When forced into a corner, some people who support the theory of evolution resort to the claim “Even if scientific discoveries do not confirm the theory of evolution today, such developments will take place in the future.”
Yet science does not function by such logic. A scientist does not first of all blindly devote himself to a theory, hoping that one day the evidence to prove that theory will emerge. Science examines the available evidence and draws conclusions from it. That is why scientists should accept the “design,” or the fact of creation in other words, which scientific discoveries have proved.
Despite this, however, evolutionist incitement and propaganda can still influence people, especially those who are not fully conversant with the theory. For this reason, it will be useful to set out the reply in full:
We can consider the validity of the theory of evolution with three basic questions:
1. How did the first living cell emerge?
2. How can one living species turn into another?
3. Is there any evidence in the fossil record that living things underwent such a process?
A great deal of serious research has been carried out during the twentieth century into these three questions, which the theory simply has to answer. What this research has revealed, however, is that the theory of evolution cannot account for life. This will become apparent when we consider these questions one by one.
1. The question of the “first cell” is the most deadly dilemma for the proponents of evolution. Research on the subject has revealed that it is impossible to explain the emergence of the first cell by means of the concept of “chance.” Fred Hoyle puts it this way:
The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. 
Scientific developments have revealed the perfection in life on the system, organ, tissue, cellular, and even molecular levels. Every new detail we grasp enables us to see the wondrous dimension of this design a little more clearly. Today, it is impossible to find even one scientist who does not admit that each individual part of the cell is a magnificent work of art and design on its own. Even the membrane of a tiny cell, which has been described as a “selective filter,” contains enormous intelligence and design. It recognizes the atoms, proteins, and molecules around it as if it possessed a consciousness of its own, and only allows into the cell those which are needed. (For further details, see Harun Yahya’s Consciousness in the Cell.) Unlike the limited intelligent design in the clock, living organisms are stunning artifacts of intelligence and design. Far from proving evolution, the ever wider-ranging and detailed research that is carried out into living structures, only some of whose make-up and functions have been uncovered so far, allows us to understand the truth of creation even better.
2. Evolutionists maintain that one species can turn into another by means of mutation and natural selection. All the research carried out on the matter has shown that neither mechanism has any evolutionary effect whatsoever. Research into mutation shows that it has no evolutionary properties. The American geneticist B. G. Ranganathan says:
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. 
The mechanisms that the theory of evolution suggests for the formation of species are completely ineffective, and actually harmful. It has been understood that these mechanisms, which were proposed when science and technology had not yet advanced to the level necessary to show that the claim was nothing but the product of fantasy, have no developmental or evolutionary effects.
3. Fossils also show that life did not emerge as the result of any evolutionary process, but that it came about suddenly, the product of perfect “design.” All the fossils that have ever been found confirm this. Niles Eldredge, the well-known paleontologist from Harvard University and curator of the American Museum of Natural History, explains that there is no possibility that any fossils that might be found in the future could change the situation:
The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history-not the artifact of a poor fossil record. 
In conclusion, some 150 years have gone by since the theory of evolution was first put forward, and all subsequent scientific developments have worked against it. The more science has examined the details of life, the more evidence for the perfection of creation has been found, and the more it has been understood that the emergence of life and its subsequent variation by chance is quite impossible. Every piece of research reveals new evidence of the design in living things, and makes the fact of creation ever clearer. Every decade that has passed since Darwin’s time has just revealed the invalidity of the theory of evolution even more.
In short, scientific advances do not favour the theory of evolution. For that reason, further developments in the future will not do so either, but will demonstrate its invalidity even further. (For further reading, see “The collapse of the theory of evolution in 20 questions” by Harun Yahya)
 “Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, vol. 294, November 12, 1981, p. 105.
 B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988
 N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, Columbia University Press, 1982, p. 59
Harun Yahya is a prominent Turkish intellectual.
Buy the relevant / Harun Yahya’s book (s) now: