address the people of an age where polarity and sidedness were to become common coinage in matters of expression.

Looking at it from this angle, the evidence of sidedness in day-to-day behavioural matters was in a way prophetic, that man was about to be ushered into that advanced age when sidedness would acquire new depths and new dimensions. This is exactly what has come to pass. Little did the man of that age know that not only in matters of political and economic divisions, but also in the domain of science, sidedness would acquire such importance as could never be imagined in any previous era.

Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest

Answering the question as to who has been responsible, throughout the ages, for taking important decisions, which had to be taken at every step of evolutionary advancement, the Quran pronounces the following:

It is He Who has created death and life that He might try you—which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Most Forgiving,

The Same Who has created seven heavens in stages (

). No incongruity can you see in the creation of the Gracious God. Then look again: Do you see any flaw?

Aye, look again, and yet again, your sight will only return to you tired and fatigued.52

In the absence of God, life could not have travelled on a purpose-built path following a single direction throughout. At every step there was a wide aimless expanse of possibilities stretched before it, riddled with difficulties through which it had to carve its path. There were countless options which could potentially have changed the course and direction of evolution at every such critical moment in time. The question arises as to why life pursued a definite evolutionary course in a single direction as though none else was available.

The only explanation offered by scientists relates to the role of natural selection. Though they fully recognize the dimension and the gravity of the problem, they would have us believe that at every crucial point of decision making it was natural selection which took the decision, always making the right choices out of a countless number of available options.

Ever since Darwin coined the phrase ‘Natural Selection’, it has served as a magic wand for the scientists who probe into the mysteries of nature. In relation to events which appear to present evidence of the role of a wilful Conscious Creator as the choice maker, they seek protection behind the mist of this vague term which is mostly incorrectly understood. Every step forward in the path of evolution is inadvertently attributed by them to innumerable chances having created a host of options for natural selection to choose from. But this choice, on the part of natural selection, they agree, is not conscious. When different characters and species struggle for survival in a competitive situation, it is quite natural for some to survive at the cost of others if they happen to possess greater potential for survival.

Here we may also mention another hackneyed phrase of Darwinian terminology ‘The Survival of the Fittest’ which is so extensively used by the naturalists. This phrase is coined on the presumption that natural selection, however blind it may be, would always go for the right choice and only the fittest would survive in a competitive world. Whatever is inferior in the struggle for existence is doomed to become extinct. Darwin’s principle is perhaps misinterpreted to a degree that the very principle becomes questionable. We have irrefutable evidence spread all over the globe that even the most inferior character bearing species and the most ill-equipped animals at the lowest rung of evolution are still found to have survived. The extinction of some, as against the others, only takes place when the contest for survival is extremely severe and mutually confrontational. Then too, it does not invariably lead to the survival of the fittest in its absolute sense. Survival of the fittest in its absolute sense, though possible, is yet unlikely to occur in the case of every struggle for existence. The fittest at such outcomes would only be the fittest in relation to that particular challenge. The unfortunate who may not survive these moments of trials may otherwise possess many more highly advanced qualities of life which may adjudge them to be the fittest in some other contexts.

Let us elaborate this further by visualizing the scenario of a grave famine resulting from a rare spell of drought covering an entire continent. Such a famine, if it persists for too long, is likely to bring to extinction a large number of species. The issue of extinction or survival would hang on the respective compatibility of the species in the given situation.

In a famine as severe as the one we are visualizing, almost all shrubs, bushes, trees and grasses with short roots, would be completely annihilated. The obvious reason for this is that the water level sinks lower and lower as the famine strikes deeper and deeper, until with the total dryness of the upper soil, the shorter roots are completely dehydrated. But this may not be the fate of some trees with very long, deeply entrenched roots. Such roots are known to have reached astounding depths during long-lasting spells of severe droughts. There are many caves in mountains that have been explored by archaeologists which bear witness to this fact. Some roots of trees which stood right on the top of a mountain appear to have chased the water as it sank to amazingly low depths. Similarly, despite periodic long spells of droughts in deserts, the secret of the survival of an oasis lies in this ability of the roots of some trees to chase water.

In the scenario under study, one can reasonably expect all the short root shrubbery, bushes, trees and grasses etc., to have been completely wiped out, whereas some tall trees with tapering, long embedded roots could withstand even worse droughts.

Let us now visualize what would happen to life in general upon such a continent during this period of extreme trial. Most of the grazing animals with shorter legs and necks would most certainly be starved or dehydrated to death. So also the carnivores among the animals would not survive much longer after their food supply had dwindled out of existence.

Maybe the only survivors would be those who could survive on very little water such as worms, scorpions, and millipedes and those animals which take their daily need of water by feeding on them with relish. Among them, meerkats are known to possess exceptional qualities to survive in such hostile environments. Some sorts of rodents could perhaps also share a fighting chance to crawl across an overly extended drought.

Among tall vertebrates however, there is one likely candidate who could have an outside chance to survive. For giraffes with exceptionally long necks and tall forequarters, it is not impossible to reach the green foliage on the tops of tall deep-rooted trees while all other species of grazing animals would be starving to death all around them.

There are also other factors which have to be brought to the focus of attention. There are animals which can run fast for long distances in search of whatever water holes remain available, and there are slow moving animals as well, at evident disadvantage. There are others better equipped with the sense of detecting water at long distances, and there are those who must find water right under their noses. We have also to include in the picture the role of the beasts of the jungle who must thrive on the flesh of grazing animals, and follow them wherever they go. They too, in turn however, need water for their survival. It is painful to visualize at what tragic moment the curtain of this bizarre drama will fall at last. They must depart this stage fatigued and starved one after the other. Maybe the only spectators left behind will be some giraffes, some vermin, some meerkats, in the vast empty amphitheatre of this continent where this ghastly drama is playing its last act. Maybe the only applause that will be heard would be the tiny clapping of the meerkats, or the neighing of the giraffes—if they have any neighing strength left in them—applauding their own survival!

Is this the survival of the fittest? Is this what the scientists clamour about? Is this what they mean by natural selection at work? Do the qualities of the giraffes and the meerkats, not to mention those of a few species of vermin which survived, really represent the ultimate evolutionary preferences?

In a billion years, hundreds of such alternating waves of drastic fluctuations in the climate can be realistically estimated. There would have been times when life was threatened with excessive cold or with excessive heat. There would have been times when life was threatened with excessive drought or excessive rains; there would also have been many scores of diseases attendant upon all such climatic changes. Whatever may have survived during the periods of these varying trials would not always be the giraffes and the meerkats, or the vermin for that matter.

In every changed context, the principle of the survival of the fittest would favour the survival of different contestants. Every calamity would have its own preferences. Looking at the issue of survival in relation to varying threats and challenges to life as it hazards its journey through a billion years of evolution, it is hard to visualize any survival at all. Little chance, if any, can be envisaged for the survival of all the forms of life, because different crises will have their own favourite targets which most often will not be the same. The poison for one category of life would be the meat for another. So the law of random selection would choose at random and continue to reject all that cross its path.

We hope that by now the reader will have fully comprehended the nature and dimension of the problems involved in the operation of the survival of the fittest and natural selection. It should be remembered here that the term ‘Natural Selection’ is not being comprehensively examined in all its areas of application. We have only specifically taken up one of its many aspects to suit this context.

In Darwin’s theory of biological evolution, as observed in comparatively more advanced species of life, the role of natural selection can be more easily discerned. But there also, it is found to be inadequate in accepting the right values and discarding the wrong ones.

Again, it should be emphasized here that the phenomenon of natural selection under changing environments does not possess any instrument of effecting internal cellular changes to suit the external requirements. The chromosomes and the character bearing genes lie far beyond the reach of chaotic external changes. The natural laws which govern them are insulated from the whims of cold and heat, or dryness and humidity. They are two absolutely unrelated phenomena.

Natural selection becomes operative only after a host of variants are created through progressive or random genetic changes. In the competitive world of the variants, thus created by ‘chance’, only those are able to survive which are proved fittest in relation to the given challenges. With a change in the nature and character of challenges, the definition of preferred characters would also change. Hence, this misconception that natural selection would always favour the best characters in all varying situations should be dispelled once and for all. Occasionally it may do so, but most often it does not. The term is largely relative and rarely definitive regarding its choices. The competition for survival can be between members of the same species, or between different species. It is only the chance outcome of a given situation which decides the quality of the surviving factors. Blind struggle for existence cannot always aim at the right qualities. Whatever emerges, bad or good, must be accepted as the fittest. A particular species could be adjudged as champion with regards to its potential for survival in a specific situation. The species that becomes extinct could have possessed more advanced qualities and characters in other regards.

Consider for example the case of a solitary gorilla left stranded in a hostile arctic environment. In comparison to it, the polar bear and foxes stand far greater chances of survival in the same habitat. In that particular case the gorilla, despite its comparative evolutionary advancement, would be condemned to extinction by the instrument of natural selection as a worthless thing in comparison to the polar bear and the arctic foxes. Replace the gorilla with a human in the same hypothetical situation, the condemnation of him to death by the principle of survival of the fittest will be speedier than in the case of the gorilla. Hence it is wrong to believe that natural selection goes for quality as such. In the barest terms, natural selection can at best be described as ‘might is right’; even when might is vicious, distorted, oppressive and merciless, might will always emerge victorious in the sight of natural selection.

If we undertake the work of tracing the history of evolution in relation to all the various forms of life and try to determine how the principles of natural selection and survival of the fittest actually work, it would exhaust voluminous books running into hundreds of thousands of pages or more. It would take many generations of future scientists to pursue this task.

However, we must draw the attention of the reader to the fact that if one visualizes all the possible options at work, progressive selection would become impossible. At every such occasion where this discrimination is needed, it may take millions of chances to collude for the selection of a single superior character. The converse should also be seriously considered.

For haphazard mutations to jump in any direction, is not controversial, but for them to always jump in the right direction, to advance the cause of evolution towards a definite goal, is next to impossible. Hence, in a game of chance, as indeed it is a game of chance, is highly implausible for it to always take the stride in the right direction as needed by the dictates of evolutionary requirements at that point in time. It is unfortunate however, that most scientists shut their eyes to the inevitability of the Hand of a Conscious Wise Selector Who will always take the right decisions at the right moment and will not leave them to the throw of a dice.

How can it be possible for evolution to continuously march forward in the direction of man while at each moment the possibilities of its taking the wrong steps backwards are overwhelmingly larger? The only possible solution to this otherwise insoluble dilemma would be to follow the backward escape route envisaged by a boy during a rainy day. Once, it is said, a boy reached his school very late. When severely reprimanded by his teacher, he offered the excuse that the road to school was so muddy and slippery that as he took one step forward in the direction of the school, he slipped back two steps.

‘Excuse me, sir,’ was the apologetic reply of the boy, ‘It struck me rather late, that I should start walking in the direction of my house instead of that of the school. The moment I did it, I began to slide backwards towards the school at an even faster speed than I ordinarily maintain. And here I am sir, hitting the back of my head against the school wall, such was my haste to reach here, backwards all the way.’

The dilemma that life faces, if left entirely to the mercy of chance, is far more exasperating than the case of that boy. At each step forward, evolution driven by chance should have slipped a hundred thousand steps backwards. But for life with no prefixed direction, as some naturalists believe, the concept of a step forward simply does not arise. Forward in which direction and to what end, are the questions which can never be answered in relation to chance being its creator. Every step it took could be in any direction. Hence even turning the journey of life backwards could not resolve the problem. Man not being the ultimate goal of evolution, life would lose its bearing in the wilderness of chaos, squandering each quality it had gained, by chance, to the stormy aimless winds of annihilation.

Whatever the mutative changes might have gained, they may lose by other leaps in wrong directions. Let us apply the same logic to the creation of eyes and examine how blind mutative changes could have succeeded in manufacturing even a most rudimentary eye which could see and transmit what it saw to the brain behind. It is far more likely for mutation, or gradual cellular development, to disorganize what it has created itself, than for it to organize the surrounding confusion with the passage of time. The haphazard mutative changes created only by chance could actually play havoc with the orderly shape and design of life. It could change, for instance, the positioning of the eye, the nose, the ear, the mouth, the tongue and their sensory buds. Maybe in a few subsequent generations some species could have eyes shifted to the back of their heads instead, or upon their stomachs, or one each under their armpits! Who can stay or discipline the hand of chance? Again, it is not unlikely that the ears could begin to see, the nose could talk and the tongue could hear, ankles could grow with buds of taste and smell! Different animals, at least some of them, should have exhibited such freaks of nature without a purpose to serve. But wherever in nature we find a shifting of the ear or the eye from their normally expected position, it is always done purposefully, being of advantage to the animal concerned rather than of disadvantage. But these are exceptions. The rule that governs millions of species dictates a universal design. When we observe chance at work it behaves differently; babies are born with congenital disorders, alas never to their advantage. Who knows? A game of chance is a game of chance.

The task of examining the evolutionary processes which led to the making of an eye require a thorough, in depth study. Also, the evolution of all animal organs, which make complex, yet perfect little worlds of their own need to be examined in depth.

It is intended, therefore, to add a separate chapter on the creative processes which resulted in the creation of complete organic units, eyes being central to the discussion. Unfortunately, the physical features of species as they evolve have been far more emphasized by naturalists than their sensory organs. However, mere physical changes in a certain direction are of no significance compared to the advancement of awareness and consciousness in the grand scheme of the evolutionary spiral. What is Life after all, if it is not awareness, as against the absolute unawareness of Death?

The most dramatic miracle does not take place on the plane of mere cellular changes and complexities of molecules at the level of proteins. The miracle of the origin of life lies in the sudden dawn of consciousness upon the horizon of the dead universe that preceded it. Ever since that happened it continues to grow from weakness to strength, from a lone beginning to diversity. The meaning of evolution can in no way be understood by confining oneself to the Darwinian principle of haphazard physical changes being selected and grouped together by the hand of natural selection. It can only be comprehended by gaining a better understanding of the five senses which ultimately evolved after the hazardous journey of life during its last billion years.

Man can look down from his vantage point at whatever lies behind him and below him. Only then will he realize the meaning of life and the meaning of evolution—bit by bit, nanometre by nanometre; the senses once born climbed through the spiralling path of endless evolution. The purpose and philosophy of evolution is doubtlessly the creation and promotion of the five senses. The creation of five senses, each of which in itself is a masterpiece of creative wonders, stands witness to a well-executed design at the grandest scale, where harmony rules supreme. No wonder then, that the Holy Quran repeatedly sums up the outcome of evolution in just three simple terms: the creation and perfection of the faculty of hearing, seeing and understanding.

And Allah brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers while you knew nothing, and gave you ears and eyes and hearts, that you might be grateful.53

To return to the main subject of discussion, let us emphasize once again that mutative changes could go far more often wrong than right, leaving little room, if any, for natural selection to choose from, for the betterment of life. But this is not all we observe in the grand panorama of evolution at play on the stage of life.

To pursue the point further, let us focus our gaze here upon the arctic habitat. The naturalist’s understanding of physical evolution can specifically be put to test there with the characteristic study of polar bears and arctic foxes. Polar bears differ in shape from brown and black bears. Their hindquarters are set higher than their forequarters so that they can run faster in pursuit of prey, while their elongated necks give them a more streamlined shape for swimming. Other bears can also swim, but polar bears can swim comparatively much faster and cover much longer distances, a competence direly needed for their survival in the arctic environment.

Polar bears can weigh as much as 800 kilograms and measure 3.0 metres. Their size is both a protection against the cold and a necessary factor in their ability to hunt and kill. Incidentally, the cubs born to a mother bear are amazingly small, they weigh a mere 500 grams, just a fraction of the weight of a human baby. Their black skin is covered with thick white fur, thus nature provides them with a perfect camouflage throughout the year. Their coats take a yellowish tinge only briefly in summer, matching perfectly with the melting ice. The polar bear’s dense fur and an exceptionally thick layer of fat under its skin protect it against the freezing temperatures of the habitat.54 The fat is particularly important when the bear is swimming, because the fur cannot retain the insulating air trapped in it. When dry, the white fur reflects the heat it receives from the sun’s rays back to the body. The hairs are hollow, so that ultraviolet rays from the sun can pass through them and be absorbed by the black skin beneath.

Another striking feature of the polar bear is the relatively large size of its paws. They are very wide and armed with sharp claws for tearing its prey and for gripping the ice. The soles of its feet are covered with the same thick, creamy white fur as covers its body providing them a better grip on icy surfaces and much needed insulation. Amazingly, polar bears can run as fast on ice as the fastest dog on firm ground. During the exceptionally long spells of night in the polar winter, it is almost impossible for the polar bear to perceive and reach the open water pools where seals are found. Thanks to its extra sharp faculty of smell, darkness offers no hindrance, so it can smell seals, meat or carrion even from as far as 20 kilometres, according to naturalists. In sharpness, its eyesight matches its sense of smell, which is keener than that of most other bears. During daylight they can locate seals from a considerably long distance. Having spotted the seal, the patience with which they stalk them is amazing, they creep upon them with bodies flattened to the ice, forefeet doubled under them and only the hind feet providing propulsion. They possess the artifice for contriving excellent camouflage. Sometimes they push a small heap of ice in front of them to camouflage their dark muzzles, or cover their noses with their white paws to avoid detection.

Much of a polar bear’s time is spent in water. It possesses some unique features to correspond to this situation. The usage of limbs in water is reversed in comparison to the bear’s behaviour when it stalks seals on pack ice. Instead of hind legs, which are now used as rudders, it uses only its forequarters for propulsion. In addition to their exceptionally large size, the front paws have the added advantage of being partially webbed. Another exceptional feature which makes the polar bear perfectly adapted to the polar habitat, is its ability to swim under water with eyes fully open and nostrils closed.3 Although some scientists try to explain away these unique features of the polar bear by simply referring them to be a product of evolution, there are other naturalists however who remind them that it would take millions of years of evolution to create the specific features that separate polar bears from the bear family in general.

In adaptability to the polar climate, the arctic fox does not lag far behind the polar bear. In winter it grows a dense white fur to keep it warm and to provide it with camouflage. Little of its body heat is lost through its small, furry and rounded ears, so different from the ears of the foxes found elsewhere. Again in comparison to other foxes, the arctic fox has a short muzzle and legs, which also help it to conserve heat. Like the polar bear, the arctic fox also has thick fur under the soles of its paws, which provides it with excellent insulation against extreme cold. Surprisingly, the only other fox which shares the fur under the sole with the arctic fox is the desert fox. Obviously, there it needs this fur for insulation against heat. White arctic foxes are hard to see in the snow but their white fur could become a disadvantage in other habitats. For instance, in islands and in the coasts of the arctic ocean where there is less snow, they need a camouflage of a different colour. A bluish-grey colour seems to be ideally suited and it is exactly that which their coats turn into.55

This leads us back to the all-important question of the role of natural selection in the origin of species. If it took some millions of years for the polar bear to be equipped with such exceptional features, as are essential for its survival in the arctic climate, the same time-scale would show no partiality to the fox either. The question arises as to how many thousands of generations of bears and foxes must have perished in vain before they could have evolved the changes m their anatomy, vitally essential for their survival.

Again, if they had survived as they must have survived for millions of years, even without the advantage of these exceptional features which make them perfectly adapted to the arctic climate, where was the need for any adaptation at all? Why all the fuss about genetic changes and chance mutations colluding for that long to provide the opportunity for natural selection to approve of a choice which, in fact, was imposed upon it.

Moreover, if ordinary bears and foxes as found elsewhere in the world were to be dumped into the arctic region today, while polar bears and artic foxes are removed from the arena, the question would arise as to whether they would have any chance of survival in that hostile climate, continuously, generation after generation, without becoming extinct. If they could do so with a fair guarantee for the survival of the species, the evolutionary exercise of the polar bears would be rendered superfluous and the characteristic changes brought about in features could no longer be considered as necessary.

Now we look at the same scenario from a slightly different angle. It is impossible for the extremely inhospitable environment, such as obtains in the arctic region, to work causatively for bringing about appropriate changes to the biochemistry of cells. Yet, without such profound changes in the character bearing genes, no gradual or mutative changes can be visualized. White fur upon black skin, taller hindquarters and shorter forequarters, tiny rounded ears, an exceptionally sharp sense of smell and vision, thick fur under the soles of their paws, change of coats in accordance with environmental dictates and layer upon layer of fat under the skin, cannot be made to order by the climatic conditions prevailing in the arctic habitat of the polar bears and foxes. Chance must continue to play its role separately and blindly in the cellular chemistry to add variety to characters and to bring about spontaneous changes in animal features, haphazardly in every direction.

Natural selection must wait for these painstakingly slow changes to provide a large variety of options for it to choose from. For instance, if random changes in the cellular chemistry can suddenly alter the colour of hair from black to white, with a thick layer of white fur added on top of that, why cannot they change the colour of the hair from black to blue or red or crimson or violet or green or deep yellow or saffron for that matter? How did cellular chemistry know that what was needed in the arctic climate was only white? Yet it failed to learn that the skin underneath the white fur would remain black. Why did the same cellular changes leave the skin alone and think only of changing the colour of the fur—a novel idea indeed to grow white fur on black skin! Hence, each of the specific features mentioned in relation to polar bears and foxes would evidently require a host of other options to have been created by chance.

According to the Darwinian theory of the origin of species, one should expect a wide variety of polar bears and foxes with a host of different features, to have been created by chance before natural selection could come into play. The fossil record of the arctic region should testify to the earlier chance creation of red bears, blue bears, saffron bears and pink bears. But evolution, in relation to its effect on polar bears, seems to be colour-blind, capable only of recognizing black or white. Moreover, the bears should also come in all shapes and sizes. There should be tiny polar bears, giant polar bears, heavyweights, middle weights, lightweights, flyweights, bantamweights and featherweights etc. Some should be born with taller forequarters and shorter hindquarters, some with dim vision and diminished sense of smell. Why should the creative factors, whatever they were, provide only single options in the polar habitat and let natural selection sit idly by? There was nothing for it to choose from.

Some polar bears should again, have been accidentally born with a sense of utter distaste for the flesh of seals, and abhor it to the degree that they would rather die of starvation than to venture upon a mouthful of it. The very sight of it should have made them vomit and retch miserably for hours. It should be of no surprise if some among them were shabby swimmers and tardy runners.

If so, the Darwinian naturalist would have some right to make us believe that it was only random creation which took care of the evolutionary processes in that specific region. Subsequently however, the inevitable law of the survival of the fittest and natural selection must have wiped out the unwanted and incompatible specimens of polar bears. All that was left to survive was the polar bear in its present form.

But where did those polar bears, whom survival of the fittest had condemned to extinction, disappear? We are not talking of a tropical environment. What we are talking about is the extremely cold habitat of the arctic. In a climate such as this, some of the corpses of different polar bears which became extinct must have been perfectly preserved as fossil records. One should remember that some animals which existed hundreds of thousands of years ago have been found buried in the arctic deep freeze, so completely unchanged that their flesh was edible, as if they had been buried yesterday; such is the case of a mammoth elephant discovered in Siberia not so long ago.

The same random cellular changes resulting in the creation of a host of variants among animal species should also be found operative in non-polar climates and habitats. At least some of their fossil records should have been found in the archives of nature.

Let us travel now from the arctic to the non-arctic regions of the world. By comparison to the massive polar bears, the study of a tiny spider presents a fascinating contrast.

Spiders are found virtually everywhere except in the arctic climate. In tropical forests, however, they abound and flourish like nowhere else. Rain forests are not their only habitat. Their ability to survive extreme climates is amazing. They survive on mountain tops as well as in deep canyons and caves.

There are at least thirty thousand known species of spiders, but some estimate the number to be twice as much.56 All spiders are not weavers of webs. About half of them weave webs and the other half, despite the fact that they also produce silky threads, hunt their prey by directly attacking it and leaping upon it with amazing speed and precision. The cobweb weavers invariably go for insects alone, while other spiders can attack and kill comparatively much bigger animals.

Incidentally, in the last century, one naturalist estimated that the number of insects devoured by spiders was more than the total weight of the human population.57 Returning to the main discussion, we should like to remind the reader that the greater the difference between the lifestyle of different species, the more challenging it becomes for the evolutionist to trace back the evolutionary history of each species. What natural factors guided their steps and how, over millions of years? Each of them seems to have accidentally reached the stage in which they are found today.

For the interest of the reader, we just quote a few examples of how vastly spiders vary from species to species. There are wolf spiders, which hunt with the ferocity of a wolf and there are huntsman spiders which move at amazingly fast speeds and there are bird-eating spiders, also known as tarantulas. They are exceptionally large in size by comparison to other spiders. Even small vertebrates appear diminutive by their side. Under extreme provocation they will not hesitate to attack humans. Their staple food consists of small roosting birds, reptiles, amphibians, beetles, moths, grasshoppers and also when needs be, they devour other spiders.

Again there are ant-eating spiders which are mere dwarfs as compared to the tarantulas. They are no bigger than the size of the ordinary ants they hunt. The Creator has provided them with such perfect camouflage as the ants never suspect the presence of these deadly aliens among them. They look like ants, they act like ants, they move like ants and the adage ‘when in Rome do as the Romans do’, applies to them most befittingly. Only, they do not think like ants. How could this amazing camouflage evolve by a mere collusion of blind chances and how long did it take for aimless mutative changes to perfect this wonder? These are some questions for the evolutionist to answer.

Of course one would also expect some explanation as to how natural selection might have worked in relation to the ant-hunters. How many millions of generations of imperfect hunters must have been created and wiped out before the most perfect hunter was finally evolved by the aimless meanderings of the so-called evolutionary factors!

Another mysterious species of spiders is known as Atypus. Ever since they were discovered by W.E. Leach in 1816, they have continued to arouse widespread interest amongst zoologists. Long before sealed room mysteries were invented by detective story writers, Nature had created a living model of the sealed room mystery by designing and perfecting a female species known as ‘the trapdoor spider’. Naturalists had long been puzzled as to how she could keep herself alive closeted in a long silk tube sealed at both ends. It took F. Enoch to finally provide the solution to this baffling problem during his work between 1885 to 1892. The silken tube in which Atypus locks herself is usually eight to nine inches in length. Of this all but two to three inches pass steeply down into the ground while the remaining portion juts out of the ground like an inflated finger of a glove. In the middle, the tube is more spacious to provide the spider room to turn and manoeuvre. The mastermind of blind evolution takes care that during the winter, when the spiders hibernate, the aerial portion is collapsed. At other times they are easily mistaken for roots protruding from soil. The silk is intermixed with earth or sand grains by the spiders to make it appear inconspicuous. The way in which an insect is seized can be watched by tickling the tube with a grass stem. Suddenly two shining curved fangs are violently protruded through the web and it can be seen from their position that the spider strikes in a shark-like manner with its lower side uppermost. If a buzzing fly is held against the tube the fangs pierce its body and hold it like fish hooks. After a certain amount of tugging and jerking a slit appears in the tube wall through which the insect is pulled in. Before retiring to the inner chamber with the prey to enjoy the fruit of her labour, the spider returns to the upper portion of the tube to repair and reseal it.58

How the Darwinian principle of ‘Survival of the Fittest’, aided only by mutative changes, could conceive, design and execute the creative plan of trapdoor spiders, is a mystery which perhaps only the elite among the naturalists can understand to their satisfaction.

Finally, we conclude this discussion by taking up the case of weaver spiders which make almost half of all the spider species. So tiny, so fragile, so delicately built, they all the same possess the surprising faculty and know-how to build intricate contraptions for catching flying insects. It is an intriguing case study because as we move from one type of weavers to another, the whole complexion of their style, strategy and weaving skills change dramatically. Let us visualize how blind chance might have endowed the spider to turn his salivary glands into a highly efficient mill for spinnmg yarn.

Of course it could not have happened overnight by an explosion of mutative changes. If we reconstruct the entire process bit by bit and stage by stage, then perhaps we can visualize to some degree what aimless evolution could have done for the spider.

Perhaps the story began with the salivary glands of the spider suddenly becoming over-sensitised due to some accidental factors. Then, maybe during the next one or two million years, an interplay of a host of chances taught its saliva to harden into strands the moment it was ejected into the air. But these fine fragile looking threads were simultaneously bestowed with a tensile strength greater than that of steel for the same body weight.

These exasperatingly long unmanageable threads must have scattered all over the place, entwining the spider’s legs, entrapping it itself as a sitting duck for its predators. How long this might have gone on perhaps the evolutionists could visualize better. But as a layman’s guess, we suggest that after a million or two years, a mentally more advanced spider was basking in the sun, lamenting its sorry state. At that rare moment rushed to its aid at last, a configuration of mutative changes which endowed its tiny spot of a brain with the skill to turn its disadvantage to advantage. In that flash of a moment, a new era began in the lifestyle of spiders which has no parallel in the entire animal kingdom.

It set itself immediately to the task of learning the art of weaving cobwebs as snares. How long it might have taken it to bring this exercise to a successful conclusion is indeed hard to visualize. In keeping with the pace of evolution it should not be surprising if it took the spider another couple of million years to perfect this art.

The most intricate and fascinating patterns of different types of webs that the spider weaves are not only wonderful to look at but are also precision-made to serve a set purpose. They never obstruct the movement of the spider’s feet which dances along, light-footed, like the most skilful ballet dancer, and puts to shame the proudest of tightrope walkers. Never taking a false step, never faltering, never needing a balancing rod, never hesitating in a state of indecision as to how and where it should fix the next string as it proceeds to complete the task of constructing its meticulously designed cobweb to the finish. Thus the story of a spider learning to manufacture yam and weave it into such perfect traps comes to a happy ending. Even the most vicious of wasps which prey upon it would think twice before venturing to attack it as it sits safely entrenched in its spidery castle.

So far so good, but suddenly a disturbing thought passes one’s mind as to what, after all, was the purpose of this exercise. Why was blind evolution driven towards this goal without a conscious pre-design and without a purpose? The only purpose one can think of is to provide the spider with the much needed food which was so essential for its survival.

The poor spider was only bestowed by nature with some twisted shabby looking legs. Before its skill to weave cobweb snares was perfected, it must have continued to survive on some food, generation after generation, for millions of years. Flies may be stupid, but they are not stupid enough to head straight for the spider’s mouth without a cobweb to trap them. Yet, with or without this fly-meal, the spiders continued to survive over a long period of their existence. Where was the need for the entire exercise of spinning a yam and weaving a web and all the evolutionary requirements concomitant upon them?

It is indeed difficult for the uninitiated to visualize the challenges of a tremendously long period of transition from one manner to another. How many generations of spiders must have aimlessly perished during these challenges one wonders!

When we suggested earlier that perhaps the spider was suddenly taught the art of weaving a web for procuring food, by a configuration of mutative changes, we only did it to highlight the absurdity of this idea. Mutative changes do not occur simultaneously in perfectly organized purpose built packages. It would require hundreds of thousands of chances to manipulate a meaningful sequence of mutative changes to be encoded in the character bearing genes of life, to bring about such dramatic changes as these in the lifestyle of any animal species.

The case of the delicate carnivorous aqueous plants is no less wondrous by any means. The simplest of these is complex enough to defy human attempts to demonstrate how a procession of blind chances in the right order could, over millions of years, create such perfect trapping machines. We begin by presenting the case of the marsh pitcher which, according to experts, belongs to the simplest category of carnivorous plants. It comprises leaves about a foot in length, which are bonded together at the seam to make a funnel. Each of these funnels is visible in its entire length as it protrudes above the water surface. The funnel tops are hooded by conspicuous reddish rims which are generously studded with nectar producing glands. Abundant rains in the tropical regions where they grow, keep the funnels filled with water, yet they neither burst nor topple down under their weight. This is made possible in two ways:

Insects are attracted by the colour as well as the sweet scent of the nectar exuding from the glands. As they hop around in search of more nectar, they slip down the funnel which is cropped with downward pointing slippery hairs which do not permit them to climb back up again. Down they go until they reach the lowest part of the funnel which has no hairs. In that enclosed. pit they finally die and disintegrate enriching the water with proteins, salts etc. This food is assimilated by the plant for its survival. How many sightless attempts by nature must have been frustrated before it could finally perfect this well coordinated trapping machine, is hard to estimate.

Now we present another example of how nature has turned the tables against the animal kingdom in favour of the vegetative life. The trumpet pitchers are provided with such waxy scales on the surface of their traps as would stick to the exploring animals’ feet and loosen their hold. Having lost their balance, down they tumble into the water filled pit. The vibration thus caused stimulates the digestive glands of the funnel which immediately begin to exude a strong digestive juice. By this the fallen midgets can be completely dissolved in a few hours time, while flies may last for a day or two. It is not merely these insects which are devoured by these carnivorous plants. The ‘rajah’ among the trumpets can even dissolve and devour scorpions and mice.

The case of the Venus’s fly-trap (see plate 3) is even more complicated as it is electrically operated. The mystery of how this electric current is produced, and what governs the operation of this mechanism, has so far baffled all attempts by scientists.

We can only invite the attention of Darwinian evolutionists to these amazing contrivances and most humbly require that they should explain how they must have evolved. How many generations of unsuccessful attempts must have perished before the final successful experiments by evolution to create a carnivorous plant with all its necessary trapping gadgets and digestive enzymes? Until ordinary green plants were finally transformed into formidable hunting machines they simply could not have started this completely different phase of their lives. The difference between the two is immeasurable. To have started supplementing their diet with animal enzymes and proteins was impossible until this transformation was completed. How many millions of years were required for this through an ordinary course of evolution governed by the Darwinian principle of natural selection is inconceivable.

It simply could not have happened, because no naturalist can even suggest a bit by bit transformation of ordinary green plants into carnivorous plants (see plate 4). The transformation has to be completed before they could start functioning.

We have yet to come across an attempt by naturalists to trace the evolutionary course of carnivorous plants bit by bit, organ by organ, back to their origin. Even the smallest insect eating plants pose extremely big problems when we examine them in depth and bring to the focus of our attention the intricacies of their coherent organic identity. Each part has to be purpose-built and specifically designed into a composite organic entity.

Last but not least, there was no impelling reason why they should have suddenly abandoned the most profitable lifestyle of their ancestors, who were well taken care of by photosynthesis, providing them with a glorious start in their struggle for existence. The Darwinian principle ‘Survival of the Fittest’ could not have played any role in their so-called evolution, adjudging them to be the fittest to survive. If it were so the entire dry land and all watery habitats should have become their prime territory. Evidently they were just made fit to survive without any history of evolution preceding that fitness.

Moreover, though it is understandable according to the evolutionary principles for any plant or animal to shift from a hostile environment to a hospitable one, the converse is never heard of. But, if the naturalists are to be taken seriously, their story runs counter to this phenomenon in the case of the Sundew and Venus’s fly-trap.

Imagine a Sundew plant growing luxuriously by the side of a stagnant puddle, staring with abhorrence at what it observed in its middle. No plant could survive there because of most hostile environments. If the Sundew had an invisible brain while watching that puddle, with eyes that did not visibly exist, it should have been horrified at what it observed and leapt away from it were it not firmly rooted in the soil. But the naturalists have a completely different vision of what happened. According to them, it is the same Sundew—naturally and healthily growing by the side of that puddle—which got transformed into a fly-trap which we find flourishing undeterred in that hostile surrounding. It is inconceivable for it to survive there without having previously evolved to meet the new challenges. This could only happen if all the necessary changes had been brought about while it was still on dry land. Without having completed its transformation outside that environment, it could not have survived there for a single moment.

This is the dilemma which the scientists confront and must explain in sensible and logical terms. Two vital points need to be registered here.

We rest our case here and expect the naturalists to take over from this point. Their explanation is most eagerly sought for.

We have specially highlighted the case of the Venus’s fly-trap because it possesses a highly sophisticated, intricately designed and electrically operated mechanism which even advanced scientists fail to understand. As has been described above, in its finished form Venus’s fly-trap is completely different from the anatomical composition of its so-called ancestors. Hence, it is not to impossible for the naturalists to try to fill this vast gap by suggesting a countless number of small evolutionary steps, which could appropriately fill this immense blank. In the absence of this material, it is impossible to conceive natural selection to work on something which does not exist. To further highlight the absurdity of the naturalists’ contention, they seem to believe in the birth of a child to a non-existent mother. Is this the picture of evolution which the survival of the fittest presents? What survival, what fitness? Where is the competition? If scientists have any professional ethics which they ordinarily do, let them apply their ethics to the case of all carnivorous plants which were already fully equipped with their hunting gears before entering the realm of natural selection! If this is ‘Natural Selection’, then what else is the mockery of common sense, one wonders!

The Case of Mosquitoes

Consider now for instance, the case of a mosquito. There is so much in it to be explained logically and convincingly, that it would require generations of scientists to unfold each mystery attendant upon the exquisite and precise mechanism of all its organs and their constituents. Such a study would remain inexhaustive, because as they reach one level of understanding there would appear yet another level waiting for them to unravel its mysteries.

No wonder therefore, that the Holy Quran singles out this small miracle of God’s creation to make people see the greatness of His creative wonders. Even in the modelling of a mosquito, which the humans look down upon as a small insignificant thing, there is nothing for the Creator to be ashamed of. Let us build this theme further and share with the reader the intricacies of this flying machine, which may put to shame even the best achievements of the most advanced masters of technology.

Let us begin with the Quranic account of a mosquito which is so different from that of all other animals. It is the only animal which is mentioned with an emphatic denial that its creation could present any cause for embarrassment to its Creator. Thus declares the Quran:

Allah does not feel shy (or embarrassed) at mentioning the example of a mosquito because of what is carried above it … 59

Here the word (

) fauq literally means ‘above’.60 Yet other translators have not employed its literal meaning. The evident reason why they did not do so is because they had no knowledge that mosquitoes do carry things above them.

The following are some of the questions which stir the reader’s mind. At least the author has always been intrigued by the implied message of this verse.

The very first question which stirs the mind is why should God deny any cause to be ashamed of for creating mosquitoes. Nowhere else in the Quran is such a denial made in relation to any other creation; everywhere it is mentioned with pride. Is the exceptional treatment of the mosquito’s creation, as found in this verse, indicative of the fact that the Quran draws the attention of the reader to the apparent worthlessness of the mosquito? The denial of an element of shame or embarrassment related to the creation of a worthless thing is in fact a denial of worthlessness itself. The denial invites the attention of man to reconsider his attitude towards mosquitoes. It indicates the following implied statements:

When investigated, it is admitted, the role of the mosquito will emerge to be extremely harmful and horrendous. Yet despite this admission, the element of shame related to this harmful creation is emphatically denied. It is denied because to perform this negative role mosquitoes had to be built precisely to be able to fulfil this purpose. Secondly the mosquito’s function, though negative in character, must have played a vital role in the scheme of creation. As such the inevitability of the mosquito’s creation and the perfection with which it is accomplished has to be understood as a mark of pride rather than a mark of shame for its Creator. The inference we have drawn can only be proved right if mosquitoes display some exceptional constructional beauty which is even more wonderful than that found in the creation of other forms of life. And again, the role of mosquitoes in the general scheme of life and its evolution has to be that of a blessing in disguise—a discovery yet to be made by scientists. Presently, we can only suggest that mosquitoes may have played a vital role in developing and perfecting our immune system—a role which it still continues to play.

The possibility of all the above-mentioned implications of this verse to be simultaneously correct led the author to an in-depth study of mosquitoes, their anatomy and the role they perform in the animal kingdom—a task which is far more complex and difficult than it had appeared in the beginning. Most of the available literature on mosquitoes fails to explain the evolution of its organs—an omission which has especially attracted the author’s attention. In many other cases, the results of their excellent study are available which describe the evolution of animal parts with minute attention. We have relied heavily on this material in the following discourse which testifies to the truth of the Quranic claim that mosquitoes are no ordinary things. Further research into the evolutionary aspect of the mosquito’s creation is already taken up by a competent team of Ahmadi scholars from America and Canada. This, however, is a time-consuming process and as the publication of this book cannot wait till then, we have decided to finish this work with the help of whatever material is available.

The apparently insignificant minute mosquito is perhaps the most important insect in relation to man and other forms of life. Mosquitoes are thought to have originated in the Cretaceous period (65-140 millions years ago)61, when most of the modem taxonomic group of insects co-evolved with the origin of flowering plants. It is also speculated that mosquitoes may have originated in the Jurassic period (136-190 million years ago). As mammals were not created till then they must have sucked blood from reptiles, amphibians, primitive forms of mammals, or even perhaps from dinosaurs. This urge for blood, as conceived by the naturalist to have occurred during such a remote period of their creation raises many questions. Why had they developed this urge at all, when even without it they had survived for a very long period merely on vegetable produce? There were no flowering plants in that period so they may have fed mainly on honeydew.62

Mosquitoes are small two-winged insects belonging to the family Culicidae of the order of Diptera (two-winged flies). They essentially differ from all other flies by a long proboscis projecting from the head and some other features which are unique to them—like the presence of scales on the wing veins, a fringe of scales along the posterior margin of wings, and a characteristic venation whereby the second, the fourth, and the fifth longitudinal veins are branched.

Like other Diptera they undergo a complete metamorphosis during their reproduction, but many features of their metamorphosis are strikingly different from other flies. An active larva hatches from a passive egg bearing no resemblance to its parents, fully adapted to living and feeding in water.

It is amazing how all the highly competent authorities on mosquitoes, though thoroughly proficient in the knowledge of their anatomy and morphological cycles, do not present any sensible, logically acceptable scenario of natural selection playing any part in the design and manufacture of this tiny wonder of creation.

To modify a non blood-sucking mosquito into a blood-sucking one requires such changes as would take an interminably long period of time if left to chance. For them to develop patiently, bit by bit, each part developing separately yet simultaneously, in perfect coordination with each other, is an amazing proposition. Particularly when one considers that this bit by bit organic development could serve no purpose in the life of a mosquito until it had culminated into its final completely organized and fully developed form. Take for instance the need of the mosquito to find and locate blood. When scientists study this small requirement they discover a complex support system to justify its existence.

The anatomical, sensory and physiological changes needed in a mosquito just for the act of finding a suitable host on which it will feed are tremendous. The mosquito faces the routine task of finding a suitable protein source amidst all the extraneous stimuli with which the environment bombards it. Scientists say the strategy that they have evolved is to:

‘ … respond to visual cues, heat, and emanations such as carbon dioxide, lactic acid, and volatile fatty acids that are typical of those organisms that contain blood.’63

A further difficulty faced by the mosquito is the fact that chemical odour emanations are dispersed through air currents. Thus the mosquito must navigate an indirect route to the host. As the mosquito comes closer to the host, heat is used by it to home in on the host. During this chain of events in the mosquito’s behaviour, a stimulus-response mechanism has to be perfected within it. The mosquito is not consciously seeking a host, but rather responding to stimuli for which it has been pre-programmed. Further complicating the issue is the fact that most mosquitoes are species-specific in their host seeking behaviour. For example, a certain species of mosquito may respond only to the stimuli of a cow and yet not respond to those of a human.

Scientists speculate this behaviour evolved in the Mesozoic era (over sixty-five millions years ago) with

‘ … the establishment of regular terrestrial dwellings (nests) by reptiles, birds, and mammals … ’64

It is suggested by some scientists that the emergence of parental care in birds, mammals and dinosaurs further promoted associations with mosquitoes by providing them well protected and secure habitats. They felt at an advantage in and around nests where the young of the birds were kept. The same applied to the dens of the beasts of the jungle and the habitats of the dinosaurs where they reared their young. This, they suggest, presented opportunities for the mosquitoes to suck the blood of the animals whenever they liked, undisturbed. An amazing suggestion indeed if they mean that this caused the development of the blood sucking proboscis among female mosquitoes. It can only be taken seriously if it implies that female mosquitoes had already turned into blood-sucking machines before they began to seek easy targets. Either way this conjecture does not serve to provide any methodology which may have been responsible for the evolution of blood-sucking female mosquitoes. It has been observed that if a human host moves within five seconds of the female mosquito landing on it, she will fly off (see plate 5). Considering the complex chain of instinctive behaviour involved just in the act of locating a host, the chances of an accidental switch to blood feeding seem highly remote.

A female blood-sucking mosquito did not require only some complementary changes in its system for finding blood on a host. It also required suitable instruments for piercing skin and locating vessels, and a transport system for the blood to be carried to its storage reservoir which had to be a sac different from the one to which plant nectars are carried—a staple source of nourishment for all mosquitoes, even for the blood-sucking females who need blood only during specific periods (see plate 6).

