Civilizations development and species origin technologies

V. V. Korpachev
CIVILIZATIONS DEVELOPMENT AND SPECIES ORIGIN TECHNOLOGIES

This book is dedicated to the memory of the outstanding scientist, Cambridge University Trinity College professor, my distant relative and like-minded person William Whewell

INTRODUCTION

The protein life’s origin on Earth turns out to be one of the fundamental world views concepts in a human beings’ society. There are several theories existing to explain the Universe’s occurrence. These are the Big Bang theory and Penrose-Hawking singularity theory to complement it, Hoyle-Bondi-Gold theory of stationary Universe, Alfevn-Klein cosmological theory and so on. But, none of them is completely proved and taken for granted by all the scientific society members. At the same time, such an important phenomenon as the life origin on Earth is being explained on the basis of two polar points of view. According to one of them, Universe, Earth and protein life have been created by the Creator within a short period of time. In accordance with the second one, life on our planet has originated from the inanimate matter as the result of accidental evolutionary transformations. The existing contradictory world views on the life origin on Earth’s settlement is of vital importance as it is impossible to develop the mankind future development programs without actual views on the environmental development.

It is worth mentioning that existing concepts are not pure scientific in the literary meaning of this word, as they are based neither on observations nor experimental researches which are possible to be reconstructed with the certain degree of credibility. The events under review took place in past and cannot be checked in present. One can judge about them by certain palaeontological and archaeological facts to evidence previous eras. Each of these world views is just a supposition, one of which has been turned into religion while the second one has been granted the scientific status. The facts which can be treated in different ways and viewed from other theoretic point of view are used to justify one’s views.

The accumulated data states that the events sequence can neither be explained by the spontaneous evolutionary processes nor by God’s activity; they need quite another interpretation based on the scientific approach.

From the point of view of the evolutionary theory, it is impossible to explain the way the nucleic acids and a single genetic code were formed from inorganic elements many millions of years ago on Earth. Within the process of experimental studies, it turned out to be possible to get some simple organic compounds under conditions supposedly existed on Earth many millions of years ago, but this does not mean that they did take place in the past. Moreover, the possibility is perceived by the scientific community as a reality. The arguments given can only confirm certain changes, but they do not prove that they did take place. Many modern evolutionary theory conclusions are not obvious and require sophisticated justifications.

However, this is the only fundamental theory in biology nowadays that explains the development and diversity of life on Earth. Despite the great number of shortcomings, it turned into an indisputable faith. Until now, the grounds for abandoning it were not enough, since no other alternative scientific theory existed. At the same time, a huge amount of facts has been accumulated nowadays that either contradict the evolutionary theory, or which cannot be explained by this theory. It is difficult to imagine the lack of expediency and programming nature in an increasingly complex development that occurs according to the pre-defined program similar in different representatives of the animal world and embedded regardless of the each individual’s desires. Therefore, a contemporary educated person is often in uncertainty. On the one hand, he/she cannot accept the evolutionary theory of the species origin by Charles Darwin as a basic concept, realizing that the complexity of protein organisms on Earth cannot have occurred spontaneously, and on the other hand, a person cannot accept religious and mythical views because of their primitiveness and implausibility. Realizing the limited possibilities of a blind evolutionary process, some researchers have put forward a number of other alternative hypotheses. For example, it was assumed that life was brought from outer space by meteorites or particles of light (panspermia), or by intelligent creatures from other planets as an experiment. None of these hypotheses has ever been proved and arises a number of objections.

The current situation emphasizes the need to analyze the known facts from different perspectives and formulate a new concept of the life origin on Earth, which could provide answers to controversial questions and explain many obscure phenomena and events on the planet. William Whewell, a distant noble relative of Maria Wevel, my grandmother, once advocated an inductive method of cognition in science. He stated that the facts should be strung like beads on the thread of an idea that arose in the brain of the researcher and depends on the individual characteristics of the mind. Until nowadays, there were two life and biological species origin ideas threads to string the facts of observation and the environmental research results, which were often customized. One thread was a religious one, and it provided a very simple way to explain the diversity of life by the supernatural deity’s activity. Another thread suggested a gradual organisms’ complication through random natural selection and evolutionary changes. It is considered a scientific one.

Unfortunately, other scientific threads capable of forming a plausible necklace of the protein life occurrence and development on Earth’s theory had not existed yet. Nowadays, there is every reason to consider the creation of the vegetable and animal world on Earth as a thought-out highly intelligent biotechnological process. Therefore, this publication is an attempt to string the already known facts onto the thread of the «technological theory of the species origin». It considers the protein organisms on Earth’s occurrence as a technological process being developed and implemented by a highly developed civilization, the material nature of which is significantly different from protein forms of life.

Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace developed the evolutionary theory at a time when highly intelligent technological production was not developed and modern scientific achievements of human civilization were not available. Therefore, they explained the accumulated facts on the basis of the animals’ intraspecific improvement observations during selection.

It is obvious that the self-organizing processes do exist, but, in accordance with the evolutionary theory, the natural selection leads to the occurrence of capable of thinking organisms from the protozoon organisms. Homo Sapience can serve the example. After that, the further environmental development is subordinated to their natural activity. A lot of scientists have no doubts regarding the existence of the intelligent life in the Universe. But this intelligence can exist not on the distant planets but on the very Earth and the protein life complexity can be the result of its activity.

If the protein world could not have occurred spontaneously as a result of evolutionary processes, the obvious question arises: who has created it and what for? This requires a scientific explanation, leaving religious beliefs beyond. This publication provides ideas regarding the possible material nature of the highly developed intelligence’s carriers. Nowadays, the army (military) archives have accumulated tens of thousands of the unidentified flying objects (UFOs) reported sightings, and Joseph Allen Hynek, Professor of astronomy at North-Western University, USA (Josef Allen Hynek), who had been the U.S. Air Force consultant on the UFO issues for 20 years, and Jacques Vallee, his student, Bachelor of Mathematics and Master in «Astrophysics» of University of Lille, confirmed the existence of UFOs having thoroughly analyzed the data accumulated. Moreover, the USSR Navy commander, the Hero of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Chernavin, Admiral of the Fleet, Nikolay Smirnov, Admiral of the fleet, submitted data regarding the observation of the high-tech facilities in the depths of the ocean and Professor Vladimir Azhazha, the four-striper (post-captain), the Academy of Sciences of the USSR Oceanographic Commission Undersea Research Section Deputy-Head, and many other researchers have revealed the facts of numerous cases of UFO observation.

On the other hand, leading specialists in the field of genetics claim that it is impossible to generate a genetic code spontaneously, and the data by biologists, paleontologists, geologists and volcanologists, complementing each other, line up in one line, confirming the possibility of the existence of an intelligence that controls a lot of processes on Earth. Therefore, it would be logical to combine these observations, what the author of this book has tried to do.

The fact that it is the creationism that is the only alternative to Darwinism and that all ideas to justify the creation and not a spontaneous occurrence are classified as religious ones in the view of society constitutes the ideological problem. In this regard, religion has caused significant harm to the development of a real worldview. However, truth is not based on God but on scientific ideas. Therefore, the modern science’s task is not to neglect the idea of creating the world surrounding us just because it is close to religious dogmas.

The book attempts to overcome the barrier of the laws governing the protein life creation on Earth’s rejection only because these views somehow coincide with the divine creation and are used by theologians. Any scientific concepts that do not share the idea of God will expand our understanding of this most important process on Earth. The book is aimed at replacing both blind faith in the divine creation of the world, and existing views on the evolutionary spontaneous species origin. Even judging from religious positions, the faith of millions of people in the Creator determines the need to answer the question regarding His probable existence on a scientific basis. Then the mythical and deceitful ideas used by theologians to seize the minds of believers will disappear.

The purpose of the given book is to lay the foundation for a new scientific trend in the origin of life on Earth’s study, based not on religious beliefs or the evolutionary theory, but on the basis of universal principles of the intelligent matter development, from primitive thinking to a highly developed civilization, and also to determine the focus and causality of its behaviour. In order to perceive new ideas, it is necessary to get rid of the pressure of the knowledge system imposed by education and try to look at the surrounding phenomena from a different point of view.

The book systematizes numerous well-known facts gleaned from extensive scientific and educational literature, but interpreted from the point of view of the protein life technological origin. They do not pretend to be absolutely accurate, but they provide quite another point of views on the life on Earth’s occurrence and the role of a human being in this process. The task of the book is to show that the creation of protein life is the result of the highly developed civilization’s activity in order to satisfy its energy needs.

The protein life on Earth’s occurrence vagaries and consistent patterns’ analysis is provided, which allows any reader to figure out where and in which cases one deals with random events, random probabilities and possible patterns.

The stated views are the basis for the fundamentally new trends in the scientific, technological, political and religious activities of a human being. They have the same rights to existence as well as the traditional evolutionary and religious views. If the protein world, including human beings, has been created for a specific purpose, then humanity should follow this goal and should not violate its implementation. At the end of the book, the need for the relationships reforming within the human society in accordance with biological laws and the programmed purpose of Homo sapiens as a species is being emphasized, and the possibility of the similar self-replicating structures’ creation to colonize areas unsuitable for living is substantiated.

The book is of a worldview nature and is designed for a wide range of readers of various specialties. The use of specific terms is as reduced as it has been possible. It is neither a popular nor a specialized monograph, since it examines well-known information, but from other scientific positions. Therefore, the book cannot be treated as a popular science one. The style of writing is best suited for the essay regardless of the relatively large volume.

The author has not knowingly set out factual material in accordance with the requirements of academic science while citing published sources. Thousands of various biological specialties’ researchers have already perfectly done it. Taking into consideration the fact that in most cases data provided can be found in any textbook or manual, as well as data by well-known authors, there has been no point in referring to them. At the end of the book there is a list of authors cited, whose papers are well known, and the reference to the main literature used for familiarization by interested readers is provided as well.

Chapter I
ARCHEBIOSIS ON EARTH: CRISIS OF VIEWS ON THE PROBLEM

1.1. RELIGIOUS VIEWS ON THE DIVINE CREATION OF THE WORLD

People have been asking themselves the question «How has the life on Earth originated and developed?» since ancient times, and the answer to it depended on one’s imagination, knowledge and worldview. It is believed that there are three historical types of worldview: mythological, religious and scientific-philosophical one. Historically, religion has always been an instrument for the unification of peoples around a single power, the education of humility and equanimity of power, which, the way it was justified, was given by God.

