Embryology Rejects the Lie of Evolution
...My Lord encompasses all
things in His knowledge so will you not pay heed?
(Qur'an, 6: 80)
The event of birth is a proof of a supreme creation,
yet evolutionists try to make reference to it in defence
of their theory. The fact that, in the creation of a
new human being, every stage develops according to a
very delicate design, is today an undisputed fact in
the field of embryology. In this case, how do evolutionists
try to interpret this fact of creation in reference
to their theory?
At the end of the 19th century, the evolutionist biologist
Ernst Haeckel proposed his thesis, "Ontogeny Recapitulates
Phylogeny". In this thesis, Haeckel claimed that living
embryos in the process of their development repeat the
evolutionary process that their supposed ancestors went
through. For example, he proposed that a human embryo
in its mother's womb first displayed the characteristics
of a fish, then of a reptile before finally turning
into a human being.
Evolutionist Haeckel did
not hesitate to produce fabricated evidence.
But as science advanced, it was revealed that
Haeckel's scenario was purely imaginary.
Before long it was realized that this thesis did not
reflect the facts. The gills that supposedly appeared
in the first periods of a human embryo were actually
the human inner ear canal and the parathyroid and thymus
glands; the part of the embryo resembling an egg yoke
was actually the sack responsible for the production
of the baby's blood; the part that was thought to be
the tail was identified as the human spine.
These are now facts well attested in the world of science.
Shortly after Haeckel proposed his theory, evolutionists
themselves acknowledged that his claims were false.
Two leading neo-Darwinists, George Gaylord Simpson and
W. Beck acknowledged the invalidity of this theory:
Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved.
It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not
The validity of Haeckel's theory was also rejected
in scientific debate in the 1920's. After this, in the
1950's, the theory was completely removed from text
In proposing his theory, Haeckel did not act contrary
to the tradition of evolutionist scientists; he produced
imaginary drawings to illustrate his ideas. Even when
embryology developed and it was revealed that the drawings
were fabricated, he acknowledged that he had not followed
a different path from the rest of his colleagues:
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.52
It can be understood from this confession that Haeckel's
attempts to use embryology as a proof for evolution
are completely without foundation and amount to nothing
more than sophistry. The details we have given in the
course of this book, as general as they were, of the
miracle of human creation are an undeniable proof of
the truth of creation.
In Haeckel's fabricated drawings, the embryos
of various living things were placed side
by side in the attempt to give the impression
that there was a similarity among them. In
order to show the similarity between the embryo
of a human being and that of a fish, Haeckel
made a few additions to some parts and removed
other parts. As in all other evolutionist
falsifications, the goal here was to provide
false evidence for evolution. But actual photographs
of these embryos clearly revealed Haeckel's
falsifications. These fabrications are just
one proof that the theory of evolution is
a deceit founded on falsehood.
G. Simpson, W. Beck, An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt
Brace and World, New York, 1965, p. 241.
51. Keith S. Thomson, "Ontogeny and
Phylogeny Recapitulated," American Scientist, vol. 76,
May/June 1988, p. 273.
52. Francis Hitching, The Neck of the
Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Ticknor and Fields,
New York, 1982, p. 204.