PERSUASION USED IN THE SPELLS OF DARWINISM
In earlier sections, we showed how the theory of evolution affects people
like a spell, handing them preconceived notions on which they base irrational,
illogical beliefs beyond the realm of possibility. How can educated people
who appear to be intelligent, with established careers, accept these unreal
scenarios? How can they manage, with no definite proofs, to advocate this
theory so vehemently and persuade others to believe it too? In short,
how can they perpetuate the Darwinist spell? The answers lie with evolutionists'
methods of suggestion and persuasion.
Advanced science and technology have shown clearly that claims put forward
by Darwinism are baseless and without proof, but the proponents of Darwinism
still resort to various methods to support their theory. But if you ask
how the theory of evolution has been so widely espoused despite its scientific
invalidity, their attempts to answer are nothing more than powerful, delusive
We see this propaganda at work in every area of daily life. But not only
today: Since the time evolutionists first proposed their theory, they
have always used the same methods to get people to believe the unbelievable.
In other words, this theory's being accepted doesn't imply that it has
any scientific content. This is also pointed out by David Jeremiah in
his foreword to The Long War Against God by Henry M. Morris, noted for
his works demonstrating the invalidity of the theory of evolution:
How did belief in Darwinism become so widespread when
it was developed mainly by an apostate divinity student (Darwin), a lawyer
(Lyell), an agriculturist (Hutton), a journalist (Chambers), and other
There is only one answer to why the theory of evolution has become so
widespread: because of special techniques, tactics and illusions of propaganda.
In order to make themselves and others believe this idea, they cast a
kind of spell using methods that we'll examine in detail in the following
pages. Just like spell-casters, they use "magic" words to impress their
delusions on people's minds; and hypnotize people with pictures and written
texts that are impossible for laymen to understand. With all this, they
keep people from thinking, investigating and researching for themselves.
Just as a sorcerer looks for assistance in the various exotic props, complicated
words and miniature texts used in casting a spell, evolutionists look
to chance events, fossil bone structures and the impact of authoritative
words and sentences. In this way, they attempt to influence people to
accept preposterous inferences and to place them under the power of suggestion.
Darwinists do everything in their power to perpetuate this dark spell.
Afraid that people will see the truth that the theory of evolution is
a myth and change their minds, they employ a persuasive image to convince
people with what they say and write, how they appear and how they act.
As pointed out earlier, this spell's suggestiveness spreads into every
moment of our daily lives: in the morning newspaper, on billboards, in
school textbooks, in films and television documentaries.
It will be useful to show all the aspects of these methods of persuasion
in order to bring them to people's attention; to help individuals become
aware of the various scenes in the scenario enveloping the world they
live in. In the following pages, we'll offer some examples of the main
rules governing the evolutionists' use of the power of suggestion.
Method # 1. They depict evolutionist scientists as very learned, superhuman
An important method among Darwinists is the suggestion that evolutionist
scientists are superior to ordinary human beings-very talented, with strong
conceptual abilities, able to understand events and phenomena much better
than most. It is vital for Darwinists to assume a sense of this superiority
because public opinion is generally influenced by people who are viewed
Just as some societies believe sorcerers to be superhuman beings with
secret powers, so in modern society, Darwinist scientists are thought
to be too lofty for ordinary people to question. Most, for example, consider
it a great accomplishment to look at fossilized remains and be able to
say to what era and to what creature a given bone belonged. People believe
that any theory advocated by such accomplished individuals must always
be true and valid. For this reason, any one sentence written by an evolutionary
scientist has a mesmerizing effect and therefore, many people do not ponder
the origins of life or investigate the pertinent facts. They assume that
evolutionist scientists have given them all the data they need, and that
their statements are absolutely true. They ask, "Who am I to question
what they say? I'd need to study for many years to understand them." Indeed,
people listen with amazement to these "superhuman" individuals and, even
if they do not understand them, they go on listening as if they did.
Proponents of Darwinism want to use this dark power to suppress those
who become aware of its errors. They insist that no matter what they do,
these individuals will never attain the level of knowledge achieved by
these superhuman individuals. Advocates of evolution say that nothing
can be accomplished by calling attention to the contradictions and errors
of Darwin's theory, and they try to intimidate those who try.
