Errors Concerning Human Intelligence on the BBC’s “Horizon” Programme

The world-famous BBC television is perpetuating an error. It displays a particular sensitivity in disseminating its ideas regarding the theory of evolution. The BBC generally acts in line with emotions aroused by the fact that Darwin was British, and airs evolutionist claims, lacking in any scientific basis, in its programmes. One of these is the programme “Horizon”. This time “Horizon” devoted space to evolutionist speculation regarding the artistic explosion which is known to have taken place in the last 50,000 years in pre-historic Homo sapiens settlement areas. The programme, called “The Day We Learned to Think”, offered an evolutionist interpretation of the way Homo sapiens exhibited a rapid rise in cave paintings and tool technology and the role played by intellectual power in that rise. The views of a number of evolutionist scientists on the subject were also aired.
Richard Klein’s Error That Intelligence Developed Through Mutation
At this point we would like to make a brief evaluation of the evolutionist claims of the researchers in question. The first of these is Richard Klein, an anthropologist from Stanford University. In a rather odd way, Klein bases this cultural leap forward, which manifested itself some 50,000 years ago, on a biological change. While other anthropologists believe, perfectly logically, that this is cultural or demographic (to do with population) in origin, Klein offers an explanation based on mutation. He claims that a mutation which took place some 50,000 years ago during the course of so-called human evolution led to the rapid change observed in art and technology at that time.
In order to see just how bereft of logic that claim is, let us provide a few brief facts about mutations. Mutations are copying errors which occur randomly in our genes. The functions performed by our genes are ‘encoded’ with nucleotides, described in the letters A, T, G and C, in the genes. The information contained in that code is particularly sensitive. The effects of mutations on this exceedingly sensitive coding system are to a very large extent destructive. Mutations also arise at totally random intervals, and not a single mutation has ever been observed to give one organism an advantage over the other members of its species.
It is flying in the face of the facts to believe that such destructive effects could possibly lead to an increase in human intelligence. In the way that hitting a clock with a hammer will not improve it in any way, so mutations are incapable of improving the organisation within the human brain. In fact, the fundamental error here is attempting to account for a skill based on abstract thought, such as art, in terms of mutations occurring in the brain. Whether subjected to mutation or not, the brain is not the producer of thought. Large or small, more or less convoluted, the brain consists of neurons, and ultimately of unconscious atoms. The idea that a structure comprised of unconscious atoms could possible be the source of an ability connected to abstract thought is, in a word, nonsensical.
The best-known paintings in the world, the most marvellous works of architecture, the most advanced technological devices … All these are the result of the inspiration of their producers. Can an artist inspired by the landscape at which he looks, or an engineer developing a project for a device which nobody else has ever thought of really be indebted to the unconscious atoms in their brains?
Is accounting for the crucial inventions in history (the telephone and the compass for instance) in terms of genetic changes in their inventors’ brains, or ascribing the Industrial Revolution which began in Britain to a series of mutations, logical behaviour?
Of course, not. Atoms can neither ‘measure and evaluate’ the contrast between shades in a painting nor ‘know’ the details that will improve an electronic circuit. The atoms in the brain of a person looking at a painting cannot take any pleasure in it.
As we have seen, the attempt to explain art in terms of mutation is mistaken from the outset. This error lies in the fact that art is a concept to do with intelligence, and intelligence is irreducible to matter.
Colin McGinn, author of the book Can We Solve the Mind-Body Problem?, admits that mental activities cannot be explained in physical terms:
We have been trying for a long time to solve the mind-body problem. It has stubbornly resisted our best efforts. The mystery persists. I think the time has come to admit candidly that we cannot resolve the mystery. 1
Were Richard Klein to be asked, he would be unable to provide a single piece of scientific evidence with which to support his claim. That is because, as McGinn has stated, there has not been a single observation to demonstrate that human intelligence stems from the body (from the genes, for instance).
Klein’s claim is nothing more than speculation. In fact, this claim is no more scientific than claiming that as a result of a mutation it had been subjected to a chimpanzee kept in a zoo could paint a picture of the jungle it felt homesick for on the walls of its pen.
Horizon’s Errors Regarding Language and Speech
The BBC’s “Horizon” programme also links man’s ability to speak to evolution. It discussed professor of anatomy Jeffrey Laitman’s studies on the larynx and claimed that the larynx descended from a high position to a lower one in the hominids which are suggested to have played a role in the alleged human evolution. (The larynx plays an important role in speech, and is low down in the throat in human beings and higher up in the great apes.)
In fact however, there is no ordered and gradual difference in the location of the larynx in the fossil record, as suggested on “Horizon”. With regard to the position of the larynx, there is a distinct difference between the genus Homo (old and modern human races) and the genus Australopithecus (extinct apes), so frequently resorted to in evolutionist scenarios. As Richard Leakey has stated, in all species before Homo erectus the larynx is in the same position as in great apes.2 In terms of its skeletal structure, walking upright and height, Homo erectus is no different to modern man. The so-called hominids before that, no more than 130 cm tall, with their rather small brain volumes and skeletal structures, were living things no different to apes.
That being the case, Professor Laitman’s prejudice is clear for all to see. After setting a number of fossils in order, from his evolutionist perspective, he then imagines that according to that subjective ordering he has proved the alleged evolution of speech. The point which needs to be borne in mind here is that there is absolutely no scientific evidence of any ‘evolution’ among the fossils thus ordered, and that the scenario put forward rests on nothing more than ‘imagination.’ In short, these claims regarding the position of the larynx on the BBC’s “Horizon” programme are nothing more than preconception.
It remains to say that the structure and position of the larynx can be no more than a ‘means’ in speech. In fact, that is actually admitted on “Horizon”, in the words, ‘Of course, physical abilities are no proof of mental abilities.’ For example, even if an ape possessed a human larynx it would still be unable to speak. That is because language is an ability based on rules, such as syntax and semantics, and can only be employed and understood by means of intelligence.
Darwinism’s Terrible Dilemma: Human Intelligence
As we have seen, these claims regarding activities such as art and speech, which are related to human intelligence, are completely invalid. Contrary to the impression given on “Horizon”, these are the products of attempts to overcome the dilemma which human intelligence represents for Darwinism, rather than explanations which actually clarify the issue. Darwinism rests on the materialist philosophy that everything is limited to matter. As we have demonstrated, human intelligence is a trait which cannot be reduced to the matter on which Darwinism is based.
The source of human intelligence is the soul breathed into man by God, our Creator. In the Qur’an, God reveals this truth as follows:
Then [God] formed him [man] and breathed His Spirit into him and gave you hearing, sight and hearts. What little thanks you show! (Qur’an, 32: 9)
Our advice to the BBC is that it accept the fact that human beings are created and that the soul breathed into man by God is the source of human intelligence.

(1) Colin McGinn, “Can We Solve the Mind-Body Problem?” Mind, 98 (1989), p. 349 
(2) Richard Leakey, The Origin of Humankind, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, p. 131, 1995 

The BBC’s Errors On Religion

BBC 2 aired a documentary on the 17th of April 2003 in which a totally unfounded and prejudiced claim was made. It said that faith was a so-called illness and leaders of religion in history were people who should have been treated as patients. In this article, we will explain why this claim is invalid and why it is the product of a warped mind.

