Introduction

Different concepts may come to mind when the theory of evolution is mentioned. Some people, mainly materialists who think that it is a scientifically proven fact, fiercely support it and, equally fiercely, reject all ideas opposed to it.
A second group consists of people who are not well-informed about the theory of evolution's claims. They are not particularly interested in it, since they do not realize the harm that Darwinism has done to humanity over the last century and a half. They see no problem with how it is imposed on people and fiercely defended, despite its scientific invalidity, for they have closed their eyes to what is going on.
Even if they know that this theory has lost all scientific credibility, they cannot take seriously those who still find it important, because they themselves do not consider it important. They consider it unnecessary to explain the theory's invalidity or to publish books and hold conferences on the subject, for in their eyes the theory is already "old hat" or passé.
A third group consists of those who, under the influence of materialist suggestion and propaganda, view this theory as scientific fact and look for a "middle way" between it and belief in God. They accept Darwinism's account of the origin of life word for word, yet try to build a bridge between the theory of evolution and religious belief by maintaining that this account operates under God's control.
In reality, each of these views is mistaken, for the theory of evolution cannot reasonably be portrayed as scientific fact, passed off as unimportant, or adapted to religion. As we shall see throughout this website, the theory's ideological framework consists of anti-religious thought put forward to strengthen atheism and to give it a firm foundation. Moreover, it is fiercely defended by people who have been persuaded by materialism, for it is constructed on materialist philosophy and offers a materialist commentary on the world. From the time it was first put forward by Charles Darwin and right up to the present day, it has brought humanity nothing but conflict, exploitation, war, and degeneration. Given this, it is essential that we acquire a sound understanding of the subject and launch a serious fight against it on the ideological level.
This website replies from a very different perspective to the errors of those believers who still support the theory of evolution. It offers a response to those Muslims who look for common ground between the theory of evolution and the fact of creation, and who even try to find evidence for the theory in the Qur'an. The purpose is not to criticize Muslim evolutionists, but rather to explain that their attitude is mistaken, to assist them on the level of ideas, and to be a means whereby they can adopt a more correct perspective.

Two other facts will be discussed in this website: First, that Darwinism is a theory that lacks any scientific foundation, and second, that its real target is religion. Therefore, it will emphasize how wrong it is for Muslims to take the theory lightly or to underestimate it, and to see no need to wage an intellectual struggle against it.
Believers should avoid defending this theory and its ideological meaning, for both contradict the truths of Islam. Some may support the theory because they are unaware of the disasters that it has visited upon humanity, that it is supported by people who hate religion, and that it rejects the fact of creation. That being the case, those Muslims who have only a little information on the subject should avoid going down that road, for as Allah tells the faithful in the Qur'an:

Do not pursue what you have no knowledge of. Hearing, sight and hearts will all be questioned. (Qur'an, 17: 36)

Exemplary Muslims should research the matter in all sincerity and behave according to the realization that:

... Those who have become Muslim are those who sought right guidance. (Qur'an, 72: 14)

As the above verse commands, Muslims who believe in the theory of evolution must consider this theory carefully, carry out wide-ranging research, and make their decision according to their consciences. This website has been written to help them do so and to shed some light upon the path that they are following.

The men and women of the believers are friends of one another. They command what is right and forbid what is wrong, and establish prayer and pay welfare and charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. They are the people on whom Allah will have mercy. Allah is Almighty, All - Wise. (Qur'an, 9: 71)

Chapter 1 Why do some Muslims Support the Theory of Evolution?

Charles Darwin

Throughout history, people have thought about the universe and the origin of life, and have put forward various ideas on the subject. We can divide these into two groups: those who explain the universe from a materialist point of view, and those who see that God made the universe out of nothing, namely, the truth of creation.
In the introduction, we saw that the theory of evolution was constructed upon materialist philosophy. The materialist view claims that the universe consists of matter and that matter is the only thing that exists. Therefore, matter has existed for all time and no other power rules over it. Materialists believe that blind coincidence caused the universe to shape itself and life to come about by gradually evolving from non-living substances. In other words, all living things in the world emerged as the result of natural influences and chance.
Materialist philosophy uses the theory of evolution, both of which complement each other, to account for the emergence of life. This unity, which was born in ancient Greece, once again was made public under the primitive scientific conditions of the nineteenth century and, since the theory allegedly backed up materialism, whether or not it had any scientific validity, it was adopted immediately by materialists.
The fact of creation stands in opposition to the theory of evolution. According to the creationist view, matter has not existed for all time and therefore is controlled. God created matter out of nothing and gave it order. All things, living as well as non-living, came into being by God's creation. The amazing design, calculation, equilibrium, and order seen in the universe and in living things are clear evidence of this.
Religion has taught the truth of creation, which all people can grasp through reason and personal observation, since the beginning of time. All divine religions have taught that God created the universe by commanding "Be!," and that its flawless functioning is proof of His great creative power. Many Qur'anic verses also reveal this truth. For example, Allah reveals how He miraculously created the universe from nothing: "The Originator of the heavens and Earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, 'Be!' and it is" (Qur'an, 2:117). He also reveals the following:

He created the heavens and Earth with truth. The day He says "Be!" it is. His speech is Truth. The Kingdom will be His on the Day the Trumpet is blown, the Knower of the Unseen and the Visible. He is the All-Wise, the All-Aware. (Qur'an, 6:73)

Modern science demonstrates the invalidity of the materialist-evolutionist claim and confirms creation. Contrary to the theory of evolution, all the proofs of creation that surround us show that chance had no role in the universe's coming into existence. Every detail that emerges as we observe the sky, Earth, and all living things is intended as evidence of God's great power and wisdom.

This fundamental difference between religion and atheism is that the former believes in God, while the latter believes in materialism. When Allah asks those who deny, He draws attention to the claims that they assert in order to reject creation: "Or were they created out of nothing, or are they the creators?" (Qur'an, 52:35). Ever since the dawn of time, those who deny creation have claimed that humanity and the universe were not created and have sought to justify this irrational and illogical claim. Their greatest support came in the nineteenth century, thanks to Darwin's theory.
Muslims cannot seek a compromise on this issue. Of course people can think as they please and can believe in whatever theories they wish. However, there can be no compromise with a theory that denies Allah and His creation, for this would involve compromising on religion's fundamental element. Of course, doing so is totally unacceptable.
Evolutionists, aware of how such a compromise would damage religion, encourage religious people to try and find such a compromise.

Darwinists Encourage the Creation-by-Evolution View

Scientists who blindly support the theory of evolution are being backed further into a corner by new scientific advances that are becoming more frequent and better known to the public. Given that every new discovery works against the theory and attests to creation's truth, demagogy takes pride of place over scientific evidence in evolutionist literature. On the other hand, even the most prominent evolutionist scientific magazines, like Science, Nature, Scientific American or New Scientist are forced to admit that several aspects of Darwin's theory has reached a dead end. Scientists who defend creation win these scientific debates, thereby exposing the evolutionists' baseless claims.
At this point, the view of creation by evolution comes to the materialists' aid. This is one of the tactics used by the evolutionists to appease the supporters of creation (or "Intelligent Design") and to weaken their intellectual position against the dogma of Darwinism. Although evolutionists do not believe in God, for they have made a deity out of chance and totally oppose the fact of creation, they think that their theory will become more acceptable if they remain silent about the religious evolutionists' idea that God created living things through evolution. In fact, they encourage a compromise between the theory and religion so that evolution will become more acceptable and belief in creation will weaken.
Given this, Muslims must understand that it is totally mistaken to believe that Allah created the universe and yet support the theory of evolution despite the lack of hard scientific evidence. Furthermore, it is just as mistaken to claim that evolution is compatible with the Qur'an by ignoring all the warnings in the Holy Book itself. Muslims who adopt such a position must realize that they are supporting an idea designed to help materialist philosophy and that, given this fact, they must withdraw their support at once.

If they come upon you, they will be your enemies and stretch out their hands and tongues against you with evil intent, and they would dearly love you to disbelieve. (Qur'an, 60: 2)

Rejecting Evolution does not Mean Rejecting Science

The number of Muslims who believe that all living things emerged by means of evolution should not be underestimated. Their error is based upon a lack of knowledge and mistaken viewpoints, particularly in regard to scientific matters. Heading the list is the idea that evolution is a scientific and proven fact.

"THE THOUGHT OF THE EYE MADE ME COLD ALL OVER!" Charles Darwin One of the most insoluble dilemmas for the theory of evolution is the complex structures in living things. For instance, evolutionists claim that the eye, made up of some 40 different parts, came about by chance. Yet they cannot explain how it did so. In fact, it is impossible that blind chance should have "created" such a magnificent structure. The diagram below shows some of the eye's components.

Such people do not realize that science has completely eroded the theory of evolution's credibility. Whether on the molecular level or in biology and paleontology, research has invalidated the claims that living things emerged as the result of an evolutionary process. Darwin's theory continues to survive, despite all scientific facts, only because the evolutionists are doing all they can, including deliberately misleading people, to keep it alive. Their writings and speeches are filled with scientific terms that the average person cannot understand. Yet when their words are analyzed, one can find no evidence to support their theory.
A careful examination of Darwinist publications reveals this fact quite clearly. Their accounts are almost never based upon firm scientific proof. The fundamental areas where the theory collapses are glossed over in a few words, and many fantastic scenarios are written about natural history. They never dwell on such essential questions as how life first emerged from inanimate substances, the fossil record's huge gaps, and the complex systems in living things. They do not do so because whatever they might say or write would contradict their aims and reveal the emptiness of their theory.

When Charles Darwin (1809-82), the founder of this theory, considered one of the complex systems in living things, in this case the eye, he realized the danger that this posed to his theory and even admitted that thinking about the eye made him cold all over. Like Darwin, today's evolutionist scientists know that their theory has no answer for such complex systems. But instead of admitting this, they seek to overcome the lack of scientific evidence by writing imaginary scenarios and imposing the theory on people by giving it a scientific mask.
Such methods become obvious during face-to-face debates between evolutionists and those who believe in creation, as well as in evolutionist writings and documentaries. Actually, evolutionists are not bothered by such things as scientific truth or reason, for their sole goal is to make people believe that evolution is a scientific fact.
In this way, evolutionist Muslims are influenced by the theory's supposed "scientific" image. They are particularly alarmed by such Darwinist slogans as: "Anyone who does not believe in the theory of evolution is being dogmatic or unscientific," and so give ground on their true beliefs. Influenced by outdated information or evolutionist writings and arguments, they believe that only evolution can account for the emergence of life. They then try to reconcile religion and evolution, for they are unaware of the latest scientific developments as well as the theory's own internal contradictions and complete loss of credibility.
However, given that evolution and creation are diametrically opposed, proving one means disproving the other. In other words, disproving evolution means proving creation.
For these reasons, materialists see debates on evolution as a kind of battleground, a direct ideological struggle rather than a scientific matter. Thus they resort to all possible means to obstruct those who believe in creation.

For example, evolutionist Lerry Flank recommends that the truth of creation be opposed by the following methods:
Creationist watchers must keep a close eye on the composition of state education boards. Ideally, people who are interested in quality education and in keeping the fundamentalists from using the public schools for their sermonizing should constitute the majority of these state boards... If this fails, and creationist textbooks are actually adopted and approved, then legal action becomes necessary.1
It is clear from these words that we are not talking about a scientific debate, but a war of ideas waged by evolutionists in a framework of certain strategies. Muslims who defend evolution must be aware of this. Darwinism is not a scientific thesis; rather, it is a system of thought designed to lead people to deny God. As this theory has no scientific foundation, Muslims must not allow themselves to be misled by its arguments and thereby give it any support, no matter how well-intentioned.