This influence is very strong in some scientific quarters. Turkish Darwinists,
for example, regard foreign professors and all scientists who have worked
on evolution throughout history as superior human beings. They claim it
a major accomplishment if they can understand only parts of the lectures
presented by them. They are proud if they can demonstrate some understanding
of even a few paragraphs within this complex and incomprehensible mass.
If they do manage to achieve this, then they enter into discussions, write
papers and give talks about the little they were able to understand.
Turkish Darwinists also believe that world-famous professors have thousands
of pieces of evidence about human evolution, as well as information about
fossils, mutations and natural selection, that prove the validity of evolution.
They think that evolutionist scientists do not reveal all the proofs they
have simply because ordinary people couldn't understand these abstruse
scientific facts; and that proofs released to the public are on a level
simple enough for them to understand.
However, the truth is otherwise. With the development of science, it
has become clear that these individuals, presented as respected scientists,
have no evidence to prove their theory apart from a handful of false evidence
and fabrications. The invalidity of these misleading interpretations has
been shown hundreds of times by scientific investigation. (For detailed
information in this subject, see Harun Yahya's Darwinism Refuted, Goodword
Books, 2003 and The Evolution Deceit, 8th Edition, Taha Publishing, 2003.)
expert can look at a petrified bone and suggest information about
it. But when evolutionists engage in this ordinary scientific activity,
they give the impression of being engaged in something enigmatic
In conclusion, it is obvious that the evolutionist scientists perceived
as superior are really trying to promote an imaginary scenario with their
handful of false proofs and boundless suppositions. From this point of
view, these individuals' knowledge, intelligence and learning lose their
importance. They may well have a lot of learning, but they don't perceive
the truth in it or draw from it the right conclusions. In the Qur'an,
God speaks of those who are led astray by their knowledge, unable to see
the plain facts:
Have you seen him who takes his whims and desires to be his god-whom
God has misguided knowingly, sealing up his hearing and his heart and
placing a blindfold over his eyes? Who then will guide him after God?
So will you not pay heed? They say, "There is nothing but our existence
in this world. We die and we live and nothing destroys us except for time."
They have no knowledge of that. They are only conjecturing. (Qur'an; 45:23-24)
In these verses, God describes the state of those people who, in spite
of their knowledge, are unable to conceive of His existence or the existence
of the afterlife, and who claim that there is no life beyond this world.
Evolutionists are just like these people, in that they are limited by
their knowledge to a few ideas and are far removed from reality. Because
of the spell they are under, they are like the people these verses describe
who really cannot feel, see or understand.
The great admiration for Darwin and evolutionist scientists felt by the
proponents of the theory of evolution is one important result of the power
of suggestion we spoke of earlier. For this reason, in everything written
about Darwin, the scientific defeat of his theory of evolution is covered
up, and his errors concealed. Darwin is often praised as the genius of
the century-even of the millennium. He is variously called the "Lord of
the Species," "a unique human being," and presented as a "valued scientist"
who loyally advocates his theory in spite of all the difficulties it presents.
Actually, however, Darwin is the architect of one of the most serious
errors in the history of science. His theory rests on no concrete evidence;
it is only a logical proposal as he himself acknowledged. In one long
chapter, "Difficulties on Theory" in The Origin of Species, Darwin admitted
that his theory could not account for some important questions. He himself
made frequent mention of the problems, in some of the comments he made:
Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a
crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are
so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered.38
He also voiced his concerns in letters he wrote to his friends:
Pray do not think that I am so blind as not to see that
there are numerous immense difficulties in my notions.39
From these comments, it is clear that his theory had come to a major
impasse, and not only Darwin became aware of this. After Darwin's death,
his son, Francis, made this evaluation of his father's work:
My father's mind was not scientific, and he did not try
to generalize his knowledge under general laws; yet he formed a theory
for almost everything which occurred. I do not think I gained much from
Francis Darwin's statement contains an important truth. The Origin of
Species is trumpeted as one of the most important works in the history
of humanity, but anyone who hoped to find in it solid scientific proof
for evolution would be surprised and come away empty handed. There is
no solid proof anywhere in The Origin of Species to support the theory
of evolution; it names no new species that evolved through the process
of natural selection; it demonstrates no transitional form and documents
no evolutionary mechanism. The only interesting thing in the whole book,
actually, is its being complete speculation, founded on probability, imagination,
conjecture and supposition.
