DARWINISM: A RELIGION OF SUPERSTITION
The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory, has itself become
an orthodoxy preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted,
they feel, only by a few muddlers, imperfect in scientific faith.
(Marjorie Grene, Encounter, November 1959, p.48.)
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
The theory of evolution has now been discredited in scientific circles. Since this theory first appeared, a large number of scientific findings have invalidated its claims one by one. The development of the electron microscope, new knowledge of genetic laws, the discovery of the structure of DNA, the revelation of the complexity of every living organism, and other modern advances have defeated Darwinism and will continue to oppose it. In other books by this author, you can read about the collapse of Darwinism in light of scientific facts and about the scientific proofs that have invalidated the theory of evolution.1
But despite the fact that science is developing so quickly and is continually introducing something new into our lives, certain scientists of an unenlightened, bigoted and conservative mind continue to defend theories developed in the 19th century, theories originally elaborated within a primitive scientific understanding, whose naiveté and superficiality would make a child laugh.
So what explains the fact that Darwinism is still so popular in some scientific circles? There is not even one concrete scientific proof in place; on the contrary, it is clearly evident that every living thing has been created according to a flawless design and that nothing has come into existence by chance, as the theory of evolution claims. How can it be, then, that many people, nonetheless, continue to be strong advocates of this theory?
The reason is this: the theory is more an expression of a certain mentality and belief than a scientific formulation. It is a mentality that does not view evolution as a mere theory whose validity can be investigated by scientific method, but sees it as a belief that must be vindicated at all costs. Because their faith cannot be substantiated by scientific facts, people with this mentality have a dogmatic bond with their theory which cannot in the least be influenced by the scientific proofs that refute it. No matter how cogent the evidence against evolution, evolutionists continue to ignore it and vigorously defend their faith.
For Darwinists, the theory of evolution is much more than a scientific proposition. When their theory becomes a matter for discussion, evolutionist scientists immediately lose their impartiality and scientific objectivity. They are so fiercely bound to their theory that most distinguished biologists "would rather lose their right hands than begin a sentence with the phrase, 'If the theory of evolution is true...'"2 They do not even want to consider that the theory of evolution might not be true.
When Darwin's theory was proposed, science and technology were on a very primitive level. Scientists of that period used very basic equipment, whereas computers and electron microscopes are used today. The development of equipment, from the microscope to other technical devices, began only in the 20th century. The results of scientific advances have nullified the claims made by Darwinism with its primitive level of scientific knowledge.
People are not accustomed to seeing this attitude among scientists. They generally imagine that scientific discourse is independent of the individual scientist's philosophical and ideological prejudices and that scientists are objective individuals whose facts are substantiated by concrete evidence and their truth proven by experiment. For this reason they seldom doubt the correctness of the theory of evolution.
This is a great error, however, because when evolutionist "scientists" are discussing the theory of evolution, scientific criteria are not brought to bear on the issue. These words of the eminent Darwinian, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, expose the position of "science" in the Darwinist outlook:
Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more. It is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow. This is what evolution is.3
As can be seen in the above quotation, the terms used by Darwinists when they speak of their theory give important clues about their dogmatic attitude and blind allegiance. Taking other examples, one of the leading evolutionists of the world, G.W. Harper, calls the theory of evolution a "metaphysical belief";4 the outstanding Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr calls it "man's world view today."5 Sir Julian Huxley, probably the most prominent evolutionist of the 20th century, saw evolution as "a universal and all-pervading process" and, in fact, nothing less than "the whole of reality."6 A leading evolutionary geneticist of the present day, writing an obituary for Theodosius Dobzhansky (who himself was probably one of the leading evolutionists at the time of his death in 1975), says that Dobzhansky's view of evolution followed that of de Chardin. Karl Popper, one of the world's leading philosophers of science, has stated that evolution is not a scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.7 Following these definitions, H.S. Lipson has reached the following conclusion:
In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to "bend" their observations to fit in with it.8
When the aforementioned authorities discuss Darwinism, it is interesting to note the words and expressions they use. They make no reference to any mathematically or scientifically proven evidence by experiment or observation to support their assertions. Instead, they offer strange descriptions, calling evolution "the whole of reality," "an all-pervading process," "a light which illuminates all facts."
