Page 679 - Atlas of Creation Volume 3

Harun Yahya

vive. However, it can be observed that living things generally help one another, make sacrifices for each
other, and even risk their lives for the benefit of others. To account for this fact, which is totally at odds
with the theory of evolution's basic claim, Wilson proposed a number of groundless hypotheses which
statements went on to form the basis of sociobiology. Wilson based his explanations on another decep-

tion: W. D. Hamilton's "kin selection," according to which a living thing protecting its young or another
member of the group is not engaging in altruistic behavior, but is actually protecting its own "selfish
genes." Since the objective is to pass on its genes to subsequent generations, and since a mother's genes
exist in her offspring, then a mother defending her offspring at the cost of her own life is effectively de-

fending her own genes. In other words, selfishness actually underpins her self-sacrifice!
This is a most nonsensical claim! First and foremost, no animal in nature possesses awareness of its
own genes, and therefore can't feel motivated to protect them. In addition, it can't know that its genes
are also present in its offspring or cousins, and so it has no reason to sacrifice its life for them. It is im-

possible for genes—unconscious chains of molecules—to direct a living thing in this way.
Moreover, there are many instances in nature of animals assisting not just those of their own species
that bear their own genes, but others as well. Evolutionists cannot explain this, because the idea that a
creature engaging in altruistic behavior is actually protecting its own genes is totally nonsensical.

Neither is the evolutionists' quandary resolved by claiming that the urge to protect its young is en-
coded in the genetic structure of living things, because then the question arises of how such complex be-
havior was encoded in the genes in the first place. The theory of evolution can't explain how even a sin-
gle gene might have come into existence through coincidences, so it's impossible for it to explain how

information encoded in the genes could have come into being by chance. Every piece of information en-
coded in the genes is the creation of God, the Lord of infinite knowledge and wisdom.
Sociobiologists seek to apply the same claim about animals' altruistic behavior to human beings. In
other words, when a mother protects her child from danger without a moment's hesitation, she is actu-

ally concerned over protecting her genes. Evolutionists' rejection of attributes belonging to the human
soul and their attempts to account for such phenomena in terms of evolution are based on no scientific
evidence whatsoever. With their illogical claims, evolutionists disregard the human consciousness and
conscience. The fact remains that a human being is possessed of a soul and the capacities for reasoned

thought and judgment, and can distinguish between right and wrong. When a mother makes a sacrifice
for her child, she does so because she loves that child, feels affection and compassion for him, and makes
that sacrifice because she sees him as weak and assumes the responsibility of protecting him. When her
child is in pain, for instance, she puts herself in the child's position and will be prepared to make any

sacrifice to relieve his pain. These are attributes that a robot or "gene bearing machine," so beloved of
evolutionists, can never possess.
In fact, evolutionists are well aware that evolution can never account for attributes belonging to the
human soul. For example, the evolutionist Robert Wallace says the following in his book The Genesis

Factor:

I do not believe that man is simply a clever egotist, genetically driven to look after his own reproduction. He
is that. But he is at least that. He is obviously much more. The evidence for this is simple and abundant. One
need only hear the Canon in D Major by Johann Pachelbel to know that there are immeasurable depths to the
human spirit... 187

Wallace stresses a point of the greatest importance. According to evolutionists' unrealistic definition,
a human being is merely a machine bearing genes. It's thus impossible for such an entity to take plea-

sure from music, enjoy watching a film or even to produce one, to read or write books, to learn what has
been read, or to exchange ideas. Human beings are clearly very different from how evolutionists portray
them, and everyone can see the proof of this in themselves. Evolutionists' unscientific claims can never

answer the questions of how a human being, with a capacity for deep thought and feeling emotions and
enjoyment, came into being, and what was the origin of those characteristics.

Adnan Oktar 677