The “GOD ON THE BRAIN” documentary by the BBC 2 made the adverse claim that faith was an illness and suggested that this claim was supported by medical research. According to a research on epileptic patients, during seizures, they experienced spiritual feelings. The electric activity in the temporal lobe causing seizures, when artificially induced, could evoke the same kind of mystic feelings in healthy individuals. Going by this, it was claimed, that the temporal lobe epilepsy was where the terms of faith and religion were born.
This and other similar research are benefiting the better understanding and treatment of epilepsy, but it is a great error to link brain pathology and faith and religion.
Mysticism: Escape Into The World Of Imagination
First of all the warped perspective dominating the program needs to be looked at. “Mysticism” and “religion” are not parts of one another. Religion is a God given way of life explained to people by His messengers. After people see in themselves and their environment the evidence for God’s existence, they determine by using their intellect and conscience the truth of this “call”. The truest way of life on earth is the religious morality prescribed by God. Beginning to live according to the morality of religion, makes rational analysis essential.
Mysticism on the other hand, contrary to religion, is the search for metaphysical experiences in an imaginary world which cannot be reached by reasoning or logic. The word mysticism is derived from the root “myein,” meaning to “shut ones eyes.” In meditation or the state of trance, one seeks to evoke a mystical environment by leaving the world of reason and logic behind. Schools of mysticism put aside reason whilst emphasizing emotions.
For these reasons it is wrong to create links between “mysticism” and the true religion or the existence of God. True religion requires the comprehension of God’s existence with rational evidence.
Current research suggests, that religion is a fundamental necessity for mental health, contrary to the atheist’s view that it is a mental illness. This “mental illness” perspective is the brainchild of the 19th century atheist thinker Freud, but since then he has been comprehensively refuted. The American author Patrick Glynn sums it up:
Yet the last quarter of the twentieth century has not been kind to the psychoanalytic vision. Most significant has been the exposure of Freud’s views of religion (not to mention a host of other matters) as entirely fallacious. Ironically enough, scientific research in psychology over the past twenty-five years has demonstrated that, far from being a neurosis or source of neuroses as Freud and his disciples claimed, religious belief is one of the most consistent correlates of overall mental health and happiness. Study after study has shown a powerful relationship between religious belief and practice, on the other hand, and healthy behaviors with regard to such problems as suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, divorce, depression, even, perhaps surprisingly, levels of sexual satisfaction in marriage, on the other. In short, the empirical data run exactly contrary to the supposedly “scientific” consensus of the psychotherapeutic profession. (1)In the end, using one of Patrick Glynn’s expressions, “far from replacing religion, modern psychology at the close of the twentieth century seems to be reacquainting itself with religion” and “a purely secular view of human mental life has been shown to fail not just at the theoretical, but also at the practical, level.”
Despite these realities, the BBC 2 pushed an inherited old claim by Freud, dressed up with some so-called new discoveries, albeit, as we said above, without supporting it with any scientific or rational evidence. This proves that the BBC 2′s starting point is its atheist prejudices, just like it was with Freud himself.
Champions Of Civilization: The Prophets
The program, by claiming that the pathological irregularities in the temporal lobe cause mystic experiences thought to be the source of religion, suggested wrongfully that the prophets in history were people with such problems. This expression shows that the claim is pure speculation.
There is much evidence to disprove this perverse suggestion. The prophets were the most intelligent people of their era and transported their followers to the top of civilization. They were the most successful commanders, community leaders and thinkers of their time, led their people and became thus role models for the subsequent generations. Despite this truth being handed down from generation to generation, for the program to claim them to be “sick” is nothing but a repulsive act of slander.
Conclusion
The anti-religious prejudices of those people caused them to misinterpret the results of the experiment. For a person who finds the truth, confirmed by his reason and conscience, in the true religions proclaimed by the prophets, there can be nothing more rational than to begin to live as prescribed by God after acknowledging this truth. To define this rational approach as an illness is illogical.
In reality, accusing the prophets of “mental illness” is not a new development. It is a slander used by the deniers throughout history to prevent the prophets’ struggle on the righteous path. The Qur’an reveals that similar claims were made against many prophets. The same was done to Mohammad (may God bless Him and give Him peace) and God revealed to him:

Nun By the Pen and what they write down! By the blessing of your Lord, you are not mad. You will have a wage which never-fails. Indeed you are truly vast in character. So you will see and they will see which of you is mad. (Qur’an, 68: 1-6)

