Page 227 - What Darwinists Fail To Consider

Adnan Oktar

not answer. However, first and foremost, we need to ask: How did this
"first cell" originate?
Since the theory of evolution ignorantly denies Creation, it
maintains that the "first cell" originated as a product of blind coinci-
dences within the laws of nature, without any plan or arrangement.
According to the theory, inanimate matter must have produced a living
cell as a result of coincidences. Such a claim, however, is inconsistent
with the most unassailable rules of biology.

s
F

o
C
e
m
i
L
e
f
o
r

m
i
L
" "Life Comes From Life" "
e

f
In his book, Darwin never referred to the origin of life. The primi-
tive understanding of science in his time rested on the assumption that
living beings had a very simple structure. Since medieval times, spon-
taneous generation, which asserts that non-living materials came to-
gether to form living organisms, had been widely accepted. It was com-
monly believed that insects came into being from food leftovers, and
mice from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this
theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty piece of cloth, and it was be-
lieved that mice would originate from it after a while.
Similarly, maggots developing in rotting
meat was assumed to be evidence of spon-
taneous generation. However, it was lat-
er understood that worms did not ap-
pear on meat spontaneously, but
were carried there by flies in the
form of larvae, invisible to the na-
ked eye.
Even when Darwin wrote The
Origin of Species, the belief that bacte-
ria could come into existence from non-
living matter was widely accepted in the
world of science.
The French biologist
Louis Pasteur

225