The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution against the Fact of Creation

[FatimaAsSideqah]

Sisters and Brothers

Some of the people who have heard of "the theory of evolution" or "Darwinism", may think that these concepts only concern the field of biology and that they have no significance in their everyday lives. This is a big misconception because far more than a biological concept, the theory of evolution constitutes the underpinnings of a dishonest philosophy that has held sway over a great number of people.

That philosophy is "materialism", which holds a number of bogus views about why and how we came into being. Materialism maintains that there is nothing but the matter and that matter is the essence of everything, be it organic or inorganic. Starting out from this premise, it denies the existence of a divine Creator, that is, Allah. Reducing everything to the level of matter, this notion transforms man into a creature that heeds only matter and turns away from moral values of whatever kind. This is the beginning of big disasters that will befall a man’s life.

The detriments of materialism are not only limited to individuals. Materialism also seeks to abolish the basic values on which the state and society rest and generate a soulless and insensitive society that pays attention only to matter. Since the members of such a society can never possess idealistic notions such as patriotism, love for one’s people, justice, loyalty, honesty, sacrifice, honour, or good morals, the social order established by these individuals is doomed to be shattered in a short while. For these reasons, materialism is one of the severest menaces to the basic values of the political and social order of a nation.

Another great evil of materialism is its underpinning of anarchist and divisive ideologies that take aim at the perpetuity of the state and the people. Communism, the foremost of these ideologies, is the natural political outcome of the materialist philosophy. Seeking to abolish such sacred notions as state and family, it constitutes the fundamental ideology of every form of separatist actions directed against the unitary structure of the state.

The theory of evolution constitutes the so-called scientific foundation of materialism that the communist ideology depends on. By taking the theory of evolution as a reference, communism seeks to justify itself and to present its ideology as sound and correct. This is why the founder of communism, Karl Marx, wrote for Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species which laid the basis for the theory of evolution as "this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view". (1)

In point of fact, materialist notions of every kind, Marx’s ideas being foremost among them, have utterly collapsed for the reason that the theory of evolution, which is in fact a 19th century dogma on which materialism rests, has been absolutely invalidated by the findings of modern science. Science has disproved and continues to disprove the materialist hypothesis that recognises the existence of nothing but matter and it demonstrates that all beings are the products of creation by a superior being.

The purpose of this book is to reveal the scientific facts that refute the theory of evolution in all fields and to inform people about the ulterior, underlying, and real purpose of this so-called "science", which is in fact a fraud.

It should be pointed out that evolutionists have no answer to give to the book you are now reading. And they will not even attempt to answer it for they are aware that such an act will simply help everyone to a better understanding that evolution is simply a lie.

Karl Marx made it clear that Darwin’s theory provided a solid ground for materialism and thus also for communism. He also showed his sympathy to Darwin by dedicating Das Kapital, which is considered as his greatest work, to him. In the German edition of the book, he wrote: "From a devoted admirer to Charles Darwin".

:sister:

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

the quran has already cleared up the truth for us

 

[HeiGou]

Some of the people who have heard of "the theory of evolution" or "Darwinism", may think that these concepts only concern the field of biology and that they have no significance in their everyday lives. This is a big misconception because far more than a biological concept, the theory of evolution constitutes the underpinnings of a dishonest philosophy that has held sway over a great number of people.

So your concern with Darwinism is purely because it leads to materialism and the denial of God?

As far as I can see this is an objection based on something besides science and evolution. If you want to deny materialism, pelase do, but could you keep away from the sciences?

For the record, may I ask if you deny the idea of change in a population over time? Do you accept that most animals have many many offspring, most of whom die before having children of their own? Do you accept that the "best", the quickest, the smartest, the fastest or whatever, offspring are more likely to survive? Do you accept that children resemble their parents and so over time the population is likely to become "better" than it was before?

Reducing everything to the level of matter, this notion transforms man into a creature that heeds only matter and turns away from moral values of whatever kind. This is the beginning of big disasters that will befall a man’s life.

That is not necessarily the case. Just because you reject God, it does not mean that you reject morality. If something is worth doing, it is worth doing without the threat of eternal damnation or the promise of eternal reward don't you think?

The theory of evolution constitutes the so-called scientific foundation of materialism that the communist ideology depends on. By taking the theory of evolution as a reference, communism seeks to justify itself and to present its ideology as sound and correct. This is why the founder of communism, Karl Marx, wrote for Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species which laid the basis for the theory of evolution as "this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view". (1)

Marx did not write for Darwin as it happens. He did admire Darwin. Ironically Stalin rejected Darwinian thought and supported Lamark. So you can be a Communist and not a Darwinianist.

