The Evolution Deceit
Important truths ignored
A picture showing Thales' (d. 546 BC) idea of a flat Earth floating on water. The picture shows air and fire, two of Earth's four basic elements.
Contrary to what its supporters claim, evolution is not a scientific theory but a pagan belief. The idea of evolution first appeared in such ancient societies as Egypt, Babylon, and Sumer, after which it passed to ancient Greek philosophers. Pagan Sumerian monuments contain statements denying creation and claiming that living things emerged by themselves as part of a gradual process. According to Sumerian belief, life emerged by itself out of the disorder of water.
As part of their own superstitious religions, the ancient Egyptians believed that "snakes, frogs, worms, and mice emerged from the mud of the Nile floodwaters." Just like the Sumerians, the ancient Egyptians denied the existence of a Creator and thought that "living things emerged by chance from mud."
The most important claim of the Greek philosophers Empedocles (fifth century BC), Thales (d. 546 BC), and Anaximander (d. 547 BC) of Miletus was that the first living things were formed from such inanimate substances as air, fire, and water. This theory posited that the first living things suddenly emerged in water and that later on some of them left the water, adapted to life on land, and began to live there. Thales believed that "water" was the root of all life, that plants and animals began to develop in water, and that humanity was the end result of this process.3 Anaximander, a younger contemporary of Thales, held the false belief that "man arose from the fishes" and the source of life began with a "primordial mass."4
Anaximander's verse work On Nature is the first available written work based upon the theory of evolution. In that poem, he wrote that creatures arose from slime that had been dried by the sun. According to Anaximander's erroneous way of thinking, the first animals were covered with prickly scales and lived in the seas. As these fish-like creatures supposedly evolved, they moved onto land, shed their scaly coverings and eventually became human beings.5 (For further details, see The Religion of Darwinism by Harun Yahya, Abu'l Qasim Publishers, Jeddah, 2003) His illogical theory can be considered the first foundation of the present-day theory of evolution, for it has many similarities with Darwinism.
Some philosophers, such as Empedocles (d. fifth century BC), believed that Earth was composed of four elements: earth, air, fire, and water. In this seventeenth-century illustration, the four elements are symbolized as rings around the sun.
Empedocles brought earlier ideas together and suggested that the fundamental elements (i.e., earth, air, fire, and water) came together to create bodies. He also believed that man had developed from plant life, and that only chance played any role in this process.6 As mentioned earlier, this concept of chance and its role in creation form the principle basis upon which the theory of evolution is built.
Heraclitus (d. fifth century BC) made another illogical claim, that because the universe was in a process of constant change, there was no point in questioning the mythical account of its beginning and maintained that it had no beginning or end. Rather, it simply existed.7 In short, the materialist belief upon which evolution is based also existed in ancient Greece.
The deceptive idea of spontaneous generation was supported by many other Greek philosophers, particularly Aristotle (384-22 BC). This idea said that animals, in particular certain worms, insects, and plants, came about by themselves in nature and so did not need to undergo any fertilization process. Maurice Manquat, well known for his studies on Aristotle's ideas on natural history, once said:
Aristotle was concerned with the origin of life so much that he accepted spontaneous generation (the coming together of inanimate substances to spontaneously form a living thing) in order to explain certain events that could not be accounted for in any other way.8
On careful inspection, one can see considerable similarities between the ideas of past and present evolutionist thinkers. The roots of the materialist idea that the universe has no beginning and no end, as well as the evolutionist view that living things emerged as the result of chance, lie in pagan Sumerian culture and were common among materialist Greek thinkers. The ideas that life emerged from water and a mixture known as "primordial mass," and living things emerge only because of chance, form the bases of these two ideas that are linked despite the passage of so much time.
Thus, Muslims who think that evolution is logical support a theory whose roots are embedded in ancient ideas that have been shown to have no scientific basis. Moreover, such ideas were first proposed by ancient materialist thinkers and contain pagan meanings.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle
Actually, evolution is not restricted to ancient Sumerian culture or ancient Greek philosophers, for it forms the essence of such major contemporary belief systems as Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. In other words, evolution is no more than a theory that is completely opposed to Islamic belief.
Some Muslims who support evolution, despite historical findings to the contrary, claim that the Qur'an supports this supposed "Creationist Theory of Evolution" and try to find the source of evolution in the Muslim world. They assert that this idea first emerged from Muslim thinkers and, when their works were translated into foreign languages, evolutionist thought appeared in the West.
However, the few examples given above clearly reveal that evolution is no more than a primitive belief dating back to ancient pagan societies. It would be a great mistake to try and show that evolutionist thought, built upon materialist foundations, can be ascribed to Muslims when there is absolutely no clear scientific and historical basis to support such a claim.
Those who maintain that there is no contradiction between evolution and creation ignore one important point: Such people believe that Darwinism's main claim is that living species emerged by evolving from each other. However, this is not the case, as evolutionists claim that life emerged as the result of chance, by unconscious mechanisms. In other words, life on Earth came about without a Creator and by itself from inanimate substances.
Such a claim rejects the existence of a Creator right from the start, and thus cannot be accepted by any Muslim. However, some Muslims who are unaware of this truth see no harm in supporting evolution on the error that Allah could have used evolution to create living things.
Evolutionists claim that the first living cell came about in the conditions of the initial Earth, from inanimate substances and the chance effects of natural events.
Yet they ignore one important danger: Although they are trying to show that evolution is parallel to religion, which is untrue, in reality they are supporting and actually agreeing with an idea that is quite impossible from their own point of view. Meanwhile, evolutionists turn a blind eye to this situation because it furthers their cause of having society accept their ideas.