One chapter in Charles Darwin's The Origin
of the Species deals with the problems confronted by the theory
of evolution. This chapter, entitled, "Difficulties on Theory,"
reveals the unsound reasoning on which the theory is founded.
Therefore, this book should not have exerted such an influence on people's
lives and ideas. Many scientists have expressed their surprise on reading
The Origin of Species,-for example, the American physicist H. S. Lipson:
On reading The Origin of Species, I found that Darwin
was much less sure himself than he is often represented to be; the chapter
entitled "Difficulties of the Theory," for example, shows considerable
self-doubt. As a physicist, I was particularly intrigued by his comments
on how the eye would have arisen.41
Despite the scientific inadequacy of Darwin's theory, the most intelligent
people disregard this fact because they are under the spell of Darwinism.
Method # 2. Those who accept the theory of evolution are presented as
respected scientists; those who do not accept it are branded as conservatives
Proponents of Darwinism present themselves as intelligent, modern and
contemporary individuals possessing vast stores of information, and brand
those who believe in Creation as backward, conservative bigots. This kind
of mentality appears frequently in evolutionist books and publications.
Statements based on no concrete proof are made everywhere, to the effect
that the theory of evolution is now a scientific fact, a proven law that
everyone accepts. This being the case, anyone who rejects evolution is
treated as an ignoramus in those quarters where it is accepted. Henry
Morris tells how evolutionists regard those respected scientists who accept
In fact, so committed to evolutionism are
most modern psychologists and philosophers (with whom they have a close
kinship) that they now tend to regard biblical Christianity itself-especially
creationism-as a form of mental disorder. In fact, any form of religion
is considered by many evolutionists to be unhealthy, a vestige of sociological
pressures in the animal societies from which they claim humans developed.42
Henry Morris and his book, The Long War Against God.
As he says, evolutionists present their theory to the public with an
aura of scientific acceptance, accusing as "dogmatic" scientists who draw
their attention to the fact of Creation. However, in assuming this stance,
they are displaying their own dogmatism, pretending not to see the proofs
for Creation in all the scientific facts that creationist scientists set
out. Out of blind allegiance to their theory, they take no account of
the concrete evidence their opponents present, and try to defend their
ideas no matter what.
In this regard, we can give an example from statements that evolutionists
themselves have made. In his book, Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to Creation
of Life on Earth, the noted evolutionist, Robert Shapiro, writes of his
dogmatic attachment to the theory of evolution:
Some future day may yet arrive when all reasonable chemical
experiments run to discover a probable origin for life have failed unequivocally.
Further, new geological evidence may indicate a sudden appearance of life
on the earth. Finally, we may have explored the universe and found no
trace of life, or process leading to life, elsewhere. In such a case,
some scientists might choose to turn to religion for an answer. Others,
however, myself included, would attempt to sort out the surviving less
probable scientific explanations in the hope of selecting one that was
still more likely than the remainder.43
What Shapiro wants to say is quite clear. The fact that he and many other
evolutionists are attached to Darwinism as if spellbound, leads them to
reject the existence of God. This is what's indicated by the logic of "No
matter what proof we see, we will not believe in Creation." But this mentality
is not confined to present-day evolutionists; those in the past also shared
the same dogmatic approach. In the Qur'an, God tells us some important things
about such people who condition themselves to reject Him. For example, the
same mentality is demonstrated by some people who, after Moses showed them
many miracles, said to him,
"No matter what kind of Sign you bring us to bewitch us, we will not
believe in you." (Qur'an; 7:132)
They accused Moses (peace be upon him) of wanting to bewitch them, but
did not realize that they were already under a spell that made them deny
God. Today, there are people with the same mentality, under the Darwinist
spell, for whom the rejection of God is a matter of principle. They are
so far gone that they do not even realize what they are doing. For this
reason, they- like their counterparts in the past-accuse proponents of
Creation of dogmatism.
The Delusion of "Majority"
In addition to what we said above, evolutionists claim that most people
believe in evolution and that it played a role in the origins of life.
