Here is a sample of content in the book “Clinging To A Myth The Story Behind Evolution” by ‘T.H.Janabi’, which I was asked to provide. I highly recommend this book to any one who values useful knowledge. I post this without any comment because the context speaks for itself and we are all intelligent beings with common sense and we can see the obvious.
The Role of Evolution in Our Present Thinking
The role of evolution was introduces more than a century ago, and it now influences a large portion of the world’s population. It is a theory that supports the claims of the present day materialism because one of the conclusions drawn from it, and probably the most direct and obvious one, is that Adam was not created the way revealed by religions claim. Thus the prophets and the teachings of God are rejected and mocked as lies and myths that have prevailed ever since the time of old. It is now claimed that with new scientific enlightenment such “absurdities” must be repudiated.
The theory postulates the idea of evolution of the living species from one cell (or many similar cells) by way of accident or chance, under unique conditions. It dose not however, reveal how the material gathered in the precise percentages of various components needed to make a cell, and how life actually came about.
Every thing about life, which is the most crucial part of the whole theory, remains a hypothesis that cannot be proven. The actual postulate of evolution dose not lead to assertion that God dose not exist, because the supposition that God was the one who created the cell in its first form, or made the right conditions for it to be created (rather than accident) still holds and there is nothing to disprove it.
Another important issue still remaining is that the origin of the matter from which the cell was created is still unknown. The theory of evolution and the theories of materialism cannot give an explanation for the origin of matter. They have been put forward without such explanation because it is impossible to ascertain.
How has the theory of evolution influenced our thinking and outlook on life? Undoubtedly it has created a wave of thinkers who have tagged along, explaining the world in a “new” way, in the light of the “new” ideas. But are these “new” ideas admissible? For example, Bertrand Russell, in his book, Religion and Science, says, “it may seem odd that life should occur by accident, but in such a large universe accidents will happen.” The question is what kind of accidents are we talking about here? Of course some might believe that accidents happen, but to advocate that an infinite series of accidents kept happening to make a man (and the diversity of species) from one cell is certainly not admissible.
Accidents, by definition, are random events and cannot lead to the formation of complex and highly regulated systems such as those of the living species. Russell, in another of his books, Why I am not a Christian, adds, “The world in which we live can be understood as a result of muddle and accident; but if it is the outcome of a deliberate purpose, the purpose must have been that of a fiend. For my part, I find accident a less painful and more plausible hypothesis.” Here the injustice inflicted by some people on others (namely evil) is related to the creator whose wisdom from creating the world is not understood. Hence as an alternative, the muddle accident can be understood better, and it is less painful. (We will expand on the divine justice later).
Denying the existence of the creator, Russell reports that: “since the time of Darwin we understand much better why living creatures are adapted to their environment. It is not that their environment was made to be suitable to them, but that they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the basis of adaptation. There is no evidence of design about it.” Furthermore, having assumed the correctness of the principal, Russell then complains,
“Why the Creator should have preferred to reach his goal by process, instead of going straight to it, these modern theologians do not tell us.” Unfortunately, the principal of natural selection to which Russell refers, has now been abandoned by evolutionists themselves, necessitating a change in the above option as a whole.
As we shall also see later, God did go straight to the point, and not through a process. The latest evidence shows that modern man did appear on earth as he is. This evidence thus puts the whole notion of evolution in jeopardy. If it is assumed however, without sound evidence, that evolution is right, what can theologians do or say? All they have to say is that God created man as he is, and if this is not accepted, there will be very little they can do after that.
Strange theory contradicts Nietzsche’s theory, and the later Nazism, which followed in its steps and which led to the devastation of Europe under the postulate that the Aryan man was higher than other races on the ladder of evolution and should inherit the earth after the conscious extermination of other, less evolved, races of man.
Nietzsche conceived the idea that man, who is the most evolved, should carry out the process of evolution, consciously, be exterminating the weak elements of his kind. Herbert Spencer, the English philosopher coined the concept, “the survival of the fittest,” actually stating Darwin’s natural selection consensus in different words.
Nazism put the black man lowest on the ladder of evolution, which contradicts the postulate that the Black man is the most evolved, even though both postulates were derived from the same hypotheses. The fact is that our daily experiences illustrate to us that all races of mankind are just as evolved as any other with no difference in physical or mental capabilities.
This however, is not very different from what happened during Victorian England. Jeffrey Goodman, in his book - The Genesis Mystery’ – says, “Unfortunately, in pre-Victorian England, Darwin’s thoughts about dark-skinned native prevailed, providing a new footing for racism and in turn imperialism and colonization. Darwin’s Views gave a pseudo-biological rationale, a scientific veneer, to Europeans marching into the under developed lands of Asia, Africa and the Pacific to plunder their peoples and their resources… progressive imperialists explained that their mission was to civilize the natives, those backward unfortunates on the low rung of man’s evolutionary ladder. Thus, Queen Victoria showed no embarrassment when Cecil Rhodes raped southern Africa and looted the Black tribal empires of their diamonds and Gold.”
The whole dilemma seems to have stemmed from the idea of evolution. Looking at the divisions Darwin drew up for the races of mankind, we see the striking similarity between these divisions and the Nazi’s categories of races. Goodman states that Darwin believed that in evolution, “progress from simple form to complex forms was inevitable. Under this concept the varieties of man ‘climbed’ up the evolutionary scale from black to brown to yellow to white.” This is what the Nazi scale was, but in more detail. “Quite unscientifically, Darwin gave the different races of man hierarchical significance,” he states.
Darwin’s ideas do not agree with the historical facts of the near east and Egyptian civilizations. Racism, however, has always drawn a strong support from the theory of evolution since the days of Darwin.
Another strange theory comes from Pierre Theilhard De Chardin, who was a priest as well as a biologist. He expects that, as evolution continues, humanity will integrate into a single being. He concludes that man is heading toward the unification of the entire species into a single inter-thinking group. He argues that since energy evolved into matter, and matter evolved to life, which in turn evolved into mind and consciousness, the next step will be the evolution of the minds of the whole human race into a single organic unity where people will work in harmony toward one goal just like the many cells of the body.
De Chardin must have been quite oblivious of the history of human bloodshed and of racist systems such as apartheid in South Africa. He sounds like a man who is not living in this world. It is quite strange to see a priest believe in evolution, which goes against the very teachings of his own holy scripts. I must admit that it is difficult for me to understand how he reconciles evolution with the Bible. In his hypothesis, however, he does not tell us of his perception of the goal of the total integration of human minds.
There is also a disturbing insinuation in the following paragraphs by the distinguished Swedish scientist, Bjorn Kurten in his book, ‘Not From Apes’. In the name of biology, and for the sacred sake of evolution, he says that “Biological research is unraveling the genetic code and may in the future reach the point at which we can begin to control out evolution directly, instead of by painful and round about way of artificial or natural selection.” A call for a less painful way for the biological advance of man; but what is this less painful way? He says that “All populations in nature are on the horn of a dilemma: They need selection to keep healthy and viable. But selection is painful to the individual. If man can emancipate himself from the dilemma, he will have won real freedom – and this will be a unique situation in the history of life on earth.” A smell of Nietzsche, no doubt; He calls the prevention of people from exercising their own instinctive rights to have their own children, emancipation and freedom. These rights would be reserved for only a minority, and what could not be achieved by extermination may be achieved by indoctrination. This is an old –fashioned method of persecution and oppression, but this time involving all races, not just a country or a minority. He suggests that man must win real freedom by emancipating himself from his humanity. Kurt however, goes on to speak of the danger of the massive population increase in the underprivileged counties that he fears might end up overrunning the “civilized” man. He says, “Moving further into the areas of the underprivileged, we meet new forms of crippling or death by violence. Now it is deprivation that becomes the main factor, and foremost, it is hunger…. A higher birth rate may be offset by a rate of mortality even higher, especially amongst infants, and if current trends continue, it will probably occur more frequently.”
Kurten speaks of violence, famine and hunger as if these are totally natural phenomena. He omits the deliberate political intervention in the underprivileged countries by superpowers for their selfish interest. The fact is that the prevailing situation in those places is an artificially forced status quo, not a natural or biological evolution, and hence famine and hunger will occur more frequently. Where is the natural selection when infants die of hunger? I don’t suppose that an infant from a civilized country, or any creature for that matter, would live if they were exposed to hunger.
Kurten argues further, “When these populations increase, hunger tends to race ahead, for at the same time, natural resources are being drained by predatory exploitation in various guises … If hunger becomes the main factor in keeping populations down, it may be that only the very smart and selfish will survive, thus giving their genes as a legacy to future generations.” But we have seen a population increase in the whole world and none of these allegations have occurred.
Famines, have never been caused by population increase, but rather because of natural disasters such as draught, cyclones, etc., or wars (which are forced situations). Whenever there is a population increase in places, such as Europe, China, India, etc., the people have always developed their own methods of feeding, etc., to handle the situation. None of the quoted allegations have ever been observed in any areas of the world.
Kurten goes on to say, “As a large part of the world is now in a state of more or less continuous war, this sort of selection is at work.” Does this mean that Europe has had its selection because of the wars that took place in it? And how can killing from a distance by a device borrowed, or bought from others, be natural selection? Shell fragments, from a shell that is fired when a small sick man pulls the cannon trigger, may kill a strong man. What about nuclear war that will kill everybody? How can evolution account for it? In fact all these allegations are imaginary and used solely to support the evolutionist’s arguments. Hence some evolutionary models are wrongly being fitted on some observations in human societies, which in fact are attributed to totally different reasons.
The idea of evolution triggers the hypothesis that everything in the world has “evolved” or is in a state of evolution. For example, it is advocated that the world was originally a form of energy, which evolved into light atoms, then heavy atoms. This idea led Russell to say that “there has been, it is argued, three stages of evolution: Matter, life and mind. We have no reason to suppose that the world has finished evolving.” As a matter of fact this is clearly a false conclusion, because it can neither explain how some heavy atoms such as Uranium go the other way around by radiating and transforming into lead which is lighter (less evolved) metal; nor is it able to explain how matter transforms back to energy inside our own bodies to enable us to carry out our daily activities.
If the world was in a continuous state of evolution, why has matter stopped evolving? If we say that the evolutionary process is still taking place, and that it did apply to matter in the past, then matter should not have stopped evolving because. So how can this be explained in the context of evolution? Evidently it cannot. Such are the kinds of nonsensical postulations that have come along with the idea of evolution and which have influenced human thought, values and ideals in the process. This influence has been extremely negative from a human relations point of view.