Despite the fact that basically people agreed on the existence of higher forces in nature, they were represented differently in each tribe and each people had its own understanding of them, developing myths or certain religions. The essence of the religious type of worldview is based on the divine creation of the world and the life on Earth’s occurrence. Most religions set forth common themes about the origin of the Universe and Earth from abyss, as well as the animal and vegetable world by means of a «creation» volutionary act on the part of a higher being.

Paganism when people worshiped certain gods symbolized by them in the form of idols can be considered the earliest religion. The ancient Egyptian mythology does not provide a single version of the world creation; different theories existed in different regions of the country. Ra, the Supreme Sun God, considered the main Creator of the world, was the central point to unite all the theories. According to one version of the God RA emerged from a comprehensive chaos, that is, out of nowhere. He appeared to be the father of all other gods who embodied different elements and forces. An animal or a bird represents the deity giving birth to the Sun and creating the world in many ancient Egyptian legends. There are the traces of the legend according to which the Sun was believed to be borne by the sky in the form of the golden calf; the sky was believed to be a huge cow with the stars scattered over its body.

In other legends, neither animals nor birds are the creators of the world, but gods and goddesses. In one of these legends, the sky is represented in the form of Nut, the female goddess, whose body is curved above Earth, and the fingers and toes rest on Earth. Nut gives birth to a sunny baby, who then creates gods and people. According to later ideas, the creator god Khnum modeled the whole world on a potter’s wheel and created humans and animals in the same way.

As for the Chinese mythology, it was a man who occupied the central place, not God or any other higher power, and the male and female inception, not the elements, were the main active forces. According to the oldest and most famous ancient Chinese legend, Chaos initially reigned in the world, but once upon a time, two opposite inceptions, Yin (Darkness) and Yang (Light) spontaneously appeared from Chaos; they gave birth to the sky and Earth. The first man, Pangu, appeared immediately after it. He was not an ordinary man; he was huge and lived for a very long time. And when his hour came round at last, his body gave birth to nature and people.

His breath turned into wind and clouds, his voice became thunder, his left eye became the sun, and his right one became the Moon. Earth was formed from the Pangu’s body. His arms, legs and torso turned into 4 cardinal points and 5 main mountains, and the sweat on his body turned into rain. Blood flowed through the land in rivers; muscles became the soil, hair turned into grass and trees. His teeth and bones formed simple stones and metals, while his brain formed pearls and precious stones. And the worms on his body turned into people. According to the ancient Greeks’ views, initially there was only Chaos, and the first 6 primordial gods, the ancestors of everything, appeared from it. As in the Egyptian mythology, the Greek gods also personified some forces and elements: Chronos – time, Gaia (Gaea, Ga) – Earth, Eros – Love, Tartarus – the abyss, Erebus (Erebos) – darkness Nyx – night. Later, the first primordial gods children, and then every generation of their descendants have filled the world with new and significant phenomena. Thus, the Nyx’s children introduced the world of light (God Aethir) and day (Goddess Hemera), and the children of Gaia (Gaea, Ga) became the personification of heaven (Uranus) and the sea (Pontus) and so on. There is also the known number of gods who had nothing to do with the world creation; they just governed the world and natural forces. Finally, gods gave rise to Titans who were later precipitated to the Tartarus bowels during the war.

According to the Judaism provisions, the foundations of which are set forth in the Talmud, the first day saw 10 creations: heaven and Earth, confusion and emptiness, light and darkness, spirit and water, the day and night properties.

The Christianity’s central dogma of creation is the «Creation out of Nothing» (Creatio ex Nihilo), when God, with his free will, transforms everything from a non-being state to a state of being. This faith found its first expression in the first three chapters of the first book of the Bible − the Genesis book. All people are created by two definite persons − Adam and Eve. God provided the created angels and man with freedom that was used by them for evil (Genesis 3: 1−6).

As for Catholicism, the first chapters of Genesis are not treated as a literal description of the creation process, but as an allegory. Traditional Lutherans also do not accept the first chapter of Genesis in its literary sense. Some Orthodox theologians instruct to interpret the term «day» as some very long stage of the Universe creation. Jehovah’s Witnesses also point out that the word «day» does not means a day only, but it often means an indefinite period of time. At the same time, in case of modern Protestantism fundamentalist currents and in Orthodoxy, theologians insist on a literal understanding of the first chapters of the Genesis book: the creation of the world within six days.

As for Islam, the creation of the world is described in other way than in the Bible. The Qur’an does not reject the idea of a weekly holiday, which is Friday in Islam. In Islam, contrary to the Bible, it is considered sacrilege to attribute the property of fatigue to the Almighty God, who rested on the seventh day from the work that He spent on the creation of the world. The Bible treats the Sun and the Moon as two luminaries − for controlling the day and controlling the night, the Koran distinguishes them by the use of different epithets: light (nur) – to determine the Moon and torch (siraj) – to determine the Sun.

Hinduism provides at least 3 versions of the world occurrence: from the «cosmic egg», from the «primordial heat» or from parts of the body of the original man. The Rig-Veda (Rigveda) mentions a certain cosmic intercourse.

Buddhist cosmology claims that there is an alternation of the cycles of the Universe emergence and destruction. The Buddhist religion does not have the concept of creating the world by the highest non-material being as God is. The emergence of each new Universe is due to the action of the aggregate karma of living beings of the previous world cycle. Similarly, the cause of the Universe destruction, which has ended its period of existence, is the accumulated bad karma of living beings. Each world cycle is divided into 4 stages: 1) emptiness (from the destruction of one world till the beginning of the formation of other one); 2) the world formation; 3) a stable state period; 4) the world destruction (coagulation, extinction). Each of these stages (kalp) consists of twenty periods of increase and decrease.

Buddhism provides no answer to the questions related to the beginning of world cycles, its end or infinity. The God Brahma appears to be the first creature in the new Universe, who is considered the Creator of the world in Hinduism. As for Buddhism, he is not a Creator but the first divine creature to be worshiped. As any other creatures, he is not immutable and is the subject to the karma cause and effect (consequence) law.

According to the Zoroastrianism universe concept, the world has been existing for 12 thousand years. Its entire history is conditionally divided into 4 periods; each of them lasts for 3 thousand years. The prototypes of everything later created on Earth had already existed in the first Divine Creation period. God creates the sky, planets as well as the first man and first ox during the second period. The first man gives birth to a man and a woman who generate mankind while the first ox generates all the animals. The clash of opposing elements sets the world to motion: water acquires fluidity; mountains arise, celestial bodies run.

In accordance with the Taoism concept, the Universe’s creation is the result of two main forms of energy processes’ occurrence out of nothing: Yin and Yan. Their combinations and interaction generate the «Chi» energy and everything existing in the world as the result.

Realizing the religious doctrines’ insolvency, the attempts to improve them have been made. Thus, Deism, the religious and philosophical trend, acknowledges the God’s existence and the Divine Creation, but disclaims most of supernatural and mystic phenomena, the Divine Revelation and religious dogmatism. Lord Herbert Cherbury is the founder of it. Most of deists believe that God does not interfere in the events taking place in the world after He has created it. They state that intelligence, logics and nature observation are the only means to the God and His Will’s perception. Deism seeks to harmonize science and the idea of the God’s existence, and not to oppose them. The deism followers believe that the scriptures, judging by modern standards, are quite controversial and disputable. They are just the result of a human thought, not the God’s words, and therefore it is impossible to base a worldview on their basis. Traditional religions excessively speculate on the promises of posthumous blisses and threats of hellish torment, which is the way to keep their flock, depriving it of freedom of thought and religion.

Another religious trend is Ietsisme. Its followers believe that, on the one hand, there is something between Heaven and Earth, but, on the other hand, they do not perceive and do not support the established system of beliefs, dogmas and existing explanations of the God’s nature by any particular religion.

Agnosticism doubts the truth or possibility of either proving or refuting the existence of God. According to one point of view, the term «agnostic» can also be used to describe those who believe that the question of the God’s existence can be resolved, but considers the arguments presented in favour of the God’s existence or non-existence of to be unconvincing and insufficient for the firm conclusion.

Ignosticism, or igtheism, is a point of view on theology, according to which the problem of the God’s existence is considered insoluble, since there is no evidence that the theist creature discussed by theologians and philosophers, is intelligible. Igtheists are neither atheists nor agnostics. While atheists do not believe in the God’s existence and agnostics do not know whether God exists or not, igtheists do not understand what is meant when one says that God exists.

The reference to the religions’ gods allowed everyone to answer the most complex and different questions. M. Lomonosov said it well:

«It is easy to be philosophers, having learned three words by heart: God has created in such a way, and giving these words as an answer instead of all the reasons». As for science, such answers are unacceptable. Religion based on faith rejects doubts. Faith is a simplified way to explain the surrounding world phenomena difficult to understand by God’s activity, while religion is a way to cash in on this faith.

From a scientific point of view, the hypothesis about the God’s existence (and «soul», «spirit», «heaven», «hell», concepts related to it, etc.) cannot be verified. Therefore, any speculations about the God’s existence are not scientific by their nature. While science widely uses observation in pursuit of the truth, theology perceives the truth through divine revelation and faith. In science the truth always contains the hypothesis element, preliminary character, but the divine truth is an absolute for the believer. Moreover, the generally accepted evidence of the God’s existence has not been formulated as the definition of God has never been generally accepted. For the same reason, the generally accepted evidence of the God’s non-existence cannot be formulated. However, the issue of His existence remains the subject of lively philosophical disputes and discussions.

Clinton Richard Dawkins, the author of «The God Delusion», published in 2006, argues that the likelihood of any supernatural creator is extremely low and the religious faith is an illusion. According to him, «God is not a convincing explanation, so we can only wait and hope that someone will offer something better».

1.2. SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES OF THE LIFE OCCURRENCE ON EARTH

There are a number of theories to explain the life occurrence on the planet that are difficult to prove their accuracy. A lot of these theories and their points to explain the existing species diversity exploit the same data but emphasize the data different aspects.

The assumption of spontaneous life occurrence was common in ancient China, Babylon and Egypt as an alternative to the divine creation of the world. Aristotle, on the basis of his own observations, joined all organisms in a continuous row. He stated that «Nature makes the transition from lifeless objects to animals with such a smooth sequence, placing creatures living without being animals between them so that one can hardly notice the differences between neighboring groups due to their close proximity». According to Aristotle’s hypothesis of spontaneous nucleation, certain «particles» of a substance contain a certain «active principle (source)», which can lead to the living organism’s creation. He falsely believed that source was also present in sunlight, mud, and rotting meat. With the spread of Christianity, the theory of the life’s spontaneous origin was not recognized with the spread of Christianity, but it continued its existence as an idea for many years.