As mentioned before, the scientific literature on the issue of mosquito evolution is largely silent. Scientists discussing the origin of various insects, point out that

‘ … some of the better known groups are highly evolved—parasitic forms such as the Culicidae [mosquitoes] whose evolutionary origins are obscure.’65

The cause of this obscurity, they say, is the insufficient fossil record, but that is no justification. They could and should have followed Darwin who studied the living finches of the Galapagos islands and not their fossil record in developing his theory of evolution. Likewise, it should have been possible to analyse the process of mosquito evolution even in the absence of a complete, detailed fossil history. The characteristics of modern mosquitoes as compared to other insects, or of the female mosquito in comparison to the male of the same species, can be studied to determine what steps in evolution must have occurred for the mosquito to have assumed its present form.

Before analyzing the unique characteristics of the mosquito let us very briefly examine the probable scenario for mosquito evolution presently put forth by scientists. They suggest that the mosquito progenitors prior to their feeding on vertebrate blood must have fed on soft-bodied insects. Later on, at some point in their evolutionary history, the adults switched to feeding on vertebrate blood.66 According to this view, the progenitors’ mouthparts had already developed similarities to the finally evolved form of mosquito mouthparts. However, it is known that at the larval stage (analogous to the caterpillar stage of a butterfly’s life cycle) these insects do not have dependence or association with vertebrate hosts that would have facilitated an evolution toward a blood requirement. Additionally, if dinosaurs were indeed among the very first mosquito hosts, a serendipitous switch from feeding on soft-bodied insects to a feeding behaviour that involved penetration of dinosaur skin would seem all the more improbable. Scientists themselves admit that this process of evolution would have required ‘adaptations leading to a radical switch’67 from feeding on insects to feeding on blood. The explanation presented by them in support of this theory is a mere conjecture that these progenitors accidentally started feeding on hosts that frequented their damp, recessed habitats. As will be demonstrated below, the process of blood-sucking requires multiple specializations within the mosquito. In light of all of these interdependent adaptations, it is difficult to conceive of an ‘accidental’ switch in the feeding behaviour of mosquitoes.

It should be remembered that three major aspects of the female mosquito had to be adapted to the specialized task of feeding on vertebrate blood. Feeding on blood requires adaptations of anatomy and form,

‘ … such as a development of mouthparts able to penetrate skin; physiological adaptations, such as the proteolytic enzymes for blood digestion; and behavioural adaptations, such as the abilities to find objects that have blood and distinguish them from those that do not.’68

The blood-sucking ability of a female mosquito, apart from its inbred system of locating the host and homing in on it, requires a host of other highly specialized precision instruments such as the proboscis. In itself the proboscis of a female mosquito is far more wonderful than the seven wonders of the world. It is a masterpiece of an artifact. The entire digestive system of a mosquito in fact, is to be keenly studied to realize that it is no product of the blind forces that model and shape the evolution of life. Returning to the proboscis, even a cursory examination of its construction should be sufficient to dispel the notion that it could have been constructed by natural selection, working patiently at it for over a million or so years. In adult females a proboscis, which is the apparatus for piercing and sucking blood, consists of six elongated parts enclosed in a flexible sheath.

The six include mandibles for cutting through the host’s skin. They are blade-like tips which are enclosed within the proboscis and are protruded to its tip only when the mosquito requires a blood meal. Only then are they protruded through the outer tube to make a sharp surgical incision.

Then there is the labrum-epipharynx which during the act of biting, becomes a complete tube called the food canal through which blood is drawn. Whenever the mosquito bites, its saliva is transferred to the wound through the hypopharynx.

There is also a pump to suck and transport the blood into a sort of stomach and to channel the plant nectars separately to the gut.

Expert naturalists maintain that by the selective action of the Cardia, a thickened portion at the anterior end of the mid-gut, blood is admitted directly into the mid-gut. The remaining food such as vegetative juices are led into the diverticula and held there for a while.

The unique salivary glands embedded in the proboscis present a wonder not to be witnessed elsewhere in the entire animal kingdom. But for these glands the entire blood sucking exercise of a mosquito would have come to naught. In the saliva produced by them is a rare chemical of anticoagulant qualities. Typically, when a blood vessel is ruptured, platelets in the blood rush within a few seconds to start the process of clotting to close the leak. In order to make possible the process of feeding on blood, the female mosquito has within its saliva an enzyme known as apyrase. Apyrase is rare in animal tissues, but the mosquito salivary glands are rich in this enzyme. This chemical counteracts the fast acting chemical response in blood that leads to platelet coagulation.

Even more amazing is the fact that the digestive system of the mosquito and its blood stream is completely protected from this singularly dangerous enzyme. It is utilized exactly where it is needed—just at the point of incision.

Yet it is present in the saliva which is extensively used by a mosquito when it dissolves dried-up plant juice or nectar to render it suckable. It is said that almost a continuous stream of saliva flows from the mouth of a mosquito to facilitate this task, yet apyrase in the saliva is not utilized at all because there is no blood in the juices. All this unutilized apyrase is digested by the mosquito without doing any harm to its own blood circulation. Anyone can see from this that it is not just a game of chance creation on which natural selection is dependent, it is a case of wilful design. The entire negative role that the mosquito plays in the animal kingdom depends just on this factor. If the spitting of saliva containing apyrase into the host bloodstream was not made intuitively essential for female mosquitoes, the immense negative role of spreading disease worldwide among a variety of animals could not be made possible. The entire anatomy of the mosquito seems purpose-built to achieve that objective.

Of the five hundred or so viruses so far known to scientists, almost half that number are found in mosquitoes and about one hundred of them are responsible for spreading disease among humans alone. Some mosquitoes are host-specific for other animal species, yet they too carry viruses which may cause diseases which can also be shared by humans. There are some viruses for instance, which transfer from monkeys to man or vice versa by mosquitoes which feed on both. Mosquitoes may not necessarily be carriers of only one virus, they can carry many simultaneously. Again, they can be strong active vectors in one area while in other areas they may remain idle.

Among the major mosquito-conducted diseases which may be universal or regional, malaria leads them all. Then there are other widely known diseases like filariasis, yellow fever, dengue and encephalitis. The damage done to humans alone, over and above the vast damage caused to other animals, is horrendous. Malaria does not always kill directly but prepares the soil for so many dangerous diseases by disturbing the physiological economy of malarial patients.

The largest killer in the world, malaria is not always identified for the deaths it causes. Many malarial deaths are either not registered at all in Third World countries or not identified as malarial deaths. Many malarial patients die of diseases which result from malarial effects like tuberculosis and pneumonia commonly prevalent in malarial districts. Likewise there are many other diseases which actually relate to malaria because it damages the vital organs of the host resulting in a number of different diseases.

Two species of filariasis are widely transmitted by mosquitoes. Prolonged infection by them may cause elephantiasis both among humans and domestic animals.

Yellow fever, another mosquito transmitted disease, comprises both urban and jungle forms of yellow fever. The latter is transferable from animals to humans or humans to animals by the mosquito vector. The horrors which yellow fever has spelled in human history are but common knowledge. West Africa was called the white man’s grave, solely for the presence of yellow fever there.

The colossal worldwide damage done by mosquitoes is not limited to the immense loss of human or animal life alone. The adverse influence of mosquitoes on human economy varies widely from a great loss of working hours in offices, factories or fields to a depression in prices of lands because of their nearness to mosquito habitats. Limitations are also imposed on residential areas in many ways. The history of World War II proves that many important battles were lost or won or the progress of war was seriously hampered because of this tiny, apparently insignificant, animal.

Returning to the subject of natural selection having played any role in this grand, yet bizarre scheme of things, we beg the naturalists to readjust their position regarding the factors which evolved and modelled life. It could be an eye-opener for them to concentrate on just one enzyme called apyrase. What mechanism or creative potential of natural selection could manage to produce this enzyme in the saliva of only female mosquitoes to the exclusion of the males? Again, they are respectfully requested to quote one good reason why and how natural selection could compel female mosquitoes to add a blood meal to their customary vegetable diet. Why, again, is it only the female mosquitoes which feed on the blood of hosts while both male and female feed on nectar and other plant sugars as a common source of their survival? Is it not because the female mosquito requires the protein found in the blood of its hosts only in order to synthesize yolk and develop its eggs—a task certainly not needed by the male mosquito? How could natural selection teach only the female members of the species that protein is good for their reproductive organs so they must evolve a most complex system of blood-sucking? Why did the mosquitoes survive long before this female urge to seek more readily available protein from blood? How long did it take the female to bring about all the essential fundamental changes in its anatomy and synthesize the wonder drug apyrase to transfer to a new mode of survival without which it had already survived for hundreds of thousands of years?

The only sensible answer to this question is that it was purposefully designed and could not accidentally be created by natural selection. Evidently, the negative yet essential role which the mosquitoes were designed to play in the scheme of life must have necessitated the mosquito’s propensity towards animal blood. The bloodsucking capability of female mosquitoes remarkably illustrates design in the process of evolution.

Evolutionists consider natural selection to somehow invariably take the right decisions and preserve only that which is good for life. Is the mosquito—the greatest threat to life—really the choice and product of natural selection?

According to the Quran, on the other hand, the threat to life created through the mosquito was intended and planned to serve a wide purpose.

The masterly perfection and exquisite implementation of this design has already been discussed above. Now we should like to point out that the Quranic verse on this subject is itself a miracle of literary excellence. Of particular note is the expression and what is carried above it (

)(2:27). It can be translated to indicate the creation of similar living things beyond mosquitoes, but the evident literal meaning of fauq which has eluded translators in the past, is: and what it—the mosquito—carries. When the Quran speaks of the, Earth and all that it bears, it uses the same word fauq (

). Wa Ma fauq-al-Ard means whatever is upon the earth.

Now when one re-translates the verse in question literally, it will read as follows: ‘God does not feel shy of quoting the example of a mosquito and whatever is on it or whatever it carries.’

Now we know better why the previous generation of scholars failed to grasp its evident meaning. They had no idea that mosquitoes do carry viruses invisible to the naked eye.

Why God is not embarrassed of creating a disease carrier of such high magnitude is because it was intended and purposefully done to create balances in the grand scheme of life. Also it may be so because the very construction of this fantastic flying machine is in itself a grand tribute to its Creator. We also propose that mosquitoes must have played a most vital role in promoting the immune system in life. One example of this function we already know relates to the sickle-cell anaemia, which largely prevails among the Gambians. The presence of this anaemia creates resistance against even the most deadly forms of malaria. It is not at all unlikely therefore, that apart from some as yet unknown purposes which mosquito related diseases serve in the scheme of life, they may also have served the purpose of promoting and evolving the immune system. That may or may not be so, but the general declaration of the Quran is undeniable that the factors which lead to life and those which lead to death are both integral to the plan of creation.

Another rather strange fact which has to be noted is that mosquitoes carry hundreds of disease sources without ever being inflicted by them. No naturalist can ever recall a mosquito trembling with pre-malarial chills. Nor can he ever locate a mosquito suffering itself from any disease which it carries for others, within its own system, and not upon its feet or wings. The virus of elephantiasis that it carries has never stricken its own proboscis enlarging it to the size of a baby elephant’s trunk.

So much scientific knowledge goes into the making of the mosquito and such complex technology is required, that even today man cannot manufacture the mere proboscis of a mosquito. The mosquito can buzz the challenge into the ears of the most sophisticated and adroit modern genetic engineer to come and get him if he may and make him if he can. But, alas, all the mosquitoes in the world cannot bite an atheist enough to stir him out of his atheistic slumber! Let them fly away singing their mosquito songs! The deaf will never hear, the blind shall not see!

To recapitulate, we again emphasize the characters and features of all animal species which present a systematic unfolding of precisely encoded messages in their cellular genetic symbols. The proteins of the cellular content are the guardian angels of their destiny. The character bearing strands, which make the DNA, RNA, somatic and reproductive cells of all living organisms, are totally independent of the outer environments and their influences upon them. The mindless environment has no mechanism to dictate terms to the genetic custodians of life, and the genetic custodians of life could not have designed themselves nor could they have set the precise sequence of amino acids within them which, if disturbed at any of their links and positioning, would rob the fundamental bricks of life of all their purpose and creative potential. That is why many a scientist has calculated that chance could certainly not have moulded them into shape even if it had worked upon them for trillions of years. Yet they are created somehow, having a world of their own, completely independent of climatic and environmental influences.

If God is removed from this intricate scheme of things, another creator must be found to replace Him. Let alone the mysteries of the inanimate universe, the living wonders which occupy the planet Earth will cry out for the Hand which shaped them and filled their existence with fathomless intricacies. Rule God out and their cries will forever remain unheard and unanswered. Man can only be sure of one thing: that Life did not create itself, and Death did not create Life. Natural selection is neither conscious nor alive. It is no more than a dead phenomenon like gravity. It can pull a rock deep into a ravine without ever realizing whether it fell upon a deer or a porcupine.

A Game of Chess or a Game of Chance!

‘The Ball no question makes of Ayes and Noes
But Here or There as strikes the Player goes;
And He that toss’d you down into the Field,
He knows about it all—HE knows—HE knows!’ 69

‘But helpless Pieces of the Game He plays
Upon this Chequer-board of Night and Days;
Hither and thither moves, and checks, and slays,
And one by one back in the Closet lays.’ 70

Visualize the drama of life and death as staged, act by act, from the beginning of evolution to the present time. As the curtain lifts, does it lift from the vision of a mindless universe endlessly engaged in the casting of dice, or does it lift from a completely different scenario? The drama, it should be noted, remains the same, as also the actors who play their part. The vision alters only in relation to the viewer. If the viewer sees it through the coloured glass of deep-seated, preconceived, atheistic prejudices then of course he will view nothing but chaos wedded to chaos, giving birth to a brood of meticulously shaped and well-disciplined offspring. This happens generation after generation after generation. Each generation invariably recedes yet again into a world of utter chaos, continuously giving birth to order and discipline without exception, without fail. So the drama of evolution moves on from chaos to order without an orderly disciplined mind to command it. Despite this, however, order always emerges out of disorder, until man the masterpiece of evolution is created—the ultimate child of compounded chaos and confusion.

If, on the other hand the viewer is an unbiased observer of what he sees and permits his vision to be led to whichever direction the scheme of creation leads him, then of course the same drama will take on a completely different complexion. At each replication of life into more complex and more organized entities of higher order and at each step forward on the evolutionary journey, he will perceive the guiding hand of the Supreme Creator. If the former scenario can be likened to a game of roulette, the latter perhaps would be more aptly described as a game of chess where every pawn, king, queen, bishop, castle etc., is moved by the hand of a Prime Mover. Evidently the perplexities and the problems that we are discussing can only be resolved if the invisible hand of a Conscious All Wise Operator is contemplated to be at play. As if an astoundingly vast chequer-board of chess were spread out from end to end over the entire expanse of the globe, over dry land and water, over hills and dales, over highs and lows; such is the vastness of the arena in which countless actors played the drama of the synthesis of life from nothingness. All they had to work on was a state of stark death which prevailed over the entire planet Earth some 4.5 billion years ago.

Was it really a game of chess being played with a Prime Mover representing order, wisdom, design, foresight, command and patience on the one hand and vast limitless chaos on the other? Or was it a mere game of roulette contested between chaos on the one hand and chaos on the other? An all-encompassing confusion of the grandest scale was locked in a battle of life and death with its opposite number, a vast unruly disorder blowing across the face of earth in every direction from every direction. There were no rules of the game, no purpose, no set design, yet it was hoped without awareness by the mindless cosmos that neither of the giants of chaos would win. Both would end up in mutual destruction or commit suicide in utter frustration, hopelessness, despondency and despair. A grandiose display of hara-kiri indeed! For the proponents of chaos versus chaos giving birth to a child of perfect order, it is here in hara-kiri perhaps that the solution lies. This is the only advanced mathematical absurdity which they can think of to advocate their cause. What homage to the goddess of chaos by her devotees! Evidently if chaos is destroyed at the hand of chaos or through an act of self-demolition, whatever is left is either nothing or order. Hence no dilemma, no riddle, no mystery is left to be resolved. Good riddance!

So far in the previous discussions we have attempted to draw some logically inevitable conclusions. But in the final analysis it is after all no more than the word of an outsider against the word of a constellation of eminent secular scholars. To lend our inferences some additional support, we have decided to bring this subject to a close by quoting some competent scientists who had to confess that the only solution to the problem of creation lies in the admission that there does exist a Supreme Creator. It was He who created options at every creative step and it was He Himself who selected the right option to usher the creation into a higher order of existence. Hence, stage after stage it was He who made choices with purpose, design and direction.

Frank Allen, Professor of Biophysics, University of Manitoba, Canada and recipient of the Tory Gold Medal, Royal Society of Canada writes:

‘The adjustments of the earth for life are far too numerous to be accounted for by chance.’71

What he evidently means is that in the long journey of evolution we find design, order and harmony which cannot be ascribed to chance.

Commenting on the complexity of proteins and the manner in which they play the essential role of building, supporting and advancing life, Allen categorically rejects the idea of attributing this to chance.

Also for a single protein molecule to be formed out of chance would require 10248 years! As far as the known span of evolution is concerned, for it to accommodate all the figures as have been mentioned, is as impossible as impossible can be. All the amazing steps of creation only took 4.5 billion years!

Scientists conduct their experiments in precisely controlled laboratory conditions. A chance spillage or leakage would ruin an experiment; the apparatus would have to be reorganized, and the experiment repeated in order to negate the effects of the mistake. A conscious mind has to supervise what is going on and make sure nothing goes wrong by chance.

The conditions prevailing at the time of some of the major stages in evolution were far from favourable. It has in fact been described by John Horgan that:

‘ … life evolved and survived under unpleasant—and periodically even hellish-circumstances.’72

For special favourable conditions to prevail uninterrupted over an exceptionally long period of time is not by itself sufficient to evolve and fix a new character in the evolving species. Time is not a creator; it is just a neutral span, like a vast cauldron, in which any constructive or destructive interaction takes place. If different elements are shoved into a cauldron haphazardly without purpose or design, time by itself, however long, cannot orgamze ingredients into any meaningful product.

Scientists who try to simulate the creative phenomenon in nature, in carefully controlled laboratory conditions, fully realize that the whole process has to be precisely monitored and guided step after step to achieve the intended purpose. Yet they are frustrated despite the fact that the entire exercise is pre-planned and consciously masterminded by highly knowledgeable scientists. Leave the laboratory at the mercy of time alone and return to it after a lapse of some fifty or more years and observe the disorder time created and the ruin to which it has led whatever it comprised.

Given time, order turns into chaos if no countermeasures are consciously designed to protect it.

William Krantz, Kevin J. Gleason and Nelson Caine in their article, Patterned Ground write:

‘Order in nature would appear to be the exception, not the rule. The regularity of the solar system, the complex organization of living things and the lattice of a crystal are all transient patterns in a grand dissolution into chaos. The prevailing theme of the universe is one of increasing entropy. All the more wondrous, then, are the examples of order in nature.’73

There are many other scientists who having pondered over the issue of the origin of creation and of life in relation to time and chance, have drawn the inevitable conclusion that there has to be an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent Supreme Intelligence to design, organize and govern creative phenomena. Without Him, the beginning of creation and evolution of life are mathematically inconceivable.

‘The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which have had to be satisfied to get it going.’74

‘Some scientists have argued that, given enough time, even apparently miraculous events become possible—such as the spontaneous emergence of a single-cell organism from the random couplings of chemicals.’7

But how many chances of random couplings would be needed for the creation of life is the very question which has been answered by Fred Hoyle, the renowned British astronomer, in the following words:

‘ … such an occurrence is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard.’75

Professor Edwin Conklin, an eminent biologist at Princeton University, puts it like this:

‘The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.’76

‘ … after many years of study and work in the fields of science, my faith in God, rather than being shaken, has become much stronger and acquired a firmer foundation than heretofore. Science brings about an insight into the majesty and omnipotence of the Supreme Being which grows stronger with each new discovery.’77

The time scale required for evolution, if haphazard blind brainless chance were to be its creator, is so enormously large that it boggles the mind of even the most expert mathematician. No human expression can describe it, no human mind can grasp the immensity of the figures involved.

As mentioned earlier, Allen estimated the time needed for the chance synthesis of the complex proteins to be 10248 years. The entire span of evolution however requires a much larger slice of time than the mere production of proteins to which Allen refers.

To help the unfamiliar reader visualize this mathematical concept, we would like to remind him that the total age of the universe since the Big Bang is only eighteen to twenty billion years. No name has been ever invented or will ever be invented to denote the astronomical figure Professor Frank Allen has worked out. Perhaps eternity is the nearest name to it.

To cut a long story short, we request the reader to realize that even if the creation of the universe and the subsequent evolution of life had actually started a trillion multiplied by a trillion years ago, it would still be mathematically impossible for evolution to reach the stage of man.

This simply means that both the author of this treatise and the reader who is holding this book in his hand, are neither here nor there. The pen shall never be created nor the hand which holds it. The eye that reads it and the mind that struggles to grasp what the pen has drawn have not even been conceived by the blind creator—chance. Who am I, O reader, and who are you? What is the quarrel about? Let us slump into a restful slumber until that remote time when mindless, sightless chance would have consummated the plan of evolution that it never conceived. For each chance step that it will take in the right direction, it will have to blunder into millions upon millions of steps in the wrong direction. But by that time, alas, entropy would have left nothing of the universe to evolve into anything, nor of the blind creator itself. Chance will cease to play any role whatsoever in the inert state of an all pervading death. The figure 10248 is most certainly larger than the time needed for entropy to finish off everything.

Evidently it takes a very determined person who is otherwise sane to believe in such insanity. Yet many sane, highly intellectual scientists do believe in it. Their case is like that of a religious fanatic, who in ordinary affairs of life appears quite normal, but when it comes to matters of faith and belief, shuts himself off completely from the light of rationality and common sense into a cocoon of mindless prejudice. It is amazing how the human mind is capable of withdrawing itself into a midsummer night’s dream in broad daylight. Perhaps it is more realistic to say that he continues to live in two different worlds of reality and fantasy simultaneously. Only death can liberate man from his bondage to a life of make-believe.

The Future of Life on Earth

Does man represent the final stage of development or will there be another creation after man? Is there any possibility of a new species evolving from Homo sapiens with improved or added senses, that is able to perceive new dimensions with the capacity to develop a higher intelligence? Again, could it be possible for that new species to appear in a completely different form and shape with an entirely new life pattern? To the best of our knowledge, these questions have not been examined as such by any religion other than Islam.

