Learn English with English, baby!

Join for FREE!


English Forums

Use our English forums to learn English. The message boards are great for English questions and English answers. The more you contribute, the more all members can practice English!


Life Talk!

Beware Darwinism



Western Sahara

Darwin's theory of evolution is not a scientific theory but an ideological and philosophical dogma. This dogma has been the so-called scientific basis of bloody idiologies, atrocious wars, colonial governments and racist savageries. You will read the behind-the-scenes of "the religion of Darwin".

-Social Darwinism and Conflict between Races:

One of the aspects of God's having created different races, tribes and nations on Earth is cultural exchange among them. In the Qur'an, God reveals that He has created different human societies “to know each other.” (Surat al-Hujurat, 13).

According to Social Darwinism's worldview, human beings exist not to get to know one another, but to fight. Accordingly, the most important impetus for human progress is conflict between races and nations. Social Darwinism's irrational assumptions state that in order to emerge victorious from the conflict between races, new discoveries will be made. As a result, the “civilized” and “superior” will come out on top, and humanity will thus progress. To suggest that people will progress by killing and massacring one another, persecuting and oppressing others, is nothing more than barbarism. Disagreements and problems will arise from time to time. Yet all difficulties can be resolved by peaceful means. To imagine that violence offers a solution only makes the difficulties in question even more intractable. As already made clear, nations are perfectly justified in taking precautions to protect their future interests. But it is both illogical and a violation of good conscience to frame a policy ignoring the rights of other nations or believing that one nation's interests lie in destroying those of others.

 Present-day evolutionists seek to portray Darwin, as “humane” and opposed to racism, but actually he was a proponent of conflict between races and advanced the lie that the “civilized”—at least in their own lights white race would emerge victorious from such conflict. Some lines from Darwin's The Descent of Man read as follows:

When civilised nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is short, except where a deadly climate gives its aid to the native race… The grade of their civilisation seems to be a most important element in the success of competing nations.

Elsewhere in his book, Darwin refers to the conflict between “savages” and the “civilized,” and claims that the latter will emerge superior. By these totally illusory assumptions, he prepared the groundwork for the chaos and suffering that would continue for nearly a century.

A great many Darwinists who came after him treated conflict between races as if it were scientific fact. For example, National Life from the Standpoint of Science by Karl Pearson, a 19th century evolutionary theorist regarded as a follower of Francis Galton, is important in revealing contemporaries' view of inter-racial conflict and the causes behind the new imperialism. Like other Social Darwinists, Pearson claimed that conflict between races is necessary, and that struggle within a single race is insufficient for evolution. Some of these claims of Pearson, which are devoid of any scientific truth, read as follows:

What I have said about bad stock seems to me to hold for the lower races of man. How many centuries, how many thousand of years, have the Kaffir or the negro held large districts in Africa undisturbed by the white man? Yet their intertribal struggles have not yet produced a civilization in the least comparable with the Aryan. Educate and nurture them as you will, I do not believe that you will succeed in modifying the stock. History shows me one way, and one way only, in which a high state of civilization has been produced, namely, the struggle of race with race, and the survival of the physically and mentally fitter race.

Twisted statements like these provided imperialism with an allegedly scientific backing. The Europeans who occupied the African continent and a large part of Asia, as well as persecuting the Australian native peoples, claimed that their occupations were based on natural law and the only way for humanity to progress. (That this claim had no foundation was later proven by subsequent advances in the scientific world.) According to Pearson, wars formerly conducted in an unconscious manner would now have to be waged in a conscious, pre-planned fashion:

There is a struggle of race against race and of nation against nation. In the early days of that struggle it was a blind, unconscious struggle of barbaric tribes. At the present day, in the case of the civilized white man, it has become more and more the conscious, carefully directed attempt of the nation to fit itself to a continuously changing environment. The nation has to foresee how and where the struggle will be carried on… I have asked you to look upon the nation as an organized whole in continual struggle with other nations, whether by force of arms or by force of trade and economic processes. I have asked you to look upon this struggle of either kind as a not wholly bad thing; it is the source of human progress throughout the world's history.