Beware of the Darwinist prejudice of BBC and CBS News

Last week there were two items on bbc.co.uk and cbsnews.com that contained some speculations and comments arising from evolutionist prejudices.
In an article entitled “Itchy answer to hairless humans” that appeared on June 9, 2003, Oxford University professor Sir. Walter Bodmer and Reading University professor Mark Pagel put forward a new evolutionist idea that, unlike chimpanzees and other mammals, human beings were not covered with hair. Researchers have pointed out that a lot fewer parasites and fleas would live on skin without hair; they claimed that this nakedness was an advantage because the skin would have been more hygienic. According to this claim, as ape men scratched each other to get rid of fleas, their hair may have fallen out.
This evolutionist claim that appeared on bbc.co.uk is nothing more than a story with no scientific basis.
Actually, this kind of story that evolutionists frequently resort to in proposing their scenarios of human evolution are always products of the same system of ideas.
If we consider the three stages on which this system of ideas is based on, we see the fantasy that lies behind it. In the first stage, an already existing physical attribute is observed (in this example, skin without fur). In the second stage, the advantages of this attribute is examined (hygiene). In the third and final stage, it is proposed that the attribute whose advantages are shown has gone through a particular process of selection (nakedness is the result ape men scratching each other).
These evolution stories have no scientific value because it is impossible to go back in time and prove them. Moreover, there is no material proof to show that these stories are true. A story is just a story.
A particular characteristic of these evolution stories is that they create the problem of a supposition based on a supposition. At the root of human evolution scenarios is the supposition that human beings separated and evolved from an ancestor they had in common with the chimpanzee. (For a discussion of the invalidity of this supposition, see Harun Yahya’sDarwinism Refuted, Goodword, 2003). The story about the loss of hair proposed on bbc.co.uk is another invention based on the above supposition. So it appears that this item on bbc.co.uk is actually, from the scientific point of view, a story within a story.
Furthermore, this story is inconsistent with itself. Researchers have not yet been able to provide a logical explanation as to why parts of the human body are covered with hair. An other inconsistency is why the advantage of hairlessness has not been selected among chimpanzees or other mammals. Christophe Soligo, who researches human origins in the London Museum of Natural History alluding to this problem writes:
“The question we always have in explaining unique human traits is: why didn’t other animals evolve them as well if they are so advantageous?” 1
It can be seen that BBC in making these claims is only presenting ideas inconsistent with themselves and that have no basis in science but are founded on prejudice.
A second similar item appeared on CBS News on June 11, 2003 and was entitled “160,000-Year-Old Skulls Found”. This was an investigative report 2 that appeared in ‘Nature’ magazine which announced the discovery in Ethiopia of fossilized bones thought to belong to 10 individuals. Among the fossils determined to be 160 thousand years old, there were the complete skulls of an adult and a child as well as the partial skull of a third individual. The research team that found the fossils called them Homo Sapiens Idaltu. In the local Afar language, ‘’idaltu’ means ‘elder’. The only reason for this name is that they are the oldest examples of homo sapiens found in Africa. The skulls are large, with a round skull cavity and a flat face and there is no difference between them and modern human beings. Daniel Lieberman, a US anthropologist from Harvard University, have this explanation to ‘Nature’ magazine’s news service:
“The bones have all the features of modern humans – there’s nothing lacking” 3
Besides being potentially deceptive, reconstruction pictures, they can also reflect evolutionist ideas about skull. Here you see the skull in question and the reconstruction pictures that appeared on the cover of ‘Nature’ magazine.
It can be seen that the anatomy of the skull and information about its age show that it is no different from that of a modern human being and the picture indicates that this had been accepted by evolutionists.
Very well, let us consider how all this can be considered from an objective point of view.
On first consideration, what does the discovery of 160 thousand year old human skull that is no different from that of a modern human being say to a person? It says that the people who lived 160 thousand years ago in this area were like the people of today.
But CBS News, given the impossibility that the skull can provide any information, simply makes this comment whose Darwinist prejudice is clear:
“The …skull … appear[s] to represent a crucial stage of human evolution when the facial features of modern humans arose. Discovered in Ethiopia’s fossil-rich Afar region, the skulls have clearly modern features – a prominent forehead, flattened face and reduced brow – that contrast with older humans’ projecting, heavy-browed skulls.”
These comments of CBS News with regard to evolution come only from prejudice. As we showed earlier, there is no difference between this skull and that of a modern human being. There is no difference that evolutionists can speculate about and no chance that they can be attributed to evolution. This is a basic case of ‘no evolution’. To think that a case of no evolution is a proof for evolution is an error that is hard to understand. Moreover, there have been a few discoveries that invalidate the prejudiced comments of CBS News. From its headlines, CBS News seems to believe that these skulls are those of the oldest human beings. However, many skulls have been discovered from Homo Erectus, Homo Heidelbergensis and Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis who lived in much earlier periods. (For detailed information, see Harun Yahya’s Darwinism Refuted, Goodword, 2003)
The idea that Homo Sapiens Idaltu is the oldest human being comes from the fact that he reflects the average characteristics of modern human beings. Stages such as Homo Erectus and Homo Heidelbergensis are real human beings with variations seen in modern races of humans. Neanderthals, accepted by evolutionists as real human beings are an extinct European race. In short, Homo Sapiens Idaltu cannot be accepted as the oldest human being.
The New York Times proposes a similar falsehood
The article by science writer John Noble Wilford in the New York Times entitled “Fossil Skulls Offer First Glimpse of Early Human Faces” (June 11, 2003) and the article in the International Herald Tribune entitledSkulls Lend Credibility to Out of Africa Theory (June 12, 2003) propose the same evolutionist falsehoods with regard to Homo Sapiens Idaltu.
As we stated above, there are many races of human beings that lived before Homo Sapiens Idaltu. Wilford writes that these fossils belong to a period in which human beings were developing from earlier creatures and offers the same erroneous information as that on CBS News. In fact, human history goes much farther back and to say that pre-Homo Sapiens Idaltu individuals were pre-human is only evolutionist prejudice.
Furthermore, Wilford claims that results obtained from genetic analysis supports the theory that modern human beings evolved in Africa and spread throughout the world. But if we separate this claim into two parts and examine each one we see that the part about evolution is based on prejudice. Genetic analysis can give some idea about the migration routes of human beings but the theory that they spread throughout the world from Africa does not prove that they came into being in Africa by evolution. The fact that human beings multiplied in a certain place and then spread throughout the world does not contradict that idea of creation and is not a proof for evolution.
There is no indication that Homo Sapiens Idaltu carries any traces of evolution; it is just one variation in the human genetic pool. All comments that go beyond this are prejudices that evolutionists put within their own system of ideas and cannot be proved.
Result
When considered in the light of scientific discoveries, it appears that the items on BBC and CBS News display a very wrong attitude. The common feature of their speculations and comments is the blind belief that human beings evolved from monkeys and that every discovery is evaluated according to this belief. These views communicated by BBC and CBS News are completely subjective and far from the objectivity that should be displayed by a media institution. Let us urge BBC and CBS News to abandon this wrong attitude.
However much they may want to ignore it, BBC and CBS News must realize that there are two views in the scientific world about the origins of human beings. The first is Darwinism that BBC and CBS News blindly takes every opportunity to support, and the other is creation. Modern science validates creation and invalidates Darwinism. Darwin’s mechanism (natural selection-mutation) has failed to explain the complexity of living things. The complex structures in living things can only be explained by deliberate design, that is, creation. Human beings did not come into being from monkeys, they were created. Almighty God reveals the creation in the Qur’an:
“We created mankind out of dried clay formed from fetid black mud.” (Qur’an, 15: 26)

1. “Early humans lost hair to beat bugs”, New Scientist, June 8, 2003: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993807
2. White, T. D. et al. Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature, 423, 742 – 747, (2003) / Clark, J. D et al. Stratigraphic, chronological and behavioural contexts of Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature, 423, 747 – 751, (2003).
3. “Skulls reveal dawn of mankind”, Michael Hopkin, 11 June 2003:
http://www.nature.com/nsu/030609/030609-8.html

Evolutionary Tell Tales From BBC -1-

• You can read the response to the second part broadcast on September 25, 2002, here. >>>
• You can read the response to the third part broadcast on October 9, 2002, here. >>>
• You can read the response to the ‘functionless tissue’ claim in the documentary The Human Body here. >>>
• You can read the response to the fourth part broadcast on November 6, 2002 here. >>>

The documentary The Human Body, taken from the BBC and broadcast by NTV, was full of intense propaganda intended to impose the theory of evolution on viewers. Yet this propaganda served no other purpose than to prove that the theory of evolution is nothing but an unscientific myth.
The first part of the documentary The Human Body was aired on September 18, 2002.
The programme introduced the human body, and described the so-called evolution of man in a fairy tale manner, offering the viewer no evidence whatsoever. Intended as thoroughgoing propaganda, the documentary actually demonstrated how devoid of scientific support the theory of evolution really is. What follows is a scientific reply to the errors in the documentary:

NTV’s Bacteria Myth
NTV’s evolutionary tall tales begin with the sentence that there were first of all bacteria in the primitive world, and plants and animals later evolved from these bacteria. The fact is, of course, that the expression “there were bacteria in the primitive world” is meaningless because the problem is how those bacteria came into being. Those who prepared this documentary on NTV might have thought they could gloss over this crucial question on the assumption that their viewers would adopt a superficial view of the matter such as “those bacteria must probably have come into being by themselves.” (Even worse, they themselves might hold just such a view.) In truth however, even the origin of the very simplest bacterium represents a major “difficulty” for the theory of evolution, one that cannot be glossed over with the words just mentioned.
The origin of bacteria is a problem for the theory of evolution because the theory maintains that life on the primitive earth came about from random chemical reactions. Yet even the simplest bacterium contains such a complex organisation and “information” that these can never be accounted for by any chemical reaction.
Let us examine this information: A bacterium has around 2,000 genes, each gene consisting of up to 1,000 letters (codes). This means that the information in its DNA must be at least 2 million letters long. That, in turn, means that the information contained in the DNA of just one bacterium is equivalent to 20 novels of 100,000 words each. (1) That being the case, it is quite impossible for a single bacterium to come about by chance or to evolve as the result of chance effects. Any chance intervention containing information on such a scale would damage the functioning of the bacterium’s entire system. A deficiency in bacteria’s genetic code would mean damage to the working system, and therefore death.
Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University calculated the probability that all 2,000 of the different types of proteins that it takes to make up even a simple bacterium could have come into being completely by chance. According to Shapiro, the probability is one in 10^40.000. (2) (That number is “1″ followed by forty thousand zeros and it has no equivalent in the universe.)
Chandra Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics and astronomy at the University of Cardiff commented on Shapiro’s result:

… One to a number with 10^40.000 noughts after it…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence. (3)

Sir Fred Hoyle, the British mathematician and astronomer, has this to say about these figures:

Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self- evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific. (4)

It is therefore impossible for even the simplest bacterium to have come about by chance, as evolutionists claim. In fact, the theory of evolution is even unable to account for the emergence of just one of the 2,000 kinds of protein that go to make up a simple bacterium. For that reason, saying “first there were bacteria, and plants and animals later developed from bacteria” is a huge deception, devoid of any scientific foundation. The people who prepared the NTV documentary must in any case be aware of this since they avoided the subject of how the first bacterium came into being, simply beginning their tale with “bacteria that somehow came into being.”
Furthermore, evolutionists have not one shred of evidence for their evolutionary fantasy; no intermediate form between bacteria and the first plants and animals exists, and they themselves admit the fact. One such evolutionist is Professor Ali Demirsoy, a prominent Turkish defender of evolution, who confesses:

One of the most difficult stages to be explained in evolution is to scientifically explain how organelles and complex cells developed from these primitive creatures. No transitional form has been found between these two forms. One- and multicelled creatures carry all this complicated structure, and no creature or group has yet been found with organelles of a simpler construction in any way, or which are more primitive. In other words, the organelles carried forward have developed just as they are. They have no simple and primitive forms. (5)

The mistaken idea that bacteria evolved as their environment changed
It was suggested in the NTV documentary in question that bacteria were gradually exposed to change, as a result of which more complex life forms emerged. This is nothing but a work of the imagination, with no scientific foundation to it. Bacteria have very short life spans, and a single scientist can therefore observe many generations of them. Evolutionists have thus subjected bacteria to countless mutations for many years, but no evolution has ever been observed in a single one. Pierre-Paul Grassé, one of France’s best-known zoologists, the editor of the 35-volume Traité de Zoologie, and former president of the Académie des Sciences, writes the following about this bacterial immutability which invalidates evolution:
Bacteria… are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. [B]acteria… exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago! What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not [produce evolutionary] change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. (6)
In short, if mutations brought about evolution in bacteria, then examples of this should have been seen in the laboratory. Yet in fact the reverse applies.

The mistaken idea that small changes gradually led to evolution
In the documentary, space is devoted to evolutionists’ traditional claims, and it is maintained that over billions of years small changes occurring in organisms combined and led to changes in organisms’ species. There is no scientific foundation for such a claim.
The “one by one, small, imperceptible changes” in question are mutations, since mutations are the only mechanism of change the theory of evolution can offer.
Mutations are corruptions and changes in living things’ genetic codes brought about by various external factors such as radiation and chemical effects. The genetic code of a healthy living thing possesses a flawless order and sequence. However, 99 percent of mutations damage DNA, the other 1 percent having no effect. Mutations tear apart, destroy or confuse the DNA sequences in which a living thing’s genetic code is recorded; they eliminate existing information. Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl are just a few contemporary examples of the damaging effect radiation has on genes. As a result of the genetic mutations caused by these tragedies, countless people and other living things lost their lives, many were crippled and handicapped individuals were born in subsequent generations.
The American geneticist B.G. Ranganathan describes the damage mutations do to living organisms in these terms:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement. (7)

That is why there is no mechanism in nature that might bestow minute, imperceptible beneficial changes on living things. The reason why NTV glosses over this subject with superficial accounts and avoids going into any detail on it stems from the fact that it is only too well aware how that change actually came about.

The mistaken idea that species evolved from one another
According to evolutionists, all living things developed from one another. A previously existing species turned into another over time, and all the species eventually emerged in this manner. According to the theory, this transition occupied a period of hundreds of millions of years, and happened in stages.
Yet if these evolutionists’ claims were true, if in other words, as NTV claims, fish had evolved into reptiles and reptiles into birds, and etc. then countless “intermediary species” should also have emerged and lived during this transformation period.
For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles should have lived in the past which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile-birds, which acquired some bird traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already had. These, since they were in a transitional process, would have been crippled, handicapped and defective living things.
Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as “transitional forms”. If such animals had really existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than the present animal species and their remains should be found all over the world. Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms.
It was his hope that they would be found in the future. Despite his hopefulness, he realised that the biggest stumbling-block in his theory was the missing transitional forms. Therefore in his book The Origin of Species he wrote the following in the chapter “Difficulties of the Theory”:

…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me. (8)

Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the scientific findings showed that contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. A famous British palaeontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another. (9)
Another evolutionist palaeontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record… This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fuelled the creationist argument that each species was created by God. (10)

So, since the fact is that no intermediary forms have ever been found, and that this represents a serious problem for the theory of evolution, how is it that NTV and other like-minded evolutionists are able to continue propagating the myth that “fish became reptiles and reptiles became birds?” The answer to this question is given in an article in Science magazine:

A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and palaeontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks. (11)

As revealed in Science magazine, behind NTV’s unscientific claim lie such factors as “not being unbiased and imagining.” NTV presented evolutionary fantasies to the viewer like a fairy tale, talking about “bacteria turning into human beings, reptiles that were birds and fish that walked on land” as if it were talking about “the prince who turned into a frog.”