For the philosophers or scholars of previous ages, this was entirely beyond the scope of their intellect. Even modem science can only discuss this issue in a vague way. No serious methodology within a scholastic framework has been developed to examine these possibilities.

It is an amazing distinction of the Holy Quran that it raises and resolves such questions and predicts such possibilities. The issue of life after death is different, discussed traditionally by almost all major religions. None, however, has even hypothetically examined the possibility of other forms of life here on earth evolving before or after Doomsday.

Having said that, we beg to remind the reader that although other scriptures also share the description of Doomsday, the Quranic terminology is much wider and varied in its application. There are many prophecies in the Quran regarding some epoch-making future events like great revolutions and upheavals. All these are referred to by the same term Al-Qiyamah (

), or its synonym Al-sa‘ah (

). All the same, these terms also cover that which is commonly understood by the expression ‘Doomsday’ which indicates the coming to an end of the entire mankind. It is this meaning which is shared by the other scriptures when they speak of Doomsday.

But although the term ‘Doomsday’ is generally interpreted by the adherents of these religions to be the be all and end-all of the universe, the Holy Quran does not employ the term entirely in the same sense. The earth according to it, is a small part of the vast universe. A great upheaval of gigantic global dimension can create vast destruction, wiping out all life from the face of the earth. Yet, it does not imply that the entire earth itself will be completely annihilated nor can it result in the total annihilation of the entire universe.

Before proceeding further, let us give an outline of what is to come in this chapter in relation to the future of man here on earth, or elsewhere in the otherworldly existence, according to the Quranic teachings. There are some verses which speak of events to take place in this world, beyond the occurrence of Doomsday. These mention the changing of man’s form into something different after death as he is raised into a new life. Then there are verses distinctly apart from them which speak of a future beyond Doomsday, but not in the Hereafter. They clearly present the scenario of continuous evolution here on earth, resulting in the creation of a species belonging to an order higher than man. This latter concept is not to be confused with, or linked to the former, i.e. resurrection after death.

Let us begin with the study of the verses relating to the Hereafter, other than those which discuss the possibility of a completely new form of intellectual life here on earth. Addressing those who are sceptical to the idea of life after death, the Quran reminds them that they should be more sceptical of their own existence here on earth than their life after death. One thing which they most certainly know is that they came from nowhere. It was non-existence which preceded them. Having been created from nothing, why should they doubt that they may be created again from something which they now are. The proposition of their being re-born out of what they are today, is evidently far more logical than the proposition of their materializing out of nothing. This is the import of many verses of the Quran on the subject of man’s scepticism regarding life after death, but it is merely like the opening of a door for further investigation. In itself, it is never meant to be an argument to prove the existence of life in the hereafter: it is only meant to disprove the justification of scepticism. The Quran further reminds man that the high level of consciousness which he has gained should have been a source of light for him rather than that of darkness. His awareness of his surroundings and what lies beyond should have convinced him of the existence of his Creator to whom he raises his head in defiance instead. Yet if he believes in Him his denial of the hereafter could have sprung merely from his amazement—it is far too wonderful to be true. In reality however, his first creation is far more amazing and unbelievable than his second creation.

Turning to a deductive argument, the Quran first lays its foundation by declaring that no direct witnessing of the hereafter is possible for humans on earth. Beyond the end of his life, from man’s vantage point, nothing can be seen but utter void and emptiness. Look at the wisdom of man: he believes himself to be born out of this total void and does not raise an eyebrow in incredulity. Yet, when he is told that he will rise again after death, he refuses to accept this suggestion as absolutely absurd and senseless. The comparison is so powerful that it does not require a great philosopher to comprehend the strength of this argument.

No better witness therefore, than man himself, can be brought to testify against his own denial. The Holy Quran in dealing with this subject first builds precisely and accurately, the viewpoints of the disbelievers in the clearest terms, then it turns to their rebuttal. The following are some of the relevant verses:

And they say, ‘There is nothing but this our present life; we die and we live here; and nothing but Time destroys us.’ But they have no knowledge of that; they do but conjecture.78

Does he promise you that when you are dead and have become dust and bones, you will be brought forth again?

Far, far from truth is that which you are promised. There is no life other than our present life; we were lifeless and now we live, but we shall not be raised up again.79

And they swear by Allah their strongest oaths that Allah will not raise up those who die. Nay, He will certainly raise them up—a promise He has made binding on Himself, but most people know not.

He will raise them up that He may make clear to them that wherein they differed, and that those who disbelieved may know that they were liars.81

And he coins similitudes for Us and forgets his own creation. He says, ‘Who can quicken the bones when they are decayed?’82

Have We then become weary with the first creation? Nay, but they are in confusion about the new creation.83

And they were wont to say, ‘What! when we are dead and have become dust and bones, shall we indeed be raised again,

From changing your forms altogether and raise you unto something of which you have no knowledge.

And you have certainly learnt as to how you were raised during your first creation, why then do you not contemplate?85

Thus the Quran facilitates for man his belief in the hereafter, but that is not all the argument there is to it:

Your creation and your resurrection are only like the creation and resurrection of a single self. Verily Allah is All-Hearing, All-Seeing.86

This is the verse which builds the subject further and opens up a new vista for man’s understanding of the life after death.

The phenomenon of resurrection is related to the phenomenon of the birth of each individual. If one visualizes the initial embryonic stage of the fusion of the sperm with the ovum and tries to conceive from that vantage point the end product—the birth of a fully developed child, it would seem impossible to believe that it would happen. Imagine the gigantic transformation from that insignificant fertilized egg into the live and kicking wonder of a baby, delivered at the end of nine months. A viewer who has not witnessed this transformation repeatedly could not at all imagine it to have happened just by looking at the first few stages of fused embryonic cells. Life after death is likened to this amazing process—a transformation from almost nothing to a highly developed and organized form of life.

The difference between the origin of man as a mere bio-unit to what he has become, is a fantastic transformation. It is impossible for the rudimentary life forms to envision the future of evolution culminating in man, even if granted the sense to do so. Their awareness of what they are is so insignificant, that it is extremely difficult for humans to refer to it as awareness. This is a profound statement, so short yet so far-reaching, covering the entire span of evolution from end to end. The message given here is that between you as you exist now, and you at the time of resurrection, the difference will be as vast as the difference between the origin of life on earth and you in your present form. The transformation will be colossal. It is impossible for you to comprehend the nature of what you may be raised into after death. Yet, you can in no way escape the inevitable conclusion that your first creation is far more unbelievable than the second one that you reject. Perhaps it will take a billion years or so for the resurrected soul to reach its final perfected form of spiritual evolution. We draw this inference because the resurrection is likened unto the first phase of human creation from nothingness. We know now that it took at least one billion years, if not more, for man to evolve from his first ancestral elementary form of life. Hence, if this phase of his creation is similar to the second phase of his resurrection, it is not unlikely that the similarity may also cover the span of time between the first and the second creation.

To prove the point further the Holy Quran enters a unique style of deductive logic. We do not plan to fully illustrate this point here with reference to the relevant verses because many of them have already been discussed in other chapters. Here we only want to explain the style of this argument. Speaking of some future events of this world at a time when no human could envisage them, the Quran simultaneously begins to speak of the life after death, sometimes in a language which has two concurrent meanings. The prophecies contained in these verses can be read as applicable to here as well as to the Hereafter. When the events of this world, mentioned therein, clearly and irrefutably become realized, the fulfilment of the events of the Hereafter becomes only a matter of time. The same superhuman agency which is proved right with the unfolding of the events of this world must also be trusted concerning that which remains to be fulfilled in matters pertaining to the Hereafter. This is as far as any argument can go regarding the life to come, otherwise it is impossible to prove by any other means before death.

Having discussed the possibility of an evolved form of existence after death, some verses of the Quran clearly depict the appearance of a new form of life here on earth, replacing humans and distinctly different from them.

Seest thou not that Allah created the heavens and the earth in accordance with the requirements of truth (Haq)? If (

) He so pleases, He can remove you and put in your place a new creation (

These verses simply cannot be applied to the case of life after death. The use of the conditional preposition in (

) which means if, clearly implies that life after death is not intended otherwise this condition would put to doubt the definite existence of the hereafter—while the entire Quran speaks of it as an absolute unconditional reality. The verse under discussion does not speak of replacing man with others like him. It clearly mentions the bringing into being of a new creation, khalq (

) and speaks of the whole of mankind to be changed into a different entity.

The whole universe is built with The Truth, so also is the creation of man—the very summit of creation. Quite distinct from the subject of life after death, the Holy Quran also speaks of a different form here on earth which will supersede humans:

We created them and strengthened their make; and when We will so decide, We will change their form to something completely different.88

But nay! I swear by the Lord of the easts and of the wests, that We have the power

To substitute in their place others better than they, and We cannot be frustrated in Our plans.89

The substitute creation is not mentioned as another nation qaum (

) nor as another generation of humans. The conditional use of if implies that if man reforms himself and begins to behave properly, he may not necessarily be wiped out as a species to make room for another better one.

Thus, the Quran raises the possibility of more advanced forms of creation developing, with superior sensory faculties or even new senses in addition to our five. Although the Quran does not state that this will definitely happen, yet it affirms God’s power to produce such changes as are within His plan. It does not present an idea of blind evolution based on accidental events. This possibility of continuous evolution, as mentioned here, is one of the greatest tributes to the Wisdom and Knowledge of the Quran’s Author. It further proves that all that has been attributed to the Quran in the previous chapters concerning the evolution of life must have been true. Otherwise, it could not have mentioned the possibility of man evolving into another species—a subject not discussed in any other secular or religious literature. Such statements could only be made from a platform of absolute knowledge and certainty.

We may not yet completely grasp the possibilities of our continuing evolution or that of a completely new chain of evolution beginning with a fresh start. Our understanding can only reach the periphery of present knowledge and for us it remains a part of the unseen. However, the unknown is constantly being transformed into that which is known or understood. This is the natural process of education. God is the Lord of all that is seen and all that is unseen. Gradually He broadens our horizons so that our vision is constantly enlarged with the coming into view of that which previously lay beyond the curtain of darkness.

Organic Systems and Evolution

An organ, in medical terms, is defined as any differentiated part devoted to a specific function. There are many organs in the human body which need to be studied in-depth to determine whether they evolved gradually over a very long period of time, or were created spontaneously in their finished form as some of the clergy believe. They defy the evolutionary theory of Darwin in its specifics, yet, we insist here that they do not defy evolution itself.

It is a complete misunderstanding on the part of the naturalists that the divide between them and the creationists is the real contention. The religious clergy they often allude to is the extremist faction among the Christian scholars who deny evolution at all levels and believe in spontaneity instead. Spontaneity means that each animal was created separately in its finished form with all the organs it contains. This is certainly not the Quranic concept of creation which we have been explaining throughout the book. It is completely different from the creationist’s view found among the Christians. As such we should not be misunderstood and confused with the creationist when we discuss the creation and development of organs. One thing, however, is certain about the organic systems that even at their most rudimentary stage, they displayed four things simultaneously:

The purposefulness and design in the making of every organ which makes a component of this extremely complex organic system are but evident.

Our contention is that eyes and ears etc. are erroneously described as single organs which can perform a meaningful function by themselves. As single organs they do not mean anything. They only begin to mean something when they are viewed as integral parts of the whole system to which they belong. Again, when minutely examined within their own confines, they reveal that they themselves are sub-systems comprising many smaller organs within them. Thus in their totality they acquire a relative role of sub-systems. Even at the rudimentary stages such organs are split into components which perfectly accord with the above description. The mechanism of sight, for instance, found among animals which existed hundreds of millions of years before humans were born, show the same complexity of well-organized systems. Their visual system also is composed of many organs. By what logic can this be attributed to natural selection or any other Darwinian principle is completely beyond human understanding.

We also intend to present to the reader the example of not just one sort of eye that we are familiar with, but some differently constructed eyes which serve the same purpose of connecting the outer world with the inner universe of the living. There is no exception to this universal rule. Again, it is our purpose to demonstrate to every sensible reader that in all these cases the structural details could not have been possible without pre-design and without the complete scientific know-how of a designer who conceived them. It should be remembered that each component comprises sub components which themselves are highly complex and need a lot of explanation with regard to their internal composition and the nature of the material they are made of.

The two most vital organs which separate the living from the dead are the ears along with the auditory system they belong to, and the eyes as part of the optic system. We begin with the faculty of hearing m sequence as in the following verse of the Holy Quran:

And Allah brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers while you knew nothing, and gave you ears and eyes and hearts, that you might be grateful.90

The reader should be reminded that the Arabic word (

)(al-Fuad) which is translated here as heart in fact always refers to the final seat of human understanding and not the physical heart. Many verses of the Quran strongly support this contention. For instance,

This verse refers to the vision of God’s attributes by Prophet Muhammad(sa). Evidently the translation ‘heart’ is a figure of speech which customarily refers to mind because it is not the physical heart which envisions the attributes of God, it is the human mind which does so. With this brief essential remark we return to the preceding discussion and demonstrate the anatomy of the human ear.

The visible external part of the ear is called the auricle (pinna), slightly differently shaped in different individuals, some having big pinnas and some tiny ones. The purpose remains the same—to enlarge the catchment area of sound waves which are directed towards the outer opening. This makes the beginning of the external auditory canal. It extends into a tube about one inch long lined with skin which secretes some soft wax and is connected with the tympanic membrane (tympanum or the eardrum). Here ends the external ear. The tympanic membrane marks the boundary between the external and the middle ear. The air pressure on both sides is kept equal by means of a special tube, called the eustachian tube, which connects the middle ear cavity and the throat (pharynx). This mechanism is highly essential because it permits the eardrum to vibrate freely in both directions.

The middle ear is a slit-like cavity located between the external auditory canal and the internal ear. It contains air and three ossicles, or small bones, which are connected so that they amplify and transmit sound waves from the tympanic membrane to the inner ear. The three bones in the chain are called the malleus, the incus and the stapes. The American counterpart of this terminology is the hammer, the anvil and the stirrup. The first of these connects with the tympanic membrane and the second is joined to the first and the third ossicle. The third (stapes or stirrup) connects with the membrane of the oval window which in turn vibrates and transmits the vibration to the fluid in the internal ear.

The internal ear is a series of sacs and ducts which together perform the function of hearing and balance. This is the most complicated part of the whole ear comprising three separate spaces hollowed out inside the temporal bone. These spaces make up the bony labyrinth, comprising the vestibule, the cochlea and the semicircular canals, all filled with a fluid called perilymph. The membranes are lined with nerve endings extremely sensitive to the movement of fluid. In the fluid of the bony semicircular canals are the membranous canals which contain another fluid called endolymph. In a similar fashion, a membranous cochlea is situated in the perilymph of the bony cochlea and it is also filled with endolymph. The sound waves cause the tympanic membrane to vibrate as they strike it. These vibrations are enormously amplified by the ossicles and transmitted by them to the perilymph. The perilymph conducts them through the membrane to the endolymph. The waves of the endolymph are transmitted to tiny hair like receptors which are stimulated and conduct nerve impulses through the nerve fibres to the brain centre (cerebrum).

The function of balance is performed by the three loop shaped tubes of the semicircular canals which lie at right angles to one another in three different planes. The fluid within them rocks when the head is turned, even slightly, in any of the three planes. The signals are constantly transmitted to the cerebrum through nerves and are interpreted there. By this interpretation we learn which way we are positioned and in which direction our position is changing. Right, left, front, back, above and below are all precisely covered. The slightest change in one direction to another is recorded and a corresponding awareness is created in the brain.92 A sketch of the ear is presented in plate 7 to help the reader to visualize what has been described above.

We have briefly outlined the shape and the functions of parts of the ear. This description could be further elaborated with reference to the cells and tissues which constitute the parts and their internal complexities. Whatever we have described is quite sufficient to prove the point that the outer ear is an organ which defies all evolutionary theory for its gradual sequenced construction, slowly and bit by bit. Each part of this organ is essential for hearing, which if diseased, can either damage or render it completely out of order. We invite the attention of all who depend entirely on Darwinian principles as causative and commanding factors of evolution and request them to explain how such a perfect artifact of science and technology could have been created step by step in a billion or even a trillion years under the influence of the said principles. Can scientists, with all their advanced knowledge of the mechanisms of life, physics or advanced chemistry, design even the structure of this organ to make hearing possible? Now that they know the complexities of the hollowed temporal bone through which this labyrinth passes, can they copy and reconstruct it with a suitable material which they have synthesized themselves? Could they honestly believe that such a wonder could have ever been created without a purpose and without a functional design, precise to its minutest detail, merely under the mindless influence of natural selection? The greater the time span taken by the blind forces of nature to create such a wonder as the human ear, the more impossible it becomes to organize, bit by bit, its constituent parts into a meaningful sequence. There has to be a conscious operator with perfect knowledge of natural laws which could be pressed into service to create a human ear.

But the outer organ we have discussed is not the only problem blind evolutionists will have to face and resolve. Now let us return to the nerve cords which transmit the pulses received by the ear. The making of these nerves in itself is an impossible task without there consciously being a design. Suitable material for their making has also to be synthesized and the electrical currents have to be provided to them in a precisely controlled manner. The nerve coatings have to be prepared from a special material which should insulate each nerve from its outer surroundings and protect it from the danger of short circuiting. This nerve must be attached in the right place to the inner ear while the other end needs to be connected to the precise spot in the cerebrum for it to deliver even the minutest vibrations, which when read together by the cerebrum make a complete message. We do not intend to explain the cerebrum itself, a task which lies beyond the scope of even the most knowledgeable scientists. The complexities of how it is made, how it performs all its functions and how it precisely transmits a meaningful message, which it has itself deciphered in the language of pulses, transmitted to the whole of the brain and further to the entire living body is impossible to have happened by itself. How the memory of that message is separately stored and preserved in the relevant receptacles, which may run into billions, and how the instant a particular message is required to be brought to the surface of our awareness, it is suddenly done without any apparent delay is yet another impossibility to have happened without having been specifically designed. For each such message to be brought back to the awareness requires an efficient computer far greater and more complex than any computer so far built by humans.

Let us visualize some moment of our childhood when we laughed at a sound created by an animal or a human around us. It is quite possible that even seventy years later we hear a similar sound and it tickles the stored up sounds of seventy years ago instantaneously and makes us smile again. This system of similar sounds is so minutely and precisely designed that it baffles the most advanced experts who excel in the science of acoustics. Can any devotee of Darwin ever believe that all these complexities of the hearing system could have been created by the blind hand of natural selection? But we are not talking simply of their separate individual creation. The most exasperating part of this exercise relates to their simultaneous coordinated development, completely independent, yet most perfectly corresponding with each other. As the outer ear began to grow, at that very moment, by chance, a nerve must have started to grow by itself and by the same forces their counterpart in the plane must also have begun to be shaped. Each totally unaware of each other, each totally incapable of designing itself, each having no purpose or design, yet each serving a grand scheme and collective purpose. This is the multiple dilemma we face, which relates only to a single organ or a combination of organs, each of which is essential for the sense of hearing.

What we promised, however, was not only to discuss the human ear and its complex organic system but also to discuss some other ears in the animal kingdom whose complexities are fathomless. Some of these still pose a challenge to the specialists to design on their drawing boards such animal ears with the same singular faculties.

Let us begin with the owl, the symbol of wisdom in the West and that of utter stupidity in the East. Wise he may be but even the wisest among them could not have designed any auditory system let alone his own, and the most exquisite functional mechanism of his ears. To highlight its unique features we advise the reader to compare it with the human auditory system. The human ear, as in most animals, is divided into two receptacles. In most animals of advanced species they are similar and serve the same purpose. The information collected by both ears is harmonized by the brain as single sound yet it informs us with regard to the direction and location of the sound. Those who are hard of hearing in one ear always find it difficult to locate a sound. The separate placing of the two ears in itself pays great homage to their designer. But the naturalists refuse the existence of any design pertaining to this most masterly product of acoustic engineering. Yet if one suggests that this was neither wilfully designed nor created but must have happened under the influence of a non-creative mindless principle, how happily they would break into a smile and say yes, now you have got the point! Could a wise owl’s smile be essentially different from theirs at such moments? But here we do not intend to elaborate this point further.

The ears of the owl are not only in line with an overall complicated design but they also stand out among all animal ears. The right and left outer ears in an owl are directed slightly differently in bearing to each other. This difference in their orientation is so well-measured and precisely designed as to serve a specific purpose. The slightest random variation in this intricate design could have rendered them useless. The sounds they emit to the internal ear are transmitted to the brain which deciphers them perfectly despite their complexity. The whole system is so unique and precise in its intricacies as enables the owl to hunt for its prey in absolute darkness without ever making a mistake.

Intrigued by this uncanny ability of the owl, the scientific community of the world has performed the fantastic task of exactly defining the owl’s hearing system with the most sophisticated electronic devices. To our knowledge the greatest work on this was carried out by Masakazu Konishi, Bing Professor of Behavioural Biology at the California Institute of Technology and his colleagues. Their work was published in Scientific American, April 1993.93 Although we bank largely on this article for the following information our brief description does not do justice to the great intricate work. Anyone interested in more scientific and mathematical data would be amply rewarded by reading that great scholarly thesis.

The unique auditory mechanism enables the owl to detect the feeblest sound emitted by the flutter of a mouse beneath fallen leaves in the dead of night. He knows exactly how far, in which direction, and at what spot the mouse is hiding. He correctly reads the distance down to the scale of millimetres. In total darkness, with soundless fluttering of his wings, he swoops down upon the mouse and scoops him up in his claws with such precision as not even the soil under the mouse is disturbed. Who shaped these ears and how? Can even the most talented plastic surgeon alter the position and shape of any human ear of a blind person, ever so slightly, so that he can be compensated for his loss of sight and negotiate as freely as an owl does in total darkness?

Because of the twist in the owl’s ears, the owl can measure the exact distance between it and the prey. In total darkness, the owl can swoop down on the prey, picking it up without disturbing the soil underneath.

The bat uses its sonar beam to pick up the position of a moth. But the moth has its own defence mechanism and makes a weak sonar image. It abruptly changes its path to avoid attack but the bat anticipating the moth’s evasive action moves into position and catches the moth.

Blind evolution, they tell us however, chanced upon such a masterpiece of craftsmanship and natural selection, playing no creative role, just selected it for survival. How naturalists can keep calm over their exasperating beliefs and contradictory realities of creative processes is beyond human comprehension.

The anatomy of the ear of the bat is also a complex subject difficult to compress in a short description. The constructional detail of their middle ear and their internal ear, though generally in line with that of humans, has some specific additional features which are unique to them and perfectly harmonized with their requirements.

Of special note are the ears of insect eating bats. Their sonar system is so intricate that it can put to shame even the most advanced sonar system designed by highly competent scientists. These bats can fly at amazingly high speeds in pitch darkness and their vocal cords and ear receptors are perfectly harmonized to the environment. An insect eating bat can chuckle at staggeringly fast speeds at such high pitch that if a perfect protective system had not been devised, the sounds it emits could damage its own ears. This problem is resolved by the creation of the stapedius muscle in the middle ear attached to three tiny bones, the malleus, the incus and the stapes, which are responsible for transmitting the sound waves to the internal ear. At each click the bat emits, this muscle pulls aside the stapes which touches the eardrum; hence, no sound of the click is directly transmitted to the internal ear. The frequency of clicks and such momentary breaks of contact is a make and break system which never fails despite its high frequency. Such bats are known to emit these sounds more than 200 times per second and this muscle can keep pace with these rapid variations. Yet when the sound strikes against a solid object and returns to the ear, the contact of the bone with the drum is immediately renewed so that no echo is ever missed by the bat during the innumerable intervals of disconnection.94 How it can perform this magic beats comprehension. Imagine, 200 sounds per second with not a ripple transmitted to the internal ear and yet it connects 200 times again in order not to miss a single echo of the returning sound signals. The bat’s ear does it in an amazingly complex world of sound and echoes which are delivered in different pitches with different frequencies. Thousands of bats flying in a small chamber in total darkness continue to click at different pitches. The bats do not interfere with each others’ signals as if each sound is tagged with a different frequency that is recognized by every bat.

The conscious command of frequency is the most amazing part of the system. The faster the clicks are emitted, the faster information is updated in fractions of seconds, so that bats can negotiate with perfect ease every interfering object, be it another bat or a physical obstruction. They can safely negotiate through innumerable branches in the lush growth of dark forests without striking against any of them. In the bat caves they can manoeuvre their flight in accordance with the contours, or rocks and their undulating surfaces. They never strike their heads against other bats or protrusions, barring some very rare accidents. They can perceive a thread thinner than a hair and avoid collision. All this is done with signals, their frequencies and pitches, entirely at the command of acoustic bats.

The bat has a conscious command of the frequency of the clicks it emits and can thus negotiate with perfect ease every interfering object.

THE INTERNAL AUDITORY SYSTEM OF THE BAT’S EAR

An insect eating bat can chuckle at staggeringly fast speeds at such high pitch that if a perfect protective system had not been devised, the sounds it emits could damage its own ears. This problem is resolved by the creation of the stapedius muscle in the middle ear attached to three tiny bones, the malleus, the incus and the stapes, which are responsible for transmitting the sound waves to the internal ear. At each click the bat emits, this muscle pulls aside the stapes which touches the eardrum; hence, no sound of the click is directly transmitted to the internal ear. The frequency of clicks and such momentary breaks of contact is a make and break system which never fails despite its high frequency. Such bats are known to emit these sounds more than 200 times per second and this muscle can keep pace with these rapid variations. Yet when the sound strikes against a solid object and returns to the ear, the contact of the bone with the drum is immediately rehabilitated so that no echo is ever missed by the bat during the innumerable intervals of disconnection.

When necessary, some bats can emit 200 clicks per second, each lasting only one thousandth of a second but kept apart sufficiently from other similar signals so that the internal make and break system constantly keeps pace with it. Within one thousandth of a second the contact of the bone, the counterpart of ossicles in humans, is broken from the eardrum and before the signal arrives back as echo it is made again, never failing within this extremely short space of time.95 All this is intentional. The bat knows how to raise the frequency of signals, fully commanding their pitches and changing them exactly, as needed. It can choose the frequency which does not interfere with other hundreds of thousands of bat signals. One really wonders how the hand of natural selection could have shaped the ears, the throats and the brains of the bats with such profound precision and such complete harmony. If a man happens to be there, the clicks may not be heard by him at all. Most of them are at a pitch which cannot be heard by human ears. All this profusion of sound signals if audible to man would explode his eardrums, yet luckily, all that he perceives is perfect silence in a jungle full of bats.

The disuse of eyes over a very long period of time has a shrivelling effect, like a human limb when it is not used for years is rendered useless. Prolonged effect of disuse will always continue to shrivel an organ until it becomes smaller and smaller, and may finally become obliterated. This phenomenon is common to life and spares nothing. Thus the eyes of the insect eating bats are also reduced to such a miniature size as to appear like mere holes to an observer. The fruit eating bats however have large beautiful eyes which can see, discern and locate. Returning to the construction of the bat’s ear, over and above what we have said about the complexity of the human ear, the extra muscle which works as a most precise make and break machine offers an unanswerable challenge to the evolutionists. Remove the specific function of the tiny muscle, which it performs only in the case of bats, and the whole hearing system of the insect eating bats would become totally ineffective. How could natural selection have played any role in the creation and selection of that muscle? Its precise construction and location can certainly not be attributed to it. The only part natural selection could have played was to wait until random and mutational changes had created so many possible variations of this muscle from which it could finally choose. But it is impossible to visualize that this specific muscle with its specific functions could have been created by the random creative forces of life at work, without design, perfect know-how and precise technology. Made-to-measure precise instruments such as these are created to perform specific tasks in specific contexts and cannot be dismissed as random.

Incidentally, there is another similar example from among the birds which is also singular and precisely tailor-made. It saves the animal from the ill effects of its own functional ability—an ability unique in the entire animal kingdom.

The beak of the woodpecker rapidly strikes at such points upon the trunks of trees where it locates the presence of worms by acutely listening to their crawling movements. It begins to strike so rapidly that hundreds of strikes are powerfully made in a second which scare the worms out of their hideout for the woodpecker to scoop them up with its long elastic tongue. It is so fast that humans cannot distinguish between different strikes which appear to them as a single blur. That functional availability is exceptional among birds. More exceptional and unique is the system which protects the brain of the woodpecker from being damaged by the impact of extremely powerful shock waves produced by the striking beak.

THE WOODPECKER
The system is exceptional and unique which protects the brain of the woodpecker from being damaged by the impact of the extremely powerful shock waves produced by the rapid striking of its beak.

THE DOLPHIN
The bulge at the front of the dolphin’s head contains a fat-packed melon which acts as a fantastic sonar navigation system. There are also special passages and sinuses in its head that powerfully compresses a current of air which strikes against the top of its head.

Between the beak and the brain there is a separating impact absorbing tissue which prevents the shock waves reaching the brain directly. No other bird can strike at such a rate and no other bird is provided with such a protective device. This is another example of how animals are protected against the possible harm of their own specialized functional abilities. We wonder if any naturalist could suggest any random methodology to explain how natural selection could have chanced upon this.

Let us now return to the main topic of discussion on the ear, sound waves and sonar devices. From the birds of darkness in the air let us delve deep to the bottom of the muddy seas and rivers such as the Indus, the Ganges and the Amazon and see how animals confronting such murky habitats can shift and negotiate.

Dolphins are provided with a fantastic sonar device which they employ to their advantage both in the open seas and thick muddy bottoms of oceans and rivers. The thick stagnant mud would not permit them to see what lies even a few inches in front of them. What they need is not merely their eyes but a complete sonar system with which all dolphins are equipped. This system is so complex and interdependent as requires a special study. Special passages and sinuses are created in its head through which it most powerfully compresses a current of air which strikes against the top. There happens to be on the forehead of these dolphins a large fat-packed, oval shaped organ called a melon. The compressed air, when it strikes against the melon, activates it to initiate a strange incomprehensible phenomenon. That lump of fat immediately turns into a fantastic sonar station. It works like a sound lens that emits a sonic searchlight which can move ahead uninterrupted by the turbid waters or mud.

The dolphin can emit 700 such sonar signals per second which are echoed back when they strike against any solid object. The echoes are perfectly calculated by the dolphin’s brain to indicate to it the exact distance between the dolphin and the object, and also the precise nature of that obstruction. It can perceive a small metallic object at some distance and know exactly whether it is filled or empty. It can distinguish between living and non-living objects. The dolphin employs the same device in the open seas to detect fish even miles ahead. Aided by the same sonar device, it rapidly homes in on them constantly calculating how close it has reached the shoal before it begins to rapidly swallow them up, one after the other.96 Could natural selection create this complex sonar system with an exactly corresponding receptive apparatus in the brain which could precisely decipher the echoes? Can any naturalist create a similar bulk of fat to produce a well directed sonar beam? Whatever modern technology he may employ, let him try his hand at producing even a single sonar wave from such a fatty bulk. Yet a dolphin’s melon can somehow produce 700 such waves per second.

The great brainwave of Darwin, which the naturalists believed solved the riddle of life, could only produce three dead principles: struggle for existence, survival of the fittest and natural selection to carve and modulate life. The naturalists prefer to forget that all these three principles are dead, deaf, dumb and sightless. They are not creative principles. They only operate when some creator has already produced something for them to work upon. The naturalist has to demonstrate first the creative processes of the dolphin’s hearing system, only then can they talk of what natural selection might have done to them. We only demand from them not to confuse the two issues of natural selection and creative factors. How and which creative processes were at work in the case of the dolphin, or the bat for that matter, and how did they gradually begin to develop these systems to perfection? How did Darwinian principles aid the anonymous creator at each creative step before they were finally consummated into their present form?

Now, we shall move on to discuss the faculty of sight and commence with a brief overview of the human eye.

The eye, as we shall demonstrate, is a very delicate and intricate organ. As such it is carefully and naturally protected. The dorsal part, or the back half of the eyeball, is protected by the skull bones while the eyelids and eyelashes aid in protecting the anterior part, or the front half of the eye.

A sac separates the anterior part of the eye from the eyeball itself and is lined with an epithelial membrane which aids in the destruction of some pathogenic bacteria that may enter from the outside.

Should any small foreign object enter the lid area the natural defence system is immediately activated. Swift eyelid movement and tears released by the tear glands, containing an antibacterial enzyme, try to wash it away. These tears then drain away into tear ducts located in the lower comers of the sockets and leading to the nasal cavity. The eyeball itself rests against protective cushions of fat within its socket, and is attached by pairs of muscles extending from the inside of the socket to the eyeball. These are the muscles which move the eye.

The eye (see plate 8) has an almost spherical shape. The wall of the eyeball consists of three layers:

From the back of each eyeball, separate optic nerves take up the function of transmission of sight to the occipital lobe of the cerebrum which make the centre of vision. This centre is divided into two lobes, one for each eye. Some of the optic fibres cross from the right eyeball to the left, and from the left to the right. Thus what one sees with each eye is interpreted in both lobes.100 The image formed by the retina is inverted but the centre of vision re-erects it. The centre of vision performs other fantastic things as well. The image is in fact very tiny but is enlarged to life-size and what we see enlarged is sometimes a hundred thousand times or billions of times greater than the original image. Cast a glance towards the stars. The vision of vast space which fills the tiny spot in the brain is many trillions of times greater than the original image cast on the retina. This act of wonder is performed not by the organ, the eyeball alone, but by the entire visual system of the three major organs involved. However, the grandest display of resultant imagery is performed by the centre of vision in the brain.

The retina also does some other wondrous things. It works as a film that captures visions, washes them instantly and new visions replace the previous ones; a task which is impossible to be performed by man-made films and videotapes. Far more amazing things are done by the centre of vision. It immediately preserves the image in life-size somewhere in the intricate filing system of the brain. Billions of such images can be recorded and preserved during the lifetime of a person. A man with a healthy mind can, in an instant, invoke an image cast during his early childhood with the same colour, environment and lifelike size. Again, the stimuli which are related to a particular image, however remote they may have been in time, are also invoked with the resurrection of the image. Thus, the brain makes the third organ of the organic system of sight.

Profound scientific research has been made on the fear stimuli in various animals and their effect on the receptive organ of sound and vision referred to as the brain. They have discovered that the imprint of fear on the relevant brain tissue, whether caused by sound or sight, is permanent. Its response can be subdued or erased by psychiatric or medical treatment but the image itself remains permanent. The whole optic system frustrates all attempts by the modem scientists to fully understand it. No man-made optic or auditory system comprising the three organs we have discussed can ever match the intricacies of these amazing coordinating machines. This should have been the area of the naturalists research to discover which forces play a creative harmonious role. That is what they do not attempt, perhaps because evidently the fingers of these composite systems would be raised in the direction of God and not in the direction of Darwin. We are talking here of internal biology and mechanisms of life, not of the external forces which blindly operate and have nothing to do with the mechanisms just described.

As we have suggested in this book before, the beginning of vision does not begin with the creation of eyes. It is a composite sense of awareness which grows in an animal resulting in organic development. Recent, intense scientifically controlled tests have been carried out in the dark underwater world, hundreds of metres below the sea surface and the research is being extended beyond to the sea bed several kilometres below. At around 200 metres, light practically disappears. During this probe, it was discovered that the dark underworld of oceans presents some completely eyeless animals who show reaction to the weak glimmer of light emitted by phosphorescent animals. This discovery was made with the help of a highly advanced electronic machine called the Ventana. It carries no pilot and is remotely controlled via cables which also guarantees a constant supply of electricity to the Ventana. The same cables carry the information back to the scientists sitting in the ships above, closely watching the experiment day and night. A fascinating report of this experiment was published in Scientific American, July 1995.101 Among so many other amazing things it shows that Medusa, a jellyfish, possesses no eyes whatsoever yet showed a reaction to the robots’ light by sinking deeper. This is exactly what we claimed earlier, that it is the diffused awareness of the living at the lowest level of their existence which is employed by the Creator to give birth to the sensory organs. Every beginning is often a tiny beginning yet it is likely to grow to higher stages of fascinating developments. The next step to this general awareness, as explicitly displayed by Medusae, has to be an eye like a pinhole camera without lenses and this is exactly what we find in nature. But even this pinhole eye cannot be modelled by any Darwinian principle because even at this rudimentary stage it presents a full optic system and not a casual hole. These animals have two pinholes instead of one, converging a mutually coordinated information to a receptacle behind, which in turn passes it on to an inner sense of awareness that can be referred to as a sort of elementary brain. Moreover, the system we observe in humans is also found as fully developed in the optic organs of ancient animals which lived many hundreds of millions of years before. It remarkably reduces the time left at the disposal of blind evolution from the beginning to the creation of such animals. Most insects are found with complete optic systems and some fish fossils in Australia have been dated as five hundred million years old, with holes indicating large eyes.102 This further reduces the time for bit by bit development of animals’ eyes to a mere five hundred million years which is incredibly small for their evolution to take place. Take note that this expanse of five hundred million years has to be divided further into subsections, a portion of which has to be employed for the creation of the bricks of life. However, the entire time available from the beginning to the end of the ultimate consummation of life is in itself far too short—as though it were a mere tiny speck compared to what was needed. The building of the bricks of life alone requires a time unimaginably greater than the entire time spent on evolution, yet that too has to be accommodated within this short period. This is the magnitude of the dilemma the scientists face. Whether to weep at them or to laugh is the dilemma for the rest of the world to resolve.

All eyes, wherever they are found in the animal kingdom, perform a scientific function for which they are perfectly designed. They are completely harmonious with their surroundings. Purposelessness negates the existence of an instrument which performs any function. If even a rudimentary instrument is created before it is put to some function, that function has to be presupposed. This is the simple logic of the realities of life.

Man began to work with stones. These stones were apparently without a purpose but the moment we see them shaped into axes with a handle attached, no sane man can declare that even this rudimentary machine was created by chance without purpose. What life offers is billions of times more complex. Each creation of life serves a purpose and is exactly designed to serve it. To call it a purposeless creative journey is blindness supreme.

The ‘Blind Watchmaker’ Who Is Also Deaf and Dumb

In keeping with the promise made in our introductory remarks we now turn to the book entitled The Blind Watchmaker103 by Richard Dawkins—now Professor Dawkins.

At first it was rather discomforting to read through the said book because Professor Dawkins seems to avoid confronting the real problems of life despite knowing them and admitting their existence. He loses no time in hiding his theories behind a smokescreen of grandiose confusion of his own creation. It is impossible to take up all the points he has made because most of them are irrelevant and unrelated. However, when he writes of real life and the mysteries it possesses, he does so purely as a scientist and does not interfere with realities to gain any ulterior motive. Here Dawkins is at his best. But the problem is that when he is at his best, he is at his worst in relation to the cause of natural selection. No honest treatment of the realities of life can lead to the idea of life having been created with all its complexities without a preceding conscious creator, which natural selection is not. It is to avoid this inevitable logical conclusion that he hastens to escape into an unreal phantom world of his own creation—a land of computer games and biomorphs. Then, he attempts to draw a line between the complexities of man-made machines and the apparent complexities of nature. He attempts to mislead the reader by claiming that the complexities of man-made wonders are real, purposeful and well-designed but the complexities of nature, though they far exceed in the element of wonder they contain, lack purpose and design. He would have the reader believe that it is only his impression that they are complex and pre-designed with a goal to achieve. Here he confuses the mind of the unwary reader by taking him to and fro, from hindsight to foresight, from foresight to hindsight—an amazing attempt at deceit. He would have the world believe that all man-made products are made with foresight, thus they must have purpose, design and complexity which are the work of a conscious mind. When turning to nature, he has to admit that in the products of nature the element of wonder is greater by thousands of factors than in the man-made products. Yet he insists that because we are accustomed to attribute design to human products, our hindsight, when we look at natural products, creates in us an illusion of purpose and design. Thus we are tricked into believing that they too must also have a conscious designer. Evidently, he has no argument to support this illusion theory except his authoritative word for it. On the contrary, whatever illustrations he chooses from real life most powerfully contradict his conclusion and prove the converse.

Take for instance his scholarly work on bats. As we have already discussed bats and some of the wonders related to them, we shall only refer to some of the observations made by Dawkins on this subject and remind him of his promise made on the first page of the preface of his book that:

‘ … having built up the mystery, my other main aim is to remove it again by explaining the solution.’104

‘Their brains are delicately tuned packages of miniaturized electronic wizardry, programmed with the elaborate software necessary to decode a world of echoes in real time. Their faces are often distorted into gargoyle shapes that appear hideous to us until we see them for what they are, exquisitely fashioned instruments for beaming ultrasound in desired directions.’105

So ably does he sum up the mystery. Further enlarging upon it, he pays the unique compliment to the bat’s ability of being a past master on sonar. He states:

‘When a little brown bat detects an insect and starts to move in on an interception course, its click rate goes up. Faster than a machine gun, it can reach peak rates of 200 pulses per second as the bat finally closes in on the moving target.’106

‘If bats are capable of boosting their sampling rates to 200 pulses per second, why don’t they keep this up all the time? Since they evidently have a rate control ‘knob’ on their ‘stroboscope’, why don’t they turn it permanently to maximum, thereby keeping their perception of the world at its most acute, all the time, to meet any emergency?’107

‘One reason is that these high rates are suitable only for near targets. If a pulse follows too hard on the heels of its predecessor it gets mixed up with the echo of its predecessor returning from a distant target.’108

He goes on to speak of amazing wonders about the bats’ aeronautical and sonar potentials, and concludes by affirming:

‘ … we can only understand it at a level of artificial instrumentation, and mathematical calculations on paper, we find it hard to imagine a little animal doing it in its head.’109

Speaking of the complexities of similar but less complex man-made machines, he observes:

‘Of course, a sophisticated conscious brain did the wiring up (or at least designed the wiring diagram), but no conscious brain is involved in the moment-to moment working of the box.’110

‘ … our experience of technology also prepares us to see the mind of a conscious and purposeful designer in the genesis of sophisticated machinery.’111

From here the conclusive absurdity begins because he claims that the designer is the unconscious natural selection, the blind watchmaker. Regarding the impossibility of a blind know-nothing Darwinian principle having created the living wonder of the bats’ auditory system, he addresses the question:

If Dawkins is told that the 64 kilobyte computer he claims to have worked upon is not the creation of a conscious mind nor does it have any design whatsoever, will he readily agree with the suggestion? He will certainly not, despite the fact that his elementary computer is far less complicated than a bats’ auditory system.

If he refuses to agree with the suggestion that any computer could have been built without a competent conscious designer, he must honestly examine himself to discover the reason for his refusal to believe in a creator of life. The only answer he can find will be that he does so because of the computer’s complicated design and orderly construction which could not have happened by itself. Yet when it comes to life, he completely transforms his attitude, as though he had undergone a metamorphosis. Being a biologist he must realize that, as against a computer, life is far more complex. The figure of a trillion raised to the power of a trillion is a mere nothing by comparison. If the enormous complexity of life is an illusion then a computer has a far greater right to be dismissed as one. How can Dawkins forget, even for a moment, that if his verdict is correct, his own mind with all its intricacies must itself be described as an illusion. We do not want to be impolite to him, so let him speak for himself. Which of the two will he choose? Will he prefer his mind to be described as a mere illusion of a disorganized mass of grey cells, or will he rather dismiss his own theories as hallucinations of a healthy mind. However much we may desire, we see no third option for him. If the human mind is an illusion then all its products must also be an illusion multiplied by itself, like a profusion of dreams created by the dreams of a madman, or hallucinations giving birth to hallucinations. The great scholar that he is, with a perfectly organized intellect, we are loathed to refer to his mind as an illusion. It is here that Dawkins begins to display his jugglery with words. Life is not complex, will be his simple answer. It is the illusion of those who behold it to be so. Hence, not being complex, it can be created by itself. To call the complexity of life an illusion and the mechanism of a computer a complexity is tantamount to turning reason upside down. To call the day night, and the night day, is less bereft of sense than Dawkins’ somersault. Incredulity is the crux of the matter. Evidently it is incredible for Dawkins to believe the construction of a mere Boeing 747 by itself yet it is not incredible for him that far greater complexities in nature have erupted into being without a creator. To dismiss this dilemma and to hide his prejudice against God he refers to the complexities of nature as illusions of an over-credulous religious people. But before this, he has to dismiss the existence of the builders of the Boeing 747 as an illusion of his own mind. The same arguments he uses against the believers in God can apply with even greater force to him. If a simple computer cannot be justified to have been built by itself, the building of a Boeing 747 becomes far more impossible. Yet Dawkins believes in these impossibilities. He only believes in them because he insists that they present complexity of design which demand the pre-existence of a conscious mind. When it comes to nature, to escape belief in a pre-existing mind, he simply dismisses nature’s complexities as an illusion. If the coming into being of a Boeing 747 by itself is incredulous for Dawkins to believe, the creation of life by itself should have been far more impossible. This attitude only exposes his predetermination not to believe in God.