In the 19th century, this deviant belief that conflict between races and nations was a path to progress and which regarded races and nations other than its own as “inferior,” took control over large parts of the world. Some imperialist Europeans behaved most ruthlessly towards the inhabitants of their conquered lands. From the measures they adopted, it was evident that they regarded these peoples as weak and inferior, denigrated them, and refused to accept them as humans who enjoyed equal rights with themselves. The new imperialism was a 19th-century implementation of Social Darwinism on a world scale.

One reason why Darwinist ideas received such wide support was that Europeans of the time had moved away from religious moral values, which require people to live in peace. God has commanded people to be tolerant and forgiving toward one another. Corrupting order in the world and inciting war and conflict are evils that bear a heavy responsibility in the sight of God.
































-Social Darwinism and War:


The deceptive idea that inter-racial conflict could lead to nations' progressing also laid the foundation for wars. Before World War I, when Social Darwinism was widespread, war was considered the “most appropriate means” for the elimination of the weak and the eradication of people seen as burdens, the survival of the strong, and the development of the human race.

Throughout history, many wars have been fought, but usually they took place within limits, not aimed directly at civilian populations, between the armies of the nations concerned. But in wars waged by Social Darwinist means, the real target was the people, to reduce the “surplus population” of the so-called “unfit” and the allegedly “inferior.”

Before World War I, numerous writings and speeches described the Darwinist bases of war. Richard Milner, a contributing editor to Natural History, the magazine of New York's American Museum of Natural History, writes of the warlike Darwinist views of German intellectuals at the time:

During World War I, German intellectuals believed natural selection was irresistibly all-powerful (Allmacht), a law of nature impelling them to bloody struggle for domination. Their political and military textbooks promoted Darwin's theories as the “scientific” basis of a quest for world conquest, with the full backing of German scientists and professors of biology.

During those years, General F. von Bernhardi engaged in propaganda on behalf of Social Darwinism. In his book Germany and the Next War Bernhardi maintained that conflict was a biological obligation and the best way of ridding the world of the unfit: “War is a biological necessity of the first importance, a regulative element in the life of mankind that cannot be dispensed with, since without it an unhealthy development will follow, which excludes every advancement of the race, and therefore all real civilization.”

The idea that war is a “regulative element” cannot be justified in rational or logical terms, nor with scientific facts. War is a destructive force that causes enormous losses of life and property, and its effects on society are enormously difficult to repair.






















Nonetheless, those who regarded constant war and slaughter as requirements of so-called civilization continued to call for them. Elsewhere in Bernhardi's book, for instance, he wrote:

War is not merely a necessary element in the life of nations but an indispensable factor of culture, in which a truly civilized nation finds the highest expression of strength and vitality. ... War gives a biologically just decision, since its decisions rest on the very nature of things. ... It is not only a biological law, but a moral obligation and, as such, an indispensable factor in civilization.

No doubt that one of the greatest errors made by those taken in by such ideas was to assume that war is compatible with human nature and thus, inevitable. In that view, the more people wage war, the more power and vitality they acquire. This is a great falsehood. God has created human beings in such a way that they are happiest when at peace. Chaos and conflict cause terrible tension in the human soul. The most rapid social, economic and cultural progress is made possible in a climate of peace and security. In her book Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, Gertrude Himmelfarb makes the following comment:

For the general [Bernhardi], it was the needs of war that came first, the imperialist adventures and nationalist experiments that followed. For others it was the reverse: the imperialist and nationalist aspirations brought war and militarism in their wake. There were even some who would have liked the virtues of war without the onus of militarism or nationalism; this was social Darwinism in its purest, most disinterested form.

Sir Arthur Keith, an evolutionist anthropologist and biographer of Darwin, openly admitted that he was all in favor of war. Although he personally liked the idea of peace, he feared the results of such an experiment. Also, he made the illogical prediction that after 500 years of peace, the world would turn into “an orchard that has not known the pruning hook for many an autumn and has rioted in unchecked overgrowth for endless years.”Keith's words indicate just how ruthless Darwinist suggestions can make people. Keith believed that the world needed to be “pruned” from time to time, that those “elements” that delayed the strengthening of the world needed to be cut away and discarded. He was openly supporting savagery. The “pruning” referred to by Keith was war, and those who died in war, whom he felt needed to be discarded, were helpless men and women and children. Those taken in by the deceptions of Darwinism feel no sympathy for these innocent people. The theory that in order to strengthen and develop the white race, those regarded as weak may be eliminated led to cruelties never seen before.




Social Darwinism's twisted views are one of the main reasons for the wars, conflict and slaughter that have continued unabated since the 19th century. As a result of the constant calls for war, even some who knew nothing about Social Darwinism fell under its spell. In the early 20th century, those who came to believe that war was essential were not just a group of marginal ideologues, but a great many journalists, academics, politicians and civil servants.They encouraged the eradication of women, children, the elderly and the needy, and the heedless expense of young lives on the battlefield supposedly for the “benefit of humanity.” These views were shared at the very highest levels. For instance, German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg subscribed to the belief, common among the middle class when World War Ibegan, that conflict between Slav and Teuton was inevitable.The Kaiser is known to have held similar views. Many historians regard the wicked claims that war was unavoidable and the cleansing of inferior races was natural and useful as some of the principal causes of World War I.The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was also one of the most prominent supporters of Social Darwinism in Germany. According to him, the ideal social system should be based on armed conflict: “Man shall be trained for war and woman for the recreation of the warrior; all else is folly.”According to Nietzsche's twisted view, life consisted solely of war, and war contained everything within it. Hitler, a fanatical Social Darwinist and great admirer of both Darwin and Nietzsche, put their warlike views into practice. Combining militarist thinking with the theory of evolution, Hitler said: The whole of nature is a continuous struggle between strength and weakness, and eternal victory of the strong over the weak These ideas advanced by Hitler and others like him were products of a terrible ignorance. Those who imagined that with the theory of evolution they were basing their militaristic and aggressive thinking on a scientific foundation were merely deceiving themselves. Yet with the tens of thousands of people they induced to follow them, they inflicted ruin on the world on an unprecedented scale.


The most important aim of the theory is to graft into the human mind the deception that the world was not created by Allah and that, consequently, there is no responsibility for adhering to a divine law. Evolutionists emphasize this often, pointing out that a human being is his own "master" and his own "keeper," responsible "only to himself."

The truth revealed to humanity in Islam and other religions based on divine revelations is that Allah/God created Man for a purpose:

"Does man think that he will be left neglected? Has he not been a sperm from semen emitted? Then he was a clinging clot, and [Allah/God] created [his form] and proportioned [him] and made of him two mates, the male and the female. Is not that [Creator] able to give life to the dead?"




All atheist philosophies that deny creation, ectly or in ectly embrace and defend the idea of evolution. The same condition today applies to all the ideologies and systems that are antagonistic to religion.


The evolutionary notion has been cloaked in a scientific disguise for the last century and a half in order to justify itself. Though put forward as a supposedly scientific theory during the mid-19th century, the theory, despite all the best efforts of its advocates, has not so far been verified by any scientific finding or experiment. Indeed, the "very science" on which the theory depends so greatly has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate repeatedly that the theory has no merit in reality.


Darwin's fanciful ideas were seized upon and promoted by certain ideological and political circles and the theory became very popular. The main reason was that the level of knowledge of those days was not yet sufficient to reveal that Darwin's imaginary scenarios were false. When Darwin put forward his assumptions, the disciplines of genetics, microbiology, and biochemistry did not yet exist.


Fossils witness:


The theory of evolution argues that the evolution of a species into another species takes place gradually, step-by-step over millions of years. The logical inference drawn from such a claim is that monstrous living organisms called "transitional forms" should have lived during these periods of transformation. Since evolutionists allege that all living things evolved from each other step-by-step, the number and variety of these transitional forms should have been in the millions.


320-million-year-old cockroach fossil.


360-million-year-old trilobite fossil.