In point of fact, materialist notions of every kind, Marx’s ideas being foremost among them, have utterly collapsed for the reason that the theory of evolution, which is in fact a 19th century dogma on which materialism rests, has been absolutely invalidated by the findings of modern science. Science has disproved and continues to disprove the materialist hypothesis that recognises the existence of nothing but matter and it demonstrates that all beings are the products of creation by a superior being.

Science has, of course, done no such thing. Science tends to suggest the exact opposite in fact. Science clears up areas we did not understand and so reduces the areas of knowledge that are "mysterious". Science will, I do not doubt, go on doing so.

It should be pointed out that evolutionists have no answer to give to the book you are now reading. And they will not even attempt to answer it for they are aware that such an act will simply help everyone to a better understanding that evolution is simply a lie.

This book, which book by the way?, has no questions or anything else worth replying to. And yet I have done my best with the factual void that is this post. But bring on the evidence.

Karl Marx made it clear that Darwin’s theory provided a solid ground for materialism and thus also for communism. He also showed his sympathy to Darwin by dedicating Das Kapital, which is considered as his greatest work, to him. In the German edition of the book, he wrote: "From a devoted admirer to Charles Darwin".

Although that respect was not reciprocated. Darwin did not admire Marx.

This is simply an attempt to taint Darwin by association with Marx. How does the fact that Marx admired Darwin prove that Darwin was wrong? Marx also loved cream pastries. So do I. Does that mean I am a Marxist or in league with the Devil?

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

heigou do you believe that man has evolved from another species by any chance?:?

 

[HeiGou]

heigou do you believe that man has evolved from another species by any chance?:?

I totally believe in the kinship between humans and other vertebrates. I do, generally speaking, tend to believe that humans evolved from another species. I do not believe as strongly as I do in the kinship thing. I am open to other possibilities. It does seem to me that the scientists have not got it all worked out right yet - I am fond of the Aquatic Ape theory for instance but I do not confuse that with science.

So the short answer would be, on the whole, yes.

If God exists I think He works through Evolution (or alternatively He created a vast Lie in the fossil record to fool us all).

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I totally believe in the kinship between humans and other vertebrates. I do, generally speaking, tend to believe that humans evolved from another species. I do not believe as strongly as I do in the kinship thing. I am open to other possibilities. It does seem to me that the scientists have not got it all worked out right yet - I am fond of the Aquatic Ape theory for instance but I do not confuse that with science.

So the short answer would be, on the whole, yes.

If God exists I think He works through Evolution (or alternatively He created a vast Lie in the fossil record to fool us all).

fossil record? care to expand? i'll research on what you say and give a detailed argument

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Here is the source of this preposterous article:

http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution01.php

That's right folks, once again, it's the champion straw-clutcher, Harun Yahya.

I shall attempt to put right some of the many inaccuracies in this worryingly misleading piece of propaganda.

That philosophy is "materialism", which holds a number of bogus views about why and how we came into being. Materialism maintains that there is nothing but the matter and that matter is the essence of everything, be it organic or inorganic. Starting out from this premise, it denies the existence of a divine Creator, that is, Allah. Reducing everything to the level of matter, this notion transforms man into a creature that heeds only matter and turns away from moral values of whatever kind. This is the beginning of big disasters that will befall a man’s life.

Nonsense. Materialism does not imply any turning away from moral values. In fact, since materialism is an ontological position, it has nothing to say about ethics at all.

The detriments of materialism are not only limited to individuals. Materialism also seeks to abolish the basic values on which the state and society rest and generate a soulless and insensitive society that pays attention only to matter.

More nonsense. Materialism, being an ontological position, has nothing whatsoever to say about political philsophy.

Another great evil of materialism is its underpinning of anarchist and divisive ideologies that take aim at the perpetuity of the state and the people. Communism, the foremost of these ideologies, is the natural political outcome of the materialist philosophy.

This is insidious and repugnant. First of all, Communism is anything but an anarchist ideology. The author really needs to learn what these two terms mean. Secondly, Communism is not the natural political outcome of materialist philosophy, and I'm baffled as to why Harun Yahya should think it is. Maybe he believes that because Karl Marx happened to be a materialist, everyone who is a materialist will also be a communist. That crazy logic could also justify the following abhorrent argument: "Osama bin Laden claims to be a Muslim. He is also a terrorist. Therefore all those who claim to be Muslims are terrorists."

Seeking to abolish such sacred notions as state and family, it constitutes the fundamental ideology of every form of separatist actions directed against the unitary structure of the state.

Again the writer misleadingly (or ignorantly) confuses an ontological position with ethical and political ones.

The theory of evolution constitutes the so-called scientific foundation of materialism that the communist ideology depends on.

Nonsense. Materialist philosophy is far older than Darwin's theory of natural selection, so to say Darwin's theories underpin materialism is utterly anachronistic. The author appears to have very little knowledge of the history of ideas.

In point of fact, materialist notions of every kind, Marx’s ideas being foremost among them, have utterly collapsed for the reason that the theory of evolution, which is in fact a 19th century dogma on which materialism rests, has been absolutely invalidated by the findings of modern science.

Nonsense. If this were true, then materialism would not be the dominant view of philosophers, as it currently is.

Science has disproved and continues to disprove the materialist hypothesis that recognises the existence of nothing but matter and it demonstrates that all beings are the products of creation by a superior being.

I wonder if the author has spoken to any scientists lately?

It should be pointed out that evolutionists have no answer to give to the book you are now reading. And they will not even attempt to answer it for they are aware that such an act will simply help everyone to a better understanding that evolution is simply a lie.

Anyone attempting to disprove the theory of evolution would be taken a lot more seriously by the scientific community if they refrained from using emotive language such as this. It has no place in scientific discourse.

Karl Marx made it clear that Darwin’s theory provided a solid ground for materialism and thus also for communism. He also showed his sympathy to Darwin by dedicating Das Kapital, which is considered as his greatest work, to him. In the German edition of the book, he wrote: "From a devoted admirer to Charles Darwin".

Several of the misguided points on Marx and his thought have already been addressed by HeiGou, so let me simply say that, judging from his article, I am certain that Harun Yahya has not read Marx's works, since he appears to be so unfamiliar with the basics of his thought. If this is the case, it is truly reprehensible for him to be pontificating about the evils of Marxism in attempt to further his particular agenda against Darwin and materialism.

This article would actually be laughable in its inaccuracy were it not for the fact that so many people on this forum appear to take Harun Yahya's ignorant diatribes seriously.

Peace

 

[Snowflake]

Is the belief that man evolved from ape based on a few fossils findings that resemble homosapiens and apes? I don't know much about how evolutionists came to this conclusion. And no I'm not going to read pages and pages about Darwin's theory, cuz I get mightyyy headaches from reading too much :sister:

 

[Cheb]

Why cant Muslims accept that evolution can exist?
I mean it does not have to contradict our belief in God. See if you look at the evidence you cannot deny that evolution existed. The only part of course that I disagree with is that we are associated with any other species. My belief (as I have stated before I guess) is that life was created before Adam and Eve. After a considerable amount of time (I think about 5 - 10 million years ago), Adam and Eve were brought down by God. Now, evolution only takes affect when there is a "need", and when it is God's will. As humans, they are unique in the sense that they have very little need to evolve. Our brains are already developed and that is our main advantage over other species. Therefore we never needed to evolve other than in terms of size and age. However, the same cannot be said for other species. As the environments change, so do species. So I see evolution as one of God's tools to help keep species alive.

 

[root]

Is the belief that man evolved from ape based on a few fossils findings that resemble homosapiens and apes?

No, Evidence of common ancestory is found within Fossils, Biology and genetics. I am sure a few more exist but they are more complementary than anything else.

I don't know much about how evolutionists came to this conclusion. And no I'm not going to read pages and pages about Darwin's theory, cuz I get mightyyy headaches from reading too much

The theory of evolution is not complex or brain numbing so you should give it a fair try?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

And no I'm not going to read pages and pages about Darwin's theory, cuz I get mightyyy headaches from reading too much :sister:

Reading is a very good way of learning. You should give it a try.

Peace

 

[Snowflake]

Why cant Muslims accept that evolution can exist?
I mean it does not have to contradict our belief in God. See if you look at the evidence you cannot deny that evolution existed. The only part of course that I disagree with is that we are associated with any other species. My belief (as I have stated before I guess) is that life was created before Adam and Eve. After a considerable amount of time (I think about 5 - 10 million years ago), Adam and Eve were brought down by God. Now, evolution only takes affect when there is a "need", and when it is God's will. As humans, they are unique in the sense that they have very little need to evolve. Our brains are already developed and that is our main advantage over other species. Therefore we never needed to evolve other than in terms of size and age. However, the same cannot be said for other species. As the environments change, so do species. So I see evolution as one of God's tools to help keep species alive.