According to the stationary state theory, Earth never occurred, but always existed and was always able to support life, and if it changed, the changes were very insignificant. Species also never occurred, they always existed, and each species has only two options − either its quantity change or extinction. Most of the arguments in favour of this theory are associated with inexplicable gaps in the fossil record. This theory is most precisely developed in this trend.

According to the panspermia hypothesis formulated by Herman Richter in 1865, life could have occurred one or more times at different times and in different areas of the Galaxy or the Universe. This idea was supported by G. Helmholtz, S. Arrhenius and W. Thompson were among this theory supporters.

S. Arrhenius believed that life did not occur on our planet, but was brought in by spores travelling through the outer space. After getting on a planet with suitable natural conditions, spores are transformed into cells, and cells give birth to life. S. Arrhenius having carried out calculations, in particular, proved the fundamental possibility of the bacterial spores transfer from planet to planet under the influence of the light pressure. The discovery of cosmic rays and the clarification of the radiation effect on biological objects have greatly weakened this hypothesis’s position.

Sankar Chatterjee, a professor of Texas Tech University and the University Paleontology Museum’s curator, having analyzed information about the early geological history of the planet and compared these data with various theories of chemical evolution, arrived at a conclusion that the simple life early forms occurrence on the planet would be impossible without the participation of comets and meteorites that fell on it. Organic compounds capable of the development of life’s launch were discovered in them during the study. This circumstance, to this or that degree, was taken into account by different authors of the life occurrence hypotheses. The fact of the organic substances in meteorites availability deserves special attention. According to the nuclear geochronology, their age stands for 4.6-4.5 billion years, which basically coincides with the age of Earth and the Moon. Hydrocarbons, carbohydrates, purines, pyrimidines, amino acids, i.e., chemical compounds that make up living matter constituting its base, have been found in meteorites. Also, more than a hundred different minerals have also been discovered. Furthermore, 20 minerals not presented in Earth’s crust have been found in the meteorites. Carbides, sulfides, etc. are among them. The proximity to the organic complexes composition of biological origin turned out to be so great that some authors suggested that living organisms were found directly in the very meteorites in the past. However, careful examination of organic compounds taken from meteorites has not confirmed the presence of optical activity, which indicates their abiogenous origin. At the same time, the data obtained demonstrated that the organic compounds’ formation in the Solar system on the early stages of its development was a typical and massive phenomenon. However, the outer space chemicals and most of the Solar system bodies do not have the complexity of living matter, as is observed on Earth.

Academician V.I. Vernadsky also adhered to the panspermia hypothesis. In his opinion, life in the Universe is spreading with the help light quanta. As for Earth, life could have occurred when a meteorite being a particle of other planet that disintegrated as a result of some kind of disaster hit our planet. The fragments of such a planet with bacteria or other microorganisms could go beyond the planet and get to Earth.

Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, while studying the interstellar matter properties, noted that the cosmic dust’s infrared spectra are very similar to the organic matter’s spectra, to the dry bacteria, in particular. These scientists’ observations served the basis for putting forward the idea of the microorganisms’ possible existence in the interstellar space cosmic dust’s clouds. They suggested that within the period of 4.6−3.8 billion years ago, the life occurrence on Earth was the result of the microorganisms’ ingress from outer space. According to their calculations, a large number of space spores annually enter the upper atmosphere of Earth as the remnants of solid material scattered in the solar system. According to their ideas, comets are the life embryos’ carriers that were earlier formed in the interstellar space.

Francis Crick, the Nobel Prize winner for the DNA code discovery, also suggested in his book «Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature» (1982) that life on Earth did not occur by itself, it occurred through controlled panspermia, that is, through Earth’s deliberate colonization by microorganisms delivered on unmanned spacecraft by a developed alien civilization, which may have tried to perform terraforming for future colonization.

M. Sherman, a professor of Boston University, put forward the hypothesis of the «universal genome’s» artificial occurrence in Cambria to explain the causes of the so-called Cambrian explosion in the evolution of multicellular organisms. Moreover, he insists on the possibility of his hypothesis’s scientific verification.

In favour of their views, supporters of the panspermia hypothesis provide two indirect evidences in favour of their views: the genetic code universality and the need of molybdenum availability for the normal metabolism for all living creatures, which is currently extremely rare on the planet. Supporters of the comet panspermia theory deny the life spreading from one planet to other one process’s controllability, and suggest its spontaneity and chance.

Taking into consideration the fact that the life spontaneous occurrence’s probability on Earth is extremely negligible, the panspermia hypothesis is the most real in comparison with both the evolutionary theory and religious beliefs. Its disadvantage is that it does not explain how and where the first microorganisms to come to Earth were formed; it only indicates the other place where it could have occurred, but does not explain the process and the reasons for the given occurrence.

1.3. THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

The evolution theory is highly ranked in the study of the history of the origin of life on Earth. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was the first to identify two most common trends of the life on Earth’s development: the upward development from simplest forms to more complex and advanced ones and the adaptations’ formation in organisms depending on environmental conditions (vertical and horizontal development). In his works, the scientist noted the organisms’ historical development, which is not of random but of regular nature and occurs in the direction of gradual and steady improvement. He believed that the organisms’ development is not a spontaneous process. In his opinion, «the nature’s drive for progress», «the drive for perfection» was originally inherent in all organisms and laid down in them by the Creator. He argued in his paper «Philosophy of Zoology» that subsequent generations are able to inherit acquired useful properties thus forming new species. For example, in his opinion, giraffes generated from antelopes due to the constant extension of their necks when they tried to reach the leaves on the tops of trees.

Ch. Darwin, being inspired by similar examples, continued the Lamarckian series of assumptions. In his book «The Origin of Species through Natural Selection,» he revealed the main organic world’s evolution factors. Approximately at the same time, Alfred Russel Wallace published an article entitled «On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species», in which he came up with the idea of «survival of the most adapted ones».

Ch. Darwin grounded the theory of the gradual evolution of some species into other ones under the influence of such factors as the survival of the most adapted, the struggle for existence, natural selection, and adaptability to environmental conditions.

The essence of evolutionary doctrine lies in the following main points:

1. All the living creatures’ types that inhabit Earth have never been created by anyone.

2. Having occurred in a natural way, organic forms slowly and gradually transformed and improved in accordance with the surrounding conditions.

3. The species’ transformation in nature is based on such organisms’ properties as heredity and variability, as well as natural selection constantly occurring in nature.

4. Natural selection is carried out through a complex interaction of organisms with each other and with factors of inanimate nature; Ch. Darwin called this relationship a struggle for existence.

5. The adaptability of organisms to their living conditions and the diversity of species in nature is the result of evolution.

According to the mentioned above provisions, a variety of species possessing new specific features allowing a better adaptation to the environment (habitat) can be formed within each species. If the newly acquired qualities are inherited, then genetic differences are amplified in subsequent generations due to the selection of properties that ensure the genotypes’ survival and the new mutation’s accumulation. The mentioned above variety of species adapts better to existing conditions, phenotypically moving away from the parent species. Intraspecific competition leads to the deliberate (selective) removal of the least adapted to the environment individuals and an increase in the number of individuals whose properties favour the survival and reproduction in this habitat. According to the evolutionary theory proponents, such a natural selection is the main mechanism for the new species’ occurrence. Evolution is a process of long-term and gradual qualitative changes that ultimately result in the new species’ occurrence.

According to some evolutionary theory’s advocates, the palaeontological, biogeographic, systematics, plant and animal breeding, morphological, comparative embryology and comparative biochemistry data confirm the evolutionary occurrence of species through natural selection, although they are not indisputable evidence. Three groups of facts are used to confirm the theory. The first group represents examples of species’ minor changes observed within a geologically short period of time in the wild nature, as well as the results of agricultural plants and domestic animals’ breeding. The second group is the fossil record, which indicates a significant variability of life throughout the history of Earth. The third group of evidences deals with the similarity of the morphological features of the all organisms’ structure, which may indicate their common origin. All explanations of the facts discovered are reduced to a spontaneous random process without any intellectual interference in the programming system.

Charles Darwin formulated his theory of evolution in accordance with the morphological and physiological characteristics, using the natural selection ideas, but did not determine the source of variability in the population. A synthetic theory of evolution combining the Darwinian natural selection’s idea with the laws of heredity and population genetics was developed in the middle of the last century. Currently, it is the most developed system of ideas regarding the speciation’s processes. The hypothesis of the new genes’ recessivity was the impetus for its development; according to it mutations constantly arise in each reproducing group of organisms during the gamete maturation as a result of errors in the DNA replication. Therefore, the mutation process is the most important evolutionary factor, and the bulk of evolutionary material is represented by various forms of mutations, which are manifested by means of changes in the hereditary properties of organisms that occur naturally or are caused by artificial means. After the different types of isolation’s occurrence between populations, they begin to evolve independently, and as a result, genetic differences are gradually accumulated between them, and with time genetic incompatibility is achieved, and crossing becomes impossible.

Julian Huxley, the English biologist and naturalist, indicates in his famous book «Evolution: The Modern Synthesis» (1942) that the species is a system of populations that are reproductively isolated from other species’ populations, and each species is ecologically isolated; speciation lies in the genetic isolating mechanisms’ occurrence and is carried out mainly in conditions of geographical isolation. According to the J. Huxley’s ideas, reproductive isolation is the main criterion that indicates the speciation’s completion.

According to the synthetic theory of evolution, the formation of new species occurs as a result of the separation of individuals of one species into groups that do not interbreed, and the very evolution is defined as the populations’ genetic structure change over time. The allele’s frequency changes thus becoming more or less common compared to other forms of this gene. The acting evolution forces lead to changes in the allele frequency in this or that direction. The change disappears when the new allele reaches the fixation point − it completely replaces the ancestral allele or disappears from the population. Mutations increase the population’s variability due to the emergence of new genes’ allelic variants − mutational variability. If any allele increases the organism’s adaptability more than other ones of the given gene, then the share of this allele in the population will increase with each generation, i.e., selection takes place in favour of this allele. Evolution through the natural selection is a process in which mutations increasing the organisms’ adaptability are fixed. As a result, three processes are necessary for the evolution’s implementation: mutational (to generate new variants of genes with a low phenotypic expression); recombination (to create new phenotypes of individuals), and selection (to determine the compliance of these phenotypes with the given living conditions or growth).

Judging by the palaeontological chronical and by the mutations’ speed indexes, this concept advocates believe that it takes in average 3 million years to reach the complete incompatibility of genomes, which makes crossing impossible. Therefore, it is a rear event to witness the new specie’s formation in natural environment.

In addition to mutational, there is also the combinatorial variability distinguished, which is determined by recombination, but it leads not to the allele frequencies’ changes but to their new combinations.

