Let us for a moment think of an aspirin; you will immediately
recall the mark in the middle. This mark is designed to help those
who take a half dose. Every product that we see around us, even
if not as simple as the aspirin, is of a certain design, from the
vehicles we use to go to work, to TV remote controls.
Design, in brief, means a harmonious assembling of various
parts in an orderly form designed for a common goal. Going by this
definition, one has no difficulty in guessing that a car is a design.
This is because there is a certain goal, which is to transport people
and cargo. In realisation of this goal, various parts such as the
engine, tires and body are planned and assembled in a factory.
However, what about living creatures? Can a bird and
the mechanics of its flight be a design as well? Before giving an
answer, let us repeat the evaluation we did in the example of the
car. The goal, in this case, is to fly. For this purpose, hollow,
light-weight bones and the strong breast muscles that move these
bones are utilised together with feathers capable of suspension
in the air. Wings are formed aerodynamically, and the metabolism
is in tune with the bird's need for high levels of energy. It is
obvious that the bird is a product of a certain design.
If we leave aside the bird and examine other forms of
life, we encounter the same truth. In every creature, there are
examples of extremely well-conceived design. If we continue further
on this quest, we discover that we ourselves are also a part of
this design. Your hands that hold these pages are functional as
no robot hands could ever be. Your eyes that read these lines are
making vision possible with such focus that the best camera on earth
simply cannot achieve.
Hence one arrives at this important conclusion; all creatures
in nature, including us, are of a design. This, in turn, shows the
existence of a Creator, Who designs all creatures at will, sustains
the entire creation and holds absolute power and wisdom.
However, this truth is rejected by the theory of evolution
that was formed in the middle of the 19th century. The theory set
forth in Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species asserts
that all creatures evolved by chains of coincidences and mutated
from one another.
According to the fundamental premise of this theory,
all life forms go through minute random changes. If these random
changes improve a life form, then it gains an advantage over the
others, which in turn is carried onto following generations.
This scenario has been passed around for 140 years as
if it is very scientific and convincing. When scrutinised under
a larger microscope and when compared against the examples of the
design in creatures, Darwin's theory paints a very different picture,
i.e. Darwinism's explanation of life is nothing more than a self-contradictory
Let us first focus on the random changes. Darwin could
not provide a comprehensive definition of this concept due to lack
of knowledge of genetics in his time. The evolutionists who followed
him suggested the concept of "mutation". Mutation is arbitrary disconnections,
dislocations or shifts of genes in living things. Most importantly,
there is not one single mutation in history that has been shown
to improve the condition of a creature's genetic information. Nearly
all the known cases of mutations disable or harm these creatures
and the rest are neutral in effect. Therefore, to think that a creature
can improve through mutation is the same as shooting at a crowd
of people hoping that the injuries will result in healthier improved
individuals. This is clearly nonsense.
As importantly, and contrary to all the scientific data,
even if one assumes that a certain mutation could actually improve
a being's condition, Darwinism still cannot be delivered from inevitable
collapse. The reason for this is a concept called "irreducible complexity."
The implication of this concept is that the majority of systems
and organs in living things function as a result of various independent
parts working together, the elimination or disabling of even one
of which would be enough to disable the entire system or organ.
For example, an ear perceives sounds only through a sequence
of smaller organs. Take out or deform one of these, e.g. one of
the bones of the middle ear, and there would be no hearing whatsoever.
In order for an ear to perceive, a variety of components - such
as external auditory canal, tympanic membrane, bones in the middle
ear, that is, the hammer, anvil and stirrup, fluid-filled cochlea,
hearing receptors or hair cells, the cilia which help these cells
to sense the vibrations, the net of nerves that connect to the brain
and hearing centre in the brain - have to work together without
exception. The system could not have developed in segments because
none of the segments could possibly function alone.
Hence, the concept of irreducible complexity demolishes
the theory of evolution at its foundations. Interestingly, Darwin
also worried about these very prospects. He wrote in On The Origin
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed,
which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive,
slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.1
Darwin could not, or might not have wanted to, find such
an organ at the premature levels of 19th century science. However
the science of the 20th century did study nature in minute details
and proved that the majority of living structures embody irreducible
complexity. Therefore, Darwin's theory has "absolutely" collapsed
just as he feared.
In this book, we are going to explore various examples
of systems in living beings that demolish Darwin's theory. These
mechanisms will be found anywhere from in the wings of a bird to
inside a bat's skull. As we examine these examples we will not only
see the immense error Darwinism makes but also witness the greatness
of the wisdom with which these systems were created.
Hence, we will see the indisputable evidence of Allah's
flawless creation. Likewise, the power and artistry of Allah to
create flawlessly is expressed in a surah of the Qur'an as follows:
He is Allah - the Creator, the Maker, the Giver
of Form. To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names. Everything in the
heavens and earth glorifies Him. He is the Almighty, the All-Wise.