Dawkins has to explain and differentiate between his assertion and that of others who confront him with the type of logic he employs to suit himself. The only argument he builds in his defence comprises the following:

‘ … we have no intuitive grasp of the immensities of time available for evolutionary change.’113

By this he means that we do possess the intuitive grasp of the changes during the time taken for the building of a Boeing 747. But we can demonstrate that his argument of time is irrelevant. The shortness or longevity of time simply does not apply. In the case of a Boeing 747 he knows that a conscious human mind was at work prior to its construction. That is the only reason why he believes in pre-design and purpose. Hypothetically, it can be proved that time is absolutely irrelevant to his argument. If any part of this machine was discovered from the archives of nature, to have been buried there for half a billion years, would he then believe that time could have shaped it? Most certainly not! He would have to believe in an unknown creator with a conscious mind. Dawkins may extend the time to any impossible number but he cannot himself believe that even the wheel of a Boeing 747 could have been created bit by bit. Life or no life is irrelevant to the issue. Complexity, design and mechanical wonder are the issues involved.

Again to insist that the bat was created by the unconscious blind forces of nature is only an attempt to replace an unknown conscious creator with an unconscious blind principle of Darwinism. Only those scholars can agree with this proposition who, despite their great knowledge and dedication to rationality, set them aside momentarily to escape the reality of God.

The main service Dawkins has done to Darwinism lies in his ingenious device to rebut a common objection against the principle of natural selection which rejects the proposition that natural selection has any role to play in the internal intricate workings of genes. This in fact is the main thrust of his approach to biology. He proposes a completely new idea of the interrelationship between natural selection and genes. He does not deny attributing the role of development and mutative changes to genes at all. He does not apparently claim that these changes are directly subservient to natural selection. All he claims is simply that whatever bodily changes are brought about by genes are governed by natural selection. When natural selection approves of such changes in bodies as are worthy of survival, this approval is also automatically extended to the genes which brought them about. But that is what he has already done with the help of the science of chance. Referring to the possibility of the haemoglobin’s creation, merely by factors of chance, he most emphatically declares that it is impossible. On page 45 he further elaborates this improbability. He writes of four chains of amino acids twisted together comprising 146 amino acids in a single haemoglobin cell. From here he starts a rather complicated mathematical calculation and concludes that for a haemoglobin to have been created merely by a game of chance is next to impossible. In his own words:

‘This is a staggeringly large number. A million is a 1 with 6 noughts after it. A billion (1,000 million) is a 1 with 9 noughts after it. The number we seek, the ‘haemoglobin number’, is (near enough) a 1 with 190 noughts after it! This is the chance against happening to hit upon haemoglobin by luck. And a haemoglobin molecule has only a minute fraction of the complexity of a living body.’114

It is an ingenious argument which for him is mainly responsible for solving the riddle of life by the application of Darwinian principles, which evidently it does not. The genes along with the haemoglobin which contain them are in this way dismissed by the above argument as impossible to exist. This is what we have understood from our in-depth study of Dawkins’ relevant chapter. In fact, it is this brainwave of his which is largely responsible for influencing the younger generation of natural scientists today. But we shall presently demonstrate that this is only an illusion created by him because the realities of nature do not support his theory.

We draw the attention of the reader to the fact that approval or disapproval of environmental factors do not in any way alter, command, or influence the activities of genes, despite the fact that the bodies which contain them themselves lie at the mercy of environmental factors.

As we are convinced that this is the most important argument which Dawkins has managed to contrive, we should explain our position more elaborately. In fact we have already discussed the evolutionary processes in our book in a pre-emptive manner so that Darwinian principles cannot be misapplied. We hope that the students of natural science will find this work helpful in their re-evaluation of the concept of evolution. Our approach is radically different from that of other religious and scientific scholars who have specifically written against Darwinism. The present work is based entirely on our study of general scientific literature. Despite the fact that we have not read the books written against Darwinism, how can we claim that our work to be radically different from theirs? It is so because throughout this work we have been taking our guidance from the Holy Quran which they unfortunately could not have done.

Returning to Dawkins’ revolutionary approach, it should be remembered that the activities of genes are governed by laws inbred into them by forces unknown to him. Genes work without any reference to environmental changes. When the principle of natural selection approves some bodily features of the living, it still does not command and direct the activities of genes within those bodies. Again when natural selection disapproves of certain bodily features, with reference to their quality of survival in a competitive world, it still has no influence on their genes. This is absolutely evident from the study of evolution from beginning to end. The primitive organisms, like the amoebas and other elementary species of life which followed them on the rising ladder of evolution, were created by cellular activities commanded by genes. All these apparently inadequately equipped organisms and animals have survived the entire span of evolution along with the genes they contain.

Finally, man appeared at the pinnacle of evolution. Between the animal kingdom and man the difference is so vast and varied that no scientist in truth can envision any bit by bit progressive changes which can fill this vastness. We are not talking of simple physical similarities of which Darwin has taken note of. The evolutionists talk of a missing link which may have been a chimpanzee according to some or a gorilla according to others. Of course a tail is missing in some species of apes, but for a tail to be or not to be is not the question. The question is how the great void can be explained between man and animals in their behavioural patterns and mental potentials? Which animal has learnt to read and write, and to express himself in languages as sophisticated as human languages? A comparison between humans and animals in all these fields will show that human potential is many billion times greater than that of the animals. This is a conservative estimate when we turn to the realities. Look at all the libraries of the world and what they contain. Can a scientist show even a tiny library of the most elementary things in the cave of a gorilla or the private home of a chimpanzee? Show us a page authored by either of the two, dearly preserved upon their library shelves and we shall admit that our statement was rather exaggerated. They talk of animal languages of course but they also talk of those languages as expressions not consciously created. They even talk of dolphins mimicking human language, even uttering a word or two, but nowhere in the animal kingdom can they demonstrate such languages as humans have coined with such immense variety.

Perhaps Dawkins’ imaginary monkey could write a line of Shakespeare on Dawkins’ computer by randomly pressing any keys on the board but the time needed for that chance single sentence of Shakespeare’s drama is not only remote, it is impossible. It is incomprehensible why Dawkins should have employed a hypothetical monkey while real monkeys were easily available. He should have employed a real monkey for the task without training him to press the keys. All he should have done was to tie a monkey in the vicinity of the computer. Next morning if he had returned to watch what the computer had produced with the help of that monkey he would be far more likely to see the computer shattered into pieces instead of discovering a single word of Shakespeare. But we know the time is too short. Each day a new computer should have to be bought and left at his disposal, and on the day the monkey breathes his last, the room would have been turned into a junkyard of shattered computers with not a trace of Shakespeare to be found anywhere, not even over the body of the deceased. Still, time may be far too short if measured by Darwinian standards. But did the apes not exist and evolve for 5-8 million years before man? Is it not enough time for the bit by bit building of a Shakespeare among them? After all, the difference in brain between them and man is just a single, though long, leap.

Turning to the question of haemoglobin once again, if godhead were to be attributed to anyone other than God, it must have been attributed to haemoglobin and not to the blind, dumb and deaf principle of natural selection. Whatever follows in the making of life up to the creation of the human body—which according to him is far more impossible to be created by chance—must be accredited to haemoglobin and not to Darwinism. Thus Professor Dawkins seems to identify his god, yet denies him. He must admit that haemoglobin is the god of all creation, yet there has to a God of haemoglobin. That god according to him is a fabulous number of chances, a number which certainly does not exist.

The sum total of his argument therefore, is that haemoglobin could not exist because the number of chances needed to create it are impossible. The next logical step for him should have been to explain why haemoglobin exists while it just could not have existed. The only inevitable answer to this dilemma is that its very existence rules out the game of chance being its creator. However, its immense intricacies and complexities of design cry out for another Creator to replace chance. Professor Dawkins has simply no third option. Either he should put his foot in the boat which cannot exist, or in the boat which will willy-nilly carry him to the presence of God the Creator. This is when he may have come nearest to God. But the moment he realizes his unavoidable folly, he immediately flies away from Him in the direction of Darwinism, his pseudo-god, which he knows full well had no hand to play in the creation of haemoglobin. He has no right whatsoever to attribute the cellular wonders created in the human body to Darwinism without first explaining how their creator, the haemoglobin itself, came into being. What factors, other than chance, must have shaped the basic cells of life is the real question he must answer. Hence all his clever contrivances to subjugate genes to environmental factors are absolutely meaningless and as we have shown they are in fact counterproductive. This is the main problem of Professor Dawkins—avoiding the real issues and diverting the attention of the reader to issues that are imaginary.

In the light of this analysis, all his attempts of employing computers and his theory of bit by bit cumulative factors are rendered useless. The shortage of time or its longevity has never been a problem. He himself informs us that the time needed for the cumulative bit by bit creation of even the first bricks of life is trillions into trillions of times greater than the real available time. When he again informs us that the time needed for the creation of living bodies is far greater by comparison, he is left with no right whatsoever to discuss his cumulative bit by bit theories. It is absolutely a sheer waste of his time and that of his readers because what he wants to pack into a mere one billion years—1 with 9 noughts written on its right side if taken as an American billion, or 1 with 12 noughts as the British write it—could not have been packed by nature in a much larger number of years. In truth, the figure which has to be available for life with its cumulative bit by bit production could be as great as 1 with 1000 noughts written on its right side which in reality amounts to a total denial of existence. The reality of existence must therefore be dismissed by Professor Dawkins as a mere illusion.

The final analysis Professor Dawkins has made in his concluding chapter relates to a choice between the belief in a deity and a belief in natural selection. Who is the creator, that is to be identified. Whether he can discover Him or not, he certainly has no right to replace God with natural selection. Natural selection cannot be referred to as a creator, because it does not create but only works on whatever has already been created. It is exasperating to find Professor Dawkins pointing his finger at a mere principle, without a personal identity, to be the deity—a principle which is deaf, dumb and blind, and has no physical or spiritual existence. That most certainly is not the creator. If Professor Dawkins persists in denying the existence of any Creator, while he has no right to replace him with a principle, he once again has only two logical options. Either he should admit that creation exists, yet he has failed to identify the creator; or he should proclaim that there is no Creator yet the creation exists. This would be tantamount to saying that there is the book The Blind Watchmaker but there has never been a Professor Dawkins who penned it!

In our previous chapter we have described the anatomy of an eye and the whole optic system. When we read Professor Dawkins’ remarks on the creation of the eye, they appeared so trivial and deficient in a sense that we are deeply disappointed. He has depended entirely on his cumulative bit by bit theory to be at work, a theory which we have roundly rejected in accordance with his own admissions. Still we should like to draw his attention to the fact that to treat the eyeball as an independent organ is wrong. It is an interdependent part of a full optic system otherwise it ceases to play any role in the faculty of sight. Just to indulge in the futile exercise of proving that a small percentage of vision is better than no vision at all does not serve any purpose. To prove that vision is possible even without a lens is just as meaningless. We have described the human optic system with scientific details provided by scientists. It is to this system that his bit by bit theory should be attempted to be applied—an exercise which he manages to avoid.

Let him begin for instance with the retina and inform the world how the rods and cones it contains evolved bit by bit and nanometre by nanometre to ultimately begin to recognize colours, light and darkness. Their recognition, if confined to themselves, could not have served any purpose. He should begin to apply his bit by bit theory to all the components of the system which play a collective role in realizing what rods and cones have achieved. A rudimentary weak eye with a mere 1% vision is still a weak eye but half an eye is no eye at all. Retina, rods, cones, the ganglia and the sequence in which they are placed, are essential for conveying the pulses to the brain. Many more such things about their complexities defy the wisdom of Professor Dawkins’ theory. We have every right to request Professor Dawkins to suggest how, and for how long, the retina waited for its completion? If cones were not pre designed with all their amazing potential, if rods were not preconceived with the fascinating scientific know-how which is visible in them, how could they have ever created themselves falling into step with each other in perfect harmony far more exquisitely than the best orchestral symphony ever conceived by man? Even the minutest constituents of this grand organ require an in-depth study in their own right. How they developed slowly and gradually into meaningful components, completely synchronized to become an eyeball, to begin to perform the functions which are bred into them is incomprehensible. These are just a few questions but there are hundreds and hundreds of questions which have to be answered by godless naturalists. The entire eyeball, including all the delicate and complex features it contains has to be explained in the light of his bit by bit theory. The optic system is far more complex and harmonized than any layman can ever understand. Even Professor Dawkins, a great naturalist that he is, is only hovering above its surface. But to cover the surfaces alone is a supreme task. So he has a lot more work to do in the same field. There are so many other illustrations from the sensory systems in animal life, which despite being hundreds of million years remote from us, present the same fundamental structural design. The differences are only peripheral but they too are precisely designed for the specific requirements of the animals which possess them.

Animals other than bats, owls and dolphins are also provided with a highly sophisticated mechanism to hear and see in total darkness. Apart from that, the following are some examples of mechanisms of awareness which in their narrow field far exceed that of humans and man-made machines.

A most fascinating example is that of some snakes which are entirely guided by ultraviolet heat rays providing them with an extremely sensitive awareness, albeit narrowly confined to a specific task. They are fully equipped with the most advanced ultrasonic and infrared devices. A certain species of snakes is provided with an extremely sensitive receptacle between his eyes and nostrils which transmit to it infrared stimuli through an opening like a pinhole camera. This opening—only a few millimetres in size—transmits infrared rays to the receptacle which is so sensitive as it can detect changes in temperature as small as 0.003°C. To such changes the snake can respond as rapidly as within thirty-five milliseconds, a speed which is hundreds of times faster than any similar device made by humans with modem technology.115

Cockroaches are so sensitive to vibration that they can detect movements so small that they can only be measured in units appropriate to gauge molecular distances. They can detect movement a mere two thousand times the size of a hydrogen atom.116 For a mere cockroach to detect a movement so infinitesimally small is absolutely mind boggling. The human eye can only detect the size of a hydrogen atom if it is enlarged by a factor of approximately 400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Any reader who would like to read this figure is reminded that a trillion is only one, with eighteen zeroes on its right side. Anyone who attempts to read this figure is reminded that this would be an exercise in futility.

Scientists have now accomplished the gigantic and most complicated task of mapping and charting the magnetic variations which naturally occur across oceans. Whales employ them for correctly navigating their movements in the sea. So far the scientists have not understood how whales can detect and employ these variations to their advantage. Perhaps Dawkins could explain to them how elementary the solution would become if the Darwinian principle of natural selection could be employed. But the scientists will have to be patient with him because his bit by bit explanation may take as long as a lifetime, yet most probably it will remain as unsatisfactory at the end as it was in the beginning.

A duck-billed platypus is so sensitive to electricity that it can detect field strengths of five hundred millionth of a volt per centimetre—a performance that can outpace by a large margin the most sophisticated electrical devices. For it to detect a mere one thousandth of a volt per centimetre generated by the flick of a shrimp’s tail is no problem at all. Sharks and rays are known to even detect stationary prey as they can detect the electricity made by the preys muscles as it breathes, even if it’s hiding in sediments on the ocean floor.117

Birds of prey have two circular fovea and a strip in each eye. Its structure and positioning enables it to function as a telephoto lens, magnifying images by an amazing number. Vultures can reach heights of 2000m or more and can survey the land for many kilometres around it for prey which is often camouflaged!118

The crustacean Copilia possesses a pair of the most fabulous eyes. It forms an image using its lens, which is scanned by a second mobile lens and retina.

‘The retina contains only nine light detectors, but by scanning the image up to ten times each second it is able to build up some kind of picture.’119

‘The tail of the electric eel contains 10,000 tiny electric organs, arranged in 70 columns, and over half of the fish is given over to electricity production. This allows it to generate an incredible 550 volts. In fact, such voltages can even kill a person.’120

We most respectfully draw the scholarly attention of Dawkins to these realities which are just a few among thousands so far known to the scientists. We beg him not to waste his time and that of the reader by fiddling with childish computer games. Why does he not apply his theories to real life? It would have been far more sensible and convincing if he had taken up the case of all these freaks of nature as mentioned above with reference to their most complex mechanism. He does not have to search for the fossil records or the sequence of living animals which may have preceded them. We spare him that onerous task and require him only to concentrate his attention upon the eight living wonders quoted above and the amazing tasks they perform.

Let him demonstrate to the world how their complicated components and parts were assembled in such a complex sequence. Every step has to be justified with reference to the application of blind Darwinian principles. Having done that he would still have quite a task ahead. Each component would demand a similar treatment because each would be further subdivided into a variety of sub-parts and the material they are made of—each playing a collective and individual role in the making of the finished product.

In the end, the availability and the nature of the material necessary for their making has to be attended to in its own right. Who manufactured that material aimlessly? How was it manufactured without an appropriate factory? Who created that complicated factory with extremely delicate know-how? How did such factories survive uninterrupted and undisturbed in the wide open nature of winds and sea storms? How did that material offer itself at the right moment to be pressed into service? It is a very plain and realistic exercise which Dawkins is requested to perform. He should confront the realities of biological mysteries which are so real yet far more mysterious than any biomorphic world can be. Dawkins will be well advised to resolve the riddles of life with reference to life itself as it exists. We suggest he should begin this exercise with the electric fish, which we briefly listed as the eighth wonder.

Electric fish make use of their electric fields as navigation aids. These fish have an invisible, continuous field of electricity which surrounds the entire fish. On approaching an object, changes occur in its surrounding current which alters its voltage and aids direction. With this amazing navigation system the fish can distinguish between obstacles, predator or prey. As long as it does not confront any object its voltage is in a relaxed state. No extra burden causes any waste of energy. The moment it confronts an object, somehow a signal is sent to its voltmeters to immediately increase its voltage to such a high intensity that it can kill a man, or knock out a horse, in shallow waters.

Dawkins fails to realize that it is impossible for this complex, intricate system to arise from natural selection or the bit by bit development theory that he is so fond of. Does he not stop to think where these bits originate from? How could alien minor changes survive in an organism which has not the facilities to cater for it? A study of electric fishes provides an excellent proof of the existence of a Conscious Creator. Such a Creator must possess a profound knowledge of how electricity is generated and works. We ask where would the first change occur to accommodate the idea of electric currents in water and more intriguingly, how? How do the muscles of the fish, arrayed in series, suddenly become tense, each generating electricity like a highly sophisticated electrical device joining their currents at the ends to a level of very high voltage? Incidentally, this saves every muscle the damage which may have been caused by high voltage electricity if they had been connected in parallel. According to Dawkins:

‘It is very important that the fish’s own body is kept absolutely rigid. The computer in the head couldn’t cope with the extra distortions that would be introduced if the fish’s body were bending and twisting like an ordinary fish.’121

Logic and common sense raise a key question here, that if the fish couldn’t cope with the changes then why was it making the change in the first place? However he goes on to add:

‘ … but they have had to pay a price: they have had to give up the normal, highly efficient, fish method of swimming, throwing the whole body into serpentine waves. They have solved the problem by keeping the body stiff as a poker … ’122

Who ‘they’ are, who have solved the problem, Dawkins has avoided to mention. Did the fish do it themselves? If not, who did it for them? As we envision the initial making of the electric fish, in accordance with the bit by bit theory, the entire system seems to begin with the portholes.

‘The fish has what amounts to a tiny voltmeter monitoring the voltage at each “porthole” … if some obstacle appears in the vicinity, say a rock or an item of food, the lines of current that happen to hit the obstacle will be changed. This will change the voltage at any porthole whose current line is affected, and the appropriate voltmeter will register the fact. So in theory a computer, by comparing the pattern of voltages registered by the voltmeters at all the portholes, could calculate the pattern of obstacles around the fish. This is apparently what the fish brain does.’123

Why should the fish brain appear to perform this unique feat of electronic engineering? If one is totally convinced that the fish brain has no real wilfully created organization or complexity of design nor has it any capability of conscious operation itself as Dawkins asserts, then to allude to it as a masterpiece of electronic engineering is either extreme naivety or an inadvertent attempt to mislead others. In answer to this evident problem he immediately has this to say:

‘Once again, this doesn’t have to mean that the fish are clever mathematicians. They have an apparatus that solves the necessary equations, just as our brains unconsciously solve equations every time we catch a ball.’124

Thus, inadvertently, he has added another problem to the one he is already confronted with. Let alone the human brain and how it manages to compute the catching of a ball, turn back to the brain of that fish which unconsciously and automatically resolves a highly complicated mathematical problem. After this admission, we naturally expected him to turn to his cumulative bit by bit theory and show us how it applies to the electric fish he has described. He should have explained how these electrical portholes evolved piecemeal. How the issue of befitting voltage required by every specific situation was resolved, how this most fascinating electrical machine with all its portholes and their precisely controlled voltage automatically evolved, faultlessly following the unconscious bidding of the electric fish, remain the questions unresolved!

Once again, we spare Dawkins the laborious problem of tracing a long line ofless competent fish which gradually evolved into this perfect machine. Evidently they have disappeared from the plan of existence. Let them be gone. What he has before him to support his theory of bit by bit construction is this fish, with all its complicated mechanisms which he has to admit excels all similar man made devices. Dawkins should have leapt upon this opportunity to prove the point that the fish’s brain could have created this fish unconsciously, directed only by the genes it carried. The genes themselves, Dawkins should not forget, are mindless unconscious things. Forget the fish for a while, let him explain how he himself could have devised and constructed such a fish with all the modem scientific know-how at his service!

ELECTRIC EEL
Specially modified muscle cells generate an electric force field (indicated by dashes in the above illustration). The electric eel senses its surroundings through this force field which is distorted by any objects that the eel swims by. The distortions send signals which the eel can correctly decipher.

The highly sophisticated electric generator found in both the South American and the African weakly fish is exactly similar. They developed so many miles apart in waters that never met. Neither fish has left any evolutionary trail of how the generator developed bit by bit.