The Effects of Evolutionists Being in the Majority

Prof. Arda Denkel

The evolutionists' most important ploy to gain widespread acceptance for Darwin's theory is to assert that it is widely accepted within the scientific community. In short, they are claiming validity for their theory based upon the supposed majority of its adherents and the supposed correctness of the majority's view in all cases. By employing such logic, as well as their claim that evolution's truth is further proven by its wide acceptance within the universities, they attempt to use psychological pressure on people, including believers in God, to accept it.
Arda Denkel, an evolutionist professor of philosophy at The Bosphorus University, probably the most prestigious one in Turkey, even admitted the erroneous nature of this method:
Does the fact that many respected people or organizations or bodies believe in it prove the theory of evolution to be true? Could the theory be proved by a court verdict? Does the fact that respected and powerful people believe in something make it true? I would like to recall a historical fact. Did not Galileo stand up before all the respected people, lawyers, and particularly scientists of his time and speak the truth on his own, with no support from anyone? Did not the courts of the Inquisition reveal other, similar situations? Gaining the support of respected and influential circles neither creates the truth nor has anything to do with scientific fact.2

As Denkel noted, wide acceptance of a theory does not prove its truth. In fact, the history of science is full of examples of theories that were first accepted by a minority and then only later came to be accepted as true by the majority.
Moreover, evolution is not accepted by the entire scientific community, as its proponents would have people believe. Over the last 20-30 years, the number of scientists rejecting it has risen enormously. Most of them abandon their dogmatic belief in Darwinism after seeing the flawless design in the universe and living things. They have published countless works demonstrating the theory's invalidity. Even more important, they are members of prominent universities all over the world, especially in the United States and Europe, and experts and career academics in biology, biochemistry, microbiology, anatomy, paleontology, and other scientific fields.3 Therefore it would be very wrong to say that the majority of the scientific community believes in evolution.

Prof. Owen Gingerich Prof. Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker Prof. Dr. Donald Chittick Prof.Robert Matthews Prof.Michael J.Behe   Prof. David Menton   S. Jocelyn Bell Burnell William Dembski Many contemporary scientists reject evolution and accept that God, the Lord of Infinite Intelligence and Might, created the universe. Some of the scientists who accept the truth of creation are, from left to right, Owen Gingerich, professor of astronomy and history of science at Harvard University; Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker, professor of physics at Germany's Max-Planck-Gesellschaft University; Donald Chittick, professor of chemistry at Oregon State University; Robert Matthews, professor of physics at Oxford University; Michael J. Behe, professor of biology at Lehigh University; David Menton, professor of anatomy at Washington University; S. Jocelyn Bell Burnell, professor of physics at the Open University in England; and William Dembski, associate professor in the conceptual foundations of science at Baylor University.

It would thus have no meaning, even if evolutionists are genuinely in the majority. No majority view is definitely right just because it is the majority view. Muslims who believe in evolution need to know that the Qur'an discusses this matter when relating the fate of the many historical communities who held a similar view and ended up denying Allah and His religion by allowing themselves to be led away from the true path. Allah warns believers against following such deceitful people, and informs humanity that going along with the majority can lead to terrible mistakes:

If you obeyed most of those on Earth, they would guide you away from Allah's Way. They follow nothing but conjecture. They are only guessing. (Qur'an, 6:116)

He Who created the seven heavens in layers. You will not find any flaw in the creation of the All-Merciful. Look again -do you see any gaps? Then look again and again. Your sight will return to you dazzled and exhausted! (Qur'an, 67: 3-4)

 

Chapter 2 Important Truths Ignored By Muslim Evolutionists

In the previous chapter, we discussed how Muslims who have been convinced that evolution is a fact, as opposed to a theory, might be unaware of relevant and recent scientific developments that refute Darwinism. This lack of awareness leads Muslim evolutionists to continue to accept ideas and beliefs disproved by science. Furthermore, they ignore the fact that the underlying foundation of evolution reflects a pagan mentality, ascribes divinity to chance and natural occurrences, and has engendered a great deal of oppression, conflict, war, and other catastrophes.
This chapter will focus on those truths that Muslim evolutionists ignore, and calls upon them to stop supporting the pagan mentality that provides the foundation for materialist-atheist thought.

Evolution Is an Ancient Pagan Greek Idea

A picture showing Thales' (d. 546 bce) idea of a flat Earth floating on water. The picture shows air and fire, two of Earth's four basic elements.

Contrary to what its supporters claim, evolution is not a scientific theory but a pagan belief. The idea of evolution first appeared in such ancient societies as Egypt, Babylon, and Sumer, after which it passed to ancient Greek philosophers. Pagan Sumerian monuments contain statements denying creation and claiming that living things emerged by themselves as part of a gradual process. According to Sumerian belief, life emerged by itself out of the chaos of water.

As part of their own superstitious religions, the ancient Egyptians believed that "snakes, frogs, worms, and mice emerged from the mud of the Nile floodwaters." Just like the Sumerians, the ancient Egyptians denied the existence of a Creator and thought that "living things emerged by chance from mud."
The most important claim of the Greek philosophers Empedocles (fifth century bce), Thales (d. 546 bce), and Anaximander (d. 547 bce) of Miletus was that the first living things were formed from such inanimate substances as air, fire, and water. This theory posited that the first living things suddenly emerged in water and that later on, some of them left the water, adapted to life on land, and began to live there. Thales believed that water was the root of all life, that plants and animals began to develop in water, and that humanity was the end result of this process.4 Anaximander, a younger contemporary of Thales, held that "man arose from the fishes" and the source of life began with a "primordial mass."5

Some philosophers, such as Empedocles (d. fifth century bce), believed that Earth was composed of four elements: earth, air, fire, and water. In this seventeenth-century illustration, the four elements are symbolized as rings around the sun.

Anaximander's verse work On Nature is the first available written work based upon the theory of evolution. In that poem, he wrote that creatures arose from slime that had been dried by the sun. He thought that the first animals were covered with prickly scales and lived in the seas. As these fish-like creatures evolved, they moved onto land, shed their scaly coverings and eventually became human beings.6 (For further details, see The Religion of Darwinism by Harun Yahya, Abu'l Qasim Publishers, Jeddah, 2003) His theory can be considered the first foundation of the present-day theory of evolution, for it has many similarities with Darwinism.
Empedocles brought earlier ideas together and suggested that the fundamental elements (i.e., earth, air, fire, and water) came together to create bodies. He also believed that man had developed from plant life, and that only chance played any role in this process.7 As mentioned earlier, this concept of chance and its role in creation form the principle basis upon which the theory of evolution is built.

Heraclitus (d. fifth century bce) claimed that because the universe was in a process of constant change, there was no point in questioning the mythical account of its beginning and maintained that it had no beginning or end. Rather, it simply existed.8 In short, the materialist belief upon which evolution is based also existed in ancient Greece.

The idea of spontaneous development was supported by many other Greek philosophers, particularly Aristotle (384-22 bce). This idea said that animals, in particular certain worms, insects, and plants, came about by themselves in nature and so did not need to undergo any fertilization process. Maurice Manquat, well known for his studies on Aristotle's ideas on natural history, once said:

Heraclitus

Aristotle was concerned with the origin of life so much that he accepted spontaneous generation (the coming together of inanimate substances to spontaneously form a living thing) in order to explain certain events that could not be accounted for in any other way.9

On careful inspection, one can see considerable similarities between the ideas of past and present evolutionist thinkers. The roots of the materialist idea that the universe has no beginning and no end, as well as the evolutionist view that living things emerged as the result of chance, lie in pagan Sumerian culture and were common among materialist Greek thinkers. The ideas that life emerged from water and a mixture known as "primordial mass," and living things emerge only because of chance, form the bases of these two ideas that are linked despite the passage of so much time.

The Greek philosopher Aristotle

Thus, Muslim evolutionists support a theory whose roots are embedded in ancient ideas that have been shown to have no scientific basis. Moreover, such ideas were first proposed by ancient materialist thinkers and contain pagan meanings.
Actually, evolution is not restricted to ancient Sumerian culture or ancient Greek philosophers, for it forms the essence of such major contemporary belief systems as Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. In other words, evolution is no more than a theory that is completely opposed to Islamic belief.
Some Muslim evolutionists, despite scientific evidence to the contrary, claim that the Qur'an supports this supposed "creationist theory of evolution" and try to find the source of evolution in the Muslim world. They assert that this idea first emerged from Muslim thinkers and, when their works were translated into foreign languages, evolutionist thought appeared in the West.

However, the few examples given above clearly reveal that evolution is no more than a primitive belief dating back to ancient pagan societies. It would be a great mistake to try and show that evolutionist thought, built upon materialist foundations, can be ascribed to Muslims when there is absolutely no clear scientific and historical basis to support such a claim.

Chance Conflicts with the Truth of Creation

Those who maintain that there is no contradiction between evolution and creation ignore one important point: Such people believe that Darwinism's main claim is that living species emerged by evolving from each other. However, this is not the case, for evolutionists claim that life emerged as the result of chance, by unconscious mechanisms. In other words, life on Earth came about without a Creator and by itself from inanimate substances.
Such a claim rejects the existence of a Creator right from the start, and thus cannot be accepted by any Muslim. However, some Muslims who are unaware of this truth see no harm in supporting evolution on the assumption that God could have used evolution to create living things.

Prof. Fred Hoyle

Yet they ignore one important danger: Although they are trying to show that evolution is parallel to religion, in reality they are supporting and actually agreeing with an idea that is quite impossible from their own point of view. Meanwhile, evolutionists turn a blind eye to this situation because it furthers their cause of having society accept their ideas.
Looking at the matter as a devout Muslim and thinking about it in the light of the Qur'an, a theory that is fundamentally based upon chance clearly cannot have anything in common with Islam. Evolution sees chance, time, and inanimate matter as divine, and ascribes the title of "creator" to these weak and unconscious concepts. No Muslim can accept such a pagan-based theory, for each Muslim knows that Allah, the sole Creator, created everything from nothing. Therefore, he uses science and reason to oppose all beliefs and ideas that conflict with that fact.
Evolution is a component of materialism and, according to materialism, the universe has no beginning or end, and thus no need for a Creator. This irreligious ideology suggests that the universe, galaxies, stars, planets, sun, and other heavenly bodies, as well as their flawless systems and perfect equilibrium, are the results of chance. In the same way, evolution claims that the first protein and the first cell (the building blocks of life) developed by themselves as the result of a string of blind coincidences. This same ideology claims that the wonders of design in all living things, whether they live on land, in the sea, or in the skies, are the product of chance. Although surrounded on all sides by evidence of creation, starting with the design in their own bodies, evolutionists insist upon ascribing all of that perfection to chance and unconscious processes. In other words, their main characteristic is to see chance as divine in order to deny God's existence. However, such a refusal to accept or to see God's evident existence and greatness changes nothing. God's infinite knowledge and matchless art reveal themselves in everything He creates.
As a matter of fact, recent scientific advances definitively reject the evolutionists' baseless claims that life emerged by itself and by natural processes. The superior design in life shows that a Creator Who has superior wisdom and knowledge created all living things. The fact that even the simplest organisms are irreducibly complex places all evolutionists in an impossible quandary - a fact that they themselves often admit! For example, the world-famous British mathematician and astronomer Fred Hoyle admits that life could not have come about by chance:
Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd…10

Evolutionists claim that the first living cell came about in the conditions of the primitive Earth, from inanimate substances and the chance effects of natural events.

The evolutionist Pierre-Paul Grassé confesses that ascribing a creative force to chance is pure fantasy:
Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur… There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.11
Those words make the evolutionists' ideological dilemma perfectly clear: Even though they see that their theory is untenable and unscientific, they refuse to abandon it because of their ideological obsession. In another statement, Hoyle reveals why evolutionists believe in chance:
Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.12
What Hoyle describes as a "psychological" reason has conditioned evolutionists to deny creation. All of these reasons are sufficient evidence for Muslim evolutionists to consider evolution as nothing more than a theory designed to deny God.

Evolutionists' claim that life formed by itself by chance from inanimate substances is as irrational and illogical as claiming that America's Statue of Liberty was formed by the coincidental coming together of sand and rocks when lightning struck the sea.

Natural Selection and Mutations Have No Power to Cause Evolution

Muslim evolutionists who ignore the fact that science has disproven evolution face another dilemma as well: the claim that the 1.5 million living species in nature came about as the result of unconscious natural events.
According to evolutionists, the first living cell emerged due to chemical reactions in inanimate matter. (Let's recall here that a considerable amount of scientific evidence shows that this is impossible. In addition, researchers who carried out experiments by bringing together the gases that made up Earth's initial atmosphere, as well as the appropriate atmospheric conditions, have been unable to "produce" even the smallest building block of life, the protein.13) Since they have failed to bring about a living organism despite all of the technology and scientific knowledge available to them, it is naturally irrational and illogical to claim that blind chance could have succeeded.
Evolution also claims that life began with that first cell, grew ever-more complex, and assumed an ever-greater variety until human beings were produced. In brief, the theory goes, unconscious mechanisms in nature must have continuously developed living things. For example, one bacterium contains the genetic code for some 2,000 proteins whereas a human being contains the genetic code for some 200,000 proteins. In other words, an unconscious mechanism "produced" the genetic data for 198,000 new proteins over time.

A CELL'S FLAWLESS CREATION DISPROVES EVOLUTION Even a single cell, the building block of life, possesses an enormously complex structure. The above picture shows just some of the parts that go into making up a cell. There is an extraordinarily complex and flawlessly planned organization between all of these components. To claim that all of this could have come about by chance flies in the face of logic and scientific discoveries.

That is what evolution claims. Yet does nature really contain a mechanism that can develop a living thing's genetic data?
The modern theory of evolution - also known as neo-Darwinism, the updated version of Darwin's original theory that takes into account recent discoveries in genetics - proposes two such mechanisms: natural selection and mutation.

The evolutionists' imaginary tree of life

Natural selection means that the strong and those who can adapt to changing natural conditions survive the fight for life, while the rest are eliminated and disappear. For instance, a continual fall in a region's temperature means that certain animal populations that are not resistant to low temperatures are weeded out. Over the long term, only those animals who are resistant to cold temperatures survive and eventually make up the whole population.

There is enough information in one human DNA molecule to fill 1,000 books. This giant encyclopedia has been shown to consist of 3 million letters. The flawless creation in DNA is proof of Allah's infinite power and might.

Alternatively, in the case of rabbits who live with the constant threat of predators, only those who best adapt to the prevailing conditions (e.g., those who can run the fastest), survive and thus pass their features on to subsequent generations. However, careful examination reveals that no new feature actually emerges here, for these rabbits are not turning into a new species or acquiring a new characteristic. Thus one cannot say that natural selection causes evolution.
This being the case, evolutionists are left with mutation. In order for evolution's claim to be acceptable, mutations must be able to develop a living thing's genetic data. Mutations are defined as errors in a living thing's genes that arise either as the result of external influences (e.g., radiation) or copying faults in DNA. Of course mutations may give rise to change, yet such changes are always destructive. To put it another way, mutations cannot develop living things; rather, they always harm living things.

Genetics made major advances during the twentieth century. By examining genetic diseases in living things in the light of rapidly developing science, scientists showed that mutations were not biological changes that could contribute something to evolution. This contradicts the evolutionists' claim. Advances in genetics, in particular, resulted in the acknowledgement that some 4,500 supposedly hereditary genetic diseases actually were caused by mutation.
In order for mutations to become hereditary, they must occur in the reproductive organs (sperm cells in men, ovaries in women). Only this type of genetic change can be transmitted to later generations. Many genetic diseases are caused by such changes in just those very cells. Mutations, on the other hand, form in other bodily organs (e.g., the liver or the brain), and so cannot be transmitted to subsequent generations. Such mutations, called "somatic," cause many cancers through degeneration in the cells' DNA.

According to natural selection, the strong and those able to adapt to their surroundings survive, while the rest disappear. Evolutionists propose that natural selection caused living things to evolve and resulted in new species. However, natural selection has no such effect; all of the supposed "evidence" presented so far confirms this.

Cancer is one of the best examples of the damage caused by mutations. Many carcinogenic factors, such as chemical substances and ultraviolet rays, actually produce mutations. Following the recent discovery of oncogenic and tumor-preventing genes that, when they malfunction, particularly effective in causing cancer, researchers realized how mutations lead to cancer. These two types of genes are necessary in order for cells to multiply and for the body to renew itself. If one of them is damaged by mutation, cells begin to grow in an uncontrolled manner and cancer begins to form. We can compare this situation to a stuck gas pedal or a non-working brake in a car. In both cases, the car will crash. In the same way, the cells' uncontrolled growth rate leads first to cancer and then to death. When mutations damage these genes at birth, as in the case of retinoblastoma, the affected babies soon die.

Chance mutations are always harmful to humans and all other living things. The horrifying results of the 1986 nuclear accident at Chernobyl show the effect of mutations. http://www.ecn.cz/private/c10/tmi.jpg http://www.ecn.cz/private/c10/child.jpg http://www.adiccp.org/imagery/medical-aid.html

The damage done to living things by mutations is not limited to these examples. Almost all mutations observed so far are harmful; only a few are neutral. Despite this, however, evolutionists as well as Muslim evolutionists still try to maintain that mutation is a valid evolutionary mechanism. If species had evolved into one another, as evolutionists claim, millions of advantageous mutations would have had to occur and be present in all reproductive cells.

Just as an earthquake destroys a city instead of developing it, chance mutations lead to sickness, deformity, and handicaps in living things.

Science, as it continues to advance, has discovered millions of harmful mutations and has identified the resulting diseases. However, evolution faces a terrible quandary: Evolutionist scientists can cite no mutations that actually increase genetic data. Pierre Paul Grassé, one of France's best-known zoologists, editor of the 35-volume Traite de Zoologie, and former president of the French Academy of Sciences, has compared mutations to the incorrect letters made while copying a written text. And just like incorrect letters, mutations do not increase information; rather, they damage the already existing data. Grassé states this fact in the following manner:
Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complimentary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what persists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how... As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy.14
Given this fact, mutations, as Grassé puts it, "no matter how numerous they may be,they do not produce any kind of evolution." We can compare the effects of mutations to an earthquake. Just as an earthquake does not help develop or improve a city but actually tears it down, mutations always have negative effects in exactly the same way. From this point of view, the evolutionists' claims regarding mutations are completely unfounded. (For further details, see The Evolution Deceit by Harun Yahya, Taha Publishers, London, 1999).