Prof. Fred Hoyle
Looking at the matter as a devout Muslim and thinking about it in the light of the Qur'an, a theory that is fundamentally based upon chance clearly cannot have anything in common with Islam. Evolution sees chance, time, and inanimate matter as divine, and ascribes the title of "creator" to these weak and unconscious concepts (Allah is beyond that). No Muslim can accept such a pagan-based theory, for each Muslim knows that Allah, the sole Creator, created everything from nothing. Therefore, he uses science and reason to oppose all beliefs and ideas that conflict with this fact.
Evolution is a component of materialism and, according to materialism, the universe has no beginning or end, and thus no Creator. This ideology, which conflicts with the morality of religion, suggests that the universe, galaxies, stars, planets, sun, and other heavenly bodies, as well as their flawless systems and perfect equilibrium, are the results of chance. In the same way, the evolution deception claims that the first protein and the first cell (the building blocks of life) developed by themselves as the result of a string of blind coincidences. This same ideology claims that the perfection in all living things, whether they live on land, in the sea, or in the skies, is the product of chance. Although surrounded on all sides by evidence of creation, starting with the design in their own bodies, evolutionists insist upon ascribing all of that perfection to chance and unconscious processes. In other words, their main characteristic is to see chance as divine in order to deny Allah's existence. However, such a refusal to accept or to see Allah's evident existence and greatness changes nothing. Allah's infinite knowledge and matchless art reveal themselves in everything He creates.
Evolutionists' claim that life formed by itself by chance from inanimate substances is as irrational and illogical as claiming that America's Statue of Liberty was formed by the coincidental coming together of sand and rocks when lightning struck the sea.
As a matter of fact, recent scientific advances definitively reject the evolutionists' baseless claims that life emerged by itself and by natural processes. The superior perfection in life shows that a Creator Who has superior wisdom and knowledge created all living things. The fact that even the simplest organisms are irreducibly complex places all evolutionists in an impossible quandary – a fact that they themselves often admit! For example, the world-famous British mathematician and astronomer Fred Hoyle admits that life could not have come about by chance:
Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd…9
The evolutionist Pierre-Paul Grassé confesses that ascribing a creative force to chance is pure fantasy:
Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur… There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.10
A Cell's Flawless Creation Disproves Evolution
Even a single cell, the building block of life, possesses an enormously complex structure. The above picture shows just some of the parts that go into making up a cell. There is an extraordinarily complex and flawlessly planned organization between all of these components. To claim that all of this could have come about by chance flies in the face of logic and scientific discoveries.
Those words make the evolutionists' ideological dilemma perfectly clear: Even though they see that their theory is untenable and unscientific, they refuse to abandon it because of their ideological obsession. In another statement, Fred Hoyle reveals why evolutionists believe in chance:
Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.11
What Fred Hoyle describes as a "psychological" reason has conditioned evolutionists to deny creation. All of these reasons are sufficient evidence for Muslim evolutionists to consider evolution as nothing more than a theory designed to deny Allah.
One of the most important facts that evolutionist Muslims ignore is, as has already been emphasized, that even the most fundamental claims of the theory of evolution have lost all validity in the face of science. In addition, the insoluble dilemmas facing the theory of evolution right from the first appearance of life.
Muslim evolutionists who ignore the fact that science has disproved evolution face another dilemma as well: the claim that approximately 1.5 million living species in nature came about as the result of unconscious natural events.
According to evolutionists, the first living cell emerged due to chemical reactions in inanimate matter. (Let's recall here that a considerable amount of scientific evidence shows that this is impossible. In addition, researchers who carried out experiments by bringing together the gases that made up Earth's initial atmosphere, as well as the appropriate atmospheric conditions, have been unable to "produce" even the smallest building block of life, the protein.12) Since they have failed to bring about a living organism despite all of the technology and scientific knowledge available to them, it is naturally irrational and illogical to claim that blind chance could have succeeded.
The evolutionists' imaginary tree of life
According to evolutionist deceptions, life began with that first cell, grew ever-more complex, and assumed an ever-greater variety until human beings were produced. In brief, the theory goes, unconscious mechanisms in nature must have continuously developed living things. For this illogical claim for example, one bacterium contains the genetic code for some 2,000 proteins whereas a human being contains the genetic code for some 30,000 proteins. In other words, an unconscious mechanism "produced" the genetic data for thousands of new proteins over time.
Evolution also claims that life began with that first cell, grew ever-more complex, and assumed an ever-greater variety until human beings were produced. In brief, the theory goes, unconscious mechanisms in nature must have continuously developed living things. For example, one bacterium contains the genetic code for some 2,000 proteins whereas a human being contains the genetic code for some 200,000 proteins. In other words, an unconscious mechanism "produced" the genetic data for 198,000 new proteins over time.
That is what evolution claims. Yet does nature really contain a mechanism that can develop a living thing's genetic data?
The modern theory of evolution – also known as neo-Darwinism, the updated version of Darwin's original theory that takes into account recent discoveries in genetics – proposes two such fictitious mechanisms: natural selection and mutation.
Natural selection means that the strong and those who can adapt to changing natural conditions survive the fight for life, while the rest are eliminated and disappear. For instance, a continual fall in a region's temperature means that certain animal populations that are not resistant to low temperatures are weeded out. Over the long term, only those animals that are resistant to cold temperatures survive and eventually make up the whole population.
There is enough information in one human DNA molecule to fill 1,000 books. This giant encyclopedia has been shown to consist of 3 million letters. The flawless creation in DNA is proof of Allah's infinite power and might.
Alternatively, in the case of rabbits who live with the constant threat of predators, only those who best adapt to the prevailing conditions (e.g., those who can run the fastest), survive and thus pass their features on to subsequent generations. However, careful examination reveals that no new feature actually emerges here, for these rabbits are not turning into a new species or acquiring a new characteristic. Thus one cannot say that natural selection causes evolution.
This being the case, evolutionists are left with mutation. In order for evolution's claim to be acceptable, mutations must be able to develop a living thing's genetic data.
According to natural selection, the strong and those able to adapt to their surroundings survive, while the rest disappear. Evolutionists propose that natural selection caused living things to evolve and resulted in new species. However, natural selection has no such effect; all of the supposed "evidence" presented so far confirms this.
Mutations are defined as errors in a living thing's genes that arise either as the result of external influences (e.g., radiation) or copying faults in DNA. Of course mutations may give rise to change, yet such changes are always destructive. To put it another way, mutations cannot develop living things; rather, they always harm living things.
No mutation beneficial to any organism has ever been identified. Furthermore, according to what Darwinists maintain, mutation has to cause changes that are proportionate and compatible with one another everywhere in the body. For example, if a right ear formed through random mutations in the right ear, as evolutionists claim, then random mutations must have given rise to a second ear with the same symmetry, capable of hearing in the same way and with the same characteristics on the left. The anvil, hammer and stirrup must have come into being equally in the same perfect manner. The same applies to the heart. Darwinists claim that mutation must give rise to all the valves, the equilibrium between them, in a flawless manner, at exactly the right place and all at the same time. Every organ in the body must have come about in this way. But huge inconsistencies should crop up. Strange entities with one ear upside down, one tooth different and a single eye in the middle of the forehad would have come into being. Since there is no such imbalance in life, Darwinists are claiming that everything must have come into being with perfect symmetry and harmony. But it is impossible for mutations, 99% of which are detrimental and the other 1% have no effect at all, to be beneficial and be able to give rise to logical, harmonious and symmetrical organs. In short, mutations are like firing at a regular structure with a machine gun. Opening fire on a healthy structure will destroy it. The fact that a single mutation may have no impact or have a healing effect by destroying an infection in the body changes nothing. The organism will still be destroyed by the other 99 bullets fired at it.
Genetics made major advances during the twentieth century. By examining genetic diseases in living things in the light of rapidly developing science, scientists showed that mutations were not biological changes that could contribute something to evolution. This contradicts the evolutionists' claim. Advances in genetics, in particular, resulted in the acknowledgement that some 4,500 supposedly hereditary genetic diseases actually were caused by mutation.
In order for mutations to become hereditary, they must occur in the reproductive organs (sperm cells in men, ovaries in women). Only this type of genetic change can be transmitted to later generations. Many genetic diseases are caused by such changes in just those very cells. Mutations, on the other hand, form in other bodily organs (e.g., the liver or the brain), and so cannot be transmitted to subsequent generations. Such mutations, called "somatic," cause many cancers through degeneration in the cells' DNA.
Random mutations are always harmful to humans and all other living things. The horrifying results of the 1986 nuclear accident at Chernobyl show the effect of mutations.
Cancer is one of the best examples of the damage caused by mutations. Many carcinogenic factors, such as chemical substances and ultraviolet rays, actually produce mutations. Following the recent discovery of oncogenic and tumor-preventing genes that, when they malfunction, particularly effective in causing cancer, researchers realized how mutations lead to cancer. These two types of genes are necessary in order for cells to multiply and for the body to renew itself. If one of them is damaged by mutation, cells begin to grow in an uncontrolled manner and cancer begins to form. We can compare this situation to a stuck gas pedal or a non-working brake in a car. In both cases, the car will crash. In the same way, the cells' uncontrolled growth rate leads first to cancer and then to death. When mutations damage these genes at birth, as in the case of retinoblastoma, the affected babies soon die.
The damage done to living things by mutations is not limited to these examples. Almost all mutations observed so far are harmful; only a few are neutral. Despite this, however, evolutionists as well as Muslim evolutionists still try to maintain that mutation is a valid evolutionary mechanism. If species had evolved into one another, as evolutionists claim, millions of advantageous mutations would have had to occur and be present in all reproductive cells.
Science, as it continues to advance, has discovered millions of harmful mutations and has identified the resulting diseases. However, evolution faces a terrible quandary: Evolutionist scientists can cite no mutations that actually increase genetic data. Evolutionist Pierre Paul Grassé, editor of the 35-volume Traite de Zoologie, and former president of the French Academy of Sciences, has compared mutations to "the incorrect letters made while copying a written text." And just like incorrect letters, mutations do not increase information; rather, they damage the already existing data. Grassé states this fact in the following manner:
Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complimentary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what persists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how... As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follows. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy (disorder). 13
Just as an earthquake destroys a city instead of developing it, chance mutations lead to sickness, deformity, and handicaps in living things.
Given this fact, mutations, as Grassé puts it, "no matter how numerous they may be,they do not produce any kind of evolution." We can compare the effects of mutations to an earthquake. Just as an earthquake does not help develop or improve a city but actually tears it down, mutations always have negative effects in exactly the same way. From this point of view, the evolutionists' claims regarding mutations are completely unfounded. (For further details, see The Evolution Deceit by Harun Yahya, Taha Publishers, London, 1999).
"These people of ours have taken gods apart from Him. Why do they not produce a clear authority concerning them? Who could do greater wrong than someone who invents a lie against Allah?" (Surat al-Kahf, 15)
Given the above facts, scientific advances show that natural selection and mutation have no evolutionary force. Since no evolutionary mechanism exists, no evolution could have taken place in the past. However, evolutionists continue to insist that all living things evolved from one another by means of a gradual process that occurred over hundreds of millions of years. Their error is concealed within this logic, for if their scenario were true, countless transitional forms belonging to the timeframe in question should have emerged. Moreover, we should have found their fossil remains.
The evolutionists' illogical claims are apparent in every case. Let's consider the emergence of fish, which evolutionists say evolved from invertebrates. If this were the case, numerous examples of transitional forms must have existed in order to allow a gradual evolution. In other words, we should be able to see the fossil remains of many species having both fish and invertebrate characteristics. However, despite the many fish and invertebrate fossils found by scientists, no fossil of any transitional form that might confirm their claim has ever been found. Such an absence, in turn, means that evolution never took place.
Although evolutionists are well aware of this, they resort to such methods as demagogy and faked evidence to make people believe in evolution.14 Even Darwin knew that the fossil record did not back up his theory. He expressed this fact in the chapter Difficulties on Theory:
First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? …But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best preserved geological sections, had not the absence of innumerable transitional links between the species which lived at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory.15
For example, evolutionists claim that starfish evolved into real fish over millions of years. According to that claim, there must exist many transitional forms between the two species. However, not one fossil belonging to any such transitional form has ever been found. There are starfish and fish in the fossil record, but no forms between the two.
Darwin merely hoped that it would grow richer over time and that the missing transitional forms would be found. However, this dream never came true, and present-day evolutionists have no such hope, either. As even they have admitted, the fossil record is exceedingly rich and of a sufficient degree to reveal the history of life. Professor N. Heribert Nilsson, a Swedish evolutionist botanist from Lund University, says this about the fossil record:
My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed… The fossil material is now so complete that it has even been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of any transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, (and) they will never be filled. 16
T. Neville George, a professor of paleontology of Glasgow University, states that although the fossil record is very rich, the long-sought transitional forms have not yet been found:
There is no need to apologise any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration... The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.17
Not one fossil of any transitional forms posited by evolutionists has ever been found. Throughout history, fish have always existed as fish, birds as birds, and human beings as human beings.
Evolutionists even go so far as to admit that in addition to denying evolution, the fossil record provides scientific proof for the truth of creation. For example, the evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki confesses:
A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God…18
As we have seen, evolutionists have suffered a terrible disappointment on the subject of transitional forms. Some 300 million fossils have been obtained, but no excavation from anywhere in the world has rendered the slightest trace of any transitional forms since Darwin first proposed them. Those discoveries have all been of a kind as to dash evolutionists' hopes, and show that living things on Earth emerged suddenly, fully developed, and flawless.
However, even though they know that transitional forms never existed, evolutionist scientists refuse to abandon their theory. They offer prejudiced commentaries on a number of fossils. In his work In Search of Deep Time, Henry Gee, editor of the world-famous magazine Nature, describes just how scientific such fossil commentaries really are:
.... we arrange fossils in an order that reflects gradual acquisition of what we see in ourselves. We do not seek the truth, we create it after the fact, to suit our own prejudices... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story – amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.19
That is why believers must not be deceived by the word games and falsehoods dressed up in scientific garb. It is a great mistake to believe that people, just because they are scientists, are telling the truth and that they should be believed. Evolutionist scientists have no compunctions about concealing the truth, distorting scientific facts, and even producing forged evidence for the sake of their ideology. The history of Darwinism is full of such examples.
When we consider even the most basic main lines of Darwinism, its invalidity and totally rotten foundations are immediately apparent. When we lok at the details, the situation becomes even clearer. (See The Evolution Deceit, Taha Publishers, London, 1999 and Darwinism Refuted, Goodword Publishers, New Delhi, 2003 for more information).
Contrary to what evolutionists claim, we see a great creation in the features of all living and non-living things wherever we look. That is a sign that Allah has created them all. Evolutionists continue to wage their hopeless struggle because they do not want to accept this fact. As truly committed materialists, they are trying to bring a dead body to life.
All of this leads to just one conclusion: Darwinism turns people away from reason, science, and the truth and directs them toward irrationality. People who believe in evolution refuse to follow the path of reason and science, and are taken in by the superstitious nonsense that has come down from the 1800s when Darwin was alive. Finally, they begin to believe that chance can play a divine role, even though the whole universe is full of the signs of creation. It is enough to look at just one of the flawless mechanisms in the sky and the sea, in animals and plants, in order to see this. To say that these are all the work of chance is an insult to reason, logic, and science. What is needed is a confession of Allah's might and greatness, and a subsequent surrendering to Him.
Some Muslims suppose with the levels of knowledge of the 1940s and '50s, that evolution is a theory supported by science and seek to reconcile Islam with evolution in their own eyes by using a very weak and peculiar logic along the lines of "Muslims knew about evolution before Darwin." That logic is the product of a grave ignorance.
First, the error of evolution did not initially emerge with Darwin. All materialists throughout history have maintained that life formed spontaneously from earth and rock and that life forms descended from one another. Evolution is a pagan belief dating back thousands of years. The Sumeriand and the ancient Egyptians believed in and espoused evolution. The Egyptians, for instance, thought that living things emerged spontaneously from the muddy waters of the Nile. It is therefore meaningless to say, "evolution was known before Darwin, and Muslims knew about evolution." Of course Muslims and the first Jews and the first Christians, and the Sumerians and the Egyptians knew of the existence of a heretical idea known as evolution. But in those days, as also today, rational people of good conscience could clearly see that evolution was an error, while other espoused that error because of their materialist and atheist mindsets.
LIVING FOSSILS REFUTE EVOLUTION
Fossils are proof that evolution never happened. As the fossil record shows, living things came into being in a single moment, with all the characteristics they possess and never altered in the least for so long as the species survived. Fish have always existed as fish, insects as insects and reptiles as reptiles. There is no scientific validity to the claim that species develop gradually. Almighty Allah created all living things.
1. A 54-to-37-million-year-old fossil sunfish,
Second, the claim that life forms came into being by stages is not supported by any scientific finding. If life forms were descended from one another, as Darwin and earlier evolutionists maintained, then this should be visible in the fossil record. Some 300 million fossils have been unearthed from excavations to date. But not one indicates that one living thing turned into another or that life forms have so-called common ancestors. All these 300 million fossils, without exception show that living things came into being suddenly and with all their characteristics, in other words that they were created and remained unchanged for millions of years, meaning that they never evolved at all. If no transitional form has ever been found despite the earth having been extensively excavated over the last 150 years, if not one person been unable to respond to the challenge, "I will give 10 trillion lira to anyone producing a transitional form fossil," if Darwinism said that his theory would collapse if no transitional form was found, in other words, if there is no concrete evidence at all, then it is meaningless to try to mislead the public by saying things like, "our ancestors were microbes," "the ancestor of birds has been found" or "our ancestors were palm trees."
Darwin and the Darwinian
A large part of those religious people who support the theory of evolution suggest that Charles Darwin was a believer. However, they are definitely mistaken, for during his life Darwin revealed his negative views of Allah and religion.
Darwin did believe in Allah during his youth, but his belief gradually faded and was replaced by atheism during middle age. However, he did not publicize this fact, for he did not want to attract any opposition from his devout wife in particular, as well as from his close relatives and the religious establishment. In her book Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, Darwinist historian Gertrude Himmelfarb writes: "The full extent of Darwin's disbelief, therefore, can be seen neither in his published work nor even in his published autobiography, but only in the original version of that autobiography."20 Her book also reveals that when Darwin's son Francis was about to publish his The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Darwin's wife Emma fiercely opposed the project and did not want to give her permission, fearing that the letters might give rise to a scandal after his death. Emma warned her son to take out those sections that made open references to atheism. The entire family feared that such statements would damage Darwin's prestige.21
According to biologist Ernst Mayr, a founder of neo-Darwinism; "It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a 'materialist.'"22
Darwin always bore his family's reactions in mind, and throughout his life carefully concealed his ideas on religion. He did so, in his own words, because,
Many years ago I was strongly advised by a friend never to introduce anything about religion in my works, if I wished to advance science in England; and this led me not to consider the mutual bearings of the two subjects. Had I foreseen how much more liberal the world would become, I should perhaps have acted differently.23
As we can see from the final sentence, if Darwin had felt confident he would have attracted no reaction, he might not have been so cautious. When Karl Marx (1818-83) proposed to dedicate his Das Kapital to Darwin, Darwin firmly refused the honor on the grounds that it would hurt certain members of his family if he were associated with such an atheistic book. 24
Even if We sent down angels to them, and the dead spoke to them, and We gathered together everything in front of them right before their eyes, they would still not believe unless Allah willed. The truth is that most of them are ignorant.(Surat al-An'am, 111)
However, we can still find Darwin's perverted attitude to spiritual concepts and beliefs in these words to his cousin: "I look upon all human feeling as traceable to some germ in the animals." 25
He then expressed an error concerning religion and belief in Allah:
Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps as inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake. 26
Darwin also opposed religious instruction for children out of his belief that they should be freed from religious belief.27
This is of course one of Darwin's worst errors. Believing in Allah and living as religious moral values demand is a great virtue that will bestow peace on happiness on the individual and society and that will lead to salvation in this world and the Hereafter. It is very dangerous for people to turn aside from belief in Allah and stop living by religious moral values as Darwin espoused. Human history is full of examples of this.
These antireligious views have come down to present-day evolutionists as a kind of legacy. Just as Darwin did not want children to learn about Allah while they were being educated, modern evolutionists fiercely oppose teaching creationism in schools. They engage in active lobbying all over the world to have creation removed from the educational curriculum.
Examination of Darwin's life shows that he was not so devoid of faith in his youth. He says this about those days in a letter:
"Formerly I was led by feelings such as those just referred to (although I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever strongly developed in me), to the firm conviction of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul." 28
In her book Darwin and Darwinian Revolution, Gertrude Himmelfarb describes this state of affairs with an example:
... neither could he be persuaded of the existence of God by "the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. He himself, he confessed, had once had such feelings; in the grandeur of the Brazilian forest he had been possessed by the conviction that there must be more in man than "the mere breath of his body." But later even the grandest scenes could not evoke such thoughts in his mind...29
As that example shows, Darwin's attitude to his surroundings was more compatible with good conscience in his youth, and he realized Allah's existence by heeding it. But he later came to ignore this evident truth. Darwin described his own lack of belief as follows in one passage:
He makes the following reference to his own lack of belief, "disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete…" 30
The same book describes how Darwin's father took him aside when he was about to get married and recommended that he conceal his religious doubt from his wife. However, Emma was aware of his ever-decreasing faith right from the first. When his Descent of Man was published, she confessed to her daughter regarding the book's anti-religious sentiments:
I shall dislike it very much as again putting God further off. 31
In another passage, Darwin states his true thoughts about religion thus:
... when I wrote the "Origin of Species"; it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker…32
At the same time, he found it odd that anyone else should have religious beliefs, and stated that people, who he believed had evolved from primitive animals, could not trust those beliefs:
(C)an the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?33
THE DECEPTION THAT OUR ANCESTORS WERE PALM TREES
Some people seek, in their own eyes at least, to reconcile Islam with evolution by bringing up the evolutionary errors of people such as Ibn Miskeveyh who once lived in Islamic lands. It is true that there have been people who espoused the lie of evolution in Muslim societies of the past. Ibn Miskeveyh is one of these people. He claims that the palm tree is the ancestor of man and talks the most terrible nonsense about the Turkish nation. It must not be forgotten
that it is irrelevant to what nation a person who espouses a lie belongs, or what belief they hold. A person's nation or belief does not alter the fact that what they maintain is a lie.
Like all other living things, plants have remained unchanged for millions of years. The first plant fossils date back to the Carboniferous Age, some 350 million years ago. And the plants from that time are identical to those today. There are fossil specimens of the palm tree leaf, which Ibn Miskeveyh claims represents our ancestor, dating back to the Cretaceous (146-65 million years). This plant has never changed at all for 140 million years or so. It never gradually came to acquire arms and legs and turn into a human being. Claims along the lines of "Our ancestors were microbes," "our ancestors were worms," or "our ancestors were dates," which are raised from time to time, now merely amuse the public, who are now well aware of scientific advances and evidences. The way that such claims are still raised in various forms, despite the absence of a single transitional form and that fossils prove living things have not changed for 350 million years, is part of the Darwinist trickery that has been going on for the last 150 years. But the public are no longer falling for it.
It is true that the idea of evolution existed since before Darwin. But Darwinism is a pagan faith left over from Sumerian and Egyptian times, long before the days in which Ibn Miskeveyh lived. Ibn Miskeveyh is not the only passionate advocate of this claim. There was also Pharaoh with his racist and fascist mindset. Satan convinced Pharaoh and the Sumerians that the idea of Darwinism was true. Ibn Miskeveyh just stole the idea from them. This heretical belief, left over from the time of Pharaoh, was disseminated under the influence of freemasonry, itself a very ancient organization and people were misled by individuals wearing scholarly masks. These people were depicted as having converted to Islam and portrayed as "a famous Islamic scholar" and engaged in intensive Darwinist propaganda in order to turn people away from belief in Allah. Ibn Miskeveyh is a mason and possessed of this heretical mindset undermasonic direction. This person, who imagined that Turks and blacks were just inferior apes and attempted to suppress the noble superiority of the Turkish nation, expressed his hatred of that nation as follows:
"...As earthly desires increasingly influence them they begin receiving instruction thanks to their powers of understanding and differentiation. This level, very close to the human level, is an animal one. The TURKS and BLACKS who live in the north and south and the farthest parts of the world are like that. THERE IS NO BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM AND THE FINAL ANIMAL LEVEL WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING. THEY ARE IN NO POSITION TO UNDERSTAND many things that would benefit them. In the same way as they exhibit no wisdom, they also reject that of neighboring nations. THAT IS WHY THEIR CONDITION IS VERY BAD AND THEIR STANDARD OF LIVING VERY LOW. Since they have nothing to envy THEY SERVE NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN BEING PUT TO WORK AS SLAVES IS SPHERES OF WORK IN WHICH ANIMALS ARE EMPLOYED..."
These words directed toward the public spirited and noble Turkish nation are despicable. This person, whom some of our theologians praise and value his words, regards the noble Turkish nation as no different to animals, in his own eyes. He even goes so far as to describe the Turkish nation, destined to govern 3 continents for 600 years, as "slaves to be used in spheres of work in which animals are employed." (Our apologies to the noble Turkish nation.) The nobility and superiority of the Turkish nation is obvious. This mindset, which regards the Turkish nation as an inferior race and slaves, and does not regardblacks as human beings, is a belief left over from the pagan mindset of Pharaoh's time. This ugly logic, which developed under the influence of the freemasons, consti- tuted the foundation of Darwinism. Darwin, who shared that mindset, also had no qualms about describing, in his own tiny mind, the Turkish nation as an "inferior race:
"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the TURKS, and how RIDICILOUS such an idea now is! The MORE CIVILISED socalled Caucasian races have beaten the TURKISH hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, WHAT AN ENDLESS NUMBER OF THE LOWER RACES WILL HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED BY THE HIGHER CIVILISED RACES throughout the world." (Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I, 1888. New York: D. Appleton and Company, pp. 285-286)
Darwin's attitude toward blacks also reveals the same logic of Pharaoh's time:
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the NEGRO OR AUSTRALIAN AND THE GORILLA." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd edition, New York, A L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178)
It is individuals like these whom some of our people respect as "scholars" and attach great importance to their opinions. That being the case, it is very dangerous to ignore all this and follow the logic of "he is a scholar and therefore to be respected." There is no question of everyone bearing the title of "scholar" being worthy of respect.Many people under the influence of satan have gone down in history with the ideas they proposed, but have still inflicted only oppression on mankind. Marx, Lenin and Stalin were all so-called scholars. Some terrorist leaders possess as much knowledge as scholars. Masonic professors are scholars. If it were a rule that all scholars were to be respected, then these people should be respected as well. But it is of course not enough for a person to bear the title of "scholar" in order to be respected. A person is only a scholar if he behaves like a human being and lives and speaks like a Muslim. But if someone is full of hatred for other people and so vile as to regard some people as apes and holds fascist and racist opinions, then such a person clearly cannot be called a scholar.
Turkish people are aware of the existence of 350 million fossils all proving creation. They know that not a single transitional fossil exists. They have realized that not a single protein in a human cell, let alone an entire human being, can come into existence by coincidence. They have seen, with full and supporting scientific evidence, that living things come into being when our Lord commands them to "Be!" This pagan religion by the name of Darwinism that openly denies the existence of Allah is now absolutely rejected in Turkish society. The lie that "Allah created through evolution" they are trying to impose on society is a falsehood created by masons in order to gather support after the defeat of Darwinism in the 21st century. People no longer fall into the trap of this claim that totally contradicts the pronouncements in the Qur'an, is totally refuted by the scientific evidence and that is not supported by even a single transitional fossil.
1. A 65-million-year-old lynx skull fossil
2. A 51-million-year-old jackal skull fossil
3. A 51-million-year-old jackal skull fossil
Darwin admitted to being an atheist in his letters and autobiography.
Here again, of course, Darwin was mistaken. As all scientific findings make perfectly clear, it is absolutely incorrect to claim, as Darwin did, that human beings evolved from animals. Man has been man ever since the moment he first came into being. He possesses reason and intelligence, and the abilities to judge and understand. Faith in Allah is the only rational and true conclusion that anyone possessed of reason and comprehension can draw from seeing all the evidence around them.
The fundamental reason why Darwin denied Allah's existence was pride. We can see this in the statements below:
In the sense that an omnipotent and omniscient Deity must order and know everything, this must be admitted; yet, in honest truth, I can hardly admit it.34
In a short hand-written appendix to the story of his life, he wrote:
I feel no remorse from having committed any great sin. 35
Darwin's statements denying Allah's existence and religion actually follow aclassical atheist logic. It is revealed in one verse of the Qur'an how those who deny Allah, actually realize that He exists but still deny Him out of arrogance:
And they repudiated them wrongly and haughtily, in spite of their own certainty about them. See the final fate of the corrupters. (Surat an-Naml, 14)
The most important point here is this: Darwin's atheism had the greatest influence on shaping his theory. He twisted facts, observations, and proofs in order to maintain his prejudice that life was not created. When one reads The Origin of Species, one clearly sees how Darwin was at pains to reject all evidence for creation (e.g., the complex structures in living things, how the fossil record points to sudden emergence, and facts pointing to the limits of how far living things can differ from each other in nature), and the way he postponed those things he could not immediately explain by saying: "Perhaps this matter will be resolved one day in the future." Had he been a neutral scientist, he would not have displayed such dogmatism. His own style and methods show that Darwin was an atheist who grounded his theory in atheism.
In fact, atheists have supported Darwin for the last 150 years and irreligious ideologies have backed Darwinism precisely because of his atheism. Thus, given the fact of Darwin's atheism, Muslims must not make the mistake of thinking that he was religious, or at least not opposed to religion, and continue to support him, his theory, and those who think like him. If they do, they place themselves alongside the atheists.
At the beginning of this book, we saw how some Muslims portray Darwinism as a scientifically proven fact and ignore its true face. Darwinism, which provided "scientific" support for fascism and communism, the twentieth century's bloodiest ideologies, has an even darker "true" face.
These ideologies, which reached their violent peaks during the last century, were responsible for communist revolutions and fascist coups d'etat, as well as fighting, conflict, civil war, and the division of the world into two blocs. Such bloody dictators as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco all left their marks. Some 120 million people died as a result of the cruelty inflicted by communist regimes alone, and the two world wars alone cost some 65 million lives. World War II, which began with Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939, was a true disaster for humanity. (For details see Harun Yahya, The Disasters Darwinism Brought to Humanity, Al-Attique Publishers Inc., Ontario, 2001 and Fascism: Bloody Ideology of Darwinism, Arastirma Publishing, Istanbul, 2002)
Darwinism can be found at the ideological root of all of these political, economic, and moral catastrophes, for it nourishes and strengthens all of them.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the founding fathers of communism, mentioned in their works how much Darwinism influenced them. Marx showed his sympathy for Darwin by presenting to him a copy of his book Das Kapital, in which he had written a personal note. The German edition even carried the following message in his own hand; "To Charles Darwin, from a true admirer, from Karl Marx."
Darwinism was of such importance to communism that as soon as Darwin's book was published, Engels wrote to Marx: "Darwin, whom I am just reading, is simply splendid."36
The prominent Russian communist Georgi Valentinovich Plekhanov regarded Marxism as "Darwinism in its application to social sciences."37
Hitler's most important ideological mentor, the racist German historian Heinrich von Treitschke, set out his deception in the words: "Nations could not prosper without intense competition, like the struggle for survival of Darwin,"38 thus indicating the origin of the violence at Nazism's roots. Hitler himself was a Darwinist. Taking his inspiration from the deceit of "the fight for survival" employed by Darwin, he called his own famous work Mein Kampf (My Fight). At a 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that: "A higher race subjects to itself a lower race… a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right, because it was founded on science."39 This shows just how much he was influenced by Darwin.
Hitler's Mein Kampf.
Mussolini, the leader of Italian fascism, also favored Darwinism as a worldview and tried to use it to justify Italy's invasion of Ethiopia. Franco, the Spanish dictator at that time, also reflected Darwinist ideology both in theory and in practice. (See Harun Yahya, Fascism: Bloody Ideology of Darwinism, Arastirma Publishing, Istanbul, 2002)
By saying that, according to his perverted logic, life was supposedly a fight, whichthe strong were destined to win and the weak were condemned to lose, Darwin opened the way to brute force, violence, war, conflict, and massacre on a grand scale. Dictators, who oppressed people, whether at home or abroad, were so inspired by Darwinism that they dressed themselves in its teachings. In their perverted view, the law of nature demands that the weak be crushed and destroyed and that people do not necessarily have any inherent value, since they had evolved from animals.
Marx wanted to dedicate his Das Kapital to Darwin.
Communism is an ideology hostile to the morals of religion, both in terms of the materialist philosophy upon which it is based and the historical analysis it proposes. It begins by denying Allah's existence (Allah is beyond that), and its historical analysis, which describes religion, according to its own perverted mindset, as the "opiate of the masses," calls for the eradication of religion in order to erect its envisioned communist society.
Thus all communist regimes fight religion, attack religious values, destroy places of worship, and outlaw the observance of religious obligations. Regimes in such places as the former Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Bulgaria, and Albania have followed policies that are so anti-religious that they border upon, and sometimes lead to, genocide.
Darwinism plays an important role in Marxist ideology's hatred of religion. Darwin provided Marxist atheism with a so-called scientific basis, which explains why Marx and Engels felt such gratitude for him. Engels' praise is particularly striking:
"He (Darwin) dealt the metaphysical conception of Nature the heaviest blow by his proof that all organic beings, plants, animals, and man himself, are the products of a process of evolution going on through millions of years."40
In suggesting that Darwin had explained the evolutionary process through his theory, Engels was making a grave error. Because Darwin's theory was based on no scientific evidence whatsoever, and he was merely expressing personal opinions based on various prejudices and assumptions. Indeed, as science progressed it revealed, one by one, how none of these views proposed by Darwin had any validity at all. As time passed, all the information and findings obtained went to prove, not the theory of evolution as materialists had hoped, but the fact of creation.
Friedrich Engels, one of the originators of communism.
Conflict lies at the heart of Marxist philosophy (dialectical materialism), which asserts that the universe functions according to the law of clashes between opposites. In other words, Darwin's asserted fight for survival in nature was now applied to human societies. Darwinism was the greatest support for communist ideology, which saw human history as a battleground and prepared the ground for further conflict.
The evolutionist P. J. Darlington explains that violence is a natural consequence of belief in this theory:
The first point is that selfishness and violence are inherent in us, inherited from our remotest animal ancestors…. Violence is, then, natural to man; a product of evolution.41
Just like their other claims, this evolutionist suggestion is untrue. With their intellect, consciences and judgment, human beings are perfectly capable of distinguishing between right and wrong. They know that feelings such as selfishness, ingratitude, anger, hatred and enmity are wrong, and also know how to avoid these evils.
Marxists believe that societies will accept their ideology if they bring them to believe in Darwinism. They attach so much importance to Darwin's deceit that "violence and conflict are unchanging natural laws." This is why all communist-oriented terrorist organizations give their militants months of training in communism, dialectical materialism, and Darwinism. Darwin's theory encourages these people to believe that they are actually animals, and that just like animals, people must fight for survival. Thus many young people become monsters quite capable of killing and even ruthlessly slaughtering children and babies.
In this way, communist ideology led to guerrilla and civil wars and bloody acts of terrorism in numerous countries throughout the twentieth century. That is why the intellectual struggle against Darwinism is so important: If Darwinism is exposed as the fallacy that it is and then collapses, Marxist philosophies based upon it will crumble. Since Darwinism has such an important role to play in anti-religious communist ideology, supporting one means supporting the other. Trying to justify Darwinism by seeking to reconcilie it with religion and claiming that Allah used evolution to create living things –although this has no truth in it-, means justifying communism. The communists know that religion and Darwinism are incompatible, but remain silent when confronted with religious people who accept evolutionary creation so that both ideologies can spread easily and even further afield. The important thing is to first open a door to the acceptance of Darwinism.
The communists' belief in evolution stems from their blind devotion to their ideology. For instance Robert Shapiro, an evolutionist professor of chemistry and DNA expert, says that the theory's basic claim that inanimate substances organized themselves and formed DNA and RNA is based on no scientific fact at all. He continues:
Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed to take us across the gap from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective replicator. This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but it is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism...42
As Shapiro has stated, evolutionists continue to defend the theory of evolution due to their dogmatic adherence to materialist philosophy. This indicates that any support given to this theory also means direct support for materialist philosophy, the spread of which inevitably prepares the ground for communist ideology's entrance into a given society. This link reveals how communist ideology draws its strength from Darwinism.
Muslims who support the theory of evolution need to think about this truth. They must not share a common perspective with communists, who have been and remain the fiercest enemies of religion, and/or support a view that is supposedly the "scientific" basis of communism. This becomes even more important when we consider that communism has not died, but is still holding out in authoritarian regimes like North Korea and, most dangerously, still dominating the political system and political culture of China, despite her superficial "capitalist" outlook.
One of the most important and yet least-known aspects of Darwin is his racism: Darwin regarded white Europeans as more "advanced" than other human races. Presuming that man evolved from ape-like creatures, he surmised that some races developed more than others and that the latter still bore simian features. In his book, The Descent of Man, which he published after The Origin of Species, he boldly commented on "the greater differences between men of distinct races."43 In his book, Darwin held blacks and Australian Aborigines to be equal to gorillas and then inferred that these would be "done away with" by the "civilized races" in time. He said:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.44
Darwin's nonsensical ideas were not only theorized, but also given a degree of scientific and social respectability that enabled them to provide the most important "scientific ground" for racism. Supposing that living beings evolved in the struggle for life, Darwinism soon was applied to the social sciences. Known as "Social Darwinism," this new ideology contends that existing human races are located at different rungs of the "evolutionary ladder," that the European races are the most "advanced" of all, and that many other races still bear "ape-like" features.
Moreover, Darwinism does not rest with preparing the ground for racist attacks, for it also allows all kinds of separatist and destructive actions. This "life is a fight" principle has created an argument that justifies putting other people living peacefully in the same country into concentration camps, as well as the use of violence and brute force, war, death, and murder.
Racist neo-Nazi movements are spreading to many countries. At the root of such movements is a fascistic hatred of peoples of other nations. Behind this idea lies Darwinism, according to which, the inferiority of some races in comparison to others is very natural.
However, Muslims who realize that Allah has created them and everything else, that Allah has breathed His soul into them, that the world is a place of peace and brotherhood, that all people are equal, and that each person will be punished in the Hereafter for whatever he or she has done in this world cannot harm others. Only those, who believe that they came into existence by chance, have no responsibility to anyone, will never have to account for their actions, and believe that the world is a place of conflict can engage in such activities.
That is why Muslims should listen to their consciences before accepting Darwinism, and why they should understand the true price of backing a theory that science itself refutes. The damage Darwinism has done to humanity is clear. The tragedies, suffering, and conflict it leads to also are well known. As we have seen throughout this chapter, the way in which people are brought to believe in irrational and illogical ideas and concepts should convince us that Darwinism is a grave danger.