Visualizing how this highly sophisticated electrical device was constructed in the sea, without purpose, without design and without a knowledge of how electricity works, one is only left with the scenario that one day in the remote past, an ordinary fish might have been surprised with the bizarre chance appearance of some portholes in its belly. All we can do is to sympathize at its exasperation while waiting for this most complicated electronic generative system to evolve into a meaningful device. Some internal disturbance indeed for the fish because as yet it could not have understood any useful purpose for this rigmarole. How long it could have taken in terms of Darwinian time, Dawkins understands better. Then, somewhere else in the body, the voltmeter began to appear with connecting wires to the tiny brain of the fish, and some fantastic physical changes were followed by a new arrangement of each muscle with special alignment and phenomenal qualities. The unknown maker, whoever it was, had thus created a masterpiece of an electric generator. Was it the know nothing formless mindless principle of natural selection? Was it the brain of the fish which was not even aware of its own functional abilities? Was it the almighty gene which without possessing a conscious brain occupied the command centre to perfectly operate a system which had to be operated by a highly competent scientist?

Dawkins also avoids many other key issues. He provides no clear logical solution for the question as to why two such electric fish species, the South American and African weakly electric fish, are quite unrelated to each other and how both could be developing independently in different geographical locations, with a similar functional design.

He further elaborates this separated yet convergent evolution in the following words,

‘Electric fish have, at least twice independently, hit upon this ingenious method of navigation … ’125

‘Fascinatingly, the South American electric fish have hit upon almost exactly the same solution as the African ones … ’126

How these fish unanimously ‘hit upon the same idea’ is a most intriguing question. Moreover, how could they have hit upon an idea so complicated and problematic which they could not even contemplate, let alone resolve. This would also imply that different animals all over the world are hitting upon ideas to simultaneously develop bit by bit. The polar bear has hit upon the idea of being white in the Arctic whereas the polar bear in Canada hit upon the idea of being brown—all independently! This positively indicates purpose and design. The fact is that fish do not hit upon ideas nor does any other animal for that matter. Though Dawkins himself has provided all the necessary data for proof of a Great Conscious Designer, he fails to make the correct analysis of his hard labour. It is because of his greatly flawed theory that he has resorted to giving up and claiming that:

‘The physical principle that they exploit—electric fields in water—is even more alien to our consciousness than that of bats and dolphins .’127

On this point of wonderment, which he is emphasising, we have made preceding observations previously in this chapter. The purpose of the preceding passage is to prove that Dawkins is definitely wrong in his previous assertions that the living do not present any purpose. All the paths of evolution which he describes, though having no relationship with each other, arrive at the same point of culmination independently. What made them converge to that point while pursuing a completely different and alien journey which had no destination? If different people begin their journey, without purpose and without aim, in directions which they do not choose, how can they meet exactly at the same spot which invariably suits them individually and collectively? Let Dawkins think this over calmly. Let him reconsider his theory of purposelessness in view of the testimony of his own scholarly writings.

His lack of design theory is also strongly rebutted by the coordinated development of animals and plants. There are thousands of such examples some of which we have already discussed in our book. Here we quote just one such example with reference to Darwin himself. Darwin has discussed the coexistence of many species of animal and vegetative life evolving together complementarily. Worms, insects and birds, on the one hand, go on evolving exactly in accordance with the evolution of plants. The nature and shape of the flowers and fruits on the other hand, remain exactly harmonized with animals which evolve separately. We can quote hundreds of such examples where it is impossible to suggest a blind mutual cooperation of the two entirely governed by natural selection.

Here we refer to the discovery of Madagascan orchid, Angracecum. The biologists refer to an episode in relation to this plant which had a star-shaped snow-white flower from which descended a foot long curved tubular structure into the ovarian chamber. Only a half-inch of this chamber was filled with nectar. When it was enquired from Darwin how this plant could have been pollinated, he suggested that there must exist a counterpart of this plant in the form of a moth which should have a corresponding foot long curved proboscis which could reach the nectar along this path. This is exactly what was discovered later on. It paid a tribute to Darwin’s genius but not to his principle of natural selection. By the mere operation of natural selection, both the plant and the moth could not have evolved separately, yet together, in perfect harmony.

The question arose as to how this flower could have survived without its reproductive system being operative. If there was a bit by bit evolutionary process involved, why did it begin to evolve into an impossible situation? Why grow an exceptionally long curved tube and hide its nectar beneath it? Why obstruct any bird or insect from reaching the nectar at the bottom for the sake of pollination so that its reproductive organs could be activated? Two separate, yet simultaneous courses of evolution, one occurring in the plant and the other in the animal, are impossible to explain away by the mere factor of chance.

Can Professor Dawkins suggest some solution applicable to the problem quoted above? How did that flower evolve bit by bit simultaneously with the hawk-moth possessing that extraordinary proboscis? Do moths ever have such a long curved proboscis? How many varieties of moths must have been created and destroyed before natural selection could begin its work upon them. Both must have started their beginnings from a most trivial state. They had to remain constantly aware of what was happening on the other side so that they could precisely correspond to each other’s shape and design perfectly. They both must have been interlocked into a single entity as though their separate identities as an animal and a vegetable had ceased to exist. Having done that, Dawkins is required to throw light on the forces which throughout governed this separate, yet powerful development. What hand of blind selection could have achieved it? At each of millions of little steps they must have separately taken, the number of steps which must have gone wrong would be enormous, in accordance with the mathematics of chance. The blind hand of natural selection had a prodigal task of choosing and rejecting from among them. Yet the ultimate choice of natural selection went absolutely wrong. A flower was created which was almost impossible to be pollinated—a moth evolved which could only survive on the ultimate completion of that particular flower.

An artist’s impression of the image that emerges from the description of the Angracecum and the moth which pollinates it.

The Hummingbird is one of hundreds of examples created in parallel with the flora on which they flourish.

Here at least Dawkins must admit that natural selection worked against itself in creating enormous difficulties for the survival of species. The evolution of the two depended entirely on the coordinated moves of the species we have mentioned above. This by itself is impossible without a conscious and an extremely knowledgeable mind to govern it—a mind which natural selection does not possess. Neither of the two parallel evolutions should have survived to reach their culmination if there were no controller guiding their separate steps to remain exactly complimentary to each other. There are many other factors in the grand scheme of things as created by God which are beyond the dominion of natural selection. If those specifically designed factors were not brought into play, and evolution of the living were left entirely at the mercy of natural selection, life would have completely lost its bearing.

The list of the many specific measures taken by God during the evolution of life, which had nothing to do with natural selection, is too long to be reproduced here. One of them, for instance, relates to the extinction of dinosaurs and the profound objective this served in the scheme of creation. Why a massive meteorite should have brought about the end of the age of the dinosaurs precisely at the time when this end was needed? If predesigned by God, as we believe, one purpose it could and did serve was to give other forms of life a chance to develop their evolutionary potentials to the maximum limits, undeterred by dinosaurs. The second highly essential purpose it served, but was understood much later in time, was to bury dinosaurs deep down by the sea shore to gradually convert them to oil, which man of that age would have so direly needed. Such is the work of an All-Knowing Creator. None can attribute this perfect exercise to mere chance. It is impossible for it to have happened accidentally, while now we can clearly read a perfect well-coordinated design in this entire exercise, serving at least two essential purposes in the scheme of things. How on earth could this be the work of natural selection!

How we wish Dawkins had applied his all-pervasive theory to the real mysteries of nature which he so competently describes instead of the phantom games his mind creates. Incidentally, we draw his attention to figure 5 on page 61 of his book, which he has presented to justify his theory of accumulating small change. Each figure shown there, starting with the one resembling a swallowtail, could have at random created any other figure shown in this group of seventeen. This is a deliberate attempt to mislead the innocent computer which is only attuned to his master’s voice. What concept of genes was fed into that will ever remain a mystery because the behaviour of genes is unpredictable and they do not work in a two-dimensional world of lines and figures. The world of genes is far more complex than the land of biomorphs where evidently the figures at every generation are doctored by a brain which genes do not possess. Again the figures are concocted by a brain which operated the computer, while it can never claim to know all the intracacies of the world of genes. The childlike figures which his computer has drawn could as well have been sketched by a toddler on a piece of paper, lacking meaning and reality as much as the figures produced by his computer do. Could figures such as these ever be the creation of genes? Genes do not possess minds but the complex work they produce cannot be created by a mindless thing. They work as though they possess the most advanced mind and are capable of implementing their intricate decisions. No comparison whatsoever can be drawn between these computer figures and real living things. But let us suppose for a while that this model is really representative. If so, any figure among the seventeen could give birth to any other figure by cellular development or random mutations of genes.

If such computations as Dawkins has done could be found in nature, a swallowtail could give birth to a ‘man in hat’, or an extremely surprised ‘man in hat’ could give birth to a scorpion. A frog could be born out of a spitfire giving birth to a fox which could lay a litter of beautiful lamps, out of which emerge jumping spiders or bats rapidly fluttering away to their caves of darkness. This is how his computer game works in a single plane of straight or twisted lines. Why not start an analytical study of a real man wearing a hat and show us how natural selection could have built such a person, with or without the hat? Why pull a bat out of the hat of his computer images? Why not turn to the bats whom he has so aptly described and begin to show how they could they have evolved bit by bit. There he should have paused and demonstrated how natural selection could have created even the wing of the bat.

Incidentally, talking of wings, we are amazed to read his suggestion that amphibians could have turned into flying birds bit by bit just by flapping their arms. If anyone knows, he should have known that wings cannot be created by the flapping or twisting of arms. Such flapping or twisting could go on for billions of years yet would fail to create a wing.

The anatomy of a flying bird is far more complex. If moving arms up and down could create the internal and anatomical changes which could carve the breast bone of a bird, only then perhaps could we entertain this absurd suggestion. But the entire frame of the light hollow bones which a bird possesses are a prerequisite for the possibility of flight. Again feathers are not born with the up and down physical exercise of arms. They may go on till eternity but not the ghost of a feather would grow out of their movements. We have yet to see a physical trainer with his arms covered with tiny feather-like growth which could bit by bit turn into feathers. A naturalist could object to this suggestion by reminding us that the lifetime of a physical instructor is too short to produce such anatomical changes. He should remember that the class of mammals have been in existence for around three hundred million years. All mammals move their limbs, all try to scale as much height as they can by jumping, but feathers they never grow! Is that a prerogative of amphibians alone? But feathers or no feathers, the amphibians could never have built their internal mechanism into that of even the most rudimentary of birds. We know Darwin has suggested this but his suggestions can never alter the realities of life. Amphibians or no amphibians, Dawkins must project his mind five hundred million years into the past when the entire earth was buzzing with flying insects. How did they develop their wings bit by bit with all the cellular and anatomical features which go into the making of a flying insect?

Turning once again to the computer images of Dawkins, which seem to be so popular with him, he has taken only twenty-nine steps, while for a realistic vision of what happens within the genes and how they work, enormously large number of computations were required. Moreover genes according to his admission have no mind and no computer to work upon—while he has a mind and a computer and the know-how to manipulate the computer to his own advantage. Not only this, he also admits that he selected some specific figures out of every generation of computer images to be re-fed into the computer for creating the next generation. He has also disregarded the important factor that no human can visualize when genes should mutate or should not mutate. No scientist’s brain, no matter how clever he might be, can project itself into the cellular universe. Thus any computer model proposed by the most knowledgeable scientist based on his estimation of when and how the genes should spurt into activity, interplaying with a myriad of other internal factors, is fiction not reality.

Now we take up the case of the honey-bee. How by the application of Darwinian principles could the internal mechanism of the honey-bee have been conceived without a designer with any specific purpose in mind? How genes could have fashioned and created the honey-bee with all its fantastic behavioural wonders is equally incomprehensible. Can any scientist explain how this internal mechanism gradually evolved with all its functional abilities? The way it sees, the way its eyes and vision are modelled in perfect unison with its outer world of flowers and fruits is, in itself, a grave challenge to the naturalists who deny design. What forces, if any, shape them and how could they have slowly unfolded into existence by themselves? That is not all there is to it. The manner it builds its honeycomb and collects material for it also requires a lot of explaining on the part of the naturalists. Just to find material is common to all living animals but to create that material to suit a precise purpose is rare. This is exactly what the honey-bee does.

‘Flakes of wax are removed by the enlarged first tarsal joint of the hind leg from four paired glands on the underside of the abdomen and passed forward for construction manipulations by the front legs and mandibles … The wax is mixed with saliva and kneaded to the proper consistency and degree of plasticity at which it can best be molded.’128

Why should an insect with a mind which cannot conceive the scientific intricacies of the material world suddenly begin to employ them to its own advantage? Thus a slow, gradual building of the honey-bee’s mind as well as its intuitive knowledge of how it should build its dwelling and what material has to be employed, must have been ciphered into it by someone who knew. But there is far more to this than meets the eye. The cells of which the honeycomb is constructed are all hexagonal with walls which meet at exactly 120 degrees.

‘The comb itself is one of the marvels of animal architecture. It consists of a regular back-to-back array of hexagonal cells, arranged in parallel series, each comb a precise distance from its neighbor.’129

Bees display fantastic engineering skills and their building gives the impression that they have been equipped with most sophisticated measuring instruments:

‘The precision and strength of the newly built comb is remarkable. For example, cell wall thickness is 0.073 ± 0.002 mm, the angle between adjacent cell walls is an exact 120°, and each comb is generally constructed 0.95 cm from its neighbor.’130

Born out of similar eggs, the offspring are divided into three different professional groups; the queens, the workers and the drones. The queen is capable of laying thousands of eggs in a day.

‘The aptly named queen reigns over the nest, surrounded by attendants and fed the rich food she requires to perform her few but crucial tasks in the colony. Her slim lines hide the huge ovaries which make her an extraordinary egg-laying machine, capable of laying thousands of eggs a day, and her calm behaviour masks her powerful pheromones, chemical signals to recipient workers which control many of their behaviours and provide part of the social glue which holds honey bee life together.’131

The drones who are also specially fed by the worker bees have strong masculine bodies. They only perform one function—mating with the queen, after which they die.

The main body of the colony consists of worker bees who collect pollen and make honey. They also array themselves around the rim, always watchful, always ready to defend the colony. Their functional ability to fly at an instant’s notice depends however on their body temperature which must be maintained at 35°C. Temperature is no problem in the centre of the honeycomb which is protected from all sides but at the rim their temperature begins to fall because of the effects of the open air. They counter this problem by fanning their wings from time to time to build frictional energy.

The bees’ nest, when built in the hollows of trees or in narrow caves, has a single entrance so air cannot ventilate it and the level of carbon dioxide and other gases in the air cannot be automatically maintained. Carbon dioxide tends to increase in proportion threatening the survival of the bees. To offset this danger, worker honey-bees keep moving, group by group, to the exit and sit there in a position with tails directed outwards. In that position they rapidly fan their wings so that fresh air wafts the stale air out. They do this for 10 seconds and are replaced by another batch of workers if needs be. They repeat the same feat when the temperature rises higher than 35°C. The well maintained fanning at such times largely succeeds in controlling the temperature. They begin fanning simultaneously and stop simultaneously. In addition to fanning, they haul water instead of nectar into the honeycomb and deposit it around the cells which contain larvae sensitive to heat.

The honey-bees’ choice of diet, the way each drop of honey is created from floral nectar, how the saliva must be mixed with it to provide it the viscosity it requires to become honey, is a marvel in itself. With every tiny spot of this mixture on their tongue, they have to stick it out repeatedly to finally mature it. For each drop of honey thus created, they have to make repeated sorties to the field in search of nectar. This goes on day in and day out until they fill the section of the honeycomb which is specifically reserved for this purpose. Somehow they know how to differentiate between ordinary honey and royal jelly which they manufacture entirely for the queen to be fed upon. Royal jelly has that special quality which provides the queen the reproductive energy for the rapid laying of eggs. Each day the queen can lay eggs equal to her body weight which is much more than the body weight of ordinary honey-bees. Again, royal jelly has the uncanny quality of increasing the age of the queen a hundred times longer than that of ordinary bees. The entire colony of some eighty thousand individuals are the queens’ subjects. No better discipline can ever be displayed by human monarchies.

Apart from the tasks mentioned above there has to be a surveillance system, with competent workers, to find suitable new sites for the next colony to be built when the old colony is to be abandoned. The surveyor honey-bees who perform this task and the manner in which they do so are to be counted among the greatest wonders of life’s behaviour. They span out in search of suitable well protected sites which should also be close to some rich fields of nectar. Such sites may be situated at different distances from the floral fields and may be comparatively less or better suited for the new colony to be built. Comparing and analyzing all the information brought in by different surveyor bees has somehow to be done by the queen to judge the comparative merits of the site of her next colony. This information is conveyed to the queen by the surveyor bees in a manner which completely defeats comprehension. In fact the whole exercise is unique in the entire animal kingdom. It should have baffled the minds of the most advanced natural scientists as to how this strange communicative system could have come into existence without a designer and an executor. But do they ever ponder over these things, one wonders! Each surveyor when it returns to the colony performs a fantastic dance. Aligning itself in a precise direction it begins to dance and conveys all these messages through that dance and its directional posture to the queen. The information the dance communicates could not be conveyed better or more precisely in human language. It tells the queen what it has seen, where it has seen it, how far it is situated and how far from that site is an adequate floral field. It conveys the distance involved from the colony to the new site and from the new site to the floral field. It also describes the site itself in perfect detail, how well it is protected from natural interference, whether it is a hollow of a tree, a crevice in a rock or a spot on the stem of a tree well-surrounded by protective branches. Each surveyor takes its turn and the queen waits till all have finished. Only then does she decide what to do and takes flight in the exact direction of the site she has chosen. How the transfer is finalized and a new colony is finally built is another fantastic story.

At the end we must mention how honey-bees and honeycombs are hygienically maintained in a manner which puts to shame modem hospitals and clinics. In sharp contrast to the mosquito, the notorious carrier of viruses and germs, the honey-bee was discovered by researchers to carry no viruses or germs on its body. Having been utterly surprised they launched a new research programme to discover why this was so. This revealed an amazing story of how the bees manufacture their own disinfectant material by collecting it from certain resins of plants, now known as propolis. This material has the amazing quality of destroying all bacteria and viruses. The honey-bees having built their combs, paste this material on the rim of the entire comb. Each bee when it returns to the comb, steps first on that rim so that all viruses and bacteria which may have adhered to its tiny feet are destroyed by the propolis before it enters the colony.

We have discussed the honey-bee in some detail here while in the reference to the eight fantastic animals mentioned earlier we did not enter into an elaborate discussion. We have done so mainly because the Holy Quran specifically mentions the honey-bee in a manner which should resolve the riddle of life for naturalists. We have selected the case of the honey-bee for them to ponder and search far and wide to identify the creative forces which modelled them. Of course, the naturalists who specialize in this subject know far more than we do about the honey-bee and its complex world. To be quite honest, we doubt if they could lightly dismiss the case of the honey-bee and the wonders related to it merely to chance.

Let them lay down their arms and admit that there has to be a Creator. In the Holy Quran it is that Creator Who speaks and resolves the mysteries of life once and for all. With reference to the honey-bee the following is the Quranic statement:

And thy Lord has inspired the bee, saying, ‘Make thou houses in the hills and in the trees and in the trellises which they build.

‘Then eat of every kind of fruit, and follow the ways of thy Lord that have been made easy for thee.’ There comes forth from their bellies a drink of varying hues. Therein is cure for men. Surely, in that is a Sign for a people who reflect.132

Of all the insects which pervade the world, God has picked just this one to demonstrate that when He communicates with an animal belonging to an ordinary species, how its status is lifted beyond comparison to that of the other members of the same species. What is a honey bee after all, but a fly. Yet what a fly! It is only after the message is delivered to the honey-bee at the earliest stage of its creation and is imprinted in an intuitive language upon its genes that it begins to function as it does. It does not have to perform its functions consciously with a conscious control of its mind. The genes that teach it what to do have no mind of their own. But He who has created them has a mind and the genes simply function as slaves to His command. He has spoken Himself to demonstrate to the world that when He specifically chooses even an insignificant insect, it becomes supreme in the entire world of insects. It becomes a source of healing and cure, unlike other insects which carry and spread disease. They are poles apart in their function of life.

As far as the curative properties of honey are concerned, this is an ongoing research and the researchers who have already discovered some wonderful things about it are expecting far more yet to be revealed. Whatever medical science has identified so far is summed up in the following:

‘Currently, honey treatment is used for gastrointestinal, some cardiovascular, pulmonary, renal, skin, and neural diseases of the oral cavity, ear, throat, nose inflammatory affection of female genitals, and of the cervix of the uterus.’133

One healing quality of honey which British scientists have discovered to their amazement is its ability to cure such eye sores as were otherwise considered incurable. Many a patient has been saved from total blindness by its application.

‘Patients with ulcerous blepharitis and blepharo conjunctivitis, under the influence of honey experienced that the itch and a sensation of sand in the eye disappeared; reddening of conjunctivas reduced or disappeared, ulcers of eye-lids edges, epithelisation of erosions and ulcers reduced in the duration of the treatment. With patients suffering from ray dystrophic processes, as a result of honey treatment, corneal epithelisation improved, photophobia disappeared and sight improved.’134

Is there not a message in this for the naturalists to reflect upon? How we wonder, hoping against hope!

To conclude our discussion, we reaffirm that the naturalists’ denial of purpose in the design of the living is only because it would invariably lead to God. They would much rather prefer a deaf, dumb and blind agent to have created everything. They are purposefully deceitful because the blind principles of Darwinism are not creators. These principles only begin to operate when the creation is performed by other hands. They are powerful principles like the laws of physics. Yet all the laws of physics, chemistry and dynamics put together could not have created even a single poor man’s shack complete with plumbing, a small kitchen and a toilet. Of course these laws are employed for such construction, but the employer has to be a conscious person with a brain. The brain is the master which employs the laws of nature.

The blind step forward theory can only work in some limited cases and they have to be critically examined to remove the confusion they could cause. The creation of coral islands is just the case in point. The death of each coral, out of trillions upon trillions of them, does not show any purpose. Yet when they pile up one upon the other, maybe in millions of years, the progressive enlargement of their mass ultimately creates coral islands. If we look back at how the process began and was completed, we may allude to it a purpose which apparently it does not possess. One could envisage mountains being built in the middle of the oceans so patiently, bit by bit, over aeons. They do not come to the notice of those living on land until they break to the surface. Then they begin to serve a purpose which we may read into their making when they become coral islands. They serve and support life in so many wonderful ways. This is the case of random bit by bit creation of things in whose creation a preceding purpose is not traceable. It may not have been there at all, yet their usefulness cannot be denied.