No one makes such dogmatic assertions, metaphysical inter-pretations or exaggerated inferences with reference to, say, the law of gravity, the rotation of the globe, or laws of thermodynamics. These are scientific facts which are readily accepted, yet no one makes such excessive claims about Newton, Einstein or any other scientist. No one calls the law of gravity a "convincing belief," and no one says of the laws of thermodynamics, "I would rather lose my right hand than begin a sentence with the phrase 'If it is true...'"
However, the style of the evolutionists is quite different. By what these people say, they give the impression that they have sworn an oath to protect their religion under all circumstances. Therefore, they need not follow scientific method or employ scientific discourse. They make no reference to any experiment or finding but merely use words with metaphysical connotations. If the words are scrutinized, an interesting picture emerges: "evolutionary dogma!," "scientific faith!," "a convincing faith!," "man's world view today!," "method of dissemination!," "the whole of reality!," "a light which illuminates all facts!," "metaphysical belief!," "a metaphysical research program!," "an orbit that every system of thought must follow!"...
If evolutionary literature is examined further, one will encounter many more examples of the religious nature of this belief and see that it looks at every social and psychological phenomenon from the point of view of the theory of evolution. L.C. Birch, a biologist from the University of Sydney, and P.R. Ehrlich, a biologist from Stanford University, describe the evolutionary dogma this way:
Our theory of evolution has become... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observation. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.9
Modern Evolutionists Are More Rigid Than Darwin
The dogmatic stance of modern evolutionists is even more rigid than that of Darwin himself. When Darwin proposed this theory, he left room for the possibility that he could have made a mistake. In his book The Origin of Species, he often began his expositions with the words, "If my theory be true." In his investigations it can be seen that Darwin accepted certain scientific criteria and proposed some ways his theory could be examined. For example, he wrote about the fossil record:
If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently, evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.10
The numberless intermediate varieties mentioned by Darwin have never been found, and today many evolutionist paleontologists have had to concede this. When taking into account Darwin's condition for "if my theory be true," his theory must be rejected. If he were alive today, perhaps Darwin would have abandoned his theory for this very reason.
The latest discoveries in the field of paleontology have definitively proven that Archaeopteryx was not a transitional form but a bird fully capable of flight. However, evolutionists have not abandoned their theory despite the fact that all its so-called proofs, such as Archaeopteryx, have been invalidated by scientific discoveries.
But modern evolutionists display extraordinary indifference and bigotry regarding this matter. In one of Turkey's most prominent evolutionist magazines, Bilim ve Utopya (Science and Utopia), an article appeared by Dr. Umit Sayin, who is recognized as the nation's leading expert on evolution. With regard to the intermediate forms about which Darwin said, "If my theory be true... evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains," Dr. Sayin writes:
The fact that Archaeopteryx was a flying dinosaur has little importance with regard to the correctness or validity of the theory of evolution. Even if no transitional fossil were found, the theory of evolution would not be affected... suppose that we have found no fossil yet; this shows that all intermediate forms have been lost and dispersed in nature. Let's say that every fossil is a hoax! Even this would not affect the theory of evolution, because fossils, Archaeopteryx and other transitional forms are necessary only to explain the process.11
In other words, this author says that "even if we found no fossil remains, we would keep our belief in evolution." Although for Darwin this matter was an important criterion for the validity of his theory, the fact that this writer can put it aside and maintain his belief in evolution, in any case, is interesting. It proves the point that Darwinism is a dogmatic belief which disregards scientific criteria.
An Intellectual Tyranny
The sweet-sounding words of the evolutionists quoted above place them in an illusionary rank above the adherents of all other religions. According to their warped thinking, evolution is the only "objective truth," and evolutionists, emboldened by this illusion, call upon other religions to submit to evolutionist understanding. If other religions accept evolution and the theories it proposes, they will be allowed to exist as "moral doctrines." One of the most famous names of the neo-Darwinist school, George Gaylord Simpson, expresses it this way:
Of course there are some beliefs still current, labeled as religious and involved in religious emotions, that are flatly incompatible with evolution and therefore are intellectually untenable in spite of their emotional appeal. Nevertheless, I take it as now self-evident, requiring no further special discussion, that evolution and true religion are compatible.12
This means that evolution and the "scientific" doctrines developed from it have the right to judge other religions. Religion falls within the authority of the theory of evolution; it decides which religions and interpretations will be accepted as true. According to this prejudiced way of thinking, religion can only be a teaching authority whose purpose is to define the criteria for human moral activity.