The gene drift is one more factor contributing to the allele frequencies’ changes.

The synthetic theory of evolution differs from the Ch. Darwin’s evolution in the following points:

1. It distinguishes a population in which the same species individuals are able to interbreed, and but not an individual or a separate species.

2. It considers a steady change in the population genotype’s change the process of evolution.

3. Mutational processes and isolation are treated as the leading factors.

4. The mutational and recombinative variability are the material for evolution.

5. Natural selection is considered as the main reason for the adaptations and speciation’s development.

In accordance with the synthetic theory of evolution speciation is a time-consuming process. However, J. B. S. Haldane found a discrepancy between the real speciation speed and the expected one based on the population genetics models (Haldane’s dilemma) by means of mathematical calculations. He published an article «Cost of Natural Selection» on the basis of his research in the «Journal of Genetics» scientific edition. D. Haldane calculated the mathematical relationship between the intensity of selection and rate of the existing alleles’ substitution in the population by other, more adapted ones. He also evaluated the mortality rate caused by the positive natural selection, while maintaining the mutant gene. According to his calculations, the speciation would have taken much more time for the stage-to-stage formation than it has actually taken (according to the paleontological data) for the implementation of speciation would require much more time than is actually observed (according to palaeontological data).

Later, M. Kimura, while studying the rate of amino acid substitutions in proteins, found that for mammals the substitution rate for the genome per generation was several hundred times higher than the Haldane’s estimation. Kimura showed that in order to maintain a constant population size while preserving mutational substitutions, the rate of occurrence of which stands to one substitution in two years, each parent should produce 3.27 106 descendants so that one of them survives and begins to breed. The mismatch of this impressive number with real data served as the basis for the «Neutral Molecular Evolution Theory» development.

Another argument in favour of this theory’s development was the fact that the assumption regarding more frequent occurrence of favourable mutations (in reality, such mutations are rather rare compared to the adverse ones) was necessary in order to explain the molecular evolution rate provided it proceeds under the natural selection influence.

The «neutral evolution» hypothesis’ main content lies in the point that majority of the changes at the macromolecular level are not controlled by natural selection as Darwin’s theory states, but are determined by the random drift of neutral mutations. According to the authors, this theory is proved by a number of direct and indirect arguments. At the same time, the neutral molecular evolution theory does not turn down the role of natural selection in the development of life on Earth, but emphasizes the proportion of mutations that possess adaptive significance. This theory has demonstrated that the processes associated with speciation are still far from a final explanation based on population-genetic models.

Modern synthetic theory of evolution has a number of disadvantages. It makes no distinction between macroevolution and microevolution, considering one the continuation of other one on a larger scale. Such view’s advocates have detected genetic changes from the population’s original composition from generation to generation, in various laboratory scientific experiments, including the model organisms’ development (drosophila, mice, and bacteria). It gave the grounds to assume that both microevolution and macroevolution are based on the same mechanisms and, in their view, minor changes can lead to significant ones over time, but the authors provide no evidences to prove it. Experts have no doubts regarding the microevolutionary processes within the species, for example, the hair colour or skin colour change, the beak shape, etc., due to which many types of breeds and sorts can exist within the same species. However, microevolution is determined by the alleles frequency’s change in a population (i.e. genetic variability due to such processes as selection, mutation, genetic drift), while the macroevolution involves changes at the species level or higher.

Fred Hoyle argued in his books «The Intelligent Universe» (1983), «Mathematics of Evolution», «Evolution from Space» (1981) and «Why Neo Darwinism Does Not Work» (1982), that the calculation results state that the Neo-Darwinism theory either does not work at all, or works only partially. Many of the common arguments that biologists use to confirm evolutionary theory turn out to be doubtful.

Academician Yu. P. Altukhov (Алтухов Юрий Петрович), a Director of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of General Genetics named after N. I. Vavilov, the «Successes of Modern Biology» journal editor-in-chief, points out in his book «Genetic Processes in Populations» (2003) criticizing the synthetic theory of evolution:

«In any case, it is becoming more and more obvious that evolutionary consequences are not necessarily concluded from the results of a study of both natural and experimental populations with their systemic organization taken into account. On the contrary, it confirms once again that the genetic variability of the simplest populations, traditionally regarded as the evolutionary process’s elementary units, is nothing but a stabilization mechanism for the species’ hierarchical, historically formed structure. Such a conclusion contrasts with the population genetics’ tradition, which has always been focused on the dynamics of populations, identifying it with the very evolutionary process».

However, the synthetic theory of evolution still remains the only scientific model to explain the known facts of the species’ origin and development. At the same time, the contradictions accumulated require the development of other theoretical concept of the of life occurrence on Earth.

1.4. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION’S DISPUTABLE ISSUES

Many scientific researchers have been focused on the evolution doctrine’s problems, but it is absolutely clear that the unity of opinion regarding all its provisions has not been achieved yet. A rather general descriptive definition of the term «evolution» is the only aspect that arises no discussions. Many of the evolutionary theory critics drew attention to the low, in their opinion, probability of certain facts and events in the living beings’ development.

Among the number of the Darwinism critics appeared immediately after its appearance, the Russian philosopher N. Ya. Danilevsky is worth paying special attention, who carefully analyzed all the papers by Charles Darwin, as well as the critical papers related to them and introduced his own views on evolution. In his three-volume work, «Darwinism. A Critical Study» (1885), containing almost 1,500 pages, he comprehensively criticized Darwin’s doctrine. He wrote the following: «On the one hand, it is impossible for a mass of accidents not related to each other, to produce order, harmony, and surprising expediency; on the other hand, a talented scientist, having all the data of science and extensive personal experience in hand, shows you in a clear and obvious way how simple, however, it can be done. Only after a long study and even longer consideration I saw the fi st way out of this dilemma, and it was a great joy for me. Then a lot of such exits had been opened so that the entire theory building was riddled with, and fi ally fell apart in my eyes into an incoherent pile of garbage».

Much of written by N. Ya. Danilevsky still remains valid nowadays. In his papers, he provides 15 main incorrect conclusions formulated by Ch. Darwin and 10 logical errors that had led to them. Thus, Ch. Darwin did not indicate any single breed that could have arisen through the minor individual changes’ gradual accumulation, and greatly exaggerated the role of artificial selection in the formation of the plants’ arable forms and cultured animals, and also ignored large spasmodic changes, as this made his theory useless and ruined the natural explanation of organic expediency. He considered it inappropriate to extend the conclusions drawn from the domestic animals and arable plants’ observations to organisms living in natural conditions. Despite the domestic animals’ high degree variability obtained through the artificial selection, it does not go beyond the species. The role of the very artificial selection is greatly exaggerated. Selection is valid only within the species. It is impossible to cross the border between species, and if selection is stopped, the species returns to its original wild form. The thesis regarding treating varieties as «beginning species» is based on facts that cannot lead to such conclusions.

N. Ya. Danilevsky pointed out that free crossbreeding in natural conditions leads to the fact that all individual differences cannot be accumulated and are constantly destroyed. In his opinion, the vitality of an organism in vase of the environmental conditions change depends on the simultaneous change in a large complex of features, and any single change will be harmful, as it disrupts the existing relationships. If the trait turned out to be useful, it should be called not an individual variability, but a significant change in the entire population, i.e., the change should affect the majority of the population at once. Recognition of the changes’ simultaneity equals the recognition of the principle of the development appropriateness by Baer (Karl Ernst Ritter von Baer Edler von Huthorn).

The critical paper author stated that the struggle for existence does not possess selective properties, which means that natural selection will not work. It is confirmed by the absence of transitional forms between both living species and fossil forms.

N. Ya. Danilevsky believed that the numerous facts that species have useless traits for them despite the fact that they are useful for other species contradict the selection theory. Such «useless» signs often include the most significant ones which serve the basis for the taxonomy from genus to type is built. Ch. Darwin, constructing hypothetical examples of the trait advantage’s increase from generation to generation, relied on the usefulness of new traits, taking them in ready-made form presented in the formed species because of the lack of real transitions.

N. Ya. Danilevsky stated in his scientifi papers that development is performed in accordance with the law that while its implementation makes expediency turn out to be a form of some inner plan. The types’ transformations are conceivable only in case of recognition of the internal law of development (every living organism possesses it). It is absurd to think that chance and probability could substitute mind and intelligence. The issue of expediency in nature has a much more important and profound philosophical meaning. In addition, natural selection provides a constant adaptation of species to a changing environment, but the process does not have the gift of foreknowledge; the natural selection responds only to the environment in the present and therefore, evolution cannot have any goals.

The evolutionary theory supporters believe that it is confirmed by the fossil evidence (fossils), the age of which approximately stands for 3.5 billion years. They show a story of the diversity’s gradual complication and expansion, which has led to a great diversity of life forms that inhabit Earth today. There are now doubts that there is a strict order in the geological strata, and the typical fossils are detected in various layers. Sedimentary rocks typically occur in layers, so the deeper layers contain fossils formed at an earlier period. The evolutionary theory’s supporters draw their conclusions about the main directions of the living organisms’ evolution while comparing fossil forms of the successive layers. When the evolutionary theory became the scientific Orthodoxy (dogma), any fossils found by paleontologists, were a priori adjusted to the generally accepted points. Their interpretation in any other way was treated as unscientific one.

However, these were the data accumulated in paleontology that hit the evolutionary theory. While examining the remains and layers of Earth’s crust, one can be sure that many organisms appeared on Earth all of a sudden. For example, remains were found in the Cambrian layer that belonged to such complex invertebrates as snails, Trilobite, sponges, worms, Aurelia aurita, starfish, floating crustaceans and sea lilies. An interesting fact is that all these species, different from each other, appeared at the same time and had a complex structure. Therefore, this amazing phenomenon was called the «Cambrian explosion» in Geology.

According to the concept by Ch. Darwin, there had been minor changes for a long time that being «accumulated», gradually led to the evolution of simple species into more complex ones. Judging from such an assumption, paleontological excavations eventually should have detected transitional forms from one species to other. Their number should have been huge and should have demonstrated how various species, classes, orders and families had been evolving. However, Cambrian rocks lack transitional forms from primitive organisms to organisms with a complex perfect structure. In geological deposits, it is not the stepwise appearance of new species, genera, and families in the process of evolution that is observed, but their sudden occurrence. They are not preceded by any transitional forms. For example, there are no traces of ciliary worms, the class of which unites more than 3,500 species.