The laws of nature run independently if there is no mind to operate them. It is they who operate and govern everything that exists. The living are not exempt from this all-pervasive principle. The absence of a conscious mind to manipulate these laws completely does away with the imaginary line which is said to separate the living from the dead. If the brain of the living cannot design itself and cannot play any conscious role in the making of the body which possesses it, then the living and the dead are governed exactly alike by the same laws of nature. It has to be only these mindless laws which are responsible for the cumulative building of the bricks of life. If they are capable of building the bricks of life, they are far more likely to build a mere Empire State Building through the same cumulative bit by bit process. Yet the naturalists contradict themselves and refuse to believe the bit by bit piling up of the Empire State Building by cumulative random steps, however small tiny and insignificant they may have been. Here they artificially create a divide between the laws of nature at work on dead matter and the laws of nature at work on the living. In reality no such divide should exist if there is no conscious operator of natural laws on either side. Naturalists confess that there is no conscious operator in the case of the living, hence they must admit there is no difference between the living and the dead. All that remain are the free laws of nature, working on the living as well as the dead. If they by themselves could create things as complex as the bricks of life, then for them to create the Empire State Building should have been much less difficult than the building of a molehill by a mole. The only objection, which in fact is no objection at all, may relate to the time available. But the time available to nature at work on the dead is far greater than that available in relation to the evolution of life. Forget for a while the existing Empire State Building because it is a known fact that it was created by a conscious mind. Visualize instead the possibility of hundreds of thousands of far loftier and more complex skyscrapers created merely by the physical laws of nature during the last fifteen billion years or so. Remember that the laws remain exactly the same in the case of the living as well as the dead, and remember that the existence of a conscious mind is ruled out by naturalists in both cases. Hence no divide between the two can exist if sanity must prevail. As such, the bit by bit creation of complexities and order must be evident in both cases alike. Hence any person who believes in the creation of life without a mind preceding it has every hypothetical right to jump to the top of the Empire State Building and pronounce from its loftiness: this building is the work of trillions of piled up random chances. There is no design and no conscious preceding mind which perceived it. It is only a delusion entertained by some stupid religious people who are over impressed by the exquisiteness of the finished work. The same pronouncement should also apply with equal force to the evolutionists who deny purpose and design in the evolution of life. They stand at the pinnacle of evolution where it culminated in man. Looking down from their vantage point, the Empire State Building should have appeared as the tiniest of spots somewhere on the planet Earth. Yet they shout at the top of their voices: there is no design, no purpose to our creation, we are impossible to exist, yet we appear to exist. All the world is an illusion. You think that we exist and we have the illusion that you also exist. Thus the whole universe is a chain of illusions like those entertained by subjective philosophers. To dispel the illusion of existence, think once again of the haemoglobin number and vanish into nothingness!

By denying the existence of a Creator who has to be a person with a conscious mind and all the powers to implement His decisions, they try to replace Him with a formless idea. It is this absurdity, to attribute the process of creation or selection to a mindless idea, which is categorically rejected in the following verse of the Holy Quran:

Have they feet wherewith they walk, or have they hands wherewith they hold, or have they eyes wherewith they see, or have they ears wherewith they hear? Say, ‘Call upon the partners you associate with God, then contrive ye all against me, and give me no time.’135

This Quranic statement is evidently addressed to the idolaters of that age and reminds them that though they believe that their gods are living persons possessing human forms, yet they are mere formless ideas. The statement should have ended here and the question of time should not have been raised as it is raised. The last part of this verse clearly implies that mere ideas cannot create, though they may have as much time as possible at their disposal. God on the other hand is not dependent on any vast expanse of time for His creative faculties. In its entirety, the verse can only apply to the modem idea of natural selection which is claimed to be responsible for the evolution of life provided it is given enough time. The factor of time in the context of natural selection is fundamentally essential. A limbless, armless, mindless vague idea is proposed to work in the frame of an enormous time to suit the theory of bit by bit evolution. Squeeze the time to a mere billion years and the theory immediately begins to crack and fall apart. This leaves no doubt that it is time which is all-important to them in the creative processes of life. This is exactly what the Quran denies in effect when it says: Formless ideas can have as much time as they may, but God with His creative faculties can create in practically no time.

This factor of time has only gained importance in the modem age, in relation to Darwinian principles. One may have doubts that this verse was intended to apply to this modem concept but the fact that the whole idea of the verse is so perfectly applicable to it can in no way be denied. Intended or not intended the theory of natural selection could not have been criticized in better words.

Naturalists claim that both the function of creation and the function of selection are performed by forces which are separate yet work in perfect unison. They would have us believe that the mindless genes create, and a formless, impersonal law of natural selection selects. At the same time however, they dismiss the issue of genes as though taken for granted and subjugate them to the authority of natural selection. Thus they unite the two functions which have to be treated as separate, combining them in a most absurd manner. If genes recede into an inconspicuous position as creators, what is left into the bargain is merely a selector which admittedly has no mind with a conscious decision-making faculty. Genes thus pushed aside, natural selection is the only factor which remains in the field. In this sense the separate functions of creation and selection are moulded, without justification, into one. However, no scientist with the slightest idea of what Darwin propounds can attribute to him the claim that natural selection could also directly create. There has to be some creation before natural selection can begin to work. It is this dilemma which the proponents of natural selection can never resolve.

The Holy Quran presents a completely different picture fitting perfectly into the slot of the problem. The Quran declares that the realities of evolution require that the creator and the selector cannot be two separate persons. Whoever creates, it is only He Who can select from His own creative works. What He does not select as the next advanced character is not wiped out of existence but remains to widen the base of His creation at every such level playing a meaningful role in the scheme of things. Thus every time a step forward in evolution is taken, the base of evolution is simultaneously broadened to support what has been added to its rising column.

According to the Quran, man could not have occupied the lofty position he occupies and maintained it without the ecosystem which the lower order of animal life provides. To this the following verse specifically refers:

And if Allah were to punish men for their wrongdoing, He would not leave thereon any animal, but He gives them respite till an appointed term; and when their term is come, they cannot remain behind a single hour, nor can they go ahead of it.136

The most significant point to be noted is that it is the entire animal life which would be wiped out if man is to be punished. It is evident that the entire lower order of life serves no purpose other than to maintain the human life above. If that goes, they all go.

Thus the final all-important question which has to be raised and answered by philosophers, scientists and those who believe that natural selection virtually plays both the role of a selector and a creator in the scheme of things, is precisely the following:

They must somehow be combined in the person of the creator and not in that of a selector who cannot create. This is the only logical conclusion which anyone can draw. But this can only lead to God, which the naturalist would struggle hard to avoid. It was to eliminate this inevitable conclusion that Darwin attempted to attribute both these functions to natural selection in an indirect manner. Did Darwin ever present the idea that natural selection could also create? To the best of our knowledge, he never did so. He knew, like any intelligent man should have known that the role of selection and that of creation are two separate functions. It would be far more logical if he who performed the function of creation should also have performed the function of selection out of his own creation. This could not suit the blind theory of evolution, hence all the hectic effort to eliminate a conscious creator who could also be the selector. However, it is impossible to conceive a separate plan of selection and a separate plan of creation, both unconscious, yet moving forward hand in hand. Darwin seems to have resolved this problem by suggesting that since natural selection approves the bodies created by genes, so in a manner of speaking, natural selection also acquires the role of a creator in an indirect way.

We have written elsewhere at length, rejecting the proposition that the products of genes can be accredited to natural selection directly or indirectly. But here we wish to point out that to attribute creative factors to genes and to simultaneously deprive them of conscious know-how is inherently contradictory. It is absurdity supreme to begin the evolutionary journey from genes without resolving the factors which created genes themselves. It is impossible for a proponent of Darwinism to demonstrate how natural selection could have played any role in the creation of gene. How and why genes create without possessing the creative faculties of a conscious mind is the question which should have been addressed first. In a nutshell, a conscious creator of genes has to be identified or it has to be admitted that unconscious genes created themselves as though they were highly competent and conscious creative faculties. It is intriguing to visualize any mindless thing creating itself with masterly dexterity. The naturalists begin their journey without investigating this most essential prerequisite. Their failure to address this question is because it is impossible for them to answer it without disrupting their own evolutionary scheme. The Holy Quran has a straightforward answer to resolve this riddle by declaring:

And thy Lord creates whatever He pleases and selects. It is not for them to select. Glorified be Allah, and far is He above all that they associate.137

The main thrust of this verse is that the task of selection is primarily the prerogative of the Creator and the two cannot be separated.

God proclaims Himself to be that Creator Who selects from His own creation. This is how it should be and this is exactly what it is. No naturalist can alter this and replace Him with a mindless Creator of his own choice. In a desperate attempt to do so, they try to combine in natural selection the additional role of a creator. Thus they would much rather believe in a know-nothing mindless principle both as a selector and a creator—lacking consciousness either way. They prefer to be fathered by a mere nothingness.

All they are left with is a mindless, non-personal, deaf, dumb and blind principle which they believe must have created them. Incidentally, this brings to mind the saying: like father, like son. They may take pride in this, but we beg to strongly differ. We much rather prefer to be the work of a Creator Who possesses a supreme mind and the power to implement what He designs. We have to believe in Him or we must deny ourselves the faculties of head and heart which we seem to own. If the non-believers have any option to select, it is here they must exercise that option. Which of the two creators will they select for themselves, is a matter for them to decide.

1 Translation of 67:2-4 by the author.

2 Translation of 71:14-15 by the author.

3 Translation of 84:20 by Maulawi Sher Ali.

4 Translation of 3:60 by the author.

5 Translation of 6:3 by the author.

6 Translation of 55:15 by the author.

7 The Holy Quran 15:27, 29, 34

8 The Holy Quran 15:27, 29, 34

9 Translation of 13:9-12 by the author.

10 Translation of 28:69 by Maulawi Sher Ali.

11 Translation of 56:58-74 by Maulawi Sher Ali.

12 Translation of 67:2-5 by the author.

13 DICKERSON, R.E. (September, 1978) Chemical Evolution and The Origin of Life. Scientific American, p. 70

14 DICKERSON, R.E. (September, 1978) Chemical Evolution and The Origin of Life. Scientific American, p. 71

15 UREY, H.C. (1952) The Planets. Yale University Press, New Haven.

16 MILLER, S.L. (1955) Production of Some Organic Compounds under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions. Journal of The American Chemical Society: 77:2351-2361

17 HORGAN, J. (February, 1991) In The Beginning. Scientific American, p. 117

18 DICKERSON, R.E. (September, 1978) Chemical Evolution and The Origin of Life. Scientific American, pp. 75-76

19 DICKERSON, R.E. (September, 1978) Chemical Evolution and The Origin of Life. Scientific American, pp. 75-76

20 DICKERSON, R.E. (September, 1978) Chemical Evolution and The Origin of Life. Scientific American, p. 73

21 Translation of 15:28 by the author.

22 LANE, E.W. (1984) Arabic-English Lexicon. Islamic Text Society, William & Norgate. Cambridge.

23 Translation of 55:16 by Maulawi Sher Ali.

24 DICKERSON, R.E. (September 1978) Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life. Scientific American, p. 80

25 WOESE, C.R. (June, 1981) Archaebacteria. Scientific American, p. 104

26 WOESE, C.R. (June, 1981) Archaebacteria. Scientific American, p. 114

27 WOESE, C.R. (June, 1981) Archaebacteria. Scientific American, p. 114

28 The Hutchinson Dictionary of Science (1993) Helicon Publishing Ltd. Oxford. p. 37

29 BROWN, T.A. (1992) Genetics A Molecular Approach. Chapman & Hall. London, p. 245

30 The Hutchinson Dictionary of Science (1993) Helicon Publishing Ltd. Oxford. p. 37

31 Translation of 15:28 by the author.

32 BARBIERI, M. (1985) The Semantic Theory of Evolution. Harwood Academic Publishers: p. 86

33 OLOMUCKI, M. (1993) The Chemistry of Life. McGraw-Hill, Inc. France, p. 55

34 CARINS-SMITH, A.G. (June, 1985) The First Organisms. Scientific American: p. l00

35 Translation of 21:31 by the author.

36 Translation of 55:15 by the author.

37 Translation of 15:27 by the author.

38 CARINS-SMITH, A.G. (June, 1985) The First Organisms. Scientific American: p. l00

39 The Holy Bible (1900) King James, Eyre and Spottiswoode Ltd., London, Genesis 1:2-5

40 HORGAN, J. (February, 1991) In The Beginning. Scientific American: p. 119

41 HORGAN, J. (February, 1991) In The Beginning. Scientific American: p. 120

42 Translation of 67:4-5 by the author.

43 ROSE, S. (1991) The Chemistry of Life. Penguin Books Ltd., London, pp. 353-355

44 Translation of 13:11-12 by the author.

45 LIENHARD, G.E., SLOT, J.W., JAMES, D.E., MUECKLER, M.M. (January, 1992) How Cells Absorb Glucose. Scientific American: p. 34

46 LIENHARD, G.E., SLOT, J.W., JAMES, D.E., MUECKLER, M.M. (January, 1992) How Cells Absorb Glucose. Scientific American: pp. 36-37

47 LIENHARD, G.E., SLOT, J.W., JAMES, D.E., MUECKLER, M.M. (January, 1992) How Cells Absorb Glucose. Scientific American: p. 37

48 FESSENDEN, R.J., FESSENDEN, J.S. (1982) Organic Chemistry. 2nd ed. PWS Publishers. Willard Grant Press. Massachusetts, p. 139

49 HEGSTROM, R.A., KONDEPUDI, D.K. (January, 1990) The Handedness of The Universe. Scientific American: pp. 98-99

50 HEGSTROM, R.A., KONDEPUDI, D.K. (January, 1990) The Handedness of The Universe. Scientific American: p. 99

51 HEGSTROM, R.A., KONDEPUDI, D.K. (January, 1990) The Handedness of The Universe. Scientific American: p. 99

52 Translation of 67:2-5 by the author.

53 Translation of 16:79 by Maulawi Sher Ali.

54 THEODOROV, R., TELFORD, C. (1996) Polar Bear & Grizzly Bear. Heinemann Publishers, Oxford.

55 HARPER, D. (1995) Polar Animals. Ladybird Books Ltd., Leicestershire.

56 O’TOOLE, c. (1986) The Encyclopaedia of Insects. George Allen & Unwin, London, p. 134

57 O’TOOLE, c. (1986) The Encyclopaedia of Insects. George Allen & Unwin, London, p. 134

58 BRISTOWE, W.S. (1958) The World of Spiders. Collins, London, pp. 70-75

59 Translation of 2:27 by the author.

60 See Al-Munjad and Al-Mufradat Lil-Raghib

61 LANE, R.P., CROSS KEY, R.W. (1993) Medical Insects and Arachnids. Chapman & Hall, London, p. 120

62 DOWNES, W.L., DANLEM, G.A. (1987) Key to the Evolution of Diptera: Role of Homoptera. Environmental Entomology: 16:852-853

63 KLOWDEN, M.J. (1995) Blood, Sex and the Mosquito. Bioscience: 45:327

64 WAAGE, J.K. (November 1979) The Evolution of Insect/Vertebrate Associations. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society: 12:216

65 WAAGE, J.K. (November 1979) The Evolution of Insect/Vertebrate Associations. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society: 12:188

66 KLOWDEN, M.J. (1995) Blood, Sex and the Mosquito. Bioscience: 45:326

67 WAAGE, J.K. (November 1979) The Evolution of Insect/Vertebrate Associations. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society: 12:195

68 KLOWDEN, M.J. (1995) Blood, Sex and the Mosquito. Bioscience: 45:327

69 HERON-ALLEN, E. (1899) Edward Fitzgeralds Rubaiyat of ‘Omar Khayyam. H.S. Nicholas Ltd., London, p. l04

70 HERON-ALLEN, E. (1899) Edward Fitzgeralds Rubaiyat of ‘Omar Khayyam. H.S. Nicholas Ltd., London, p. l02

71 ALLEN, F. (1968). The Origin of The World—By Chance or Design? In: The Evidence of God in An Expanding Universe, by Monsma, J.C. Thomas Samuel Publishers, Bombay, p. 20

72 HORGAN, J. (February, 1991) In the Beginning. Scientific American: p. 121

73 KRANTZ, W.B., GLEASON, K.J., CAINE, N. (1988) Patterned Ground. Scientific American: p. 68

74 HORGAN, J. (February, 1991) In the Beginning. Scientific American: p. 125

75 HORGAN, J. (February, 1991) In the Beginning. Scientific American: p. 118

76 KORNTELD, E.C. (1968) God-Alpha and Omega. In: The Evidence of God in An Expanding Universe, by Monsma, J.C. Thomas Samuel Publishers, Bombay, p. 174

77 WINCHESTER, A.M. (1968) Science Undergirded my Faith. In: The Evidence of God in An Expanding Universe, by Monsma, J.C. Thomas Samuel Publishers, Bombay, p. 165

78 Translation of 45:25 by Maulawi Sher Ali.

79 Translation of 23:36-38 by Maulawi Sher Ali.

80 Translation of 19:67 by Maulawi Sher Ali.

81 Translation of 16:39-40 by Maulawi Sher Ali.

82 Translation of 36:79 by Maulawi Sher Ali.

83 Translation of 50:16 by Maulawi Sher Ali.

84 Translation of 56:48-49 by Maulawi Sher Ali.

85 Translation of 56:61-63 by the author.

86 Translation of 31:29 by the author.

87 Translation of 14:20-21 by the author.

88 Translation of 76:29 by the author.

89 Translation of 70:41-42 by Maulawi Sher Ali.

(Note: the words ‘to bring’ have been replaced by the words ‘to substitute’ by the author)

90 Translation of 16:79 by Maulawi Sher Ali.

91 Translation of 53:12 by Maulawi Sher Ali.

92 Anatomy Notes (details not listed).

93 KONISHI, M. (April, 1993) Listening with Two Ears. Scientific American, pp. 34-41

94 DAWKINS, R. (1996) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books Ltd, England, pp. 27-29

95 DAWKINS, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books Ltd, England, pp. 25-26

96 DAWKINS, R. (1996) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books Ltd, England, pp. 96-97

97 Anatomy Notes (details not listed).

98 OTTO, J.H., TOWLE, A. (1977) Modern Biology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Publishers. USA, p. 592

99 The Hutchinson Dictionary of Science (1993) Helicon Publishing Ltd. London, p. 224

100 OTTO, J.H., TOWLE, A. (1977) Modern Biology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Publishers. USA, pp. 593-595

101 ROBISON, B.H. (July, 1995) Light In The Ocean’s Midwaters. Scientific American, pp. 51-56

102 LONG, JOHN A. (1995) The Rise of Fishes 500 million years of Evolution. University of New South Wales Press, Australia.

(Also worthy of study are his other works on fishes like The Rise of Fishes (1957)).

103 DAWKINS, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books Ltd, England.

104 DAWKINS, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books Ltd, England, p. xiii

105 DAWKINS, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books Ltd, England, p. 24

106 DAWKINS, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books Ltd, England, p. 25

107 DAWKINS, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books Ltd, England, p. 25

108 DAWKINS, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books Ltd, England, pp. 25-26

109 DAWKINS, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books Ltd, England, p. 35

110 DAWKINS, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books Ltd, England, p. 36

111 DAWKINS, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books Ltd, England, p. 37

112 DAWKINS, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books Ltd, England, p. 39

113 DAWKINS, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books Ltd, England, p. 39

114 DAWKINS, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books Ltd, England, p. 45

115 DOWNER, J. (1988) Supersense. Perception In The Animal World. BBC Books, London, pp. 12-13

116 DOWNER, J. (1988) Supersense. Perception In The Animal World. BBC Books, London, p. 16

117 DOWNER, J. (1988) Supersense. Perception In The Animal World. BBC Books, London, p. 29

118 DOWNER, J. (1988) Supersense. Perception In The Animal World. BBC Books, London, pp. 48-49

119 DOWNER, J. (1988) Supersense. Perception In The Animal World. BBC Books, London, p. 64

120 DOWNER, J. (1988) Supersense. Perception In The Animal World. BBC Books, London, p. 32

121 DAWKINS, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books Ltd, England, p. 98

122 DAWKINS, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books Ltd, England, p. 99

123 DAWKINS, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books Ltd, England, p. 98

124 DAWKINS, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books Ltd, England, p. 98

125 DAWKINS, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books Ltd, England, pp. 98-99

126 DAWKINS, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books Ltd, England, p. 99

127 DAWKINS, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin Books Ltd, England, p. 97

128 WINSTON, M.L., (1991) The Biology of the Honey Bee. Harvard University Press, London, p. 83

129 WINSTON, M.L., (1991) The Biology of the Honey Bee. Harvard University Press, London, p. 81

130 WINSTON, M.L., (1991) The Biology of the Honey Bee. Harvard University Press, London, p. 83

131 WINSTON, M.L., (1991) The Biology of the Honey Bee. Harvard University Press, London, p. 1

132 Translation of 16:69-70 by Maulawi Sher Ali.

133 MOZHERENKOV, V.P., SHUBINA, L.F. (1982) Use of Honey In Treating Eye Diseases - Translation of Russian Article: Feldsher Akush.

134 MOZHERENKOV, V.P., SHUBINA, L.F. (1982) Use of Honey In Treating Eye Diseases - Translation of Russian Article: Feldsher Akush.

135 Translation of 7:196 by Maulawi Sher Ali.

136 Translation of 16:62 by the author.

137 Translation of 28:69 by the author.

PART 5

Life in the Perspective of Quranic Revelations—A Brief Introductory Chapter

The Creation of Ancient Organisms

The Role of Clay

Survival by Accident or Design?

Sidedness or Chirality in Nature

Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest

A Game of Chess or a Game of Chance!

Origin of Life—Different Theories And Propositions

Origin of Life Theories

A New Landmark

The Jinn

The Essential Role of Clay and Photosynthesis in Evolution

Survival by Accident or Design?

Chirality or Sidedness in Nature

Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest

The Case of Mosquitoes

A Game of Chess or a Game of Chance!

The Future of Life on Earth

Organic Systems and Evolution

The ‘Blind Watchmaker’ Who Is Also Deaf and Dumb