Chance Cannot Bring into Being Any Structure in a Living Thing

Site Team

Article translated to : العربية Deutsch
No matter what detail on Earth you examine, you encounter the presence of a sublime Intellect. This makes crystal clear one very important truth: Our omniscient Lord created everything on Earth.


No matter what detail on Earth you examine, you encounter the presence of a sublime Intellect. This makes crystal clear one very important truth: Our omniscient Lord created everything on Earth. Darwinists, on the other hand, claim that only coincidences possess any creative force—that uncontrolled, random events of their own gave rise to complex life, with its exceptionally delicate balances.

The "creative force" which Darwinists resort to in accounting for the origin of smell is, again, chance. A living thing felt the need to detect smells, for which reason the necessary organ developed—by chance—and proteins with specific molecular sequences formed in the structure of this organ —coincidentally—, and scent molecules with the same molecular formulae also arose. While the enormously complex nerves, able to provide perception from the nose to the brain, were also forming by chance, electrical signals were beginning to transmit those perceptions—again by chance.

Mutations that occur randomly are always harmful to living things. The above picture shows a lamb born with five legs and butterflies with impaired wing symmetry, again due to mutations.

In fact, it's impossible for even one of the countless necessary phenomena to have taken place by chance, let alone a regular sequence of such coincidences. Nevertheless, an uncontrolled intervention apparently gave the system something new, and propelled it towards perfection. Evolutionists are forced to maintain that these chance events functioned perfectly, because any single error in any one component of a complex system will mean everything returning back to the beginning, and the system will be useless. Therefore, according to evolution, even though all events are uncontrolled and random, they still function perfectly.

The "random phenomena" in question are actually random mutations—structural changes in a living organism's genes resulting from external effects such as radiation. These changes constitute a grave danger if they are uncontrolled. Indeed, modern-day science has proved that mutations inevitably arise from an adverse effect on a living thing's molecular structure. Ninety-nine percent of mutations are harmful, while the remaining 1% are neutral. Therefore, mutations are simply defects and impairments that occur in a living organism's perfect design. Their effects are no different than that those of an earthquake striking a city constructed with enormous regularity and design. Yet a living organism possesses a structure much more complex and flawless than even the largest city.

This being so, mutations cannot endow a living thing with anything new. Modern-day scientists admit as much, stating that mutations can have no evolutionary effect. Michael George Pitman, a professor of plant physiology, has this to say:

Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don't see them: There is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiments has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system, or organ.

Even Sir Julian Sorell Huxley, a prominent neo-Darwinist who first added the concept of mutation to Darwin's claims regarding natural selection, admitted that mutations had no effect:

Obviously, such a process [species change through mutations] has played no part whatever in evolution.

Despite this evident truth, however, evolutionists still use mutations to account for the imaginary formation of all kinds of structures and functions. Despite mutations' inevitably damaging effects, evolutionists claim that structures have simple properties so as to make their claims sound convincing. Again, that is why evolutionists insist on referring to the sense of smell as "primitive," imagining that it's easier to explain a primitive system arising as the result of chance. Yet this is a meaningless assumption. Even a primitive system still displays order, which coincidences cannot produce. In addition, not a single detail in this glorious universe created by God can be described as primitive.

In contrast to evolutionists' claims, the olfactory system described in the preceding chapters is a most complex, containing exceptionally delicate balances and flawless mechanisms and structure. In fact, research into the sense of smell reveals an evident conclusion: There is no such thing as a primitive sense. On the contrary, all findings reveal the existence of a most complex structure. For decades, thousands of scientists have sought to explain the olfactory mechanism, yet it is still understood only in general terms. The information about the details of the system consists of just supposition and theories.

One expert on this subject, Professor Linda B. Buck a Nobel Prize winner in 2004, makes this comment:

Smell is perhaps the most exquisitely sensitive and complex of all the senses, and it has also been the most perplexing for scientists to decipher.

Heinz Breer of Stuttgart-Hohenheim University won the Leibnitz Preis, the most important science prize of Germany, for his work on the sense of smell. Professor Breer describes its importance in these terms:

Olfaction, the ability to recognize and discriminate myriad airborne molecules with great accuracy and sensitivity, is one of the most remarkable but least understood senses.

Evolutionists' efforts to portray such a complex mechanism as primitive are actually a way of denying the obvious truth they are faced with. They, too, witness that the olfactory mechanism's superior creation clearly belongs to Omniscient and Almighty God. The fact that God creates within a certain order and measure, and that creation belongs to Him alone, is revealed in the Qur'an:

He to Whom the kingdom of the heavens and the Earth belongs. He does not have a son and He has no partner in the Kingdom. He created everything and determined it most exactly. But they have adopted gods apart from Him which do not create anything but are themselves created. They have no power to harm or help themselves. They have no power over death or life or resurrection. (Surat al-Furqan: 2-3)
Previous article Next article

Related Articles with Chance Cannot Bring into Being Any Structure in a Living Thing

  • Uncaused or self-caused universe

    Haya Muhammad Eid

    For atheists, the universe and all that it contains is the product of mere chance, shaped by mindless, undirected processes of nature without plan, purpose, or meaning; and, ultimately, it does not point to the hand of a Creator.

    30/10/2019 1811
  • What Is The Theory of Evolution?

    Harun Yahya

      What Is The Theory of Evolution? People who do not believe in Allah have an idea. This idea is called the

    29/01/2010 3541
  • Does God know future?

    Yousef Estes

    Does God know everything that is going to happen? - Does He have absolute control on the outcome of

    19/11/2009 25637
Knowing AllahIt's a beautiful day