The living organisms found in the Cambrian layer possess such developed and complex physiological systems as the eyes, gills, and circulatory system, which do not differ much from modern ones. These complex invertebrates are by no means associated with unicellular, which were the only living organisms preceding them. The trilobite has complex eyes (consisting of hundreds of hexagonal fragments) that have a two-lens system and, as David Raup, professor of geology, said, «Have a design that can be developed by a well-educated and gifted contemporary optical engineer». Moreover, such organized and complex animals have nothing to do with the simplest unicellular organisms that were the only living inhabitants of Earth prior to invertebrates. This fact clearly refutes the evolutionary theory point that living organisms evolved from primitive into complex ones. It should be noted that nowadays dragonflies and bees have the similar system of the trilobite eyes’ structure.

The Mesozoic era also impresses one by the sudden transition of reptiles to the mammals period, many of which are already significantly different from each other despite the fact that they appeared within the same geological period.

The alleged transitional forms were found only for the phylogenetic series from Hyperion to modern horse. The archaeopteryx’s discovered remnants, according to some experts, can be considered an intermediate form between reptiles and birds with significant part of a hypothesis. The fossils’ state indicates that Archaeopteryx had feathers, wings and a beak, like a bird. However, this fossil representative had signs that gave palaeontologists the grounds to suggest its affinity for reptiles − teeth on its beak and claws on its wings. None of these two features confirms that Archaeopteryx evolved from reptiles. In addition, according to radiometric dating, Archaeopteryx cannot be considered the missing link between reptiles and birds.

Nowadays it has become apparent to many palaeontologists that the fossils do not contain any alleged transitional forms at all. No transitional links’ sequential series, as well as individual random transitional forms, have ever been found among the minerals. At the same time, long periods of the same organisms’ stable existence within a relatively short time gave way to the new species’ rapid formation; they appeared completely formed in the fossil record. Despite the lack of continuity in the fossil record, which is strong evidence to oppose the theory of the new species’ formation through gradual evolutionary changes, fossil evidences do confirm the progressive increase in the organisms’ complexity.

The evolutionary theory supporters, in an attempt to explain the lack of transitional forms in the geological record, put forward the «discontinuous equilibrium» (punctuality) hypothesis, according to which evolution is carried out at an uneven rate with long periods of stability, with rapid qualitative leaps alternating the stability period that occur in small populations of organisms. Due to this, some new species arise very quickly, and the intermediate links are practically not found in the geological record because of their minor quantity.

These evolutionary sequence «leaps» originated the term «spasmodic evolution».

The evolutionary theory supporters believe that the paleontological data’ incompleteness can be explained by the fact that dead organisms were quick to decompose or were eaten by carrion-feeding animals. But then a natural question arises: why did this happen to transitional forms and did not affect existing species?

Charles Darwin and Louis Dollo formulated the «law of irreversibility of evolution,» according to which species cannot return to the state of their ancestors. At the same time, the examination of the fossilized remains of the Gastrotheca guentheri species frogs stated that they lost their lower teeth 230 million years ago, but the teeth reappeared about 20 million years ago. Thus, this does not fit the proposed concept.

Cases of the useful genes’ loss are also inconsistent with the evolutionary theory. Such a phenomenon was found among the stick insects’ winged species evolved from the wingless ones, which, in turn, had ancestors with wings. This case of the complex trait loss and its subsequent restoration in the evolutionary development may indicate that in this case the genetic information is regulated not by living conditions and selection, but by purposeful and thought-out changes. The giant forms of almost all types of contemporary living creatures have been discovered among the fossils. Mammals were often twice the size of their modern representatives: turtles, bears, camels, panthers, pigs, rhinos, elephants, tigers, wolves, birds and insects. The very fact of such giant fossils’ existence contradicts the evolutionary theory according to which animals evolve into more complex forms with an increase in their size.

It is also difficult to explain from the point of view of the evolutionary theory why the mental abilities improvement was accompanied by the loss of the ability to regenerate organs, the ability to detect radiation and earthquakes, as well as many other useful properties that could be improved along with the development of thinking. But that did not happen. If regeneration is the result of evolution, then why the ability to regenerate organs has been lost? It seems to be a necessary process that contributes to the preservation of the species. The inexplicable appearance of organs with a complex structure, such as eyes is one more weak point of the evolutionary theory. Ch. Darwin stated that the sensitive to light organs which even the simplest creatures possess, can be improved, beginning with simple pigment spots up to the facet eyes of insects or the human eye’s complex high-precision visual system. This assumption does not provide a description of each intermediate stage formation and why each of the stages, taken separately, is useful for the survival of the body. It is also fundamentally impossible to explain the emergence of such complex organs as the liver or brain, or complex behavioral programs such as bee dancing − since these objects and phenomena favour survival only when they are fully «packed» and individual minor changes do not lead to any evolutionary advantage and therefore could not gain a foothold.

The supposed evolutionary transition of living beings from water to land is also doubtful. There are a number of facts to testify the impossibility of such a process. Organisms that lived in water and subsequently left it, should have had developed muscles and skeleton capable of withstanding the weight of the body as well as providing energy for movement. A major part of terrestrial creatures consume up to 40

% of energy on the transfer of their bodies. In addition, it is pointless to try to explain the complex of organs and internal secretion substances involved in this process by random mutations. Besides, aquatic and terrestrial inhabitants have different temperature regimes. The temperature conditions are unstable and fluctuate on land, whereas the temperature of the habitat is changing slowly and insignificantly in water. Earth creatures have the developed metabolism system, due to which a relatively constant body temperature is preserved, regardless of the ambient temperature changes. Thus, aquatic animals are equipped with physiological mechanisms that are designed for life in conditions of constant temperature, and for transition to dry land they had to transform the body quickly, by means of the protective means of body temperature regulation’s use with the environment state taken into account. It is doubtful that random mutations could lead to such serious and highly organized changes. Therefore, there is every reason to believe that land animals were created on the basis of aquatic organisms by creating special systems for existence in the atmospheric environment. For example, aquatic animals are capable of filtering and excreting excess chemicals, particularly ammonia, while land representatives use a well-developed system of kidneys, excreting toxins in the urine consuming as little liquid as possible of the for cleaning the body.

If, according to the evolutionary theory, species had been evolving and adapting to the environment for millions of years, the question arises: why the humoral regulation of living organisms which have been living in the atmospheric environment for millions of years has neither reduced nor modified? The existing system of humoral regulation, provided by the system of blood vessels and heart, is adapted to the aquatic environment and is imperfect and vulnerable in the atmospheric one. At the same time, despite the new species’ occurrence on land, the principle of regulation has not been changed. If evolutionary processes can contribute to significant changes in the living organisms’ properties, adapting them to the conditions of the environment, why not a single species capable of existing in the atmospheric environment regardless of the water supply has ever occurred within millions of years? Why has the water dependency not disappeared? The humoral regulation of the body should have disappeared and been replaced by other regulation system more adapted to the atmospheric environment when animals moved to land. However, this did not happen on land and functional system has not been changed.

If animals, including humans, have been existing on the surface of Earth for a huge period of time, why are many physiological biorhythms adapted to the lunar rhythms that most aquatic animals follow?

Dolphins are known to communicate in the infrasonic range. If for them, the aquatic animals, it is understandable, it becomes rather incomprehensible why elephants living on land communicate in the same range? It contradicts the evolutionary views of natural selection. The development of moral qualities inherent to a human also contradicts the evolutionary worldviews. If a human has descended from a wild ancestor, then the one who survives within the natural selection should not have such categories as conscience and morality as they should have disappeared in the process of evolution. A conscientious human would not have a chance to survive. Meanwhile, this concept remains in humans, although not yet sufficiently fixed as an echo of the animal state. A human has the opportunity of daily choice between good and evil, and society analyzes his choice and assesses this choice on the basis of moral considerations formed on the grounds of mind, but not evolutionary principles. According to Kant, this is proof of the Creator’s existence.

Fred Hoyle questioned many of the arguments used by biologists to support the evolutionary theory. In his books «Evolution from Space» (1981), «Why Neo Darwinism Does Not Work» (1982), «The Intelligent Universe» (1983) and «Mathematics of Evolution» (1999) he provided a profound analysis of the quantitative aspect of the biological evolutionary theory and came to the conclusion that its speed is too slow for the life improvement within several billions of years. The calculations results allowed him to conclude that the probability of the life formation from the inanimate matter is one out of the number with 40 thousand zeros (Nature, 1981, 294, No. 5837, 48). F. Hoyle with meticulous accuracy calculated that the level of complexity of a simple living cell is comparable to the number of parts of an airliner. In the book «The Intelligent Universe» (1983), he compared the spontaneous occurrence of life with the possibility of the Boeing 747’s appearance after a hurricane over a dump. At the same time, the chances are not less than the chance to assemble a simple living organism from the separate chemical «bricks».

A similar idea was expressed by Edwin Conklin, a zoologist and a Princeton University professor, specialist in the field of the evolutionary theory. In his opinion, the assumption of the life occurrence through a chance can be compared with the assumption that a fledged dictionary is the result of an explosion in the printing house. Only by means of the common sense’s rejection can the Universe be considered as a product of pure chance.

According to the dogmatic nature of its ideas, the evolutionary theory is not inferior to the religious worldview, as both points of view are based on the belief of their views truth. Both worldviews require belief in their own rightness and categorically reject evidences that go beyond the concepts of these views. The scientific community does not recognize the validity of the arguments provided referring to the fact that critics misinterpret the scientific evolutionary theory’s concept. Therefore, critics of evolutionism believe that Darwinism has turned into a kind of religion which preaches faith under the guise of science. The phrase «God has arranged it» or «This has happened through evolution» can serve the answer to any question. Leonard Matthews, the British zoologist, admitted in the preface to the edition of the Charles Darwin’s book «The Origin of Species» (1971): «Thus, a belief in the evolutionary theory is completely analogous to the belief in a special (premeditated) creation. Faith cannot be denied, unlike scientific views. Proponents of both theories consider only their own one to be true, but the truth of any of them has not yet been proven.

The evolutionary ideas contain too many contradictions for a single scientific theory and they are the ones people try not to notice or discuss. Today it is the only fundamental theory in biology that can explain the life’s development and diversity. Often, when a scientific theory gains fame, it hinders the critical understanding of scientific facts contradicting it. No one can decide to abandon it, since there is no alternative to it. At the same time, the data accumulated up to now demonstrate the existence of a complex process of the organisms’ complexity progressive increase, which can be interpreted on the basis of other concepts.