"These people of ours have taken gods apart from Him. Why do they not produce a clear authority concerning them? Who could do greater wrong than someone who invents a lie against Allah?" (Qur'an, 18: 15)

 

Chapter 3 Fossil Research Proves Creation

Given the above facts, scientific advances show that natural selection and mutation have no evolutionary force. Since no evolutionary mechanism exists, no evolution could have taken place in the past. However, evolutionists continue to insist that all living things evolved from one another by means of a gradual process that occurred over hundreds of millions of years. Their error is concealed within this logic, for if their scenario were true, countless transitional forms belonging to the timeframe in question should have emerged. Moreover, we should have found their fossil remains.

For example, evolutionists claim that starfish evolved into real fish over millions of years. According to that claim, there must exist many transitional forms between the two species. However, not one fossil belonging to any such transitional form has ever been found. There are starfish and fish in the fossil record, but no forms between the two.

The evolutionists' illogical claims are apparent in every case. Let's consider the emergence of fish, which evolutionists say evolved from invertebrates, such as the starfish or marine worms. If this were the case, numerous examples of transitional forms must have existed in order to allow a gradual evolution. In other words, we should be able to see the fossil remains of many species having both fish and invertebrate characteristics. However, despite the many fish and invertebrate fossils found by scientists, no fossil of any transitional form that might confirm their claim has ever been found. Such an absence, in turn, means that evolution never took place. (In fact, the first fish on Earth appear in the same geological period with the first known complex invertebrates. Fish fossils go back to 530 million years.15 During that time, known as the Cambrian age, all major groups of invertebrates abruptly appeared on Earth.)
Although evolutionists are well aware of this, they resort to such methods as demagogy and faked evidence to make people believe in evolution.16 Even Darwin knew that the fossil record did not back up his theory; he merely hoped that it would grow richer over time and that the missing transitional forms would be found. Present-day evolutionists, however, are left with no such hope. As even they have admitted, the fossil record is exceedingly rich and of a sufficient degree to reveal the history of life. Professor N. Heribert Nilsson, a well-known Swedish evolutionist botanist from Lund University, says this about the fossil record:
My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed… The fossil material is now so complete that it has even been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of any transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, (and) they will never be filled.17
T. Neville George, a professor of paleontology of Glasgow University, states that although the fossil record is very rich, the long-sought transitional forms have not yet been found:
There is no need to apologise any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration... The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.18

Not one fossil of any transitional forms posited by evolutionists has ever been found. Throughout history, fish have always existed as fish, birds as birds, and human beings as human beings.

Evolutionists even go so far as to admit that in addition to denying evolution, the fossil record provides scientific proof for the truth of creation. For example, the evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki confesses:
A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God…19
As we have seen, evolutionists have suffered a terrible disappointment on the subject of transitional forms. No excavation from anywhere in the world has rendered the slightest trace of any transitional forms since Darwin first proposed them. Those discoveries have all been of a kind as to dash evolutionists' hopes, and show that living things on Earth emerged suddenly, fully developed, and flawless.
However, even though they know that transitional forms never existed, evolutionist scientists refuse to abandon their theory. They offer prejudiced commentaries on a number of fossils. In his work In Search of Deep Time, Henry Gee, editor of the world-famous magazine Nature, describes just how scientific such fossil commentaries really are:
.... we arrange fossils in an order that reflects gradual acquisition of what we see in ourselves. We do not seek the truth, we create it after the fact, to suit our own prejudices... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.20
That is why believers in God must not be deceived by the word games and falsehoods dressed up in scientific garb. It is a great mistake to believe that people, just because they are scientists, are telling the truth and that they should be believed. Evolutionist scientists have no compunctions about concealing the truth, distorting scientific facts, and even producing forged evidence for the sake of their ideology. The history of Darwinism is full of such examples.
When we consider even the most basic main lines of Darwinism, its invalidity and totally rotten foundations are immediately apparent. When we look at the details, the situation becomes even clearer. (See The Evolution Deceit, Taha Publishers, London, 1999 and Darwinism Refuted, Goodword Publishers, New Delhi, 2003 for more information).
Contrary to what evolutionists claim, we see a great design and planning in the features of all living and non-living things wherever we look. That is a sign that God has created them all. Evolutionists continue to wage their hopeless struggle because they do not want to accept this fact. As truly committed materialists, they are trying to bring a dead body to life.
All of this leads to just one conclusion: Darwinism turns people away from reason, science, and the truth and directs them toward irrationality. People who believe in evolution refuse to follow the path of reason and science, and are taken in by the superstitious nonsense that has come down from the 1800s when Darwin was alive. Finally, they begin to believe that chance can play a divine role, even though the whole universe is full of the signs of creation. It is enough to look at just one of the flawless mechanisms in the sky and the sea, in animals and plants, in order to see this. To say that these are all the work of chance is an insult to reason, logic, and science. What is needed is a confession of God's might and greatness, and a subsequent surrendering to Him.

It is a Mistake to Think Charles Darwin was Religious

A large part of those religious people who support the theory of evolution suggest that Charles Darwin was religious. However, they are definitely mistaken, for during his life Darwin revealed his negative views of God and religion.

Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, by the Darwinist historian Gertrude Himmelfarb.

Darwin did believe in God during his youth, but his belief gradually faded and was replaced by atheism during middle age. However, he did not publicize this fact, for he did not want to attract any opposition from his devout wife in particular, as well as from his close relatives and the religious establishment. In her book Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, Darwinist historian Gertrude Himmelfarb writes: "The full extent of Darwin's disbelief, therefore, can be seen neither in his published work nor even in his published autobiography, but only in the original version of that autobiography."21 Her book also reveals that when Darwin's son Francis was about to publish his The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Darwin's wife Emma fiercely opposed the project and did not want to give her permission, fearing that the letters might give rise to a scandal after his death. Emma warned her son to take out those sections that made open references to atheism. The entire family feared that such statements would damage Darwin's prestige.22
According to biologist Ernst Mayr, a founder of neo-Darwinism; "It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a 'materialist.'"23

Ernst Mayr

Darwin always bore his family's reactions in mind, and throughout his life carefully concealed his ideas on religion. He did so, in his own words, because,
Many years ago I was strongly advised by a friend never to introduce anything about religion in my works, if I wished to advance science in England; and this led me not to consider the mutual bearings of the two subjects. Had I foreseen how much more liberal the world would become, I should perhaps have acted differently.24
As we can see from the final sentence, if Darwin had felt confident he would have attracted no reaction, he might not have been so cautious. When Karl Marx (1818-83) proposed to dedicate his Das Kapital to Darwin, Darwin firmly refused the honor on the grounds that it would hurt certain members of his family if he were associated with such an atheistic book.25
However, we can still find Darwin's attitude to spiritual concepts and beliefs in these words to his cousin: "I look upon all human feeling as traceable to some germ in the animals."26
Darwin also opposed religious instruction for children out of his belief that they should be freed from religious belief.27
These antireligious views have come down to present-day evolutionists as a kind of legacy. Just as Darwin did not want children to learn about God while they were being educated, modern evolutionists fiercely oppose teaching creationism in schools. They engage in active lobbying all over the world to have creation removed from the educational curriculum.

