Chapter III

+ Larger Font | + Smaller Font

The Scientists Discard The Evolution Theory


Ordering the people to repose their faith in the Sustainer of all, the Quran opposed the family planning:

Kill not your children fearing a fall to poverty, We provide sustenance for them and for you. (17/31)

Few among the Arab tribes were involved in female infanticide for fear of poverty. In a society living in a barren and sandy desert, a male child was considered as asset where as the daughter a burden. Even today, after 1400 years, the very theme of the family planning is working, the more the children, the more the poverty. The Quran tells that you should not take yourself to be the lord of your family but Allah is the Sustainer of all. The abortions are carried out under family planning, which is an abominable offence. The Quran said:

When the female child that was buried alive is asked for what sin she was killed. (81/8-9)

The curse of family planning has been introduced by Europe and America in Asiatic countries because they fear the overpopulation in Asiatic countries might run-over them. The Asiatic countries are enjoying the benefit of overpopulation as hundreds of thousand from these countries are working in Europe and America and earning foreign exchange for their countries.

These countries have fallen short of labour due to the curse of the family planning.

However, stopping people from infanticide, the Quran enticed them to make individual efforts to maintain themselves as it said:

And that man hath only that for which he maketh effort. And his effort will soon come in sight. (53/39-40)

Similarly, addressing a nation as a whole God said: Verily God will never change the condition of a people until they change it themselves. (13/11)

This is to say that individual as well as collective efforts will both bear fruit. On individual efforts, one can draw more comforts. Collective efforts of a people may be required to undo injustice and allow them their civil liberties known all over the world. But what Islam does not allow to encroach upon others rights or to live at the cost of others.

Machiavellianism got deeply rooted when people learnt the struggle for existence from Darwin's evolution.


We have already seen in the preceding pages that there was never a competition among different species for life. However, to prove the baseless-ness of Darwin's assumption, I shall also examine the proposition of species acquiring the advantageous variation and passing them on to their offspring.

In the next half of 19th century, there was a great hue and cry on Darwin's aforesaid assumption and it was held that when a plant or an animal acquired new characteristic from its environment, it could pass this on to its offspring, resulting into changes that account for evolution.

An evolutionist De Beer in his book Charles Darwin (p.63) referring to the above assumption writes: "Nobody would have thought of doubting it till the close of 19th century...The number of men before the 19th century who rejected the inheritance of the acquired character could be counted on the fingers of one hand."

We might illustrate Darwin's assumption with giraffe. Suppose some giraffes were born with slightly longer necks than others. The ones with longer necks won the competition for food, therefore, survived ("natural selection"), and passed on a slightly longer neck to their offspring, accounting for long necked giraffes.

These suppositions of Darwin didn't go unchallenged. M/S. S.B.Clark and J.A.Mould in their book "Biology for Today" (p.321-1964) commented:

"Scientists have raised a number of objections against complete acceptance of Darwin's theory.... 1)The theory does not account for all the known facts of heredity. For example the theory does not clearly explain why some variations are inherited and others are not. Many variations are so trivial that they could not possibly aid an organism in its struggle for existence. 2) The theory does not explain how the gradual accumulation of trivial variations could result in the appearance of some of the more complex structures found in higher organisms."

Another evolutionist H.E.Mellersh in his book the "Story of Life" (pp.237, 242-1958) notes:

"On the Darwinian theory the questioner may point out, any variation has to be of immediate value to its possessor if it is going to give him a better chance of survival than his fellows. Of what 'survival value' is the first dim beginnings of an eye, or fore limbs starting to flap about feebly and nakedly in anticipation of a wing?...Natural Selection is so mindless. It is so purposeless."

Darwin's Natural Selection had been an item of vehement criticism. In the 'Science Digest' of Jan. 1961 in an article "Should We Burn Darwin" the writer commenting on the orthodox explanation of the evolution as having been badly shaken and that it has come under heavy fire said:

"These are a few of the embarrassing questions asked today by the French rebels: If the giraffe with its eight-foot long neck is the product of natural selection and an example of the survival of the fittest, what about the sheep with its neck no longer than a few inches? Aren't giraffes and sheep very close cousins, almost brethren in animal kingdom...? But then can their live side by side two cousins, each of them fltter than the other, one because its neck is longer, the other because its neck is shorter?

And talking of sheep, what about their horns? According to the classical school they started growing freakishly, and then, as they proved as asset in the sheep's struggle for life, nature went on selecting the horned animals and eliminating the hornless ones.

But did it really? There are at least as many hornless sheep as those with horns. Which of them are fitter?... Out of 120,000 fertilized egg of the green frog only two individual survive. Are we to conclude that these two frogs out of 120,000 were selected by nature because they were the fittest ones; or rather...natural selection is nothing but blind mortality which selects nothing at all?" (pp.61-63)

To prove the baseless-ness of Darwin's theory, a German Scientist August Weismann carried out his experience on mice and tried to establish a breed to tailless mice by simply cutting of their tails before allowing them to mate. The book "Review Text in Biology" tells of the results:

"He repeated the procedure for 20 successive generations. The last generation proved to have tails as long as their ancestors. This was the first experimental proof that acquire characteristics, such as artificial tailless, are not inherited...

Acquire characteristics are not inherited because environment factors (do not affect the genes in the sex cells) cannot influence the next generation," ( H.A.Hall & M.S.Lesser pp.304, 305)

Rejecting the dogma of inheriting the acquire characteristics, the noble prize winner geneticist H.J.Muller said:

"Despite the strong influence of the environment in modifying the body as a whole, and even the protoplasm of its cells, the genes within the germ-cells of that body retain their original structure without specific alterations caused by the modification of the body, so that when the modified individual reproduces it transmits to its offspring genes unaffected by its own acquired characteristics." (Encyclopedia Britanica article by H.J.Muller Vol. 22 pp.988- 1959)

Indeed one scientist, Dr. T.N.Tahmisian, a physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission, said: "Scientist who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." He told it, "A tangle mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling." (The Fresno Bee, Aug.20, 1959 p.1)