Why does NTV still portray Haeckel’s deceptions as if they were science?
Human and fish embryos are compared in the NTV documentary The Human Body, and the theory of “recapitulation,” which ceased to be part of scientific literature years ago, is still portrayed as a scientific fact. The term “recapitulation” is a condensation of the dictum “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” put forward by the evolutionary biologist Ernst Haeckel at the end of the nineteenth century.
This theory of Haeckel’s postulates that living embryos re-experience the evolutionary process that their pseudo-ancestors underwent. He theorized that during its development in its mother’s womb, the human embryo first displayed the characteristics of a fish, and then those of a reptile, and finally those of a human.
It has since been proven that this theory is completely bogus. It is now known that the “gills” that supposedly appear in the early stages of the human embryo are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus. That part of the embryo that was likened to the “egg yolk pouch” turns out to be a pouch that produces blood for the infant. The part that was identified as a “tail” by Haeckel and his followers is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do.
These are universally acknowledged facts in the scientific world, and are accepted even by evolutionists themselves. Two leading neo-Darwinists, George Gaylord Simpson and W. Beck have admitted: “Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.” (12) In an article published in American Scientist, we read:

Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry it was extinct in the twenties… (13)

The following was written in an article in New Scientist dated October 16, 1999:

[Haeckel] called this the biogenetic law, and the idea became popularly known as recapitulation. In fact Haeckel’s strict law was soon shown to be incorrect. For instance, the early human embryo never has functioning gills like a fish, and never passes through stages that look like an adult reptile or monkey. (14)

Another interesting aspect of “recapitulation” was Ernst Haeckel himself, a faker who falsified his drawings in order to support the theory he advanced. Haeckel’s forgeries purported to show that fish and human embryos resembled one another. When he was caught out, the only defense he offered was that other evolutionists had committed similar offences:

After this compromising confession of ‘forgery’ I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner’s dock hundreds of fellow – culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of ‘forgery,’ for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed. (15)

In the September 5, 1997, edition of the well-known scientific journal Science, an article was published revealing that Haeckel’s embryo drawings were the product of a deception. The article, called “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” had this to say:

The impression they [Haeckel's drawings] give, that the embryos are exactly alike, is wrong, says Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London… So he and his colleagues did their own comparative study, reexamining and photographing embryos roughly matched by species and age with those Haeckel drew. Lo and behold, the embryos “often looked surprisingly different,” Richardson reports in the August issue of Anatomy and Embryology.

In short, despite it having emerged by as early as 1901 that Haeckel’s drawings were counterfeit, defenders of the theory of evolution such as NTV portray this theory as if it were scientific fact and attempt to keep the evolution deception alive.

Empty words and statements intended to “bewitch” the viewer
“The miracle of evolution;” “evolution accomplished this extraordinary transformation;” “the human body shaped by evolution.” Expressions such as these are frequently encountered in evolutionist sources. NTV often uses them, trying to inculcate the idea of “the miracle of evolution” alongside striking and colourful images. When these expressions of NTV’s are examined closer, however, it can be seen that they are hollow, devoid of any scientific proof and actually state and explain nothing at all.
Using such expressions as these, NTV sets out a string of claims, although as one might expect it fails to explain how any of these might have come about and which evolutionary mechanisms might have wrought such changes. These are some of the issues which NTV does not or cannot explain and which it glosses over with fancy words:

• NTV says that “as the environment in which bacteria found themselves changed, more complex groups of cells began to emerge.” Yet it says not a word about one great enigma, the greatest stumbling block facing the theory of evolution, the question of how even a single cell could have come about by chance evolutionary mechanisms.
• NTV says “fish evolved into reptiles.” Yet it says not a word about how a creature which breathed in water by means of gills and had no lungs to allow it to breathe on land or feet to walk with could have immediately adapted to life on land, nor about which organs evolved by means of which evolutionary mechanism. That is because this is a major dilemma for evolutionists, and one that cannot be accounted for by any so-called evolutionary mechanism.
• NTV says, “reptiles became birds, and reptile scales turned into bird feathers”. Once again, however, it fails to discuss how such an impossible evolution might have come about. That is because evolutionists are perfectly well aware that it is impossible for reptiles to have evolved into birds by means of chance mutations, and that reptile scales and bird feathers have entirely different structures, and that it is impossible for one to turn into the other.
• NTV speaks of “‘an area shaped by evolution with unbelievable methods over thousands of years” when discussing the bones of the ear. Yet it never actually says what these methods were. That is because no such method is known to NTV or evolutionists.
• NTV says, “The other parts of the ear, which provides balance and allows us to walk on two legs, as well as to hear, our hands, arms and our entire body took shape thanks to evolution.” Yet is says never a word about how evolution shaped all these complex organs. That is because the theory of evolution cannot explain how organs possessed of irreducible complexity came about.
• NTV says, “Decisions such as how we live, the shape of our bodies, were made billions of years before the appearance of the first human being.” Yet it is unable to explain who decided what human beings’ eyes, ears, hearts and brains, which would emerge only billions of years later, would be like, nor who planned such conscious, intelligent and organized systems in a world full of inanimate matter. Is NTV able to answer such questions? In other words, which unconscious, unaware and unintelligent atoms in the primitive world could have planned the flawless design in the human body?”

As we have seen, NTV’s evolutionist propaganda is quite baseless, and claims with no element of reason, logic or science are being put before viewers under a scientific mask. NTV must be aware that the theory of evolution cannot actually support such claims, since before describing the myth of evolution it stresses that the story is “hard to believe,” and continues: “The miracle that makes our bodies’ daily lives possible also conceals another great secret from us. That secret, one which is harder to believe, is the story of how we assumed our present appearance.”

The mistaken idea that life began by itself in an environment of volcanoes and sulphurous waters
In order to see how unreasonable and illogical the theory of evolution is, it will be sufficient to have a look at this claim made in the NTV documentary: The programme shows an image of Yellowstone National Park in America, where thermal springs are found, and says, “If you had been here 3 billion years ago, you would have witnessed how the first living things came into being.” If witnessing the emergence of living things is such an easy matter, as evolutionists claim, why is it that they do not carry out experiments to try and create the first living things in just such an environment?
Furthermore, evolutionists could impose whatever conditions they wished in these experiments, using whatever materials they wished. In fact, the uncontrolled, chance effects in the primitive earth could be done away with, and they could use consciously directed mutations instead of random ones. They could even be allowed to use ready proteins and amino-acids, and all the different materials necessary for life, from phosphate to carbon. As well as all this, if they then say, “We need time,” they could pass the area of the experiment on to one another as a legacy for millions of years. The world’s most prominent evolutionary scientists could contribute to the experiment.
Yet despite all this flexibility given to them, evolutionists will never be able to create roses, leopards, eagles, pigeons, butterflies, budgerigars, cats, fig trees, mulberries, oranges, tomatoes, lemons, melons, violets, sunflowers, film producers, writers, nuclear engineers, brain surgeons, university students, professors of biology who study the cells which make up their own bodies, university rectors, heads of state, artists or architects. They will not even be able to create one single cell.
Despite being an evolutionist, Professor Hoyle admitted this fact:

If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You will find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals. How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon… In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth. (16)

Conclusion
BBC with the documentary The Human Body has entered upon an evolutionary propaganda from which it can never obtain any results. Telling viewers things like “there were bacteria here, these later evolved and eventually became human beings, and this is a great miracle of evolution,” without offering any scientific evidence, as if they were reading a bedtime story, is a fruitless attempt to get people to believe in evolution. That is because not even middle school children today take evolution seriously, and even find it rather comic. Our hope is that BBC will realise that this documentary, which it perhaps decided to air solely because of its striking images, actually contains an account which is far removed from true science, and stop broadcasting it. In the event that the subsequent parts of the documentary duly follow, this site will continue to expose the scientific errors it contains.