The authoritarian approach that drives people to force what they believe on others is exemplified in the Qur'an. It quotes an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh:
"I do not show you except what I see, and I do not guide you except to the way of right conduct." 13
This is the common way of thinking among today's evolutionists. Their approach is very much like that of the Pharaoh; while imposing the theory of evolution on populations, they keep scientific circles under censorship and have made evolution sacred. Those who do not believe in it are quickly excluded. The renowned professor of anatomy, Dr. Thomas Dwight, calls the situation "intellectual tyranny":
The tyranny of the zeitgeist in the matter of evolution is overwhelming to a degree of which outsiders have no idea. Not only does it influence (as I admit it does in my own case) our manners of thinking, but there is oppression as in the days of the Terror. How very few of the leaders of science dare tell the truth concerning their own state of mind.14
Indeed, the evolution dogma is a superstitious religion that holds masses of people under its sway, but it is definitely not science. If what evolutionists say in their writings is closely scrutinized, you will easily be able to read between the lines and perceive that they speak of a religion. When considered from that aspect, what the eminent historian of science, Marjorie Grene, has to say on this subject is not surprising:
It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds, men's minds. The derivation of life, of man, of man's deepest hopes and highest achievements, from the external and indirect determination of small chance errors, appears as the very keystone of the naturalistic universe... Today the tables are fumed. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith.15
So it is that, despite all the religious elements in the discourse of Darwinists, they still claim to propose a scientific theory, and people, regardless of the fact that there is no scientific evidence to support it, are led to accept it as true. The reason for this dogmatic approach can only be to avoid the truth they would find if they abandoned evolution, the truth that Allah created the universe and all living things. This cannot be accepted by those who understand the world from a materialist and atheist point of view.
For this reason it is highly important that people of conscience and intelligence become aware of the dangerous influence this superstitious religion has on the world and then take a stance for what is right and true. The first step in that direction is a proper under-standing of the doctrines of this irrational pagan religion. After that, presenting the truth of creation with full evidence will render this superstition impotent, as Allah states in the Qur'an:
"Rather, We dash the truth upon falsehood, and it destroys it, and thereupon it departs." 16
1. Particularly, The Evolution Deceit: The Scientific Collapse of Darwinism and Its Ideological Background, 8th updated edition, Taha Publishers, London, 2003 and Darwinism Refuted: How the Theory of Evolution Breaks Down in the Light of Modern Science, Goodword Books, New Delhi, 2003.
2. "Darwin's Death in South Kensington," Nature, February 26, 1981, vol. 289, p. 735.
3. Francisco Ayala, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution: Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1900-1975," Journal of Heredity, vol. 68, no. 3, 1977, p. 3.
4. G.W. Harper, "Alternatives to Evolutionism," School Science Review, vol. 51, Sept., 1979, p. 16.
5. Ernst Mayr, "Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 239, Sept., 1978, p. 47.
6. Julian Huxley, "Evolution and Genetics," Ch. 8 in What is Science?, pp. 272 and 278.
7. The Philosophy of Karl Popper, vol. 1, pp. 143 and 183.
8. The Long War Against God, p. 127.
9. L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214, 1967, p. 369.
10. The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, p. 179.
11. Umit Sayin, "Uçtu Uçtu Dinozor Uçtu" ("The Dinosaur is Just About to Fly"), Bilim ve Utopya, November, 1998.
12. Darwin on Trial, p. 128.
13. S´rah Ghafir, 40: 29.
14. Why Be An Ape...? www.picknowl.com.au/ homepages/rlister/sermons/ape/ape.htm
15. M. Grene, Encounter, Nov., 1959, pp. 48-50.
16. Sürah al-Anbiya, 21: 18.
Our materials may be copied, printed and distributed, by referring to this site.