Darwin himself was quite aware of the absence of such transitional forms. It was his greatest hope that they would be found in the future. Despite his hopefulness, he saw that the biggest stumbling block to his theory was the missing transitional forms. This is why, in his book The Origin of Species, he wrote:

Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.

The fossil record is the principal source for those who seek evidence for the theory of evolution. When inspected carefully and without prejudice, the fossil record refutes the theory of evolution rather than supporting it. Nevertheless, misleading interpretations of fossils by evolutionists and their prejudiced representation to the public have given many people the impression that the fossil record indeed supports the theory of evolution.


Apart from what mentioned very briefly, There are unlimitted scietific proofes which collapse the theory of evolution.


-The Fact of Creation:


With the collapse of the theory of evolution in every field, prominent names in the discipline of microbiology today admit the fact of creation and have begun to defend the view that everything is created by a conscious Creator as part of an exalted creation. This is already a fact that people cannot disregard. Scientists who can approach their work with an open mind have developed a view called "intelligent design". Michael J. Behe, one of the foremost of these scientists, states that he accepts the absolute being of the Creator and describes the impasse of those who deny this fact:


The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell – to investigate life at the molecular level – is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design!" The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. This triumph of science should evoke cries of "Eureka" from ten thousand throats.

But, no bottles have been uncorked, no hands clapped. Instead, a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. When the subject comes up in public, feet start to shuffle, and breathing gets a bit labored. In private people are a bit more relaxed; many explicitly admit the obvious but then stare at the ground, shake their heads, and let it go like that. Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling discovery? Why is the observation of design handled with intellectual gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the elephant is labeled intelligent design, the other side must be labeled God.


Today, many people are not even aware that they are in a position of accepting a body of fallacy as truth in the name of science, instead of believing in Allah/God. Those who do not find the sentence "Allah/God created you from nothing" scientific enough can believe that the first living being came into being by thunderbolts striking a "primordial soup" billions of years ago.

As we have described elsewhere, the balances in nature are so delicate and so numerous that it is entirely irrational to claim that they developed "by chance". No matter how much those who cannot set themselves free from this irrationality may strive, the signs of Allah/God in the heavens and the earth are completely obvious and they are undeniable.

Allah/God is the Creator of the heavens, the earth and all that is in between.

The signs of His being have encompassed the entire universe.



A Call to The Intellectual Strugle Against Darwinism:

Darwinism lies at the root of those movements that are currently disrupting attempts at world peace and forestalling an atmosphere of cooperation and security. It’s vitally important that mankind be warned against Darwinism’s deceptions and propaganda, and that its intellectual threats be neutralized.  Rather than ignoring the threat it poses, sincere Believers(Muslims, Christians or so) must strive to become aware of this dangerous idea and mobilize all their resources to eradicate the dark goals of Darwinism.

11:27 AM Sep 16 2008 |

The iTEP® test

  • Schedule an iTEP® test and take the official English Practice Test.

    Take Now >


Costa Rica

tadra Who's the authour of this paper? (I'm sure not you) Not the same idiot who wrote 'evolution deceit' book?

Whether it's the same person or not he definitely doesn't know anything about evolution or Darwinism.

Yes the problem of the origin of the life is very complicated and there are no any clear answers in modern science. I guess that's not the point of this article…

 The author really believes that modern evolutionary theories didn't change from Darwin's times and all scientists who deal with evolution are stupid… Darwin's theory is a history, racism did exist before Darwin and of course it exists after him, species do not necessarily evolve one from another step-by-step with transitional forms and racists who use Darwin’s theories as argument also do not know anything about evolution.

I’m just trying to say that there are no connections between what author calls ‘darwinism’ and racism in present days.

Yes… I didn’t include any arguments in my answer but if anybody is interested in this topic I can explain

05:25 PM Sep 16 2008 |



Western Sahara

"Yes… I didn’t include any arguments in my answer but if anybody is interested in this topic I can explain "

I'm wondering from the person "starshade" who said the expression above. you don't feel ashamed of yourself to say "Yes… I didn’t include any arguments in my answer " while you are discussing a scientific issue !!!

