A Moslem and trained biologist Harun Yahya [a pen name], has written a number of books about the Darwin-Evolution fraud, [bio here, his web-site and book publications are here].  While I don't have much time for the cult of Islam, one can appreciate the criticisms of Darwin theology [it is a faith not a science] even if the erudite deconstruction emanates from a Moslem. True science is independent of cult belief systems. Yahya is entirely correct about the irrationality and non-science of the Darwin cult. His expositions are based on facts, fossil records, and biochemical reality; not fantasy as employed by the Darwinists who believe in walking fish, flying lizards, scales turning into feathers, and the lemur evolving into Mozart. Darwinism is in fact the opposite of science.

Yahya inter-alia relates the following in his writings:

1. Increasingly, biologists have discovered that living organisms consist of exceedingly complex structures. It has been shown that proteins, DNA and the cell, all possess irreducible complexity and cannot have come into being by chance, as the theory of evolution originally maintained. That impossibility has also been calculated mathematically.

2. It has now been accepted that natural selection and mutation, long proposed as the mechanisms of evolution, have no power to cause living species to evolve. Natural selection may weed out weak or sickly individuals, but brings no new genetic information to living organisms, and mutations merely damage existing genetic information.

3. The transitional forms that evolutionists expected to find in the fossil record- and which might be regarded as proof that species evolved from one another-have not been found. Fossils emerge suddenly and with all their particular features fully present, and the fossil record demonstrates that no species experienced any process of gradual change leading to its eventual disappearance.

No biochemical, fossil or missing link proof exists at all; to support Darwin's cult. Besides that it is 'science'. Walking fish did not mechanistically flow into humans, via the gods of chance, mutation and selection.

The 100 or so different animal phyla (comprising such basic categories as mollusks, arthropods, worms and sponges) all descended from one single common ancestor. Again according to the theory, such invertebrates as these gradually, in the course of time and the pressure of natural selection, turned into fish, which turned into amphibians, which turned into reptiles. Some reptiles turned into birds, and others into mammals.

Evolutionary theory maintains that this transition took place gradually over hundreds of billions of years. That being the case, then countless numbers of transitional forms should have emerged and left some trace of their existence during the course of that immeasurably long period.

Half-fish, half-amphibian creatures, which still bore piscine characteristics despite having acquired four legs and lungs, should have lived in the past. Alternatively, reptile-birds that retained some reptilian features but had also acquired some avian ones must also have come into being. Since these species were part of a transitional process, they must also have been flawed, or even deformed. For instance, a transitional reptile's front legs should have resembled bird's wings a little more with every passing generation. But over the course of hundreds of generations, this creature will have neither completely functional front legs, nor completely functional wings-in other words it will exist in a flawed, handicapped form. These theoretical creatures which evolutionists believe to have lived in the past are known astransitional forms.

If creatures of that type really had existed in the distant past, then they must have been numbered in the millions, even in the billions, and their fossil remains should be excavated all over the world. Darwin accepted the logic of that, and himself stated why there should be a large number of transitional forms:

If walking fish and flying lizards really did exist where is the proof ? There has to be proof of a theory before it is accepted as science. Where is the proof in the fossil record for evolution ?

However, fossil research of the last 150 years has revealed that the expectations of Darwin-and the evolutionists who followed him-were actually empty ones. Not a single fossil of any transitional form has ever been found. To date, there are around 100 million fossils, preserved in thousands of museums and collections. All of these are the remains of full-developed species with their own unique features, separated from all other species by definite, fixed characteristics. Fossils of half-fish, half-amphibians; half-dinosaur, half-birds, and half-ape, half-humans so confidently and definitely predicted by evolutionists, have never been encountered.

No geological paleoarcheological, or fossil record supports evolution. There is nothing.

Despite being an evolutionist, Steven. M. Stanley of John Hopkins University admits as such:

The known fossil record is not, and never has been in accord with gradualism. . . Few modern paleontologist seem to have recognized that in the past century, as the biological historian William Coleman has recently written, 'The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin's stress on minute, slow and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.'

Yahya's work is apposite, clear, precise, and scientific.

The great tragedy of Darwinism is that it retards, distorts and mangles real science. Rhetoric, pretty pictures, fraud [Piltdown man for eg]; ad-hominems, tautologies [evolution must be true because every other explication is false]; and non-transparent, non-replicable processes, claims and dogma corrupt the field. Evolution like the cult of warming, is about tax-money; grant-money; research-money, funding the university and getting published. It is in other words, a gigantic money-laundering scam.