1 – Mahlon B. Hoagland, The Roots of Life, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978, p.18
2 – Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, New York, Summit Books, 1986. p.127
3 – Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1984, p. 148
4 – Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, p. 130.
5 – Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara, Meteksan Publishing, p.79
6 – Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 87
7- B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988
8 – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 172, 280
9 – Derek A. Ager, “The Nature of the Fossil Record”, Proceedings of the British Geological Association, volume 87, 1976, p. 133
10 – Mark Czarnecki, “The Revival of the Creationist Crusade”, MacLean’s, 19 Ocak 1981, p. 56
11 – Science, July 17, 1981, p. 289
12 – G. G. Simpson, W. Beck, An Introduction to Biology, New York, Harcourt Brace and World, 1965, p. 241
13 – Keith S. Thompson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated”, American Scientist, volume 76, May / June 1988, p. 273
14 – Ken McNamara, “Embryos and Evolution”, New Scientist, 16 October 1999
15 – Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, New York: Ticknor and Fields 1982, p. 204
16 – Sir Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1983, pp. 20-21

Evolutionary Tell Tales From BBC – 2 -

The evolutionist propaganda on BBC continued with the documentary “The Human Body”, telling viewers tell tales about evolution, without offering a scrap of scientific evidence.
The second instalment of the documentary The Human Body consisted of evolutionist propaganda devoid of any scientific credibility. The errors in the documentary screened by BBC are scientifically explained below.

BBC’S tell tale about “fish gills becoming human ears”
The BBC documentary maintained that human beings and fish had a common ancestor, and that traces to prove this can still be found in the human body. According to BBC, the human ear is one example of these traces, and the origin of the human ear is to be found in the bones to the side of the gills of the fish with which we share (!) a common ancestor.
This BBC claim rests on the theory of “recapitulation,” which has long since been removed from the scientific literature. Since this matter has already been dealt with in the article “Evolutionary tall tales from BBC,” there is no need to repeat it here. (For details, seehttp://www.darwinism-watch.com/bbc_evolutionarytales_01.php)
The subject to be considered here is that the human ear possesses such a complex structure that it could never have evolved from a fish bone.

The human ear possesses irreducible complexity
The significance of the irreducible complexity possessed by the human ear is this: The human ear is made up of several separate parts all coming together, and we are able to hear as a result of all these parts working in harmony together. If one of these components is deficient, then we either become deaf or else our sense of hearing suffers serious damage. It is impossible for an organ possessing irreducible complexity to develop by stages, by chance, in a process of evolution. A brief resume of how hearing actually takes place will enable this fact to be more clearly understood.
As is commonly known, the hearing process begins with vibrations in the air. These vibrations are enhanced in the external ear about 17 decibels.(1)
Sound intensified in this way enters the external auditory canal. This is the area from the external ear to the eardrum. One interesting feature of the auditory canal, which is some three and a half centimetres long, is the wax it constantly secretes. This liquid contains an antiseptic property which keeps bacteria and insects out. Furthermore, the cells on the surface of the auditory canal are aligned in a spiral form directed towards the outside, so that the wax always flows towards the outside of the ear as it is secreted.
Sound vibrations which pass down the auditory canal in this way reach the ear drum. This membrane is so sensitive that it can even perceive vibrations on the molecular level. Thanks to the exquisite sensitivity of the eardrum, you can easily hear somebody whispering from yards away. Another extraordinary feature of the ear drum is that after receiving a vibration it returns to its normal state. Calculations have revealed that, after perceiving the tiniest vibrations, the eardrum becomes motionless again within up to four thousandths of a second. If it did not become motionless again so quickly, every sound we hear would echo in our ears.
The eardrum amplifies the vibrations which come to it, and sends them on to the middle ear region. Here, there are three bones in an extremely sensitive equilibrium with each other. These three bones are known as the hammer, the anvil and the stirrup; their function is to amplify the vibrations that reach them from the eardrum.
But the middle ear also possesses a kind of “buffer,” to reduce exceedingly high levels of sound. This feature is provided by two of the body’s smallest muscles, which control the hammer, anvil and stirrup bones. These muscles enable exceptionally loud noises to be reduced before they reach the inner ear. Thanks to this mechanism, we hear sounds that are loud enough to shock the system at a reduced volume. These muscles are involuntary, and come into operation automatically.
The middle ear, which possesses such a flawless design, needs to maintain an important equilibrium. The air pressure inside the middle ear has to be the same as that beyond the ear drum, in other words, the same as the atmospheric air pressure. But this balance has been thought of, and a canal between the middle ear and the outside world which allows an exchange of air has been built in. This canal is the Eustachean tube, a hollow tube running from the inner ear to the oral cavity.
The process whereby these mechanical motions begin to be turned into sound begins in the area known as the inner ear. In the inner ear is a spiral-shaped organ filled with a liquid. This organ is called the cochlea.
The last part of the middle ear is the stirrup bone, which is linked to the cochlea by a membrane. The mechanical vibrations in the middle ear are sent on to the liquid in the inner ear by this connection.
The vibrations which reach the liquid in the inner ear set up wave effects in the liquid. The inner walls of the cochlea are lined with small hair-like structures, called stereocilia, which are affected by this wave effect. These tiny hairs move strictly in accordance with the motion of the liquid. If a loud noise is emitted, then more hairs bend in a more powerful way. Every different frequency in the outside world sets up different effects in the hairs.
But what is the meaning of this movement of the hairs? What can the movement of the tiny hairs in the cochlea in the inner ear have to do with listening to a concert of classical music, recognizing a friend’s voice, hearing the sound of a car, or distinguishing the millions of other kinds of sounds?
The answer is most interesting, and once more reveals the complexity of the design in the ear. Each of the tiny hairs covering the inner walls of the cochlea is actually a mechanism which lies on top of 16,000 hair cells. When these hairs sense a vibration, they move and push each other, just like dominos. This motion opens channels in the membranes of the cells lying beneath the hairs. And this allows the inflow of ions into the cells. When the hairs move in the opposite direction, these channels close again. Thus, this constant motion of the hairs causes constant changes in the chemical balance within the underlying cells, which in turn enables them to produce electrical signals. These electrical signals are forwarded to the brain by nerves, and the brain then processes them, turning them into sound.
Science has not been able to explain all the technical details of this system. While producing these electrical signals, the cells in the inner ear also manage to transmit the frequencies, strengths, and rhythms coming from the outside. This is such a complicated process that science has so far been unable to determine whether the frequency-distinguishing system takes place in the inner ear or in the brain.
Everything we have examined so far has shown us that the ear possesses an extraordinary design. On closer examination, it becomes evident that this design is irreducibly complex, since, in order for hearing to happen, it is necessary for all the component parts of the auditory system to be present and in complete working order.
Take away any one of these-for instance, the hammer bone in the middle ear-or damage its structure, and you will no longer be able to hear anything. In order for you to hear, such different elements as the ear drum, the hammer, anvil and stirrup bones, the inner ear membrane, the cochlea, the liquid inside the cochlea, the tiny hairs that transmit the vibrations from the liquid to the underlying sensory cells, the latter cells themselves, the nerve network running from them to the brain, and the hearing center in the brain must all exist in complete working order. The system cannot develop “by stages,” because the intermediate stages would serve no purpose.
The claim that an organ as complex as the ear should have been constructed in stages by an unconscious process dependent solely on random chance, such as evolution, is both unscientific and irrational. BBC must be aware of this impossibility since it frequently repeats that this is a miracle which is very difficult to believe, and says: “Evolution shapes our bodies. It is hard to believe that it could bring all this about.”

BBC’s time error
One of the claims frequently repeated on BBC is that minute changes combined over time to bring about major transformations, and that this is how evolution, which looks to be impossible at first sight, actually happens.
At the root of this argument, which is one of BBC’s and other evolutionists’ fundamental shelters, lies the assumption that time is a force that can do the impossible. According to this view, it is impossible for a chemical mixture to randomly produce amino-acids, proteins, DNA and RNA and other cell components, and thus a living cell, or alternatively for a reptile to turn into a bird, in a short space of time. As time goes on, however, for instance over millions of years, the impossible suddenly becomes possible.
Evolutionists describe this time factor as “the accumulation of advantageous coincidences.” In other words, a structure will gain a positive feature by means of an advantageous coincidence, another such coincidence will be added to it after a few thousand years have gone by, yet another one will happen a few thousand years further still down the road, and at the end, over the course of millions of years, these advantageous coincidences will combine to bring about a major and positive transformation.
Many people may accept this logic without examining it too closely. Yet it contains a simple but fundamental error. This lies in the concept of “advantageous coincidences being added on to one another.” The fact is that there is no mechanism in nature that might be expected to select advantageous coincidences and hold on to them in order to add them to one another.
We can clarify what this means with an example that evolutionists also resort to. Some scientists say that the possibility of a protein being synthesised by chance is “less than the probability of a monkey typing out the history of mankind without any mistakes.”
Yet evolutionists still hide behind the idea of time in the face of such inconsistencies. This is the kind of claim they make: “Every time the monkey touches the keyboard it has a one in 29 chance of hitting the right key. Once it has pressed the right key, this is chosen as the right letter by natural selection. The errors it will commit over the next letter are again chosen by natural selection. In this way, over a period lasting millions of years, a monkey can indeed write a history of mankind.”
This is the logic which underlies all the time-related claims made by evolutionists.
The fact is, however, that as we have already stated there is a simple error in this position: there is no mechanism in nature to identify and select which of the keys pressed by the monkey is the right one! There is no consciousness which can say, “OK. This letter is right, let’s hold on to it and move on to the next stage.”
Moreover, neither is there any monkey to touch the keys in nature. That requires consciousness. The evolutionists’ argument must be that natural effects such as wind, rain and earthquakes cause the typewriter keys to move.
When we examine the scenario of the cell and all living structures coming about by chance in this more realistic light, we see that we are actually dealing with nonsense. The chance emergence of a single cell and the millions of tiny coincidences that form the building blocks of that cell happening in a chance, but ordered sequence can be compared to a giant city emerging solely by natural means, with no constructive force behind it. Rain, earth and heat would have to combine by chance to form millions of bricks. Then these bricks would have to line up side by side and one on top of the other, under the effects of such things as wind, flood and earthquake, to make houses, roads and pavements, as a result of which a whole giant city would eventually emerge by chance.
If someone suggested such a thing to you, you would seriously doubt that person’s sanity. Would anything change if that person then suggested that this happened not in a short space of time but over millions of years?
Of course not. Nonsense is nonsense, and the impossible is impossible, no matter how long a time it is spread out for. That is why BBC’s resorting to portraying “time” as a saviour does not actually validate its claims.

Conclusion
There were unscientific claims and evolutionist propaganda in the documentary of BBC. We hope that those who screen this documentary will have another look at its contents, see that no scientific evidence for the evolutionary scenarios recounted like fairy stories is put forward, and cease broadcasting it.

Evolutionary Tell Tales From BBC – 3 -

The blind evolutionist dogma again appeared in the documentary The Human Body, prepared by BBC and broadcast on NTV on October 9, 2002. This episode dealt with the birth process, and after describing the extraordinary events undergone by a baby in its mother’s body until birth it suggested that there was “no design” in all of these. As will clearly be seen after an examination of the proper accounts set out below, this claim is even more nonsensical than suggesting that a 100-storey building equipped with the most advanced technology could have formed itself in the middle of a city, with no designer or conscious builders involved.

The Design Denied by BBC is an Obvious Fact
After a description of the events experience by a baby growing in its mother’s body and the way that all the conditions for birth are met with no intervention by the mother herself, the following words were spoken: “Our bodies did not emerge as the result of design. Our bodies assumed their present forms the result of enormous transformations. Those features which keep our bodies from perfection are problems inherited from our ancestors. The real miracle lies in the finding of a solution to these problems.’
These words are nothing more than totally baseless Darwinist propaganda. In saying that there is no design in the body, NTV is denying the truth of the existence of Allah and claiming that it was blind chance and unconscious atoms which gave rise to the human body. NTV, the broadcaster of the documentary, accepts that there are certain difficulties during birth, but says that although these problems are “miraculously” resolved they are a legacy from man’s ape ancestors, and that it is again blind chance and unconscious atoms which bring these solutions about. In order to see how unrealistic this claim by NTV is, we need look no further than a few of the examples concerning birth given in the documentary:
“The eye sockets from first in the embryo’s skull in the mother’s womb. The eyes are later sited within these sockets.” If we think along similar lines to NTV’s claim and assume that there is no “design” here, then we should believe the following: The atoms and the cells composed of these atoms which make up the embryo are so intelligent, conscious, far-seeing and capable of working as a team (!) that they are fully aware of what the eye is, how it works and what seeing means. They are capable of working in such a planned manner as to prepare a home for the eyes before these are even formed. Alternatively, there has been such an unbelievable coincidence that firstly two sockets in the embryo’s skull happened to form by chance. Again by chance (!) these sockets are placed symmetrically and regularly in the human face, in the most aesthetically pleasing location.
“The pelvis is the widest part of the human body. The width of the pelvic bone is ideal for man to be able to walk and stand on two legs and for the baby to squeeze its head during birth. If we again think along similar lines to the NTV claim and assume for one moment there is no “design” here, we should have to believe this: The unconscious atoms which decided to construct the human body came together and decided on the ideal dimensions for man to be able to walk and stand on two legs and to give birth. They then built the human skeleton with these dimensions in mind. Alternatively, and again by chance, the cells came together in such dimensions and in such an organized manner that they happened to form the most ideal bone and skeletal structure for man to be able to walk and give birth (!).
There is no difference between believing that scenario and believing that idols made out of stone or wood possess a creative power. The one is as nonsensical as the other. The truth is that none of the events which go on in the mother’s body during birth can be explained by chance. The products of Allah’s superior art of creation and infinite knowledge can be seen at every stage of the process. A few examples of what happens during birth will be provided below, although these are only some out of many thousands. As we shall see, saying that these are the result of chance is a violation of reason and logic:
The embryo needs to be sited in an appropriate place if the pregnancy is to continue in a healthy manner. The place selected must offer both protection and the facilities to allow birth to take place nine months later. This place must also be near the blood vessels in the mother’s body, which will allow nutrition to reach the baby. The ideal spot is of course the wall of the womb.
The embryo, which moves down the Fallopian tube towards the womb, acts as if it is aware of this. It never tries to stop or attach itself to any part of the Fallopian tube, in which it remains for 3-4 days. It behaves as if it is aware that trying to attach itself anywhere before reaching the womb will end its chances of survival. It moves forward as far as the womb, finds an area on the womb wall rich in blood vessels, and attaches itself there. Like a seed thrown into the earth sprouting and putting down roots, the embryo both continues to grow and also creates new channels of nutrition for itself by moving deeper into the tissue which will provide nutrition for it.
It will be useful to draw attention to one particular point here. The very fact of the embryo’s being able to select the most suitable place for itself is a miracle. G. L. Flanagan, author of the book Beginning of Life, stresses the extraordinary nature of this:

How does the cluster make such an astonishingly “forward-looking” selection? (Geraldine Lux Flanagan, Beginning of Life, Dorling Kindersley, London, 1996, p.33.)

There is no doubt that this far-sightedness belongs not to a collection of cells devoid of any capacity for thought, but to the Creator who brought it into being. NTV tries to ignore this fact, and is committing a grave error in doing so.

As birth approaches, the amniotic fluid embarks on those activities that will be necessary to facilitate that birth. This fluid comprises sacs, which will enlarge the mouth of the womb, thus allowing the womb to assume the dimensions to allow the baby to pass. These sacs also prevent the foetus from being crushed in the womb during birth. Furthermore, when the sacs burst and release their fluid at the commencement of birth, the path to be taken by the foetus is both lubricated and sterilised. In this way, birth takes place easier and in a manner naturally free of germs. (Laurence Pernoud, J’attends un enfant, Pierre Horay, p.138.)

As well as all these preparations in the womb, a great many other conditions also need to be met at the same time in order for the baby to come into the world safely. For instance, the baby needs to assume the best position for entry into the world. It slowly begins to turn with a succession of foot movements and thus enters the neck of the womb. The baby’s scope for movement is now restricted and it cannot remove its head from here. (Geraldine Lux Flanagan, Beginning Life, p.103.) But how does an as yet unborn baby decide which position is best? How does it know what the most suitable position is? Moreover, how does a baby in its mother’s womb know when the time to be born has come? All these question show that the beginning of human life comes about with a flawless design and not, as the NTV documentary would have it, through evolution based on chance.
Many more examples of this miraculous design can be seen as the baby comes into the world. For instance, the baby’s skull needs to have a structure which will not damage the birth canal if a healthy birth is to take place. When we look at the baby’s skull we see that it consists of five bone layers, between which is the soft tissue known as the “fontanel,” which allow this requirement to be met. This soft structure gives the skull elasticity, for which reason the pressure inflicted on the baby at the moment of birth does its brain and skull no harm.
Many volumes have been written about these events during birth, which clearly reveal that they are flawlessly planned. Just a few of these will show that chance plays no role whatsoever in the creation of a human being. Which of these could be claimed, with scientific evidence, to have come about by chance? The miracles repeated throughout the length of the NTV documentary are miracles of Allah, not of unconscious atoms and blind chance.
In the Qur’an, Allah reveals this to those who deny Him despite the clear nature of His creation:

… Do you then disbelieve in Him who created you from dust, then from a drop of sperm, and then formed you as a man? He is, however, Allah, my Lord, and I will not associate anyone with my Lord. (Surat al-Kahf, 37-38)

Conclusion
It is utterly obvious that it is Allah who created living things and the entire universe. It is also clear that living things possessed of such a flawless order and exceedingly complex structures cannot be the work of chance. Despite this, however, those who maintain that it was chance which created the universe and living things are defending claims which are so nonsensical that even children would find them laughable, and are doing so because they fail to think honestly and insist on denying the existence of Allah.
We do not believe that neither BBC, the owner of the documentary, nor NTV that broadcast it genuinely support such irrational claims. We imagine that the meaningless, unproven, irrational and illogical evolutionist claims dotted through this documentary, which provides striking images and effective information and describes instances of Allah’s creation in a beautiful way, have escaped its notice, and hope that BBC will rid itself of this evolutionist propaganda, which is meaningless and devoid of scientific evidence and credibility.

Evolutionary Tell Tales – 4 – BBC’s Functionless Tissues Error In Its Documentary “The Human Body”

Another outdated evolutionist claim appeared in the documentary “The Human Body” by BBC which is broadcast on the NTV channel and introduces the systems in the human body. As it described the changes brought about in young people by puberty and hormones, oil glands in the skin were described as the source of spots. Yet it was also suggested that oil glands were a functionless piece of tissue serving no purpose, and that they were a legacy from man’s so-called ape-like ancestors. This claim, devoid of any scientific foundation, is dealt with below.
The Functionless Tissue Claim Is Not Scientific
This claim aired on NTV is nothing more than a new example of the idea of “vestigal organs” put forward by evolutionists a hundred years ago. According to this hoary old claim, there are various organs in the bodies of living things which are a legacy from their ancestors, but which have gradually grown redundant from lack of use. However, it eventually emerged that this claim was based on a lack of scientific knowledge, and that “vestigal organs” were actually “organs whose functions had not been identified yet.” One of the best indications of this was the way the list of these “vestigal organs” increasingly shrank. The list of “vestigial human organs” drawn up by the German anatomist R. Widersheim in 1895 included some 100 organs, including the appendix and the coccyx. As science advanced, however, it was realised that all the organs on the list did actually serve important functions. (seehttp://www.harunyahya.com/refuted11.php; and also Harun Yahya,Darwinism Refuted, “Immunity, ‘Vestigal Organs’ and Embryology, 2003, p.246)
In short, the scenario of redundant organs put forward by evolutionists was scientifically wrong. There is no organ in the bodies of human beings or other living things which is redundant or functionless and a legacy from so-called ancestors.
The Essential Function Of Oil Glands
Contrary to what evolutionists imagine, oil glands are not functionless and redundant, on the contrary they are essential tissues for the body.
As we know, sweat glands are found together with oil glands in the skin. Sweat allows the skin to be moisturised. On its own, however, sweat immediately evaporates, leading to greater drying of the skin. In order to prevent this, another secretion is needed. That is because an oily environment allows water to be retained in the skin. In this way, the sweat and oil glands work together to moisturise the skin. That is why it is essential for both glands to be present at the same time in order for the skin to be soft and elastic. The function of the oil glands, which secrete wax and other lipids is necessary for the health of our skin.
As we have seen, oil glands, like other tissues, serve a particular purpose: preventing our skin from drying out. The oil glands have been located where our sweat glands are for just this purpose. The fact that these glands are not harmful, and that on the contrary they serve an essential function, is proof of a conscious design, in other words a superior creation. That creation is the art of God, Exalted in Power, the Lord of the heavens and the earth and all that lies between.