This act becomes normal from Darwinists who obviousely lack scientific proof to support their debate. Your way to decieve people from the reality doesn't change. Make sure  that people become able to distinguish the truth from your deceptive speech which does Not contain any logical scientific background.

12:15 AM Sep 17 2008 |




Misconception of evolutionary theory

1.Evolution is a theory of origin of life:  Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. It is origin of “Species” and not life. This is very important; most people think Darwinism speaks about origin of life. There are other scientists who have some experiments about origin of life like miller(famous miller’s primordial soup experiment)

2.Evolution is like a climbing up a ladder of progress : Evolution is more like a tree with branches

 3.Evolution means that life changed ‘by chance : Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which some variants survive and others do not, is not random.

4.Natural selection involves organisms ‘trying’ to adapt: Natural selection leads to adaptation, but the process doesn’t involve “trying.” Natural selection involves genetic variation and selection among variants present in a population. Either an individual has genes that are good enough to survive and reproduce, or it does not—but it can’t get the right genes by “trying.”


5.Natural selection gives organisms what they ‘need : Natural selection has no intentions or senses; it cannot sense what a species “needs.” If a population happens to have the genetic variation that allows some individuals to survive a particular challenge better than others, then those individuals will have more offspring in the next generation, and the population will evolve. If that genetic variation is not in the population, the population may still survive (but not evolve much) or it may die out. But it will not be granted what it “needs” by natural selection. 


03:42 AM Sep 17 2008 |




First let us discuss what Darwin's theory of evolution speaks about

1)Darwin said life is old : From fossil records it is clearly evident that life is approximately 3- 3.5 billion years old. It has all done by radio carbon dating

eg. can be found here


2) Life started from single/simple organisms:As said earlier life started around 3 billion years ago. 2.1 billion years ago , the first cell with nucleus evolved600 million years ago , moderns sea anemone evolved450 million years ago head and limbed creatures evolved

3) Tree structure :We have a common source of ancestry which later on branched to form numerous organisms.This branching came from the survival of the fittest theory. Eyes go sharpers, legs get stronger etc etc

visual example for this is the polar bear : these are same as brown sloth bears, which have evolved to have white fur.(small advantages can make a new species) 

The biggest evidence of Evolution is DNA

When an  organism reproduces, some genes might get switched on or switched off. . Errors in DNA copying make genes changes.By gene mapping it has been determined that,

Our genes is 99% similar to that of an ape

Our genes is 75% similar to that of a dog

Our genes is 33% similar to that of a daffodil.

04:03 AM Sep 17 2008 |




For more proof please visit this sites


also please see a programm on NGC about evolution.

also these videos on Youtube

1) http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0





04:08 AM Sep 17 2008 |




well said levicantu and royo

Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin and not how life started.

I am a beliver in both god and evolution and there are no conflicting taught either

04:17 AM Sep 17 2008 |


Costa Rica

I'm wondering from the person "starshade" who said the expression above. you don't feel ashamed of yourself to say "Yes… I didn’t include any arguments in my answer " while you are discussing a scientific issue !!!

No, sorry I don't feel ashame because I wasn't sure this topic is interesting for so many people, had I seen only your post here, I would have given all necessary argumens. But you are right, that wasn't a correct action. Sorry I'm just so lazy and yersteday hadn't enough time =) Besides so rarly do I meet people with such oppinion.



Is there really not any relationship between creature change and enviroment change? just as simple as selecting? you know, many of us on the earth starts to believe we have done something bad to our global enviroment. I dont believe the enviroment doesn't do anything to us.
so, if it really does, and I am sure it really done! Ok. more question, what does it do to us? what does the natural enviroment do to us, what does the social enviroment do to us, maybe the former enviroment it has no need, no intention at all, but what about the latter?

Something bad to environment?May be we did also something good to environment: we extract oil, gas, coil… do you know what it is? Yes, it's carbon, the same carbon which was removed millions years ago from the biosphere(Mostly in carbon period), the same carbon which cannot be extracted by other way (I mean only a high developed civilization can extract it). So… less species, more mutogenes (different chemics and so one), and more (I cant' even imagin how more) carbon… is it really bad?


06:02 PM Sep 17 2008 |