(Surat al-Hashr: 24)
An Example of Irreducible Complexity: The Eye
of the Lobster
There are many different types of eye in the living world.
We are accustomed to the camera-type eye found in vertebrates. This
structure works on the principle of the refraction of light, which
falls onto the lens and is focused on a point behind the lens inside
the interior of the eye.
However, the eyes possessed by other creatures work by
different methods. One example is the lobster. A lobster's eye works
on a principle of reflection rather than that of refraction.
The most outstanding characteristic of the lobster eye
is its surface, which is composed of numerous squares. As shown
in the picture on the next page, these squares are positioned most
The eye of a lobster shows a remarkable geometry not
found elsewhere in nature - it has tiny facets that are perfectly
square, so it "looks like perfect graph paper."2
These well-arranged squares are in fact the ends of tiny
square tubes forming a structure resembling a honeycomb. At first
glance, the honeycomb appears to be made up of hexagons, although
these are actually the front faces of hexagonal prisms. In the lobster's
eye, there are the squares in place of hexagons.
Even more intriguing is that the sides of each one of
these square tubes are like mirrors that reflect the incoming light.
This reflected light is focused onto the retina flawlessly. The
sides of the tubes inside the eye are lodged at such perfect angles
that they all focus onto a single point.3
The lobster eye is composed
of numerous squares. These well-arranged squares are in fact
the ends of tiny square tubes. The sides of each one of these
square tubes are like mirrors that reflect the incoming light.
This reflected light is focused onto the retina flawlessly.
The sides of the tubes inside the eye are lodged at such perfect
angles that they all focus onto a single point.
The extraordinary nature of the design of this system
is quite indisputable. All of these perfect square tubes have a
layer that works just like a mirror. Furthermore, each one of these
cells is sited by means of precise geometrical alignments so that
they all focus the light at a single point.
It is obvious that the design in the lobster eye presents
a great difficulty for the theory of evolution. Most importantly,
it exemplifies the concept of "irreducible complexity." If even
one of its features - such as the facets of the eye, which are perfect
squares, the mirrored sides of each unit, or the retina layer at
the back - were eliminated, the eye could never function. Therefore,
it is impossible to maintain that the eye evolved step-by-step.
It is scientifically unjustifiable to argue that such a perfect
design as this could have come about haphazardly. It is quite clear
that the lobster eye was created as a miraculous system.
One can find further traits in the lobster's eye that
nullify the assertions of evolutionists. An interesting fact emerges
when one looks at creatures with similar eye structures. The reflecting
eye, of which the lobster's eye was one example, is found in only
one group of crustaceans, the so-called long-bodied decapods. This
family includes the lobsters, the prawns and the shrimp.
other members of the crustacea class display the "refracting type
eye structure", which works on completely different principles from
those of the reflecting type. Here, the eye is made up of hundreds
of cells like a honeycomb. Unlike the square cells in a lobster
eye, these cells are either hexagonal or round. Furthermore, instead
of reflecting light, small lenses in the cells refract the light
onto the focus on the retina.
The majority of crustaceans have the refracting eye structure.
On the contrary, only one group of the crustaceans, namely the long-bodied
decapods, have reflecting eyes. According to evolutionist assumptions,
all the creatures within the class Crustacea should have evolved
from the same ancestor. Therefore, evolutionists claim that reflecting
eye evolved from a refracting eye, which is far more common among
the crustacea and of a fundamentally simpler design.
However, such reasoning is impossible, because both eye
structures function perfectly within their own systems and have
no room for any "transitional" phase. A crustacean would be left
sightless and would be eliminated by natural selection if the refracting
lens in its eye were to diminish and be replaced by reflecting mirrored
It is, therefore, certain that both of these eye structures
were designed and created separately. There is such superb geometric
precision in these eyes that entertaining the possibility of "coincidence"
is simply ludicrous. Just like the rest of the miracles of creation,
the lobster's eye structure is an open testimony to the Creator's
boundless power to create flawlessly. This is nothing but a manifestation
of Allah's endless knowledge, wisdom and might. We can encounter
such miracles as these regardless of what we examine in the world
1. Charles Darwin, The Origin
of Species, 6th edition, New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927,
2. J.R.P. Angel, “Lobster Eyes as X-ray Telescopes”,
Astrophysical Journal, 1979, 233:364-373, cited in Michael Denton,
Nature’s Destiny, The Free Press, 1998, p. 354
3. Michael F. Land, "Superposition Images Are Formed
by Reflection in the Eyes of Some Oceanic Decapod Crustacea", Nature,
28 October 1976, Volume 263, pages 764-765.