Page 709 - Atlas of Creation Volume 2

Harun Yahya

So, if a complex structure came into existence all of a sudden, what does this mean?
Let us ask this question with an example. Let us liken the cell to a high-tech car in terms of its complexity.
(In fact, the cell is a much more complex and developed system than a car.) Now let us ask the following ques-
tion: What would you think if you went out hiking in the depths of a thick forest and ran across a brand-new
car among the trees? Would you imagine that various elements in the forest had come together by chance over

millions of years and produced such a vehicle? All the parts in the car are made of products such as iron, cop-
per, and rubber—the raw ingredients for which are all found on the earth—but would this fact lead you to
think that these materials had synthesized "by chance" and then come together and manufactured such a car?
There is no doubt that anyone with a sound mind would realize that the car was the product of an intelli-
gent design, and wonder what it was doing there in the middle of the forest. The sudden emergence of a com-
plex structure in a complete form, quite out of the blue, shows that this is the work of an intelligent design.

Believing that pure chance can produce perfect designs goes well beyond the bounds of reason. Yet every
"explanation" put forward by the theory of evolution regarding the origin of life is like that. One outspoken au-
thority on this issue is the famous French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé. Grassé is an evolutionist, yet he ac-
knowledges that Darwinist theory is unable to explain life and makes a point about the logic of "coincidence,"
which is the backbone of Darwinism:

The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe.

Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and
thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal prob-
ability could not fail to occur… There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it. 244

All living things in the world, all of which are clear examples of the intelligent planning we have just been
discussing, are at the same time living evidence that coincidence can have no role to play in their existence.
Each of its component parts—never mind a whole living creature—contains structures and systems so complex
that they cannot be the work of coincidence. We need go no further than our own bodies to find examples of
this.

One example of this is our eyes. The human eye sees by the working together of some 40 separate parts. If
one of these is not present, the eye will be useless. Each of these 40 parts possesses complex structures within it-
self. The retina at the back of the eye, for instance, is made up of 11 layers. Each layer has a different function.
The chemical processes that go on inside the retina are so complex that they can only be explained with pages

full of formulae and diagrams.
The theory of evolution is unable to account for the emergence of even such a flawless and complex struc-
ture as a single eye by means of "accident," let alone life itself, or mankind.
So, what do these extraordinary features in living things prove to us about the origin of life? As we made
clear in the opening part of this book, only two different accounts can be given regarding the origin of life. One
is the fallacious evolutionary explanation, the other the evident "fact of creation." As explained throughout the

book, the evolution claim is impossible, and scientific discoveries prove the truth of creation. This truth may
surprise some scientists, who from the nineteenth century to the present have seen the concept of "creation" as
unscientific, but science can only progress by overcoming shocks of this kind and accepting the truth. Chandra
Wickramasinghe describes the reality he faced as a scientist who had been told throughout his life that life had
emerged as a result of chance coincidences:

From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent
with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. At the moment, I can't find any ratio-

nal argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God. We used to have an open mind; now we
realize that the only logical answer to life is creation - and not accidental random shuffling. 245

Adnan Oktar 707