1.5. SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM

Pope Pius XII, the head of the Catholic Church, in his report «Evidence of the Existence of God in the Light of Modern Science», delivered at a meeting of the Vatican Academy of Sciences on September 28, 1951, stated the following: «The creation of the world in time, and therefore the Creator of the World, and therefore, God is the word that we demand from science and which the contemporary generation (churchmen) expects from it». According to him, «true scientists» are only those who scientifi ally substantiate and prove «the infi te harmony of the Almighty God». The creationism (creatio − creation) is such a trend in the natural sciences, which explains the origin of the world through an act of the supernatural creation and denies evolution. His supporters claim that scientifi evidence of the biblical creation act and biblical history can be obtained. Henry Morris who is de facto considered the founder of the modern «scientifi creationism» (Creation Science), established the Creation Research Institute, which has become the main center of this trend.

A religious worldview advocates argue that if matter is eternal, then God granted it the ability to move and change. Life occurred as a result of a supernatural event in the past.

Creationists of the past centuries, describing various animals and plants’ species, assumed that the species are unchanged, and the number of existing species equals the number of originally created ones by God with the exception of the deleted species. From the point of view of creationism, no accidental genes recombination could produce such a huge number of the living creatures’ species, each of which is so well adapted to its environment. The evolutionary theory’s opponents put forward a hypothesis according to which representatives of each originally created genera were created with a set of certain characteristics and the potential for a limited number of changes.

The creationism supporters also claim that conditions on the ancient Earth ruled out the possibility of abiogenesis (spontaneous generation). In particular, the absence of oxygen and its recovery nature in the early atmosphere is denied.

According to the «Flood Geology» supporters, representatives of all taxa occur «fully formed» in the fossil record, which refutes evolution. Moreover, the occurrence of fossils in stratigraphic layers reflects not the sequence of flora and fauna that had been succeeding each other for many millions of years, but the sequence of ecosystems tied to different geographical depths and heights. The extremely slow speeds of geological processes such as erosion, sedimentation and mountain building cannot ensure the preservation of fossils, as well as the intersection of several layers of sedimentary rocks with some fossils (usually tree trunks).

The scientific creationism’s advocates believe that if one analyzes any process of change that possesses the global nature, one will find out that almost all such calculations will indicate the much younger age of Earth than is necessary for the life and man’s occurrence through evolutionary processes. Usually, young-Earth creationists consider this age to be approximately 6 or 7.5 thousand years. The old-Earth creationists on the contrary acknowledge modern scientific estimations of the age of Earth − 4.6 billion years and the Universe – 13.7 billion years.

Creationists claim that certain evidences do not provide reliable information about the past. Radiocarbon analysis, which is based on a comparison of the stable carbon isotopes’ content in the materials with the amount of the 14C radioactive isotope, is the most often criticized one. In their opinion, radioisotope dating methods based on some isotopes half-life’s constancy may be inaccurate and provide unreliable results. However, independent methods have confirmed the radioisotope method’s accuracy, and some of these provisions have been defined more precisely during the method’s development. In addition to the carbon isotopes, there are a number of other isotopic elements that refine and correct the analysis results.

On the contrary to the modern synthetic evolutionary theory’s advocates who make no differentiation between macroevolution and microevolution, considering one of them the continuation of the other, creationists claim that microevolution and super macroevolution are different. According to creationists, experimental evolution study used microorganisms and the data obtained cannot be transferred to more highly developed organisms. Such processes indicate the microevolution only, and thus, cannot be extended to macroevolution. The creationists do not deny the existence of microevolution, and it can easily be confirmed: its existence is indisputable on the example of the dog breeds’ variety of.

Creationists have established museums in four countries of the world: 21 museums in the USA, 5 museums in Canada, one in the UK and one in Turkey. «The Creation Testimony Museum» was established by Carl Baugh in Texas. In the American city of Cincinnati, there is one larger museum of creationism, in which a special section is dedicated to the Flood, Noah’s Ark and the substantiation of the idea that the world was created no more than 10 thousand years ago. Creationism does not provide a satisfactory answer to the question about the causes of the very Creator or the Supreme Being’s occurrence and existence, postulating its eternity. In addition, the question arises: if the world has been created by God, then where has God himself come from? One has to assume that there is a creator for the very God («Who created God?»). This disputes the claim that God is the first cause of everything («chicken-and-egg problem»).

According to Karl Popper’s criterion of scientific character, creationism is not a scientific theory; it is a metaphysical concept and religious faith, since the introduction of concepts untestable by scientific methods (such as the Creator God) does not meet the principles of verifiability / falsifiability.

In 2011, 42 Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry, Physics, and Medicine wrote an open letter supporting the repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act, which actually allowed the school to teach creationist views instead of scientific ones. Creationists in Kansas demanded the evolutionary theory’s teaching in schools because of its controversial nature. In their view, students should be taught alternative points of view in secondary schools. Such a proposal was supported by the then US President George W. Bush. It served as the basis for the «Teach the Controversy» campaign, launched by the «Discovery Institute» public organization. The purpose of this campaign was to popularize the «Intelligent Design» doctrine. However, the US academic circles and judicial bodies rejected these arguments.

On October 4, 2007, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued a resolution titled «The Danger of Creationism in Education», which stated that «creationism in all its forms, such as «intelligent design» or «higher intelligence», is not a scientific discipline and is not subject to scientific study in European schools along with the theory of evolution or even instead of it». By this resolution, MPs called on the governments of 47 Council of Europe member states to «strongly oppose» the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline.

1.6. INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY

The earliest logical arguments for intelligent design’s substantiation were laid out as far back as 1806 by William Paley in the book «Natural Theology». The author proposed a «watchmaker concept,» which is called «argument from design». It is grounded on the following example: imagine that we have found a watch in a field. It would never occur to anyone to speculate that this watch had occurred itself as a result of a chain of random interactions of molecules. It is quite evident that the watch occurred as a result of the intelligent design, with a watchmaker as the author of it. The Universe and biological systems are much more complicated than watches. Paley argued that life obviously could not have existed if it had not been created by a «watchmaker» with an immeasurably more powerful mind than that of simple watches’ creator. The popularity of this analogy has prompted Clinton Richard Dawkins, an American biologist and distinguished Darwinist popularizer, to continue arguing with Paley in his book «The Blind Watchmaker». He showed that the blind process of evolution acts as the «creator» of complex organisms observed by people. Dawkins’s position is that natural selection fully explains the apparent practicality and complexity of biological diversity, and even if we draw an analogy with a watchmaker, we mean a soulless, unreasonable and blind watchmaker. In his opinion, the human genom «contains a huge amount of «garbage», idle and even deadly genes, such as, for example, oncogenes. Only a blind watchmaker but not a «wise» creator could create all this. «Dawkins turned out to be wrong, as the important function of this «garbage» has been defined.

In addition, Dawkins’s findings in favour of evolution were criticized by Jonathan Sarfatti in his book «The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution» (2010).

Stanislav Lem in his paper «Are We Alone in the Universe?» (Czy jestesmy sami w kosmosie? Nurt. Poznan, 1977, №. 5) noted that «The action of the forces of nature can explain, for example, the occurrence of a star, amoeba or thunderstorm can be explained by the nature forces actions, but not the occurrence of a watch. The watch would not arise «itself» if we had been waiting for this for billions of years.

«The Intelligent Design» movement and theory’s modern founders are William Dembski, the American mathematician and philosopher, and Michael Behe, the American biochemist, Professor of the University of Pennsylvania at Lehigh and a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. They treat their views as a scientific theory, according to which certain features of the Universe and life are best explained by an intelligent first cause and could not occur as a result of natural processes without conscious control.

William Dembski, the mathematician, philosopher and theologian, developed the notion of «specified complexity». In his opinion, if an object possesses a certain level of complexity, it is possible to prove its creation by the intelligent creator, as it could not occur due to the natural processes. For example, a letter of the alphabet makes sense, but does not have complexity; a sentence composed of a random set of letters has complexity, but does not make sense, while Shakespeare’s sonnet is both complex and definite. The same principle, in his opinion, is applicable to biological objects, especially to the DNA sequences. W. Dembski believes that systems with the too low natural occurrence’s probability belong to a «certain complexity». The point of view of W. Dembski regarding the relationship between the «Intelligent Design» theory and Christianity is the contradictory one. He argued that «Intelligent Design» does not stand for God, but may be of a cosmic origin: «It could be space aliens. There are many possibilities. «One of his books is entitled «The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World» (2009). At the same time, in a number of cases, he defined the idea as the Christian God’s plan and associated it with the Christian materialistic replacement. W. Dembski entitled one of his books as «Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science amp; Theology» (1999). In my opinion, the «Intelligent Design» ideas cannot be associated with the religious ideas about God, which are preached by creationists and modern theologians. If the «Intelligent Design» advocates the idea of God, they contribute to the Christianity’s false and harmful ideas. The creation of the surrounding world has deeper roots than bizarre religious ideas about God, his son and the Holy Spirit and all saints.

Michael Behe, in his book «Darwin’s Black Box» (1996), with the subtitle «Biochemical Challenge for the Evolutionary Theory,» claims that the modern biochemical science’s findings are incompatible with both Darwin’s evolutionary theory and its more modern modifications often referred to as Neo-Darwinism. The book contains numerous scientific facts, which, according to the author, provide evidence of the spontaneous life occurrence’s impossibility.

M. Behe introduced the «Irreducible complexity» term which means that a single system, composed of several well suited to each other parts provides its main function. Elimination of one of the parts leads to the function’s failure. Natural selection could not have created irreducible complex systems, since they function only if all the components are available. According to M. Behe, such systems are the colon bacillus (Escherichia coli) bacterial flagella, the blood coagulation cascade, eyelashes, and the acquired immunity system. He provides several examples of complexity that cannot be simplified. For example, the absence of at least one of the many proteins involved in the blood coagulation mechanism will lead either to inability to coagulate and bleeding, or to complete coagulation of the entire blood mass in the body and to death, on the contrary. This complexity presumably means a very low probability of an accidental occurrence of such a system as a result of uncontrolled chaotic chemical interactions between its components.

The eye also cannot be simpler, since the absence of any part will lead to a disruption of its functioning. The creation of such a system should be planned and programmed by a highly developed intelligence. On this occasion, Isaac Newton, the great physicist, said the following: «Was the eye created without understanding optics, and the ear − without the knowledge of acoustics»?

In another example, having listed the bacterial flagellum numerous components, M. Behe demonstrated that such a system was too complicated to develop from a simpler predecessor, and Darwin’s evolution could not lead to the occurrence of such an uncomplicated complexity. The flagellum is designed specifically as a means of bacteria transportation and is composed of many interacting parts. In the absence of any of its components, functioning becomes impossible in case of any of its components’ absence.