I believe in evolution as far as species changing to adapt to their climate etc. That doesnt contradict my belief in God. Why should it. He is 'looking after' His creation and evolution is His way to help them survive and adapt according to their climate. That is understandable. I'm sure muslims only disagree with the theory that man evolved from apes.

No, Evidence of common ancestory is found within Fossils, Biology and genetics. I am sure a few more exist but they are more complementary than anything else.
The theory of evolution is not complex or brain numbing so you should give it a fair try?

Even if the DNA is similar, as 98% chimp and human DNA is similar, it doesnt prove Darwin's theory right. I'm wondering about the possible reasons for the evolution theory. Obviously these are just my ideas..

1) Let's say if an africoid negroid and caucasoid skull/skeleton were to be dug up a few thousand years from now, and there was no record of this period in time, it look like that there were two different species, one more human-like and one resembling those of the primate species. What would be made of the difference. It might look like the species of the africoid skull later evolved into species with caucasoid skulls. So those fossils probably belonged to the same species of primates in the same period. For instance, say dogs became extinct and with no records to go by... but a few thousand years laters, fossils of an alsation and a rottweiler were dug up.. isn't is possible that it could be assumed that the alsation evolved into a rottweiler? Or a domestic cat evolved into a tiger? Or a salmon became a shark? because they have similarities? We know these species although different in appearence are from the same family. So what I'm trying to say is that could explain the difference in fossils of early man or ape. Futhermore they could all have existed at the same time. I know small changes occur in animals and even humans over time, but there is no proof of a complete change where one species evolves into a completely different one. And another question? Why are there still monkeys todays? Why didn't they evolve into humans? What do evolutionists say about that?

Greetings,
Reading is a very good way of learning. You should give it a try.
Peace

lol i know but I don't have the patience to read something I don't agree with :rollseyes

 

[root]

Even if the DNA is similar, as 98% chimp and human DNA is similar, it doesnt prove Darwin's theory right. I'm wondering about the possible reasons for the evolution theory. Obviously these are just my ideas..

I think the figure is slightly higher than 98% but that is niether here nor thier. I take it you might assume that your DNA is a perfect match to mine? since we are both the same species and you would be wrong if you thought this way.

1) Let's say if an africoid negroid and caucasoid skull/skeleton were to be dug up a few thousand years from now, and there was no record of this period in time, it look like that there were two different species, one more human-like and one resembling those of the primate species.

I doubt that would be the case because as part of classification of hominids & humans the cranial mass is taken into account, besides this our y chromozone would be identical, this is not impossible since dns was extracted from a female neanderthol and mytacondrial dna comparisons were done with human mytachondrial.

say dogs became extinct and with no records to go by... but a few thousand years laters, fossils of an alsation and a rottweiler were dug up.. isn't is possible that it could be assumed that the alsation evolved into a rottweiler? Or a domestic cat evolved into a tiger?

I see what your getting at here. Science uses RVI Insertions to place species in order, it is because of RVI insertions that we class the chimp as our closest living ancestor and then the urangatang secondly. Following RVI Insertions for differences builds a good tree of species.

So what I'm trying to say is that could explain the difference in fossils of early man or ape. Futhermore they could all have existed at the same time.

I am afraid not. Though you correctly state many homonids co-existed with man, take neanderthal for example. RVI Insertions make the whole issue very much clearer.

I know small changes occur in animals and even humans over time, but there is no proof of a complete change where one species evolves into a completely different one.

Species don't evolve "from one" to "another". All species are in the business of survival so all species are really intermediates, yes over time speciation occures and resemblences (physical) can change so they are no longer recognisable as being originated from the same species, but gene's are not like this and record the flow of a gene pool as a species has evolved where we all shared the same starting gene pool.

And another question? Why are there still monkeys todays? Why didn't they evolve into humans? What do evolutionists say about that?

Monkeys did not turn into humans? monkeys are our closest ancestors and part of the primate family that we belong to. You can't say why do we have urangutangs why did they all not evolve into chimpanzees? Species become isolated from one another and then evolve into thier niech markets.