Important Truths Ignored By Muslim
n 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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
CELL'S FLAWLESS CREATION
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
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
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'
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.
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
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
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)
4. David Skjaerlund, Philosophical Origins of
7. David Skjaerlund, Philosophical Origins of Evolution, (http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/x0742-philosophical-origin.html)
9. Maurice Manquat, Aristote naturaliste, Paris: Librairie Philosophique,
J. Vrin, 1932, p. 113
10. Sir Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe Prof of Astronomy,
Cambridge University Prof of Astronomy and Applied Mathematics University College,
Cardiff Evolution from Space, J. M. Dent, 1981, pp.141, 144
11. Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic
Press, New York, 1977, p.103
12. Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space,
Dent, London, 1981, p.130
13. The evolutionary scenario related to the origin of life
is called the theory of chemical evolution. Countless experiments conducted
during the twentieth century failed to support this theory. Stanley Miller's
experiment, the most famous case, consisted of his alleged "creation" of a primitive
atmosphere and the subsequent synthesis of a few amino acids. However it was
later recognized that the primitive atmosphere was far more hostile to organic
compounds than Miller had assumed. No one has ever been able to duplicate the
assembling of proteins, the real building bock of life, in any "chemical evolution"
experiment. For details, see Harun Yahya, Darwinism Refuted, Goodword Books,
New Delhi, 2003.
14. Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic
Press, New York, 1977, p.97