M. Behe argues that the «irreducible complexity systems» existing in the body cannot be formed by means of the sequentially added elements, since the each element’s useful function is launched only when it is integrated into a complete system. But in such a case, organisms are the product of rational consciousness; that is, created in accordance to the plan. If the morphological evolution of animals can still be somehow imagined, then molecular one is difficult to imagine. The key point of M. Behe’s argumentation is that in no scientific source provides one with the detailed, testable scenarios of how incredibly complex biochemical systems could be formed under the influence of the evolutionary processes. In his opinion, the more complicated the system, the less its spontaneous occurrence likely.

M. Behe states that the alleged irreducible complexity could not be the result of an evolutionary process and therefore it can only be explained through the intelligent design. He does not deny microevolution based on Darwinian mechanisms that adapt the species to specific environmental conditions, but these mechanisms are not able to carry out structural changes in the body and generate the «inexcusable complexity» systems. As a result of the calculations, the scientist was able to establish extremely low values of the complex organic molecules’ spontaneous nucleation probability by means of calculations performed. Opponents of M. Behe believe that this value is explained by the extreme scarcity of information regarding the conditions under which chemical reactions can take place leading to the occurrence of such molecules. Therefore, this number cannot be considered as seriously justified one.

The irreducible complexity concept’s critics believe that in the course of evolution something which was just beneficial at first, may later, with the change of other parts, become necessary. Moreover, various parts of the system can spontaneously change, acquire other functions, or, having lost their functions, be removed from the system. For example, scaffolding supporting the «irreducible complex building» is necessary until the building can stand on its own. There are also the evidences provided that the bacterial flagellum has a precursor possessing proteins that are homologous to ones found in the bacterial flagellum. It should be noted that there should have been someone to create scaffolding and the flagellum predecessor. Nothing comes out of nowhere.

M. Behe’s doctrine opponents suggested that some parts could be temporarily borrowed from other organisms and simpler molecular systems. However, Scott Minik, who has been studying flagellar bacteria for 20 years, refuted this assumption having proved that 30 out of 40 parts that constitute the bacterial flagellum are unique and could not have been borrowed from any other system. Even if such parts had been found, borrowing would have been just a part of the problem, since its functioning requires not only specific details, but the exact assembly sequence as well.

Kenneth Miller, a biologist from Brown University, demonstrated a computer animation of the flagellum’s performance. He began to disassemble the «mechanism», removing dozens of parts from it, not one at a time. In the end, he removed a significant portion of the complex system, but the remaining parts continued functioning. It is believed that these data have refuted the main argument of M. Behe regarding the indivisible complexity. However, I have a question: can a computer animation, in which the movement of each flagellum part is programmed, correspond to the living organism’s functional characteristics?

Mark Perakh, a professor of Mathematics and Statistics of California State University, Fullerton, in his critical article «Intelligent Design or Blind Accident? «A clash of Two Worldviews» expressed the opinion that many biochemical systems described by M. Behe are characterized by excessive complexity. If so, it can be explained either by the result of the chaotic uncontrolled events’ sequence, or by the irrational design. In the absence of evidence that the complexity of the system is irredundant, this complexity is more likely to indicate a blind incident than the rational design. However, I believe that M. Perakh is also wrong in this aspect. It is not the excessive complexity that is observed, but the minimal complexity capable of the function’s provision.

Many biochemical systems described by M. Behe are not characterized by excessive complexity; they are the rational complexity necessary to perform certain complex functions. These difficulties are not excessive, but rational.

Rukhlenko I. A. (Рухленко Илья Александрович) (Dean of the faculty of ecology of Volzhsky University named after V. N. Tatishchev) in his two-volume book «What is the Answer to the Darwinist?» gives practical advice to people who have skepticism towards the modern theory of evolution, but are engaged in verbal disputes with sticklers for Darwinism. The author explains in detail that they should respond, if they refer to the following:

1) Palaeontological; 2) molecular genetic; 3) comparative anatomical; 4) embryological; 5) bio-geographical «evidences of evolution». Especially considered in detail the examples of observed evolution, based on the empirical void. They are unacceptably few and most of them are not examples of evolution. In addition to the of «evidences of evolution» criticism, the book covers a large number of facts related to different areas of biology that contradict the concept of natural evolution, and explains them by means of the Intelligent design’s different theories. The analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the Intelligent design’s theory compared to the theory of natural evolution is provided. The conclusion is that it is the concept of continuous creation that successfully explains most of the biological facts today.

The «Intelligent Design» movement’s leading representatives, working for the «Discovery Institute» non-profitable public organization, consider it as a scientific theory, according to which certain features of the Universe and life are best explained by an intelligent first cause and could not occur as a result of natural processes without conscious control. Intelligent design argues that there are enough evidences in nature that life and nature are the result of a thoroughly thought-out design plan. Nature can be treated more as a result of preliminary planning, but not as a simple adaptation’s consequence.

Books dedicated to the Intelligent Design «The Signature in the Cell», «Darwin’s Doubt» (S. Meyer), «Undeniable» (D. Ax) and «Darwin on Trial» (Ph. E. Johnson) are published in significant circulations and are sold well. However, works dedicated to this problem are not accepted by the peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. The «Intelligent Design» concept does not find recognition as a scientific theory and is considered as pseudoscience in the vast majority of American scientific organizations.

The «Intelligent Design» movement’s leading representatives work for the «Discovery Institute» non-profitable public organization based in Seattle (USA). It supports the promotion of the introduction of the creationist anti-evolutionary beliefs in the US curriculum along with generally accepted scientific theories. In 2005, the «Kitsmiller against Dover School District» lawsuit’s verdict was that the directive to teach Reasonable Design as part of natural science subjects as an alternative to the evolutionary theory contradicts the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The «Intelligent Design» is not a scientific theory and has a religious nature served as the basis for such a verdict.

Within 2001 to 2010, the Discovery Institute staff collected about 700 scientists’ signatures under the «Scientific Disagreement with Darwinism» thesis to show that there are many scientists who disagree with the so-called Darwinian evolution. This thesis says: «We are skeptical of statements about the random changes and natural selection’s possibility to be responsible for the complexity of life». This resolution has led to several campaigns aimed at showing the level of the evolution in the scientific community’s support, including the «Scientific Support for Darwinism», which collected more than 7 thousand signatures in four days. It should be noted that such issues are not resolved by the vote of people who do not have in-depth knowledge on this issue. The propaganda of the theory of the «Intelligent Design» in order to justify the divine creation of life fundamentally contradicts science and harms the development of mankind, as any other religion does.

1.7. OUTSTANDING SCIENTISTS AND THINKERS’ DOUBTS

Many thinkers at various times thought about the complexity of the origin of the surrounding world on Earth. They realized that there were a lot of inexplicable facts and phenomena that may be associated with the highly developed intelligence’s activities. The ancient Greek philosopher Anaxagoras, observing the expedient arrangement of the world, came to the idea of a «supreme intelligence». Socrates and Plato also saw evidences of the existence of a supreme intelligence in the structure of the world. «The world is too complicated to occur by chance». M. Bakunin wrote the following about it: «The great philosophers from Heraclitus and Plato to Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, if not to mention the Indian philosophers, wrote heaps of volumes and created systems as witty as sublime in which they in passing revealed many beautiful and great things and discovered immortal truths, but also left this mystery, the main subject of their transcendental research, as impenetrable as it was before them».

Many thinkers associated the complexity and thoughtfulness of the world with religious beliefs, when all facts unexplained by science were associated with the divine power. Other scholars, understanding all the theological views’ mysticism and savagery, spoke about the role of the creative principle, about the Creator participation, the abstract Supreme Intelligence or Creator in their statements about the world’s structure.

V. I. Lenin is attributed the following statement: «If nature is creation, it goes without saying that it can be created only by something which is greater, that is more powerful than nature. To be created from something that already exists, since in order to create nature, something should already exist independently of nature. So there is something existing besides nature and, moreover, it is something that creates nature. It is called God in Russian».

The points of view of mankind’s prominent personalities are more powerful than the views of ordinary scholars repeating orthodox truths learned from the student bench. I am pleased to realize that they correspond my beliefs. So I decided to cite some of them. Theologians used all these statements to strengthen their power over the minds of gullible believers. Some of them are taken from the book by Ivan Klimishin, a professor of the Carpathian National University named after Vasily Stefanik, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, titled «Scientists Find God», as well on the following sites: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists of creationist scientists; https:// www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1AOHY ruUA792UA816 amp; e i = 6thbXLycD9H5kwXFuI D4CA amp; q = great + scientists + about + and

+ creationists amp; oq = Great + scientists + about + and + creation amp; gs l = psvab.1.0.33i22i29. 2267.14336…16918… 0.0…0,158.1143.1lj2

…0,… l…gws-wiz……0i71j0i22i30i 19j0i22i30j33i10.BhONC u5TpY; https://www.pravmir.ru/velikie-fiziki-o-vere-i-boge/ The desire to find a supernatural explanation for creation in the distant past was well expressed by Giordano Bruno: «We seek God in the unchanging, unshakable law of nature, in the reverential mood of the soul governed by this law… in the true reflection of His essence, in countless constellations glowing on the invariable space of a single sky…».

Georg Lichtenberg noted many years after that: «Is our concept of God not the personification of the incomprehensible,» and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz argued that «only the trivial throats of scientific knowledge alienate man from religion and God, while the more profound ones return Him to them again».

Carl Linnaeus, the founder of the flora and fauna taxonomy, exclaimed: «I watched animated creatures follow each other in a continuous chain, adjacent to the vegetable kingdom, plants linked to the mineral kingdom, going into the interior of the globe, while this globe is whirling in the stable order around the Sun, giving it life. Finally, I saw the Sun and all other luminaries, the entire star system, infinite, uncountable in its infinity, moving in space, being hung in the middle of eternal void by the First Incomprehensible Mover, the Being of the Beings, the Cause of the causes, the Leader and Keeper of the Universe, the Lord and Worker of all things in the world! So, it is fair to believe that there is God, the Great and Eternal one, not born of any being that has created these universal things and established the order». According to C. Linnaeus, «We have as many species as the Infinite Being first created… these forms, according to the laws of reproduction, have produced many others, but always similar to themselves».

Similar thoughts were expressed by Claude Bernard, one of the founders of experimental medicine and endocrinology: «No matter how far experimental science goes forward in the progressive course in its development and no matter how great its successes and discoveries are, it’s never able to answer about the primary cause of everything, about the origin of matter and life, and about the ultimate fate of the universe and man without crossing its own limits. Trying to answer these questions, I enter the field of metaphysics and cease to be a naturalist, exploring nature and learning the truth through observation, my opinions and views in this case no longer hold the authority of accurate and positive knowledge, since I am already outside the areas of competence of physical and physiological sciences here. «Jean-Baptiste Lamarck wrote: «The Supreme Creator of everything that exists is the direct creator of matter and nature and only indirectly is the creator of all products of this latter». Further, developing the idea of evolution, he argued: «The Higher Power has created matter, laid the foundation for the existence of its various species… Therefore, the duration of the matter’s existence will entirely depend on the will of its Creator, and nature with all its power can neither diminish nor add the slightest particles to the amount of what has been created».

Georges Cuvier, who rejected Lamarck’s theory of evolution, was convinced that «the Creator of all creatures, while creating them, could have been guided by only one law − the necessity to give each of his creations, which should continue life, means to sustain existence». Jean-Henri Fabre, the French entomologist, echoed him: «The world is ruled by an Infinite Intelligence. The more I observe, the more I discover this Intelligence, shining behind the mystery of the existing world. I know that they will laugh at me, but I care little about it; it’s easier to strip my skin off than deprive me of my faith in God». The Russian academician P. S. Pallas argued: «… A species is a constant unit, and species should be considered to be designed in the first plan of creation and assigned to form the chain of creatures that we admire not being able to explain this chain».

John Stuart Mill in his posthumously published essays «On Religion» (Th ee Essays on Religion, 1874) noted that the world order indicates the existence of an ordering intelligence. However, this does not give us any reasons to believe that God has created matter, that he is omnipotent and omniscient. God is not the Absolute Everything; a man collaborates with God in restoring the order, harmony and justice. A number of scientists in their judgments avoided the word God and used the word Creator instead. So, Louis Pasteur, the founder of modern microbiology and immunology, stated: «the more I study nature, the more I stop in awed amazement at the Creator’s affairs».

Georg Hegel believed that there is the Absolute Spirit which is the basis of everything that exists, which, because of its infinity only, can achieve true selfknowledge. It needs a manifestation for selfknowledge. Self-disclosure of the Absolute Spirit in space is nature; and self-disclosure in time − history. The mission of world-historical personalities was to be agents of a universal spirit.

William Whewell argued that «…it is impossible to practice biology without the objective purposes in nature’s assumption and ultimate cause». In his view, the common feature of «palaiologina Sciences» (historical casualty sciences) is the inability to explain the origins of the modern state of things through a natural way from some «initial state» without the assumption of supernatural intervention». Being a principled evolutionism opponent, he believed that «a creative power manifested» itself at the beginning of each new geological period. He did not admit trasnformism in biology, saying that «admission of the new species’ as a natural phenomenon in nature, without pointing at the same time on the real facts confirming such an assumption, therefore, stands for the completely unfounded rejection of the creation hypothesis». This statement is not an object of faith, but a scientific axiom. Its essence is reduced to the cosmological argument («History and science», 1894, Russian translation, 1900).

Johann Goethe, the German poet, thinker and natural scientist, the founder of the plants metamorphosis’s doctrine, drifting towards the idea of evolution, believed that it can only occur within certain limits under the guidance of the Creator. He wrote: «All parts are formed according to the eternal laws, and the rarest form is secretly similar to the original image».

Voltaire said: «One needs to be blind, so as not to be blinded by this picture, one needs to be a fool to reject its Creator, one needs to be crazy not to bow before Him».

K. E. Tsiolkovsky noted in his scientific paper «Unknown Intelligent Powers»: «The will of man and all other beings – both higher and lower ones − is only a manifestation of the Universe’s will. The voice of a man, his thoughts, discoveries, concepts, truths and delusions − is only the voice of the Universe».

Pierre-Simon de Laplace addressed Napoleon Bonaparte with the following statement: «My religion is simple: I look at the Universe and I am convinced that it could not be a matter of blind chance, but was created by some unknown and almighty being that is as much exceeds a man as far the Universe exceeds our best machines». His answer to Napoleon’s question whether God was offered a place in the world’s system proposed by Laplace was as follows: «I did not need such a hypothesis».

Justus Liebig, the German chemist, exclaimed: «Do not forget that with all our knowledge and researches we remain short-sighted people whose strength is rooted in the fact that we have support in the person of the higher Creature».

Jöns Jakob Berzelius, the Swedish chemist, wrote: «All organic nature gives evidences of the wise goal’s existence and is a product of a higher intelligence… Thus, a person’s mission is to consider his higher ability − the ability to think» in accordance with the Creature to which he owes his existence».

A whole series of statements dedicated to the Supreme Intelligence belongs to famous physicists. Isaac Newton, one of the greatest geniuses of mankind, who introduced his own version of biblical chronology, left after himself a significant number of manuscripts on these issues. In his Principia Philosophiae, he wrote: «The Heavenly Sovereign rules the whole world as the ruler of the Universe. We marvel at Him because of His perfection, worship Him and bow to Him because of His infinite power. From a blind physical necessity, which is always and everywhere the same, no variety could have occurred, and all the variety of created objects corresponding the place and time, which constitutes the structure and life of the Universe, could have happened only by the thought and will of the Original Creature, which I call the Lord, God». «The wonderful arrangement of the space and harmony in it can only be explained by the fact that the space was created according to the plan of the omniscient and omnipotent Creature. This is my first and last word». Isaac Newton also noted: «How do bodies movements obey the will and where does animal instinct come from?… And if He did so, then philosophy should not look for other origin of the world or believe that the world could have occurred out of chaos only in accordance with the laws of nature…». The economist John Maynard Keynes, who purchased Newton’s alchemy notes, said at the jubilee of Newton’s three hundredth birthday: «He considered the Universe to be a cryptogram composed by the Almighty God».

Albert Einstein in his letter to the New York rabbi Goldstein in 1924 wrote such words: «I believe in Spinoza’s God, who manifests himself in the natural harmony of life, but not in God, who cares about fate and people’s affairs». In another letter, one can read such words: «I do not believe in a personal God. I expressed my attitude towards God clearly and have never refused my words. If one may consider some my statements to be religious, then it is probably due to my unlimited admiration for the world’s structure that science shows us.» He expressed the following thought:

«The one, who is seriously engaged in science, is convinced that there is a certain spirit in the laws of nature, and this spirit is higher than man».

The same idea was expressed by James Joule, the English physicist:

«There is a vast variety of phenomena we face which are the evidences of the Great Universe Architect’s wisdom and kindness» Max Planck, the outstanding physicist and founder of quantum physics, once said the following: «Both religion and natural science need faith in God, at the same time, God stands at the beginning of all thinking for religion, and at the end − for natural science. For some people, He means the foundation, and for others − the peak of any worldview principles’ building».

Andrе-Marie Ampеre, another famous French physicist, said:

«The most convincing evidence of the God’s existence is the harmony of means by which order is maintained in the universe, due to this order, living things find everything they need for the development and reproduction of their physical and spiritual abilities in their organisms».

Werner Heisenberg, the German physicist and one of the quantum mechanics’ founders, expressed the similar idea: «The first sip from the natural science’s cup gives rise to atheism, but God waits for us at the bottom of the vessel».

Andrei Sakharov, a Soviet physicist and one of the hydrogen bomb’s developers, said: «My deepest feeling… is the existence of some kind of the nature’s inner meaning… And this feeling, perhaps predominantly feeds on the picture that has been opened before people in the XX century. «I don’t know at heart what my position really is, I believe in no dogma, I don’t like official churches. At the same time, I can’t imagine the Universe and human life without any meaningful beginning, without a source of spiritual «warmth» going far beyond the matter and its laws».

James Jeans, the English astrophysicist, said in a similar way:

«Primitive cosmogonies presented the Creator working in time, forging the Sun and the Moon and stars from the already existing raw material. Modern scientific theory makes us think of the Creator working out of time and spaces, which are part of His creation, as well as the artist is out of his canvas».

Pascual Jordan, a German physicist, one of quantum mechanics’ founders, also noted that «Modern science has removed the obstacles that previously were between natural knowledge and religious worldview. Contemporary natural science no longer rebels against the Creator».

Thomas Edison, a well-known physicist-inventor answered the question of expediency in the world of atoms during an interview in the following: «Do you really think that it is done without any sense? The harmonious and useful combinations of atoms take beautiful and interesting shapes and colours, as if expressing their pleasure. In illness, death, decay, or decay, the disagreement of the compound atoms immediately manifests itself through the fetid odour. The atoms united in the known forms constitute the lower ranks’ animals. Finally, they are united in a man, who represents the complete harmony of meaningful atoms».

The same opinion was shared by William Herschel, the English astronomer: «The more the field of science is broadening, the more evidences of an Eternal Creative and Almighty Intelligence existence appear».

John Fleming, the English physicist and radio engineer, wrote on this occasion: «A great number of modern discoveries have completely destroyed the old materialistic ideas. Nowadays, the Universe appears before us today as a thought, but thought presupposes the presence of a Thinker».

Stephen Hawking, a modern theoretical physicist, wrote: «My studies of the Universe are in the boundary zone between science and religion, but I do my best to stay on the scientific side. It is quite possible that God acts in such a way that is not described by scientific laws, but in such a case, the person has to rely on its own faith. Even if there is only a single unified theory – it is just a set of rules and equations. What adds fire to the equations and creates the Universe to be described? The common scientific approach of a mathematical model constructing does not provide the answer to the question of why the universe should exist to be described by this model. Why does the Universe exist at all? (Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, New York, 1988, 174).

I would like to finish this list of the famous scientists’ sayings with the final phrase of the «Origin of Species», the main paper by Charles Darwin. It reads as follows: «There is greatness in this view, according to which the Creator initially breathed life with its various manifestations into one or a limited number of forms; and while our planet is spinning, according to the unchanging laws of gravity, an infinite number of the most beautiful and most amazing forms has occurred and continues to occur from such a simple principle». He also noted in this book: «The world rests on regularities and in its manifestations is presented as a product of the Intelligence − this is an indication of its Creator».

The fact of the availability of a great number of the greatest scientists and thinkers of the human history’s different periods who speculated about the role of the Supreme Intelligence is an obvious incentive to analyze the most important issues of the life’s creation and functioning on Earth, the rationality and its planned creation not on the basis of the spontaneous development principle and, of course, not on the basis of religious beliefs.

1.8. NECESSITY OF NEW POINTS ON THE LIFE DEVELOPMENT ON EARTH

The evolutionary theory gave a huge impetus to the development of science, made it possible to accumulate huge factual material about the various species on Earth occurrence’s sequence within the process of their improvement. Therefore, all scientifi dogmas are viewed only from the standpoint of the evolutionary theory, despite its contradictory arguments and improvability. Being the only scientifi explanation of the origin of life, it argues that after millions of years since Earth had been formed, life occurred on it due to the pure chance, the development of which was performed in a natural way − from unicellular organisms to millions of various plants and animals that currently exist.