Even if We sent down angels to them, and the dead spoke to them, and We gathered together everything infront of them right before their eyes, they would still not believe unless Allah willed. The truth is that most of them are ignorant. (Qur'an, 6:111)

Darwin's Atheism and Efforts to Conceal it

He makes the following reference to his own lack of belief, "disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete…"28
The same book describes how Darwin's father took him aside when he was about to get married and recommended that he conceal his religious doubt from his wife. However, Emma was aware of his ever-decreasing faith right from the first. When his Descent of Man was published, she confessed to her daughter regarding the book's anti-religious sentiments:
I shall dislike it very much as again putting God further off.29
In a letter he wrote in 1876, Darwin stated how his belief became weaker:
… This conclusion (theism) was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the "Origin of Species"; and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker…30
At the same time, he found it odd that anyone else should have religious beliefs, and stated that people, who he believed had evolved from primitive animals, could not trust those beliefs:
(C)an the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?31
The fundamental reason why Darwin denied God's existence was pride. We can see this in the statements below:

Charles Darwin's wife Emma

In the sense that an omnipotent and omniscient Deity must order and know everything, this must be admitted; yet, in honest truth, I can hardly admit it.32
In a short hand-written appendix to the story of his life, he wrote:
I feel no remorse from having committed any great sin.33
Darwin's statements denying God's existence and religion actually follow a classical atheist logic. A Qur'anic verse describes how those who deny Allah actually realize that He exists but still deny Him out of arrogance:

And they repudiated them wrongly and haughtily, in spite of their own certainty about them. See the final fate of the corrupters. (Qur'an, 27:14)

The most important point here is this: Darwin's atheism had the greatest influence on shaping his theory. He twisted facts, observations, and proofs in order to maintain his prejudice that life was not created. When one reads The Origin of Species, one clearly sees how Darwin was at pains to reject all evidence for creation (e.g., the complex structures in living things, how the fossil record points to sudden emergence, and facts pointing to the limits of how far living things can differ from each other in nature), and the way he postponed those things he could not immediately explain by saying: "Perhaps this matter will be resolved one day in the future." Had he been a neutral scientist, he would not have displayed such dogmatism. His own style and methods show that Darwin was an atheist who grounded his theory in atheism.
In fact, atheists have supported Darwin for the last 150 years and irreligious ideologies have backed Darwinism precisely because of his atheism. Thus, given the fact of Darwin's atheism, Muslims must not make the mistake of thinking that he was religious, or at least not opposed to religion, and continue to support him, his theory, and those who think like him. If they do, they place themselves alongside the atheists.

Darwin admitted to being an atheist in his letters and autobiography.

Darwinism Has Led Humanity from Disaster to Disaster

At the beginning of this website, we saw how evolutionist Muslims portray Darwinism as a scientifically proven fact and ignore its true face. Darwinism, which provided "scientific" support for fascism and communism, the twentieth century's bloodiest ideologies, has an even darker "true" face.
These ideologies, which reached their violent peaks during the last century, were responsible for communist revolutions and fascist coups d'etat, as well as fighting, conflict, civil war, and the division of the world into two blocs. Such bloody dictators as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco all left their marks. Some 120 million people died as a result of the cruelty inflicted by communist regimes alone, and the two world wars alone cost some 65 million lives. World War II, which began with Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939, was a true disaster for humanity. (For details see Harun Yahya, The Disasters Darwinism Brought to Humanity, Al-Attique Publishers Inc., Ontario, 2001 and Fascism: Bloody Ideology of Darwinism, Arastirma Publishing, Istanbul, 2002)
Darwinism can be found at the ideological root of all of these political, economic, and moral catastrophes, for it nourishes and strengthens all of them.

Communism, Fascism, and Darwinism

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the founding fathers of communism, mentioned in their works how much Darwinism influenced them. Marx showed his sympathy for Darwin by presenting to him a copy of his book Das Kapital, in which he had written a personal note. The German edition even carried the following message in his own hand; "To Charles Darwin, from a true admirer, from Karl Marx."


Darwinism was of such importance to communism that as soon as Darwin's book was published, Engels wrote to Marx: "Darwin, whom I am just reading, is simply splendid."34
The prominent Russian communist Georgi Valentinovich Plekhanov regarded Marxism as "Darwinism in its application to social sciences."35

Lenin Stalin Mao Mussolini Franco Hitler

Hitler's Mein Kampf.

Hitler's most important ideological mentor, the racist German historian Heinrich von Treitschke, said: "Nations could not prosper without intense competition, like the struggle for survival of Darwin,"36 thus indicating the origin of the violence at Nazism's roots. Hitler himself was a Darwinist. Taking his inspiration from the concept of "the fight for survival" employed by Darwin, he called his own famous work Mein Kampf (My Fight). At a 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that: "A higher race subjects to itself a lower race… a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right, because it was founded on science."37 This shows just how much he was influenced by Darwin.
Mussolini, the leader of Italian fascism, also favored Darwinism as a worldview and tried to use it to justify Italy's invasion of Ethiopia. Franco, the Spanish dictator at that time, also reflected Darwinist ideology both in theory and in practice. (See Harun Yahya, Fascism: Bloody Ideology of Darwinism, Arastirma Publishing, Istanbul, 2002)

By saying that life is a fight that the strong were destined to win and that the weak were condemned to lose, Darwin opened the way to brute force, violence, war, conflict, and massacre on a grand scale. Dictators who oppressed people, whether at home or abroad, were so inspired by Darwinism that they dressed themselves in its teachings. In their view, the law of nature demands that the weak be crushed and destroyed and that people do not necessarily have any inherent value, since they had evolved from animals.

