|A molecular-based depiction of evolution: from the formation of the hydrogen molecule, bottom left, 13.7-billion-years ago, to the formation of the human molecule, top right, 150,000-years ago.|
évolution = [révolution + métamorphose]
|Circa 2005 Gallop polls (Ѻ) of belief in evolution—or development from earlier life forms—by education level, indicating that 40 percent of US college graduates don’t believe in evolution.|
See main: MetamorphosisThe modern hmolscience technically correct term for the Darwinian-connotative term "evolution", is chemical "synthesis". In the human case, one says that over the last 14-billion years, the universe has synthesized "human molecules" products from hydrogen atoms reactants, through a sequenced step-by-step chemical mechanism.
See main: Evolution theoristsThe following timeline gives a short historical overview of pre-Darwin, Darwin, and post-Darwin "origin of species" (evolution) theorists. Charles Darwin, his in his 'Historical Sketch', on those who advocated variations on a theory of origin of species, prior to 1859, gives thirty-four authors who believe in the modification of species, or at least disbelieve in separate acts of creation, of which twenty-seven have written on special branches of natural history or geology, in which the two foremost of these, according to Darwin, are Goethe and Geoffroy.
See main: Evolution thermodynamics; Thermodynamic evolutionIn a thermodynamics perspective, one can analyze the "process of change from one form to another" from a thermodynamic systems point of view, in which daily solar heat input actuates Carnot engine cycles according to which systems dynamically migrate or transform subtly, within each cycle, in structure, in the direction of free energy minimums due to the regulatory actions of the combined law of thermodynamics. From a sub-atomic or chemical point of view, one can study the process of form change through the logic of coupled chemical reactions, such as are evident in molecular evolution tables. 
|The last common ancestor, dubbed M 168, of all existing humans, according to genetic tracking.|
“Evolution violates the second, third, fourth, and any future laws of thermodynamics that science types can dream up.”
|Left: Public acceptance of evolution (2005).  Right: a 2005 world belief, or non-belief (yellow), view on: God (purple), spirit or life force (light blue).|
|Section on "evolution" from a Pakistani biology textbook, crouched in the back drop of god talk (Allah) and anti-chance objection. |
Facts about Creation of living organismsHere, firstly, we note that the "blind accidental chance" model described here seems to be Richard Dawkins model, which is a brand of dumb atheism, as compared to someone like Benedict Spinoza:
The theory of evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin in the 19th century, is one of the most unbelievable and irrational claims in history. Despite this, over its 150-year history the people who have accepted it have failed to produce any scientific evidence, supporting the theory. The theory puts forth the irrational claim that all living organisms, plants, animals and human beings are the result of blind, unconscious, accidental events.
Evolutionists believe that millions of years ago, in the primal soup of the oceans or pools of water, mindless atoms with no knowledge, powers of reason, came together in certain proportions and later, by chance [C#1], formed the proteins and cells that even today's scientists with most advanced laboratory technology have not been able to duplicate. They go so far as to say that these cells, in their turn—and again by sheer chance [C#2]—formed starfish, sparrows, hawks, penguins, cats, lambs, loins, apples, apricots, pomegranates, figs and even human beings. If human efforts cannot produce any living thing by using the whole pool of human knowledge, how can life be brought into being with the aid of unconscious atoms and chance [C#3] events? Any intelligent human being of conscience can certainly understand that all living things including himself cannot be the result of chance [C#4] events. Every intelligent [I#1], unprejudiced person with a conscious knows that Allah has created all these living things with His incomparable power.
“Nothing in nature is by chance. Something appears to be chance only because of our lack of knowledge.”— Benedict Spinoza (c.1675); Publication (Ѻ); cited (Ѻ) by Heinz-Otto Pietgen in Baustein des Chaos (1992)
The universe with all its creations both living and non-living has a flawless design, unique systems and an ordered balance that provide all the conditions necessary for living things to survive. Scientific discoveries, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries, have shown that the flawless design of the universe is clearly the work of supreme intelligence [I#2], The Allah, with His supreme intelligence [I#3], limitless knowledge and eternal power created the universe. How is it possible to think the balance in the ecosystem and the universe as a whole came about my mere coincidence when the extraordinary harmony of nature is observable even with the naked eye?
It is the most unreasonable claim to say that the universe, each point of which suggests the existence of its creator, has come into being on its own. The fact about the creation is that there is a mighty force in the universe that has created all different types of living things once by special creation and in them have put the ability to reproduce their next generations. This mighty force is Allah the Almighty Who is the Creator and Who sustains life on earth.
The hypothesis that two prokaryote cells invaded another prokaryote cell resulting in the evolution of a eukaryote cell is as baseless as someone’s claim that two rickshaws invaded a third one and in this way a motor car was evolved. The above hypothesis suggests that one of the invading prokaryote cells was changed into mitochondria and another invading prokaryote cell was modified into chloroplast.
Thousands of questions arise from the above hypothesis:1. How did prokaryote cells came into being?
2. How it started division?
3. How proteins, the most complicated organic compounds formed of units called amino acids, were formed?
4 How nucleic acids, which are also complicated organic compounds formed of units formed of units called nucleotides, were formed?
5. What is the probability [P#1] of formation of these two essential organic compounds together? As for the synthesis of one, the other is required. If, for example, both of the above organic compounds were formed by chance [C#5] factor, which is practically impossible, at different places then the evolution of a cell and its further division would not have been possible.
6. How autotrophic cyanobacteria developed chlorophyll?
7. The chromosome of prokaryotes is circular in shape while the chromosomes of eukaryotes are of different shapes and sizes. How these differences developed?
8. How other membranous structures such as Golgi bodies, endoplasmic reticulum, lysosomes, peroxisomes, etc. were evolved?
9. If billions of prokaryotes are cultured together for hundred years what will be the probability [P#2] of evolution of a eukaryotic cell like the one claimed at the beginning?
10. What is the probability [P#3] of developing a living cell from the material (components) of cell putting together?
11. The most important question is what is life? How it originated?
12. If evolution is a blind process, for example, why is it stopped on human beings? If not what type of organisms will evolve from humans and when will it start?
13. What about the universe? Who created it?
14. How the high degree of discipline present in the universe can be explained?
15. What kind of forces are responsible for the movements of earth in its axis and orbit?
|Left: a 2009 “Big Bang to Humans” evolution timeline video (Ѻ) by Libb Thims, based on Hmolpedia’s evolution timeline. Right: a circa 2000 New Mexico biology textbook book stamp (Ѻ) as a way to warn students about the dangers of believing that evolution is a fact.|
“Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life is not taught.”
“The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the ‘origins of life’ to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.”
“But the great principle of organic development through the struggle for existence, involving descent with modification, was distinctly enunciated by both Goethe and Erasmus Darwin before the close of the 18th century.”— Lester Ward (1907), Pure Sociology (pg. 537)
“It is true that the controversy over evolution which flared up, I suppose for the last time, in the early 1920s, frequently went to considerable lengths in its denunciation of science. But the storm soon died down. It was already too late to campaign successfully against science.”— George Lundberg (1947), Can Science Save Us? (pg. 93)
“American science teachers, fearing religious backlash, have become timid about teaching evolution theory to their students.”— Lauri Lebo (2008), The Devil in Dover; see: evolution vs creationism in education 
“Evolution without the direct intervening hand of god removes the fear of eternal damnation, eliminating the consequences of sin. If children learn we come from animals, they’ll behave like animals.”— Richard Thompson (2005), frequently stated argument during the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial