Darwinism is an ancient shamanistic religion built on superstitions of all kinds. The origins of shamanism go back some 50,000 years.

• Shamanism is a belief system based on the worship of forces such as rain, snow, lightning, storms, wind, and the Sun. Darwinism is also a religion of nature-worship; it describes nature as an entity with “mythical and mysterious powers.” It anticipates the belief that stone, earth, the Sun, lightning and wind combined to give rise to life.

• Shamans claim to be the physicians, sages, leaders and administrators of their tribes and societies. Darwinists describe themselves in the same way. Shamans maintain that they understand the secrets of nature and can foretell the future. Similarly, Darwinists maintain that they know the secrets of matter, the atom and the Earth, and seek to describe imaginary changes that human beings and nature will be subject to in the future.

• Astronomy, biology, paleontology, physics, geology, chemistry, geophysics, embryology are all sciences. Darwinism, however, is not a science, but a primitive shamanistic religion.

Darwinists’ present-day beliefs are just as odd and irrational as those of people who once worshipped crocodiles. Darwinists regard chance and inanimate, unconscious atoms as a creative force, and are as devoted to that belief as if to a religion.

- Since the theory of evolution was first put forward, advances in a great many branches of science, have demolished the theory’s claims, one by one. Nonetheless, Darwinism still has its adherents. Typically, when a scientific theory is disproved, it is shelved, and all debate and discussion comes to an end. But not so with Darwinism. No matter how powerful and indisputable the evidence against their theory may be, evolutionists ignore it and continue to defend their beliefs in a fervent manner.

- Worshipping fire, the stars or the Sun, believing that the Pyramids were built by aliens, or venerating certain animals as sacred is not scientific. In the same way, neither is Darwinism–because just like other superstitious beliefs, Darwinism is also a religion of idols and false deities.

Members of the shamanistic religion of Darwinism spread fictitious reports about the future and try to bring new converts under their spell.

- Darwinism’s foremost idol is the “idol of chance.” Whatever Darwinist text you read, you will see claims about the power and limitless abilities of “natural selection,” the lifeblood and essence of Darwinism.

- Evolutionists claim that everything performed by the “idol of chance” is actually based on pragmatic calculations. In their view, this idol is able to consider everything and calculate in advance every step it will take.

- Evolutionists believe in one very strange force. They ascribe divine status to matter. They have belief that matter once assembled itself into a living cell and that one organism can give rise to another, entirely different one. Science has refuted these ideas. But for Darwinists, they are irrefutable facts that everyone must believe.

- Darwinism is an ancient shamanistic religion, built on insane and irrational superstitions and falsehoods. This idolatrous religion has been invented to confront Islam.

- According to the shamanistic religion of Darwinism, earth, water, rock and stone can feel, smell, hear and perceive colors.

Pagan societies have existed on Earth since the very earliest times. People at all times and all societies have fashioned different idols for themselves. In the same way that Darwinists adopt chance and inanimate matter as creative entities, similar imaginings were once adopted as idols by societies with warped beliefs. Above: Images depicting the Sumerian water idols.

- The essence of the religion of Darwinists is their nonsensical belief in chance that violates both science and reason. In fact, any rational mind is quite able to conceive that no complex entity can come into being spontaneously, by chance, but absolutely must be the product of a conscious plan. However, just like pagans who worship the idols they have crafted with their own hands, Darwinists believe in false deities.

- The nonsensical belief that Darwinists have adopted bears a very close resemblance to the beliefs of ancient pagan cultures. In the much same way that pagans believe that inanimate idols created all things, so evolutionists and materialists believe that inanimate matter created all living things. (God is surely beyond these.) They claim that even their own human bodies are the sum total of various coincidences.

- It is unacceptable for students to be taught Darwinist shamanistic religion under the name of science. What they need are courses in biology that have been purged of this shamanistic religion.

- The Turkish public laughs at the ruses resorted to by local evolutionists, because they cannot prove evolution by way of slander and aggression. Any evidence they have, they should put forward, whereupon everyone can easily distinguish between truth and error. For months now, the exhibitions of fossils taking place all over the country have helped the Turkish public realize that living things never underwent evolution.

- It is expected that evolutionists exhibit fossils if they have any. At the very least, they should display a few of them in the central headquarters or gardens of Turkish daily newspapers such as Cumhuriyet, Vatan and Hurriyet, or in such heavily frequented public spaces such as Istanbul’s Taksim Square or Ulus in Ankara. If they cannot do that, then they should cease their defense of evolution. They have no intermediate-form fossils to show, because such things never existed.

- Each fossil that evolutionists have put forward as a proof of evolution has turned out to be a fake or else misinterpreted. “Piltdown Man,” for example, turned out to be a hoax. The tooth of Nebraska “Man” turned out to be from a fossil boar. The coelacanth has been caught alive—and unchanged—since 1938. All the skull and bone fragments that allegedly show the human evolution tale have been proven to be either those of present-day human beings or else of species of ape that have become extinct.

Evolutionists conjure up creatures that never actually existed and hire skilled artists to produce “reconstructed” models and illustrations—which they use to try and convince people that evolution is a scientific fact. This false evidence is displayed in newspapers, magazines and museums. But these depictions reflect nothing beyond their makers’ imaginations. No such entities exist in the fossil record. Yet evolutionists themselves finally fall under the spell of this false evidence they have created with their own hands and start to believe in the religion of Darwinism.

SCIENTIFIC FACTS REFUTE THE CLAIMS OF THE

“SHAMANISTIC RELIGION OF DARWINISM”

According to the Shamanistic Religion of Darwinism: the first living organism formed spontaneously.

According to modern science, life cannot come into being by chance. Not one single protein or even a single cell, let alone a whole organism, can emerge by chance. The likelihood of any protein emerging by chance is only 1 in 10950. In practical terms, this equates to zero probability.

According to the Shamanistic Religion of Darwinism: living species descended from earlier, more primitive ones.

According to modern science, species cannot descend from one another. Every life form has its own unique characteristics. It is impossible for them to develop through another species’ gradual changes.

According to the Shamanistic Religion of Darwinism: fossils confirm the theory of evolution.

According to modern science, fossils are evidence of creation, not evolution. Some 100 million fossils have so far been discovered, and all of them represent complete, fully formed organisms. Not a single fossil indicates that it was undergoing any transitional “evolution.”

According to the Shamanistic Religion of Darwinism: species diversified through mutations.

According to modern science, mutations damage organisms, and do not improve them. They cannot cause a species to diversify: they either kill or cripple the mutated individual.

According to the Shamanistic Religion of Darwinism: humans are descended from ape-like creatures.

According to modern science, apes and humans are totally separate species. There is no family relationship between them. Despite their physical similarities, they have enormous differences that cannot be explained by claims of evolution.

According to the Shamanistic Religion of Darwinism: natural selection present in nature is proof of evolution.

According to modern science, natural selection cannot cause one living thing to evolve or give rise to new life forms.

TWO NEW DECEPTIONS FROM EVOLUTIONISTS:

TIKTAALIK ROSEAE AND GOGONASUS

The fossil discovered in Canada a few months ago and given the name of Tiktaalik roseae was portrayed as major evidence for evolution. In fact, however, this creature is obviously a “mosaic” combining a great many features. Nonetheless, evolutionists depict this creature as an intermediate species and claim, using fictitious illustrations, that it represents proof of a transition from water to land. The platypus found in modern-day Australia is also a mosaic creature that shares mammalian, reptilian and bird characteristics at one and the same time. Yet nothing about it can be depicted as proof of evolution.

In recent days, evolutionists have brought up yet another fossil found in Australia, repeating their tales that have persisted for so many years of a “completed missing link.” This new fossil, known as Gogonasus and evidently an extinct species of fish, has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Evolutionists seek to use it as an evidence for their myth of the transition from water to dry land, particularly on account of its fin bones, but the fossil in question is an obvious species of fish totally unconnected with life on land. The coelacanth, still alive today, also has bones in its fins, but these have been established to be perfectly ordinary structures that the fish uses solely for the purpose of swimming.

In order to substantiate their claims, evolutionists must discover “intermediate forms,” with deficient, half-formed organs that are not fully functional. Yet every one of the organs possessed by these fossil creatures is complete, flawless. There are no semi-developed organs, nor any fossil series that can be presented as evidence for an evolutionary transition from other living species.

Evolutionists must finally accept the facts and stop trying to deceive the public with their fabrications.

MATERIALIST SELF-INTEREST CABALS ARE UP TO NEW CONSPIRACIES

In recent months, both the Turkish and the world media have been issuing panicked reports about the global defeat of Darwinism. The routing of Darwinism has had a deep impact on European Freemasonry and certain other secret forces, and these have resorted to a plan produced out of terror of the threat of the elimination of atheism and materialism. British and French lodges have issued directives. Sabbatean families are also becoming involved, out of a thirst for vengeance. In order that the matter should be definitively resolved, various writers are being hired out, and a plot is being prepared against all patriotic individuals. The principal target is the Science Research Foundation.

In the future, however, just as in the past, it will be impossible for these endeavors to bear any fruit. Millions are aware of just what is going on. A new Sun has risen, and its light has illuminated all parts. The next thing for evolutionists to do is submit in the face of the facts.

ISLAM CONFLICTS WITH PAGAN RELIGIONS, NOT WITH SCIENCE

Islam commands people to research and investigate all branches of science and knowledge:

. . . Reflect on the creation of the heavens and the Earth . . . (Surah Al Imran, 191)

Have they not looked at the sky above them: how We structured it . . . (Surah Qaf, 6)

. . . You will not find any flaw in the creation of the All-Merciful. Look again . . . (Surat al-Mulk, 3)

Man has only to look at what he was created from. (Surat at-Tariq, 5)

Have they not looked at the camel—how it was created, and at the sky—how it was raised up, and at the mountains—how they were embedded, and at the Earth—how it was smoothed out? (Surat al-Ghashiyya, 17-20)

In the heavens and Earth there are certainly signs for the believers. And in your creation and all the creatures He has spread about there are signs for people with certainty. (Surat al-Jathiyya, 3-4)

It is therefore impossible to claim any divergence between science and Islam.

However, Islam does oppose all false religions. It is opposed to the worship of fire, of the devil, animals or idols—in short, to all forms of pagan belief. Shamanism is a religion that also worships chance and nature (animals, plants, stones, earth and matter). As a shamanistic creed, Darwinism is therefore in conflict with Islam.

Under the pen name of Harun Yahya, Adnan Oktar has written some 250 works. His books contain a total of 46,000 pages and 31,500 illustrations. Of these books, 7,000 pages and 6,000 illustrations deal with the collapse of the Theory of Evolution. You can read, free of charge, all the books Adnan Oktar has written under the pen name Harun Yahya on these websites www.harunyahya.com

Darwin is the capital city of the northern territory of Australia. The city is located on the Timor Sea. It is one of the smallest cities of Australia, but a popular tourist destination across the world. Every year, large numbers of travelers come to Darwin to enjoy their vacation in peace and comfort. The Darwin hotels offer some of the most luxurious and comfortable accommodation options to the tourists. The hotels and resorts in Darwin are known for their homely and friendly ambiance. All the hotels in Darwin are well equipped with all kinds of modern amenities which are designed to make your stay comfortable. The hotels in Darwin can be classified into luxury and budget hotels.

Speaking about the deluxe or luxury hotels at Darwin, you will find various kinds of spacious and comfortable lodging centers in the various corners of the city. All the rooms at the luxury hotels in Darwin are fully air-conditioned. You will find the guestrooms beautifully decorated and well furnished. The rooms at these opulent Darwin hotels offer an excellent view of the surrounding areas from the large windows. The interiors of the hotels are elegantly done and offer a cozy ambiance. The room facilities provided in these hotels are of international standards. Travelers will also get all kinds of modern facilities and services to enjoy their stay in these Darwin hotels.

The business facilities provided in the hotels in Darwin are excellent. The business hotels are nicely equipped with a business center and come with an array of meeting and business facilities. You will be able to carry out your meetings or seminars quite comfortably at the various Darwin business hotels. Dining at Darwin hotels is an altogether different experience for all the travelers. You can pamper your taste buds with a variety of local and international dishes in its warm settings. The bars and the cafes at the hotels are the best place to try out a wide variety of drinks and cocktails.

The budget or the low cost hotels in Darwin are best for those travelers who are looking for comfort and luxury at reasonable prices. Budget hotels in Darwin are located in all the popular points of the city. Depending on your budget and requirement, you can choose to stay in any one of the cheap hotels in Darwin. Accommodation options at the budget hotels in Darwin are simply great. The rooms and interiors of these Darwin budget hotels are done nicely. Travelers will get various kinds of room and hotel amenities to stay in comfort and luxury. You will find the budget hotels or low cost hotels in Darwin a truly remarkable place to stay in comfort and luxury.

Adnan Oktar is an author who for many years has undertaken the mission of telling society about the scientific invalidity of Darwinism and its social dimension, which is totally opposed to religious moral values. The author describes this mission as follows in the introduction to his “Social Weapon: Darwinism.”

“… the dangers of educating young people in the light of Darwinism and of the theory’s wide acceptance will be shown to people unaware of, or who ignore, the threat that it poses to societies and individuals.”

The author has published a great many books, articles, documentaries and web sites all intended to reveal the extent of the danger to society of educating young people in the light of Darwinism. (1) The author’s works first spread through Turkey and then through the wider Islamic world, and he has now turned to telling Western society about the error that is Darwinism. The author has determined his strategy in the light of Darwinism having acquired a broad basis in which to spread in Western society in educational and cultural fields, and has thus written a work of unsurpassed quality in this area in order to illuminate Western societies in which that theory is so influential. In his Atlas of Creation, which contains thousands of illustrations, consists of some 700 pages and weighs approximately 7 kilograms, Mr. Oktar has again exposed the scientific invalidity of Darwinism, using the most concrete examples. In the Atlas of Creation, the author specially emphasizes the havoc Darwinism has wreaked on mankind, the most obvious manifestation of which he shows to have been the dependence on Darwinism in the slaughter perpetrated by a racist dictator such as Hitler, who caused the deaths of millions.

This giant book was sent out by its publisher free of charge, for publicity purposes, to eminent individuals in various European countries and in the USA. Western Darwinists who discovered this magnificent volume in their mailboxes, one that openly declares the scientific falsity of Darwinism, were stunned. The campaign frequently appeared in Western media headlines, which compared the situation to Darwinism being subjected to “a sudden attack” on its home ground. The author’s opposition to the one-sided teaching of Darwinism and his exposure of the link between Darwin and Hitler were frequently discussed in newspapers and on the television.

The entry into Western society by a Muslim author with a book that elicited such profound responses, set the scene for a new phase in the intellectual struggle against Darwinism. Many Western references underlined the fact that it was not only Christians who espoused the fact of Creation in their struggle against Darwinism, and that Adnan Oktar, who has published books on the subject all over the world, must be acknowledged as the leader of a very powerful movement.

It is inevitable in this new dawn that through Mr. Oktar the dangers of Darwinist education are now expressed much louder in the West and that many people will be encouraged to reconsider the whole subject, and that education policies will even be amended. The way that the subject entered the agenda in a letter written to one of the U.S. state of Florida’s educational institutions bears a striking parallel to the account given in Atlas of Creation. The letter, written to a school board in St. Petersburg, described Hitler’s dependence of Darwinism and expressed the view that it was therefore dangerous for students to be taught the theory of evolution as a supposed scientific fact.

Impact 1: Bill Foster’s Letter

The letter in question entered the agenda with a report published in the 12 January, 2008, edition of the St. Petersburg Times titled “Foster links Darwin, Hitler.” The subject matter of the article was a letter written to the school board by Bill Foster, a former City Council member. In his letter, Foster noted the dangers inherent in the theory of evolution being taught as a scientific fact, and demanded that the compulsory teaching of Darwinism be prevented.

Foster described the reason for his opposition to the theory of evolution being taught as fact in these words:

“Evolution gives our kids an excuse to believe in natural selection and survival of the fittest, which leads to a belief that they are superior over the weak … This is a slippery slope.”

Foster’s letter came on the eve of the state of Florida putting new science standards to the vote. These new standards regarded Charles Darwin’s theory as the pillar of modern biology. The science standards that had been in force in the state since 1996 made no reference to the word “evolution.” The state Board of Education was to vote on the issue on 19 February.

At the same time, Foster is one of the leading candidates in the elections for the post of St. Petersburg’s mayor, due to be held in 2009. In his letter, Foster goes on to stress the link between Hitler and Darwin:

“Adolf Hitler duped an entire generation using Darwin’s evolution … He sought to preserve the ‘favored’ race in the struggle for survival.”

(*) RON MATUS and DONNA WINCHESTER, “South Pinellas: Foster links Darwin, Hitler,” 12 January 2008

Impact 2: School Killings Linked to Darwinism

In the letter in question, Foster cites the Columbine massacre as striking evidence of the harm resulting from the teaching of Darwinism as a scientific fact. That armed attack, carried out by two students in a school in Columbine, USA on 20 April, 1999, resulted in the deaths of 12 students and a teacher, with a further 23 students being injured. The two assailants later committed suicide. Foster stressed how one of the pair had posted the following words on his web site:

“You know what I love? Natural selection! It’s the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms.”

In the wake of the 1999 shooting, Tom DeLay, a member of the US House of Representatives, cited Darwin’s theory as a contributing factor and wrote in a letter that duly found its way into the Congressional Record that public schools “teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud.”

The Columbine massacre was no exceptional attack carried out by students holding Darwinist views. In Finland, Pekka-Eric Auvinen, who described himself as a social Darwinist, shot 8 people to death at the Jokela High School some 40 miles from Helsinki, before killing himself.

In a manifesto setting out his views, Auvinen used the following words, which clearly revealed the influence of Darwinist views in this massacre:

“I am prepared to fight and die for my cause. I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection. … No, the truth is that I am just an animal, a human, an individual, a dissident. … It’s time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on tracks!”

Impact 3: “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy” on Show in the USA

The evangelical Christian group Coral Ridge Ministries, active in the state of Florida, produced a new TV special called “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy.” The film, aired on Christian cable networks and on some 200 TV stations in the country as a whole, described Adolf Hitler’s dependence on Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution with regard to the Holocaust.

Fourteen scholars, scientists and authors contributed comments to the documentary, which was aired 26-27 August, 2007, during “Coral Ridge Hour.” D. James Kennedy, the pastor of Coral Ridge Ministries, said: “To put it simply, no Darwin, no Hitler. Hitler tried to speed up evolution, to help it along, and millions suffered and died in unspeakable ways because of it.” (2)

CRM spokesman John Aman said:

“Darwinism is a philosophy, it’s a worldview, and one of the key things in it is that evolution advances by death, so death is a good thing. Hitler thought he was doing civilization a favor by eliminating lives that were not worth living. We of course think that is an egregious moral tragedy and a consequence of the worldview that was initiated by Darwin and popularized by his followers.” (3)

The alliance between Darwin and Hitler resulted in a tragedy responsible for the deaths of some 40 million.

References
(1) Works on the subject by Harun Yahya include;
Social Weapon: Darwinism (Book)
The Disasters Darwinism Brought to Humanity (Book)
Fascism: The Bloody Ideology of Darwinism (Book)
The Intellectual Struggle against Darwinism (Book)
(2) “Coral Ridge Ministries new ‘documentary’ featuring Ann Coulter attributes Hitler to Charles Darwin,” Bill Berkowitz, 6 September 2006, http://www.mediatransparency.org/storyprinterfriendly.php?storyID=146
(3) Ibid.

You often hear evolutionists point to speciation as evidence of evolution. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. A process that transforms one species into another in an orderly fashion, regardless of whether it happens “overnight” or over a long period of time, is not an evolutionary process — nothing evolves! This is a transformation. A metamorphosis that produces no chaos, or the same “chaos” every time, as a byproduct, is the result of design or planning.

The ONLY way speciation can be considered evolution is if it produces a myriad of randomly disfigured, dysfunctional organisms for every functional one. There have been no such findings in the lab or in the field. The vast majority of life forms in the fossil record seem to have emerged well-designed and functional in their first appearance. This is not evolution, although evolutionist like to call it that.

It’s asinine enough to believe that a long series of trial and errors can eventually, accidentally evolve a new life form, but to be faced with concrete evidence that no trial and error even occurred and still believe life somehow developed without a plan or design guiding it, is moronic and delusional.

Furthermore, there is no evidence in the fossil record of any species even transforming into another one. The sudden appearance of various life forms shows not even a transformation process. That’s not to say this can’t happen, there’s just no evidence of it in the field.

What evolutionists have done is taken the occasional aberration of nature, like “TikTaalik” and “Ida,” and concocted convoluted explanations of how they must have come from one species and evolved into another, because the fossil has some bone structures similar to both.

You don’t need bones and fossils for this. So many life forms have eyes, ears, noses and a host of other similar organs; do these even more striking similarities prove all these life forms evolved from one ancestor? Similarities can just as well make an argument for Creation: species have similarities because they were created by the same God.

Well, God, evolutionists point out, is not science. Let me see if I understand this. To say that God created life is not science because you can’t prove God’s existence. But to say that life created and developed by itself, which is also unprovable, that is science. Just taking God out of the picture makes it science?

Evolutionists make the mistake of thinking that because analyzing biological systems today is a science, any unproven concoction of how it all came about is also science. Evolution falls in the same category of “theories” as “the earth is flat.”

Evolution forums are probably the best evidence of how bereft evolution is of any true science. Log on to some forums and you’ll find that evolutionists’ response to any opposition to their “religion” is usually countered with the most vile, hostile and belligerent language. Most don’t even bother to discuss science. Interestingly, those that point out the shortcomings of evolution talk about science in far greater numbers than evolutionists. And there’s a reason for this: evolutionists just don’t have the science to support their views, while disproofs are in abundance.

Evolution today is no longer a science issue. The theory has been disproven so often from so many different angles it’s become like hitting a dead horse. Evolution is basically a struggle between those who need it in their lives and those who don’t. Dispelling the godless religion of evolution boils down to spreading the message that “the horse is dead.”

by JoshGreenberger.com

The November edition of National Geographic magazine (NG) posed the question “Was Darwin Wrong?” on its front cover. Natural scientist David Quammen, author of the article by the same name, replied “No” to that question from his own perspective, and claimed that Darwin’s theory of evolution was today backed up by powerful scientific evidence. Quammen repeated the main claims from Darwin’s book The Origin of Species, but overlooked one important detail.

Darwin added another chapter to his book, one called “Difficulties on Theory,” and openly admitted the existence of difficulties in these terms:

Such is the sum of the several chief objections and difficulties which may justly be urged against my theory… I have felt these difficulties far too heavily during many years to doubt their weight. 1

The fact is, however, that the NG article discussed not one of the phenomena that Darwin regarded as a problem for his theory, and even ignored their existence. For example, although Darwin referred in his book to the way the fossil record failed to back up his theory and to the complexity in the eye, NG magazine did not even touch on such subjects which the theory of evolution is unable to account for as the Cambrian Explosion, biological complexity and the origin of genetic information.

Quammen, who thus appears to be more of a Darwinist than Darwin himself, emerged as the defender not of a theory that can account for difficulties, but of a “dogma” that needs to be shielded from criticism.

In this article, Quammen’s so-called evidence is analysed and the Darwinist propaganda embarked on by NG magazine refuted.

An Example of NG Turkey’s Dogmatic Stance

The English language edition of the NG article “Was Darwin Wrong?” also devoted space to Harun Yahya’s works about the theory of evolution. In the section describing worldwide reactions against evolution the following words appeared in reference to Harun Yahya:

Their discomfort is paralleled by Islamic creationists such as Harun Yahya, author of a recent volume titled The Evolution Deceit, who points to the six-day creation story in the Koran as literal truth and calls the theory of evolution “nothing but a deception imposed on us by the dominators of the world system.”

Interestingly though, Harun Yahya did not appear in NG’s Turkish version, and this section was altered, assuming the following form: “This unease displays a parallelism among those who support the Islamic idea of creation.”

As someone who states his primary aim as being that of describing the philosophy and scientific invalidity of Darwinism, Harun Yahya has closely monitored Darwinist propaganda in recent years and has responded, in the light of scientific findings, to the pro-evolutionist writings and broadcasts of media organisations, of which NG is one. (see www.darwinism-watch.com)

If Darwinism really were supported by a mass of evidence, as claimed in this NG article, then why is NG Turkey trying to prevent Harun Yahya’s scientific criticisms from being heard? Could it be that NG Turkey was concerned that Darwinism will be unable to withstand such scientific criticism? In fact, this attitude by NG’s Turkey desk not only shows that the magazine is unwilling to inform its readers of the source of effective criticism of evolution, but also confirms the criticism that it is seeking to keep Darwinism on its feet as an ideology.

NG Is Unwilling to Face the Modern Scientific Facts

There can be no doubt that in order to provide a realistic response to the question “Was Darwin Wrong?” one needs to look at what Darwin actually said and to compare this to modern scientific facts. In his book The Origin of Species, in which he unveiled his theory of evolution, Darwin provided a very important criterion by which to test his theory. So concrete is that criterion that in Darwin’s own words it could “absolutely break down” the theory. Darwin wrote:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” 2

Darwin maintained that organs evolved during a gradual process. Thinking of this imaginary process in reverse, it appears that Darwin assumed that these organs possessed reducibility. However, advances made in the field of biochemistry, especially over the last 40 years, have revealed that the cell possesses a superior complexity, the details of which were unknown in Darwin’s time, for which reason it was equated to a “black box,” and that certain structures within the cell actually possess the feature of “irreducible complexity.”

“Irreducible complexity” is a phenomenon based on empirical evidence and literally constitutes the antithesis of Darwin’s theory. The most important figure to bring this concept onto the agenda of the scientific world is the biochemist Michael J. Behe from Lehigh University in the USA. In his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution Behe examines the irreducibly complex natures of the cell and certain other biological structures, and reveals that these cannot possibly be accounted for in terms of evolution. Behe sets out the effect that irreducible complexity has on the claims of Darwinism thus:

“To Darwin, the cell was a ‘black box’ — its inner workings were utterly mysterious to him. Now, the black box has been opened up and we know how it works. Applying Darwin’s test to the ultra-complex world of molecular machinery and cellular systems that have been discovered over the past 40 years, we can say that Darwin’s theory has ‘absolutely broken down’.” 3

Irreducible complexity has demolished Darwinism, and proved that life is the product of intelligent design, in other words that God has created all living things. The way that NG seeks to keep this from its readers constitutes a flight from reality.

NG’s biogeographical tales

In his article in NG, Quammen begins his account of the so-called evidence for Darwinism with biogeography, and it may be of use to provide a description of this concept at this point. Biogeography is a branch of science that investigates the geographical distribution of species and seeks an answer to the question of how they came by these habitat regions by drawing up maps of their locations on the Earth.

Most books in the field of biogeography are full of facts that say nothing, neither in favour nor against, the theory of evolution: such as maps of living species’ habitat areas, the features of those areas, questions regarding the spread of organisms, and the grouping together of species on the basis of geographical area … 4

When their distribution on the Earth is examined it can be seen that species do not generally exhibit a global distribution. Species have rather spread in large groups in areas possessing specific climatic and environmental conditions. Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have sought to portray this spread as evidence for evolution, though with regard to the “fundamental” living categories of geographical distribution their efforts have failed to come up with a consistent evolutionary scenario.

In their book Systematics and Biogeography, G. Nelson and N. Platnick of the New York American Museum of Natural History analysed the studies performed in this field and set out their conclusion:

We conclude, therefore, that biogeography (or geographical distribution of organisms) has not been shown to be evidence for or against evolution in any sense. 5

If evolutionists really wish to offer evidence for their theory then what they need to do is to abandon their fairy tales about “if this living thing is found here then it must have evolved here, and if that living thing is found there then it must have evolved there,” and instead scientifically document their own responses to the question of how living things came into being in the first place. (It is an indisputable fact that the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection cannot account for the origin of species.)

The fact that evolutionist claims based on biogeography are myths devoid of any scientific evidence clearly emerge on inspection of NG’s claims about palaeontology. The fossil record clearly reveals that the idea that living things spread by evolving is a myth.

NG’s palaeontology deception

NG makes a generalisation about the fossil strata, telling its readers that so-called closely related species are generally found side by side in consecutive strata, and that a life form going back millions of years in one stratum is followed by a similar, though not identical, one in the subsequent stratum. As an example of this generalisation it cites the equine sequence that even evolutionists abandoned years ago; it maintains that the modern-day horse emerged at the end of the sequence Hyracotherium, Orohippus, Epihippus and Mohippus, fossils of which are found in consecutive strata.

What NG is doing here consists of a blatant deception. The equine sequence is an unfounded one, the invalidity of which has now been demonstrated. That being the case, putting it forward as a generalisation regarding the fossil record cannot be described as anything else than an attempt to verify that generalisation with a deceptive example.

Life forms emerged with no evolutionary progenitors, but in a single moment, and with flawless bodily structures

Darwin, who maintained that living things emerged through graduated evolution and who hoped that the fossil record to confirm that claim would be obtained in future excavations, was mistaken. The fossils obtained in endless excavations carried out by palaeontologists all over the world have produced findings that openly refute the idea of gradual change in consecutive strata. These facts concern the phenomena of sudden appearance and stasis.

Species emerge suddenly, with no evolutionary progenitors but with flawless bodily structures. In his 1999 book Fossils and Evolution, Tom Kemp, Curator of the Zoological Collections in Oxford University Museum of Natural History, admits this:

In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms. 6

Fossils hundreds of millions of years old that bear no

trace of evolution invalidate neo-Darwinism

Furthermore, species exhibit no gradual change as suggested in the NG generalisation. Species with natural histories of hundreds of millions of years exhibit a “stability” demonstrating a permanency throughout geological strata. The shark, coelacanth, ant, salamander and many other species, fossils of which have been found and which have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years, have led to palaeontologists accepting stasis as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record. This phenomenon refutes Darwinism’s prediction of gradual change and invalidates the theory. Professor of Geology Peter J. Williamson describes this in Nature magazine:

The principal problem is morphological stasis. A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record. 7

In short, NG’s claim of graduated change throughout geological strata is a myth supported in the face of the science of palaeontology. The way that NG seeks to support that myth with the equine sequence only makes matters worse.

The truth in the equine sequence that NG seeks to conceal from its readers

The equine sequence is based on various hoofed fossils unearthed in North America. Darwinists set these out in such a way as to establish a sequence, according to the fossils’ dental characteristics and numbers of toes, and for years put this forward as evidence for Darwinism. Continuing palaeontological excavations, however, definitively revealed the inconsistencies within that series. NG, known for its blind devotion to Darwinism, has no qualms about concealing this development from its readers and writing that the alleged evolutionary ancestors of the horse follow one another in consecutive geological strata.

Former BBC science editor Gordon Rattray Taylor describes how the equine sequence constitutes no evidence for Darwinism:

But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change… The horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time. 8

At a meeting in November 1980 at the Chicago Museum of Natural History, attended by 150 evolutionists, one speaker, Boyce Rensberger, stated that there was no basis in the fossil record for the scenario of equine evolution, and that no gradual equine evolution ever took place:

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown. 9

Discoveries that living things included in the imaginary sequence of equine evolution actually lived at the same time, and even together, totally refute Quammen. One of the most striking examples of this came to light in 1981. Fossils of thousands of living things, 10 million years old, that had been buried under lava as the result of a volcanic eruption and whose skeletons had been preserved down to the present day, were dug up in the US state of Nebraska. With that discovery it emerged that three- and single-toed equines assumed to have lived at different periods and to have ancestral relationships with one another in the framework of evolutionists’ imaginary equine sequence, actually lived side by side. Interestingly the source of this information is NG magazine. 10

The myth of whale evolution

I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale. 11

From watching bears fishing along a river bank, Darwin set out his ideas on the origin of whales in these words in his book The Origin of Species, though he elected to remove that section from subsequent editions of the book. Yet evolutionists who came after Darwin had no hesitation over adopting this myth, with various minor amendments, that came down as a monument to the unrestricted nature of his imagination. They continued to propagate the myth that the whale evolved not from the bear but from other land mammals, as if this were a scientific fact.

It can now be seen that NG, one of the main representatives of Darwinian mythology, is behaving no differently, and is seeking to portray this great myth, supported for the sake of the dogma of evolution, as representing evidence for evolution.

There are enormous differences, in terms of such basic physiological characteristics as water conservation, sight and communication, between whales and the land mammals alleged to have been their progenitors. Let us now consider the scientific dilemma facing the myth of evolution by examining the design in whales:

The special water conservation design in whales’ bodies

Although they live in water, whales are unable to meet their water requirements from salty sea water. They need fresh water to live. Although it is not known exactly how they meet their water needs, it is thought that a large part of it is obtained by eating sea creatures that contain levels of salt that are 30% lower than those of the ocean water.In such an environment, where fresh water is exceedingly scarce, the maximum conservation of water in living things’ bodies and minimum consumption thereof are critical. Water levels are of great importance to whales, for which reason, just like camels, whales do not perspire. Their kidneys regulate urine concentration in such a way as to supply water.

Why is whale milk fatty?

Another delicate balance with regard to water needs appears in the fat level in the female whale’s milk. The mother whale feeds her young with a very thick milk, of the consistency of cheese. This milk is ten times fattier than human milk. There is a chemical reason why this milk contains such a high level of fat. Water is produced as a side product as fat is processed after being consumed by the baby. In this way the mother meets her offspring’s need for water with minimal water loss.

The design in whales’ eyes

There are complex arrangements in the design of the whale eye and its communication systems, no examples of which are to be found in terrestrial mammals. Land mammals have eyelids to protect against dust and impact. Whales, on the other hand, have a hard layer to protect against a different danger, the pressure under the sea. Moreover, the refractive index in the design of the whale eye makes it possible for a killer whale to leap up and catch a fish six metres above the water level in an amusement park with considerable accuracy. In addition, whales’ eyes are on either side of the head, unlike terrestrial mammals, thus protecting them from the current. Thanks to the levels of rod and cone cells in the eye, their sensitivity levels to light, colour and other details are very high. In addition to that ratio, the presence of phosphorus in the eyes is a design that facilitates their ability to see in the dark depths of the oceans.

The mathematical calculation employed by whales

The sense used by whales in the location of sources of food and of one another is not actually sight, but rather hearing. Many whales hunt at the dark regions at the bottom of the sea thanks to a form of natural “sonar.” The whale’s brain emits clicking sounds, in a way not yet fully understood by scientists. The distance of an object is determined by means of a mathematical calculation. The whale brain multiplies the speed at which the sounds it emits strike an object and bounce back by the time necessary for this, and divides the result by two. The result is the distance of the object from itself. Furthermore, the whale also possesses the ability to focus the sound waves with its brain on a specific point and to emit these like a light impulse. The returning waves are analysed and interpreted in the animal’s brain. This interpretation determines the shape of the body in front of it, its size, speed and position. The animal’s skull is sound-proofed to protect it from the bombardment of powerful sound waves it constantly emits and which could even seriously damage the brain itself. The sonic system in the animal is unbelievably sensitive, so much so that the US Navy imitates the sonar design in sea mammals in developing its own technology. 12

Special designs for whale calves

The perfect designs in whales are by no means limited to these. The shape of a whale calf’s mouth has been designed in such a way as to be ideally suited to fit its mother’s teats, so that the calf is able to suckle without losing a drop of milk and without taking in a drop of sea water. Moreover, they possess lungs capable of storing high levels of oxygen for protracted dives and an ear membrane designed to protect them from high pressure.

These arrangements, every one of which indicates an evident design, are particular to whales and are not to be found in any terrestrial mammal. NG, however, expects it readers to set reason aside and believe that these all came about by chance. NG denies that whales were intelligently designed, maintaining instead that one fine day a land mammal decided to live in the sea, and that the whale evolved as the result of unconscious mechanisms such as random mutations and natural selection.

Yet what mutation could possibly produce sonar in a mammal that was allegedly the progenitor of the whale? Bearing in mind the effect of mutations and the importance of the brain to the whale’s survival, it is clear that mutations would damage the brain, crippling or killing the whale. Could the brain, that produces sound waves, be able to focus these on a particular point and determine the location of objects using a mathematical calculation, acquire a perfect sonar in an area that would be damaged during this random process? By what coincidence could it produce sonar of such a high quality that even the US Navy’s technology development units have been unable to match it? What mutations could turn a land mammal’s feet into fins and a tail capable of propelling several tons of weight?

There is no doubt that these questions may also be asked with regard to the systems that make it possible to use water so productively, the suckling system and the protective systems in the eye and ear. However, NG has no reasonable response to give to these questions. There is but one answer. Whales were created fully formed in a single moment. God created whales to be flawless, endowed with all the systems for their needs, just as He did all other living things. In one verse of the Qur’an it is revealed that:

Mankind! remember God’s blessing to you. Is there any creator other than God providing for you from heaven and earth? There is no god but Him. So how have you been perverted? (Qur’an, 35: 3)

(For a more detailed reply to NG’s fantastical whale story see http://www.harunyahya.com/70national_geographic_sci29.php)

NG’s error regarding embryology

Another error in Quammen’s article in NG is the repetition of a myth once known as the “law of recapitulation.” This belonged to the German biologist Ernst Haeckel and in his claim regarding embryology Darwin was to a large extent “inspired” by Haeckel. The law of recapitulation maintains that the embryological development of living things repeats the imaginary stages undergone during the descent of the alleged evolutionary ancestors.

The fact that Quammen devotes space to this in his article reveals a wide gap of knowledge on his part. Objections along the lines that Haeckel’s claims were devoid of any scientific justification and that the evidence he offered was forged began 136 years ago13, and the end of the law of recapitulation as the subject of scientific debate came as far back as 80 years ago 14. Even George Gaylord Simpson, one of the founders of neo-Darwinism, admitted this fact 42 years ago in the words:

Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny. 15

Moreover, the myth of recapitulation, which NG has no qualms over recapitulating itself, involves what one British embryologist referred to in 1997 as “the best known fraud in the history of biology.” In his book Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (The History of Natural Creation), written in 1868, Haeckel deliberately distorted the pictures of human, monkey and dog embryos in such a way as to support his claim.

One striking aspect of this fraud is that it also constitutes a “centennial monument” to Darwinist dogmatism. Until recently, a number of Darwinist sources, including text books, continued either to use the counterfeit drawings as they were, or else to repeat the myth of recapitulation. The Harvard University professor and evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould displayed great common sense and offered the following criticism:

… [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks! 16

NG has not used counterfeit drawings. Yet it has no hesitations over using recapitulation, the invalidity of which emerged at least 80 years ago, as support for Darwinism.

We urge NG to consider Stephen Jay Gould’s words.

NG’s errors with regard to morphology

Quammen exhibits a most thought-provoking attitude in that section in which he deals with Darwin’s claims on the subject of morphology. The way that a zoo is organised into birds, monkeys, big cats, crocodiles or fish in the aquarium is interpreted as evidence for evolution. According to Quammen, the fact that living things can be classified under a hierarchical system in families, orders and kingdoms must be the product of an evolutionary process.

However, Quammen’s portrayal of hierarchical classification as evidence for evolution is nonsensical. That is because the fact that forms of life can be classified hierarchically is not a prediction first put forward by evolutionists and then subsequently confirmed. The Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus, the father of the modern system of classification, was a scientist who believed in creation from nothing and regarded that classification as the product of intelligent design. That is compatible with what we see with our own eyes and is grounded in common sense. The ability to be hierarchically classified is a well known hallmark of intelligent design. Means of transport, for example, can be classified as land, air and sea vehicles, and may be broken down into subcategories and even smaller subgroups. Yet this classification does not show that the modes of transport in question came into being through evolution.

Indeed, in an article published in the magazine New Scientist, the prominent evolutionist Mark Ridley makes the following statement:

The simple fact that species can be classified hierarchically into genera, families, and so on, is not an argument for evolution. It is possible to classify any set of objects into a hierarchy whether their variation is evolutionary or not. 17

Quammen’s preconception

In the same way that what Quammen writes on this subject are far from supporting his claim, it also reveals how he relies on preconceptions rather than scientific evidence:

Such a pattern of tiered resemblances?groups of similar species nested within broader groupings, and all descending from a single source?isn’t naturally present among other collections of items. You won’t find anything equivalent if you try to categorize rocks, or musical instruments, or jewelry. Why not? Because rock types and styles of jewelry don’t reflect unbroken descent from common ancestors. Biological diversity does. The number of shared characteristics between any one species and another indicates how recently those two species have diverged from a shared lineage. (p. 13)

Quammen placed the hierarchical categorisation in living things in a separate place, on the grounds that it reflects a continual chain of descent from a common ancestor. That term, however, is helpless labelling in Quammen’s desperate attempts to prove Darwin right.

As is made clear above, there is no fossil record capable of being proposed as evidence of any evolutionary link between living categories. The words of the prominent evolutionary palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould that “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches” are an admission of the fact that there is actually no evidence for the evolutionary links assumed to exist among living things. 18

In short, the origin of the evolutionary chain of descent that Quammen claims exists among living categories is not scientific fact such as the fossil record, but rather his own dogmatic mentality.

The five-digit skeletal structure error

Quammen maintains that the way that various vertebrates such as the bat, the dolphin and human beings all share the feature of having five digits stems from descent from a common ancestor. This claim rests on the fact that although there is the same basic plan in the front and rear legs of the living things in question, these can still be easily differentiated (the homological claim). This claim of Quammen’s can of course only deceive those readers who are unaware of the facts of modern science. Advances in the field of molecular biology definitively invalidate this morphology-based claim. One striking discovery that led to this is that the production of these organs, assumed to be a legacy from a common ancestor, is in fact controlled by different genes in different creatures.

The evolutionary biologist William Fix describes the collapse of the evolutionary thesis concerning pentadactylism (having five digits) in this area in the face of this discovery:

The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the `pentadactyl’ limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale, and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down. 19

NG’s vestigial Darwinism

Quammen displays a striking determination not to grasp the fact that Darwin’s claims have been demolished by modern science. One of the indications of this is his repetition of the claim regarding vestigial organs, a claim which is utterly illusory. It is maintained in the article that organs such as the male nipple, structures claimed to be the vestiges of rear legs in certain snakes, or the covered wings in coleoptera that are not actually used, are redundant, functionless organs left over from the evolutionary process. Quammen is clearly ignoring the definitive results from scientific developments:

The list of up to 180 supposed vestigial organs at the beginning of the 20th century eventually shrank to almost none in the face of discoveries from scientific research. One by one it emerged that a great many organs, such as the appendix and the plica semilunaris, once supposed to be vestigial organs, do actually have functions.20 “Science” is in any case the process by which human beings come to know what was previously unknown. The gradual emergence of the functions of organs that were once regarded as vestigial shows that, logically, the functions of the last few remaining organs whose functions are still unknown will soon be revealed.

Indeed, a great many present-day evolutionists have admitted that the myth of “vestigial organs” is an argument rooted in ignorance. In an article headed “Do Vestigial Organs Represent Evidence for Evolution?” published in the journal Evolutionary Theory, the evolutionary biologist S. R. Scadding admits this fact:

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution. 21

Evolutionists’ claim on the subject of vestigial organs stem not from any vestigialism in these organs, but from the vestigial nature of their own perspectives. The existence of any living thing proves only the existence of God, its creator. The way that inanimate and unconscious atoms combine to produce a hearing, smelling, touching and seeing human being is proof of God’s flawless creation. That it is because it is impossible for atoms, which cannot smell, hear or see, to wish to have perception and to combine together for that purpose. For a collection of matter to stand and look at itself in front of a mirror, or for matter to taste and touch itself, has no place in evolutionary logic. These feelings can only be explained in terms of a superior creation, in other words the existence of God and His flawless creation. Despite this self-evident truth, evolutionists hold to the irrational and blind belief that they themselves are the product of matter and blind chance, which shows that their claim regarding vestigial organs is one based on this prejudiced and dogmatic perspective.

The realisation that the organs regarded by evolutionists as vestigial do actually have functions is a proof of this. For example, the structures portrayed as the vestiges of rear legs in certain species of snake are now known to help them to grip one another during mating. To regard the male nipple as the product of an evolutionary process also rests on a distorted logic. If the male nipple were a leftover from an evolutionary process then males must have evolved from a population consisting solely of females, which is a scenario so unimaginable that no evolutionist has felt able to accept it. Coleoptera, another example cited by Quammen, also constitute no evidence for evolution. Insect species which do not develop a functional wing are generally seen in open habitats with strong winds, such as ocean islands. In an environment where strong winds blow and surrounded by large masses of water, insects’ being able to fly is by no means an advantage, and may even represent a danger. That is because insects flying in the air are exposed to the effects of the wind and can be hurled into trees or rocks, ending up crippled or dead. There may, therefore, have been a tendency for them to move towards a ground-based lifestyle. Over time, the insect population that lives near the ground comes to consist of individuals that do not develop fully fledged wings. That is because, unlike flying insects, mutations that prevent insects that live near to ground level developing wings may not be damaging to the insect (on the provision that they do not cause a total interruption in its physiology).

A mutation that prevented wing development in a flying insect living in a habitat uninfluenced by winds would be harmful and maybe even lethal. That is because normally an insect that uses its wings to feed and to avoid predators would possess functionless wings because of that mutation and would be unable to survive and thus eliminated from the population.

On the other hand, in insects living in a habitat affected by winds and that used their feet to move about in the same way as non-flying insects, a mutation in the wings might not have lethal consequences. That is because the insect will already have grown accustomed to a life style in which it does not use wings, and it will make no difference whether its wings are healthy or else lose their function due to mutation (as long as the mutation in question is not one that affects the insect’s general physiology). In short, a destructive mutation leading to the loss of an insect’s wings may not be lethal in an environment where wings are in any case of no consequence.

However, it cannot be said that the coleoptera that are assumed to have undergone such a process represent evidence of evolution. The theory of evolution proposes that organs gradually assume a more complex form. The genetic change proposed in support of this claim must be of such a kind as to add new genetic information to creatures’ DNA. It is evident, however, that coleoptera do not gain any new genetic information during this process and that, on the contrary, they suffer a loss of information in the genes that control wing development.

Can this acquisition of genetic information, which is not seen in coleoptera, be observed in any other living thing? Definitely not. Evolutionists have been unable to show the emergence of a new organ, or even a new protein, by means of random mutations.

In short, the theory of evolution maintains that living things acquire new organs with the addition of new genetic information to their DNA, but the vestigial organ argument is one that concerns a loss of function, in other words a loss of genetic data. Therefore, vestigial organs provide no scientific support for the theory of evolution. The reason for evolutionists’ determination to place this claim on the scientific agenda is psychological rather than scientific. Their display of blind devotion to materialism leads them to adopt a vestigial perspective towards the evident truth of creation. (You can read Harun Yahya’s article that demolishes evolutionists’ vestigial viewpoint here. http://www.darwinism-watch.com/hurriyet_science0407.php)

James P. Gills, M.D., founder of St. Luke’s Cataract and Laser Institute in Tarpon Springs, Florida, is a creationist scientist. He is also a world-renowned ophthalmologist. In his book Darwinism Under the Microscope, Gills cites a great many proofs of creation that totally undermine evolution, and writes that the only reason why scientists still insist on evolution is the spiritual cataract of thinking of themselves as the product of blind chance. 22

The error of thinking that resistance to antibiotics and DDT is evidence of evolution

The NG article seeks to show that bacterial immunity to antibiotics and insects’ resistance to such pesticides as DDT constitutes evidence for evolution. On the subject of the resistance that microbes appear to develop to drugs Quammen confidently states:

There’s no better or more immediate evidence supporting the Darwinian theory than this process of forced transformation among our inimical germs. (p. 21)

However, Quammen’s excitement in portraying bacterial immunity as evidence for evolution is totally misplaced. It is explained below why these two phenomena do not represent evidence for Darwinism.

The first of the “deadly molecules” employed against micro-organisms was penicillin, discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming discovered a molecule that killed the Staphylococcus mould bacterium, after which antibiotics taken from micro-organisms were used against various bacteria. Although it appeared at first that definitive results had been obtained, the truth later emerged: bacteria gradually acquire resistance to antibiotics. The great majority of bacteria exposed to antibiotics die, but since a small minority remain unaffected this rapidly multiply and eventually come to constitute the entire population. Thus the entire population becomes resistant to the antibiotic.

However, there is no question of bacteria developing through mutation here, because the bacteria already possess the characteristics in question before being exposed to antibiotics. Despite being an evolutionist publication, Scientific American magazine admitted these facts in its March 1998 edition:

Many bacteria possessed resistance genes even before commercial antibiotics came into use. Scientists do not know exactly why these genes evolved and were maintained. 23

Insects acquire resistance to pesticides such as DDT in the same way, and, again in the same way, this represents no evidence for evolution.

The prominent evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala accepts the truth of this in the words:

The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds. 24

One of those to carry out the most detailed research on this subject is the Israeli biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner. In his book Not by Chance, published in 1997, Spetner showed that bacterial immunity is brought about by two different mechanisms, but that these offer no support for the theory of evolution. For more detail on this subject see http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions05.php#q19 and http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_01.html)

Another so-called piece of evidence in the NG article, in addition to the resistance in bacteria and insects, concerns genetic similarities.

The deception that evolution can be observed

NG claims that evolution can actually be witnessed in nature and in the laboratory. This, however, is a fantastical and groundless claim. In an article titled “How Are New Species Formed?” published in the 14 June, 2003, edition of New Scientist, George Turner made the following significant “admission”:

Not long ago, we thought we knew how species formed. We believed that the process almost always started with complete isolation of populations. It often occurred after a population had gone through a severe “genetic bottleneck,” as might happen after a pregnant female was swept off to a remote island and her offspring mated with each other. The beauty of this so-called “founder effect” model was that it could be tested in the lab. In reality, it just didn’t hold up. Despite evolutionary biologists’ best efforts, nobody has even got close to creating a new species from a founder population. What’s more, as far as we know, no new species has formed as a result of humans releasing small numbers of organisms into alien environments. 25

As we have seen, evolutionists do not actually know how new species are formed. In other words, Quammen’s claim about being able to witness evolution in action is totally unfounded. The fact that the long years of study carried out by the Grants into chaffinch beak lengths on the Galapagos islands is cited in support is the result of Darwinism misrepresenting variations to represent evidence for itself. (For further information, see http://www.harunyahya.com/nas04.php)

Conclusion

As we have seen, Darwin was wrong. National Geographic’s posing the question whether he was wrong is as ridiculous as asking “Was Freud wrong?” or “Was Marx wrong?” That is because, like Freudianism and Marxism, Darwinism is a theory that has come to the end of its life. We call upon NG magazine to abandon its support for this outdated myth and to accept that creation is the true origin of life.

What NG needs to do is to set its preconceptions to one side and cease supporting Darwinism as a dogma, and to face up to the scientific evidence that undermines this theory. Discoveries in the last 40 years in particular have definitively revealed the invalidity of the naturalist philosophy at the heart of Darwinism. If NG does face up to that fact it will see that the organised complexity of life and the genetic information on which it depends point to intelligent design, in other words that life did not evolve on its own through chance and natural events, but was “created.”

NG – and all other Darwinists – have so far avoided facing up to this, and may therefore have resorted to covering up the difficulties facing their theory. Yet they must be aware that this avoidance will be of no use in keeping their theory alive. That is because a major development in the world of science is serving notice that the age of sweeping matters under the carpet has come to an end.

The way that the intelligent design movement, that has been sweeping through the USA over the last 10 years, has one by one unmasked the dogmas of Darwinism, has made it the focus of wide interest. The intellectual basis of this movement is the “Theory of Intelligent Design.” The theory in question maintains that complex biological structures containing large amounts of information can only be explained in terms of intelligence-based causes, and that these causes can be empirically studied in the field of biology. 26

One indication that the intelligent design movement may represent the dynamic for major cultural changes is the way it is effectively and in a widespread manner revealing that the evidence for so long taught as evidence for Darwinism in schools actually consists of mythology, deception, misrepresentation and even fraud. California Berkeley University’s Professor Phillip E. Johnson, the leader of the movement, stresses that Darwinism will pass into the dustbin of history sometime in this century. 27

It will be of use here to remind NG of the damage from a determined persistence in its policy of uncritical defence of Darwinism. It will be remembered that NG announced the discovery of the Archaeoraptor fossil discovered in China as definitive proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs, without waiting for it to be described in referred scientific journals. Later, however, it was realised that the fossil did not represent a missing link at all, but was a counterfeit “produced” by a Chinese peasant.26 Because of its blind devotion to Darwinism NG had no hesitation in embracing this fossil as “proof” by unscientific methods, and later found itself in “modern paleontology’s greatest embarrassment.” 29

According to the ornithologist Dr. Storrs Olson, “National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism.” 30

The portrayal of the claim of recapitulation, which died at least 80 years ago, as evidence for evolution in NG’s article “Was Darwin Wrong” shows that it is devoid of the seriousness required by science and is continuing with its “unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism.” NG is not behaving intelligently. Maintaining this approach does not provide any support for Darwinism. On the contrary, NG is documenting its own dogmatism in an ever more obvious way.

We invite NG to consider these points and to accept that creation is the true origin of life.

There is no doubt that the Lord of all living things, on Earth, in the Sky, and between, is God. In one verse of the Qur’an God reveals that:

Your God is One God. There is no god but Him, the All-Merciful, the Most Merciful. (Qur’an, 2: 163)

Under the pen name of Harun Yahya, Adnan Oktar has written some 250 works. His books contain a total of 46,000 pages and 31,500 illustrations. Of these books, 7,000 pages and 6,000 illustrations deal with the collapse of the Theory of Evolution. You can read, free of charge, all the books Adnan Oktar has written under the pen name Harun Yahya on these websites www.harunyahya.com

1. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library.

2. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.

3. Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, 1996

4. For more information about the evolutionist theses on biogeography, please see Walter J. Remine, “The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory”, Saint Paul Science; 1st ed edition, 1993. page 538.

5. G. Nelson & N. Platnick, Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance, Columbia University Press, 1981, p. 223.

6. Fossils and Evolution, Dr TS Kemp – Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 246.

7. Peter G. Williamson, “Morphological stasis and developmental constraint: real problems for neo-Darwinism,” Nature, vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p. 214; Stephen E. Jones, http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/

8. Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p. 230.

9. Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, November 5, 1980, p. 15.

10. Voorhies M.R., “Ancient Ashfall Creates a Pompei of Prehistoric Animals,” National Geographic, Vol. 159, No. 1, January 1981, pp.67-68,74 ; “Horse Find Defies Evolution” Creation Ex Nihilo 5(3):15, January 1983, http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3723.asp

11. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 184.

12. Spotting Mines With Dolphin Sonar , ScienceNOW 1998: 2

13 L. Rutimeyer, “Referate,” Archiv fur Anthropologie, 1868

14 Keith S. Thompson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated”, American Scientist, vol. 76, May / June 1988, p. 273

15 G. G. Simpson, W. Beck, An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt Brace and World, New York, 1965, p. 241.

16 Stephen Jay Gould, “Abscheulich! – Atrocious! – the precursor to the theory of natural selection,” Natural History, March 2000, p. 45.

17 Mark Ridley, “Who Doubts Evolution?” New Scientist, vol. 90 (25 June 1981), p. 832.

18 Gould S.J, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, May 1977, p. 13-14.

19 William Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution, Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, 1984, p. 189.

20 J. Bergman & G. Howe, Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional, CRS Books, Terre Haute, IN, 1990.

21 S. R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?,” Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173.

22 James P.Gills, M.D. & Thomas Woodward, Ph.D., Darwinism under the Microscope, Charisma House, 2002, p. 39.

23 Stuart B. Levy, “The Challenge of Antibiotic Resistance,” Scientific American, March 1998, p. 35

24 Francisco J.Ayala, “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239, September 1978, p. 64

25 George Turner, “How Are New Species Formed?,” New Scientist, vol. 178, issue 2399, 14 June 2003, p. 36

26 http://www.arn.org , http://www.discovery.org/csc/

27 Phillip E. Johnson, “Mothballed Science,” Touchstone Magazine, December 2003

28 For more information about Archaeoraptor forgery, please see http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions03.php#q7

29 Tim Friend, “The ‘missing link’ fossil that wasn’t”, USA Today, 02/01/2000

30 Open Letter to National Geographic Society by Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution

I just read an article from National Geographic’s website concerning the discovery of the supposed “missing link”; a fossil of a lemur-like creature which the leading scientist in this venture (Jorn Hurum) named “Ida” after his own daughter.   So this proves Evolution!  Creation-believing, evangelical Christians must run and hide; the evidence is in!  “Ida” proves that human beings once had primate-like ancestors.  Or does it…?

Before we tuck our tails between our legs and give into the theory of Darwinian Evolution: let’s look at the facts, shall we?  Firstly, “Ida” was discovered around 1983 in Germany and has just now made its way to the U.S.  Amazingly, as soon as it was “discovered” here in the U.S., our media pushed and pushed for a cover story to be released which some how termed “Ida” as humanity’s “missing link”.  I am wondering if this might have had anything to do with all the hype.

Secondly, scientists claim that “Ida” is approximately 47 million years old, but yet her entire fossil (all the bones, etc) were found completely intact, and they even found bits of food in her digestive tract, as well as fur, etc.  The scientists are amazed at how well she had been preserved, because there really isn’t a good explanation as to how a 47 million year old deceased corpse could remain so well preserved (which the age of the fossil is not 100 percent verifiable, by the way)!

Thirdly, and related to the second point, “Ida’s” preservation is believed by some to be the result of a catastrophic flood…interesting!  The Bible outlines that catastrophic flood in Genesis chapters 6-8. The Bible teaches that Noah (a descendant of Adam) and his family were the only righteous people left on the earth; the earth had become increasingly evil and violent.  God determined that He would bring a flood upon the earth, and destroy all human and animal life (aside from Noah and his family, and the animals that God spared by having Noah take them on the ark).  God’s Word states that two of every kind of animal (which would include lemurs and/or some type of primate) was brought into the ark so that God could preserve both human and animal life.  A great flood came and covered the earth for 40 days and 40 nights.  This flood came rather suddenly and would explain the many fossils that have been recovered over the years in which the animals look like they passed away instantaneously (looking like they were still in motion, etc.).  This flood, however, did not occur 47 million years ago.  It happened probably around 5,000 B.C., according to Biblical record.

Fourthly, how exactly does the discovery of a lemur fossil automatically prove that there is an ancestral connection between humanity and lemurs?  The scientists say that “Ida” had opposable thumbs, demonstrating her link to humans.  However, all primates have opposable thumbs, so what makes this fossil any different from any other primate-like fossil found in years past?  The truth is, nothing sets this fossil apart.  The fossil does not even remotely resemble human-like features, but yet scientists are claiming she is “linked” to us.

For those of us that are Bible-believing, God-fearing, Creationists, this discovery should not cause us any unrest or fear.  The discovery of “Ida” the lemur (believed to be the great great great great Aunt of humans in the evolutionary tree) proves absolutely nothing except that a lemur/primate died.  The truth be told, that is all that a fossil proves: something died.  The Bible is still true, God’s Word is still accurate, and Evolution is still historical scientific fiction since it is neither observable or testable.  So, I say that Great Aunt Ida is of no relation to me…she ain’t coming over for dinner at my house.

Most people think the theory of evolution was first proposed by Charles Darwin, and rests on scientific evidence, observations and experiments. However, in the same way that Darwin was not its originator neither does the theory rest on scientific proof. The theory consists of an adaptation to nature of an ancient dogma called materialist philosophy. Although it is backed up by no scientific evidence, the theory is blindly supported in the name of materialist philosophy.

This fanaticism has resulted in many of disasters. That is because together with the spread of Darwinism and the materialist philosophy it supports, the answer to the question ‘What is a human being?’ has changed. People who used to answer: ‘Human beings were created by God and have to live according to the morality He teaches’ have now begun to think that ‘Man came into being by chance, and is an animal who developed with the fight for survival.’ There is a heavy price to pay for this great deception. Violent ideologies such as racism, fascism and communism, and many other cruel world views based on conflict have all drawn strength from this deception.

This article will examine this disaster Darwinism has brought to the world and reveal its connection with terrorism, one of the most important global problems of our time.

The Darwinist Misconception: ‘Life is conflict’

Darwin set out with one basic premise when developing his theory: ‘The development of living things depends on the fight for survival. The strong win the struggle. The weak are condemned to defeat and oblivion.’

According to Darwin, there was a ruthless struggle for survival and eternal conflict in nature. The strong always overcome the weak, and this enables development to take place. The subtitle he gave to his book The Origin of Species, “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”, encapsulates that view.

Furthermore, Darwin proposed that the ‘fight for survival’ also applied between human races. According to that claim, ‘favored races’ were victorious in the struggle. Favored races, in Darwin’s view, were white Europeans. African or Asian races had lagged behind in the struggle for survival. Darwin went further, and suggested that these races would soon lose the ’struggle for survival’ entirely, and thus disappear:

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 between man in a more civilized 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. [1]

The Indian anthropologist Lalita Vidyarthi explains how Darwin’s theory of evolution imposed racism on the social sciences:

His (Darwin’s) theory of the survival of the fittest was warmly welcomed by the social scientists of the day, and they believed mankind had achieved various levels of evolution culminating in the white man’s civilization. By the second half of the nineteenth century racism was accepted as fact by the vast majority of Western scientists. [2]

Darwin’s Source of Inspiration: Malthus’s Theory of Ruthlessness

Darwin was influenced by the social theories of Malthus, who defined ruthlessness as a law of nature.

Darwin’s source of inspiration on this subject was the British economist Thomas Malthus’s book An Essay on the Principle of Population. Left to their own devices, Malthus calculated that the human population increased rapidly. In his view, the main influences that kept populations under control were disasters such as war, famine and disease. In short, according to this brutal claim, some people had to die for others to live. Existence came to mean ‘permanent war.’

In the 19th century, Malthus’s ideas were widely accepted. European upper class intellectuals in particular supported his cruel ideas. In an article titled ‘The Nazis’ Secret Scientific Agenda’, the importance 19th century attached Europe attached to Malthus’s views on population is described in this way:

In the opening half of the nineteenth century, throughout Europe, members of the ruling classes gathered to discuss the newly discovered “Population problem” and to devise ways of implementing the Malthusian mandate, to increase the mortality rate of the poor: “Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations,” and so forth and so on. [3]

As a result of this cruel policy, the weak, and those who lost the struggle for survival would be eliminated, and as a result the rapid rise in population would be balanced out. This so-called ‘oppression of the poor’ policy was actually carried out in 19th century Britain. An industrial order was set up in which children of eight and nine were made to work sixteen hours a day in the coal mines and thousands died from the terrible conditions. The ’struggle for survival’ demanded by Malthus’s theory led to millions of Britons leading lives full of suffering.

Influenced by these ideas, Darwin applied this concept of conflict to all of nature, and proposed that the strong and the fittest emerged victorious from this war of existence. Moreover, he claimed that the so-called struggle for survival was a justified an unchangeable law of nature. On the other hand, he invited people to abandon their religious beliefs by denying creation, and thus aimed at all ethical values that could prove an obstacle to the ruthlessness of the ’struggle for survival.’

The dissemination of these untrue ideas that led individuals to ruthlessness and cruelty, cost humanity a heavy price in the 20thcentury.

The Role of Darwinism in Preparing the Ground for World War I

As Darwinism dominated European culture, the effects of the ’struggle for survival’ began to emerge. Colonialist European nations in particular began to portray the nations they colonized as ‘evolutionary backward nations’ and looked to Darwinism for justification.

The bloodiest political effect of Darwinism was the outbreak of World War I in 1914.

In his book Europe Since 1870, the well-known British professor of history James Joll explains that one of the factors that prepared the ground for World War I was the belief in Darwinism of European rulers at the time. For instance, the Austro-Hungarian chief of staff, Franz Baron Conrad von Hoetzendorff, wrote in his post-war memoirs:

Philanthropic religions, moral teachings and philosophical doctrines may certainly sometimes serve to weaken mankind’s struggle for existence in its crudest form, but they will never succeed in removing it as a driving motive of the world… It is in accordance with this great principle that the catastrophe of the world war came about as the result of the motive forces in the lives of states and peoples, like a thunderstorm which must by its nature discharge itself. [4]

The leaders of Europe on the eve of World War I were mislead by the Social Darwinist dogma. They thought that war was a biological necessity.

It is not hard to understand why Conrad, with that ideological foundation, should have encouraged the Austro-Hungarian Empire to declare war. Such ideas at the time were not limited to the military. Kurt Riezler, the personal assistant and confidant of the German chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, wrote in 1914: ‘Eternal and absolute enmity is fundamentally inherent in relations between peoples; and the hostility which we observe everywhere… is not the result of a perversion of human nature but is the essence of the world and the source of life itself.’ [5]

Friedrich von Bernardi, a World War I general, made a similar connection between war and the laws of war in nature. “War” declared Bernhardi “is a biological necessity”; it “is as necessary as the struggle of the elements of nature”; it “gives a biologically just decision, since its decisions rest on the very nature of things.” [6]

As we have seen, World War I broke out because of European thinkers, generals and administrators who saw warfare, bloodshed and suffering as a kind of ‘development’, and thought they were an unchanging ‘law of nature’, The ideological root that dragged all of that generation to destruction was nothing else than Darwin’s concepts of the ’struggle for survival’ and ‘favored races’.

World War I left behind it 8 million dead, hundreds of ruined cities, and millions of wounded, crippled, homeless and unemployed.

The basic cause of World War II, which broke out 21 years later and left 55 million dead behind it, was also based on Darwinism.

The Fruit of ‘The Law of the Jungle’: Fascism

As Darwinism fed racism in the 19th century, it formed the basis of an ideology that would develop and drown the world in blood in the 20thcentury: Nazism.

Both the race theory and the war hysteria of the Nazis were inspired from Darwinism.

A strong Darwinist influence can be seen in Nazi ideologues. When one examines this theory, which was given shape by Adolf Hitler and Alfred Rosenberg, one comes across such concepts as ‘natural selection’, ’selected mating’, and ‘the struggle for survival between the races’, which are repeated dozens of time in The Origin of Species. When calling his book Mein Kampf (My Struggle), Hitler was inspired by the Darwinist struggle for survival and the principle that victory went to the fittest. He particularly talks about the struggle between the races:

‘History would culminate in a new millennial empire of unparalleled splendor, based on a new racial hierarchy ordained by nature herself.’[7]

In the 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.”

That the Nazis were influenced by Darwinism is a fact that many historians accept. The historian Hickman describes Darwinism’s influence on Hitler as follows:

(Hitler) was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because] … his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society. [8]

Hitler, who emerged with these views, dragged the world to violence that had never before been seen. Many ethnic and political groups, and especially the Jews, were exposed to terrible cruelty and slaughter in the Nazi concentration camps. World War II, which began with the Nazi invasion, cost 55 million lives. What lay behind the greatest tragedy in world history was Darwinism’s concept of the ’struggle for survival’.

The Bloody Alliance: Darwinism and Communism

The dialectical materialism of Marx defined violence as a constructive force that helped human progress.

While fascists are found on the right wing of Social Darwinism, the left wing is occupied by communists. Communists have always been among the fiercest defenders of Darwin’s theory.

This relationship between Darwinism and communism goes right back to the founders of both these ‘isms.’ Marx and Engels, the founders of communism, read Darwin’s The Origin of Species as soon as it came out, and were amazed at is ‘dialectical materialist’ attitude. The correspondence between Marx and Engels showed that they saw Darwin’s theory as ‘containing the basis in natural history for communism’. In his book The Dialectics of Nature, which he wrote under the influence of Darwin, Engels was full of praise for Darwin, and tried to make his own contribution to the theory in the chapter ‘The Part Played by Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man.’

Russian communists who followed in the footsteps of Marx and Engels, such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, all agreed with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Plekhanov, who is considered as the founder of Russian communism, regarded marxism as ‘Darwinism in its application to social science’. [9]

Trotsky said, ‘Darwin’s discovery is the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter.’ [10]

‘Darwinist education’ had a major role in the formation of communist cadres. For instance, historians note the fact that Stalin was religious in his youth, but became an atheist because of Darwin’s books. [11]

Mao, who established communist rule in China and killed millions of people, openly stated that ‘Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution.’ [12]

The Harvard University historian James Reeve Pusey goes into great detail regarding Darwinism’s effect on Mao and Chinese communism in his research book China and Charles Darwin. [13]

In short, there is an unbreakable link between the theory of evolution and communism. The theory claims that living things are the product of blind chance, and provides a so-called scientific support for atheism. Communism, an atheist ideology, is for that reason firmly tied to Darwinism. Moreover, the theory of evolution proposes that development in nature is possible thanks to conflict (in other words ‘the struggle for survival’) and supports the concept of ‘dialectics’ which is fundamental to communism.

If we think of the communist concept of ‘dialectical conflict’, which killed some 120 million people throughout the 20thcentury, as a ‘killing machine’ then we can better understand the dimension of the disaster that Darwinism visited on our planet.

Darwinism and Terrorism

As we have so far seen, Darwinism is at the root of various ideologies of violence that spelled disaster to mankind in the 20thcentury. However, as well as these ideologies, Darwinism also defines an ‘ethical understanding’ and ‘method’ that could influence various world views. The fundamental concept behind this understanding and method is ‘fighting those who are not one of us’.

We can explain this in the following way: There are different beliefs, worldviews and philosophies in the world. These can look at each other in one of two ways:

1) They can respect the existence of those who are not one of them and try to establish dialogue with them, employing a humane method.

2) They can choose to fight others, and to try to secure an advantage by damaging them, in other words, behave like a wild animal.

The horror we call terrorism is nothing other than a statement of the second view.

The faith in the legitimacy of terror comes from materialist ideologies, not Theistic faiths.

When we consider the difference between these two approaches, we can see that the idea of “man as a fighting animal” which Darwinism has subconsciously imposed on people is particularly influential. Individuals and groups who choose the way of conflict may never have heard of Darwinism and the principles of that ideology. But in the final analysis, they agree with a view whose philosophical basis rests on Darwinism. What leads them to believe in the rightness of violence is such Darwinism-based slogans as;

‘In this world, only the strong survive’,

‘Big fish swallow the little ones’,

‘War is a virtue’,

and ‘Man advances by waging war’.

Take Darwinism away, and these are nothing but empty slogans.

Actually, when Darwinism is taken away, no philosophy of ‘conflict’ remains. The three monotheistic religions that most people in the world believe in, Islam, Christianity and Judaism, all oppose violence. All three religions wish to bring peace and harmony to the world, and oppose innocent people being killed and suffering cruelty and torture. Conflict and violence violate the morality that God has set out for man, and are abnormal and undesired concepts. However, Darwinism sees and portrays conflict and violence as natural, justified and correct concepts that have to exist.

For this reason, if some people commit terrorism using the concepts and symbols of Islam, Christianity and Judaism in the name of those religions, you can be sure that those people are not Muslims, Christians or Jews. They are in fact Social Darwinists. They hide under a cloak of religion, but they are not genuine believers. Even if they claim to be serving religion, they are actually enemies of religion and believers. That is because they are ruthlessly committing a crime that religion forbids, and in such a way as to blacken religion in peoples’ eyes.

For this reason, the root of the terrorism that plagues our world is not in any of the monotheistic religions, but is in atheism, and the expression of atheism in our times: ‘Darwinism’ and ‘materialism’.

Under the pen name of Harun Yahya, Adnan Oktar has written some 250 works. His books contain a total of 46,000 pages and 31,500 illustrations. Of these books, 7,000 pages and 6,000 illustrations deal with the collapse of the Theory of Evolution. You can read, free of charge, all the books Adnan Oktar has written under the pen name Harun Yahya on these websites www.harunyahya.comNotes

1- Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd edition, New York, A L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178

2- Lalita Prasad Vidyarthi, Racism, Science and Pseudo-Science, Unesco, France, Vendôme, 1983. s. 54

3- Theodore D. Hall, The Scientific Background of the Nazi Race Purification Program, http://www.trufax.org/avoid/nazi.html

4- James Joll, Europe Since 1870: An International History, Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1990, s. 164

5- James Joll, Europe Since 1870: An International History, Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1990, s. 164

6- M.F. Ashley-Montagu, Man in Process (New York: World. Pub. Co. 1961) pp. 76, 77 cited in Bolton Davidheiser, W E Lammers (ed) Scientific Studies in Special Creationism, 1971, p. 338-339

7- L.H. Gann, “Adolf Hitler, The Complete Totalitarian”, The Intercollegiate Review, Fall 1985, p. 24; cited in Henry M. Morris, The Long war Against God, Baker Book House, 1989, p. 78

8- Hickman, R., Biocreation, Science Press, Worthington, OH, pp. 51-52, 1983; Jerry Bergman, “Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust”, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13 (2): 101-111, 1999

9- Robert M. Young DARWINIAN EVOLUTION AND HUMAN HISTORY, Historical Studies on Science and Belief, 1980

10- Alan Woods and Ted Grant. “Marxism and Darwinism”, Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science, London, 1993

11- Alex de Jonge, Stalin and The Shaping of the Soviet Uninon, William Collins Sons & Limited Co., Glasgow, 1987, s. 22

12- Mehnert, Kampf um Mao’s Erbe, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1977

13- James Reeve Pusey, China and Charles Darwin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1983

The fossil Ida is being used by scientists as an assault on a gullible public. One fossil does not represent a transitional species any more than the remains of a two-headed snake represents a transition of snakes from one head to two heads. They’re simply aberrations of nature.

You’d need more than one fossil to represent a species, and you’d need many transitional aberrations that couldn’t survive to show an evolutionary process was going on.

There are organisms, humans included, which are occasionally born deformed. In the millions of known cases, they haven’t been known to drastically change the course of a species.

There are humans with both male and female physical characteristics. Are males evolving into females, or vise versa? Of course not. These are simply anomalies, and don’t seem to drastically effect the course of the species.

Caterpillars are crawling creatures that go through a stage called pupa, in which they undergo a complete metamorphosis and emerge as flying creatures. Tadpoles are aquatic, gill-breathing, legless creatures that develop lungs, legs, and other organs to roam on dry land. Some salamanders undergo a metamorphosis which also takes them from an aquatic environment to an air-breathing one.

Although these creatures undergo such drastic changes in only one generation, not one has, in the millions of known cases, ever evolved into anything beyond their usual, known final stage. There is obviously no evolution going on here. A limited number of creatures apparently have the genetic blueprint for transforming into very specific new forms. Perhaps Ida was such a species. But evidence of evolution? There’s absolutely nothing to indicate that.

Ida represents the fanciful speculations of a scientific community determined to publicize its biased agenda.

by JoshGreenberger.com
Author of “Human Intelligence Gone Ape” – amazon.com