Defending Darwinism Facilitates Communism's Spread

Communism is a hostile ideology, both in terms of the materialist philosophy upon which it is based and the historical analysis it proposes. It begins by denying God's existence, and its historical analysis, which describes religion as the "opiate of the masses," calls for the eradication of religion in order to erect its envisioned communist society.

Marx wanted to dedicate his Das Kapital to Darwin.

Thus all communist regimes fight religion, attack religious values, destroy places of worship, and outlaw the observance of religious obligations. Regimes in such places as the former Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Bulgaria, and Albania have followed policies that are so anti-religious that they border upon, and sometimes lead to, genocide.
Darwinism plays an important role in Marxist ideology's hatred of religion. Darwin provided Marxist atheism with a so-called scientific basis, which explains why Marx and Engels felt such gratitude for him. Engels' praise is particularly striking:

Friedrich Engels, one of the originators of communism.

"He (Darwin) dealt the metaphysical conception of Nature the heaviest blow by his proof that all organic beings, plants, animals, and man himself, are the products of a process of evolution going on through millions of years."38
Conflict lies at the heart of Marxist philosophy (dialectical materialism), which asserts that the universe functions according to the law of clashes between opposites. In other words, Darwin's asserted fight for survival in nature was now applied to human societies. Darwinism was the greatest support for communist ideology, which saw human history as a battleground and prepared the ground for further conflict.
The evolutionist P. J. Darlington explains that violence is a natural consequence of belief in this theory:
The first point is that selfishness and violence are inherent in us, inherited from our remotest animal ancestors…. Violence is, then, natural to man; a product of evolution.39
Marxists believe that societies will accept their ideology if they bring them to believe in Darwinism. They attach so much importance to Darwin's principle that "violence and conflict are unchanging natural laws." This is why all communist-oriented terrorist organizations give their militants months of training in communism, dialectical materialism, and Darwinism. Darwin's theory encourages these people to believe that they are actually animals, and that just like animals, people must fight for survival. Thus many young people become monsters quite capable of killing and even ruthlessly slaughtering children and babies.

In this way, communist ideology led to guerrilla and civil wars and bloody acts of terrorism in numerous countries throughout the twentieth century. That is why the intellectual struggle against Darwinism is so important: If Darwinism is exposed as the fallacy that it is and then collapses, Marxist philosophies based upon it will crumble. Since Darwinism has such an important role to play in anti-religious communist ideology, supporting one means supporting the other. Trying to justify Darwinism by reconciling it with religion and claiming that God used evolution to create living things means justifying communism. The communists know that religion and Darwinism are incompatible, but remain silent when confronted with religious people who accept evolutionary creation so that both ideologies can spread easily and even further afield. The important thing is to first open a door to the acceptance of Darwinism.
The communists' belief in evolution stems from their blind devotion to their ideology. For instance Robert Shapiro, an evolutionist professor of chemistry and DNA expert, says that the theory's basic claim that inanimate substances organized themselves and formed DNA and RNA is based on no scientific fact at all. He continues:

Robert Shapiro

Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed to take us across the gap from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective replicator. This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but it is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism...40
As Shapiro has stated, evolutionists continue to defend the theory of evolution due to their dogmatic adherence to materialist philosophy. This indicates that any support given to this theory also means direct support for materialist philosophy, the spread of which inevitably prepares the ground for communist ideology's entrance into a given society. This link reveals how communist ideology draws its strength from Darwinism.

Muslims who support the theory of evolution need to think about this truth. They must not share a common perspective with communists, who have been and remain the fiercest enemies of religion, and/or support a view that is the "scientific" basis of communism. This becomes even more important when we consider that communism has not died, but is still holding out in authoritarian regimes like North Korea and, most dangerously, still dominating the political system and political culture of China, despite her superficial "capitalist" outlook.

Darwin's Racism

One of the most important and yet least-known aspects of Darwin is his racism: Darwin regarded white Europeans as more "advanced" than other human races. Presuming that man evolved from ape-like creatures, he surmised that some races developed more than others and that the latter still bore simian features. In his book, The Descent of Man, which he published after The Origin of Species, he boldly commented on "the greater differences between men of distinct races."41 In his book, Darwin held blacks and Australian Aborigines to be equal to gorillas and then inferred that these would be "done away with" by the "civilized races" in time. He said:

Racist neo-Nazi movements are spreading to many countries. At the root of such movements is a fascistic hatred of peoples of other nations. Behind this idea lies Darwinism, according to which, the inferiority of some races in comparison to others is very natural.

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.42

Darwin's nonsensical ideas were not only theorized, but also given a degree of scientific and social respectability that enabled them to provide the most important "scientific ground" for racism. Supposing that living beings evolved in the struggle for life, Darwinism soon was applied to the social sciences. Known as "Social Darwinism," this new ideology contends that existing human races are located at different rungs of the "evolutionary ladder," that the European races are the most "advanced" of all, and that many other races still bear "ape-like" features.
Moreover, Darwinism does not rest with preparing the ground for racist attacks, for it also allows all kinds of separatist and destructive actions. This "life is a fight" principle has created an argument that justifies putting other people living peacefully in the same country into concentration camps, as well as the use of violence and brute force, war, death, and murder.
However, Muslims who realize that Allah has created them and everything else, that Allah has breathed His soul into them, that the world is a place of peace and brotherhood, that all people are equal, and that each person will be punished in the hereafter for whatever he or she has done in this world cannot harm others. Only those who believe that they came into existence by chance, have no responsibility to anyone, will never have to account for their actions, and believe that the world is a place of conflict can engage in such activities.
That is why Muslims should listen to their consciences before accepting Darwinism, and why they should understand the true price of backing a theory that science itself refutes. The damage Darwinism has done to humanity is clear. The tragedies, suffering, and conflict it leads to also are well known. As we have seen throughout this chapter, the way in which people are brought to believe in irrational and illogical ideas and concepts should convince us that Darwinism is a grave danger.