They are constantly suggesting that they are in the majority, and that
the majority is always right. They try to put psychological pressure on
others with such comments as, "Everyone believes in evolution, why don't
One Turkish evolutionist academic has admitted that these methods of
suggestion are wrong. According to Arda Denkel, a professor of philosophy
at Bogazici University, evolutionists suggest that their theory must be
true because so many people accept it. But, he said, this means nothing
from a scientific point of view. In an article published in the Cumhuriyet
scientific supplementary journal Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology),
because many respected people and institutions adopt the theory of evolution,
does that prove its authenticity? Or, will a judicial verdict confirm
its validity?...[They say;] "In our country too, the theory of evolution
is supported by all prominent scientists, the chairmen of TUBA [Turkish
Academy of Sciences] and TUBITAK [The Scientific and Technical Research
Council of Turkey], rectors and deans." The support of such respected
people is doubtlessly gratifying. However, can the truth be confirmed
by the approval of respected authorities? Let's remind ourselves of a
historical fact; All alone, Galileo Galilei opposed the respected people
and jurists and especially the scientists of his day (there were no women
among them, since women were not involved in such scientific endeavors).
But wasn't Galileo Galilei telling and advocating the truth? Did the Inquisition
invalidate his claims? The support of the respected and widespread members
of society does not convey authenticity, nor does it directly ensure that
a belief is scientific.44
In an article in Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik (A Turkish Scientific Supplementary),
Arda Denkel explains how evolutionist intimations have no scientific
Denkel says that, even though Turkish evolutionists resort to such methods
of suggestion, they can produce no definite scientific proof in support
of Darwinism. He says further that Turkey's most influential critic of
Darwinism, the Bilim Arastirma Vakfi (Science Research Foundation), has
the most concrete scientific proof against it:
Evolutionist scientists, while stressing the type of "excuses"
I criticized above, say, "Besides, many scientists and institutions have
published thousands of articles and books refuting Creationists' myths."
Can one expect a serious result from words that are uttered thoughtlessly?
Here, in my opinion, is where the heart of the matter lies... A truly
scientific attitude would reveal what these "thousands of articles and
books" assert. It should display or outline to the reader, at least a
few of their data and arguments. With this group of scientists, however,
such is not the case. On the contrary, handouts circulated by the Science
Research Foundation (SRF), continually put forward critical justifications
written from their own stance. I have no idea what denial I could offer
if anyone were to say that the members of the group had fallen behind
the SRF in terms of being scientific by publishing a manifesto... Unless
some scientists with a good grasp of this issue provide scientific refutations
for the justifications put forward by the SRF, appealing to authorities
or hoping patriotic literature to get results will be only a daydream.45
Denkel is a scientist who supports the theory of evolution, but he is
also prepared to admit that Darwinists have no scientific resources to
rebut evidence that invalidates their theory and rely only on the effectiveness
of baseless propaganda. Evolutionists' major refuge is in the hackneyed
suggestion that Darwinism is accepted by the whole world.
Today, however, it is evident that this isn't so. Those who care to look
at science objectively must take into account the great number of scientists
who have abandoned the theory over the past 20 to 30 years. To avoid doing
this is departing from objectivity. Today, as in the past, many scientists
have come out from under the evolutionist spell to see the reality of
Creation in the world; and have produced a great deal of work to show
the invalidity of evolution. Neither philosophers nor theologians, these
are well-seasoned academics and experts in fields such as biology, biochemistry,
microbiology, anatomy and paleontology; and come from countries like America,
England, Israel and Australia. (For more detailed information, see Harun
Qur'an Leads the Way to Science, Nickleodeon Books, 2002.) Only some
scientists accept evolution, and not the entire scientific world.
Moreover, we must make it clear that there's no value in being in the
majority; and evolutionists are not the only ones to make this suggestion.
Throughout history, many of those who have rejected the superior creation
of God have advocated that they are correct because they represent the
majority. With such suggestions as "Look, everyone rejects religion; can
so many people be wrong?" they've tried to divert people from the path
that God invites them to follow. God cautions his faithful servants against
these kinds of individuals, and warns that conforming to the majority
will only bring them harm:
If you obeyed most of those on earth, they would misguide you from God's
Way. They follow nothing but conjecture. They are only guessing. (Qur'an;
In other verses, God tells us that many people in the past ignored the
warnings they were given, declaring that they were in the majority, but
that this was of no use to them. He says that those who attained salvation
were those who believed:
We never sent a warner into any city without the affluent people in it
saying, "We reject what you have been sent with." They also said, "We
have more wealth and children. We are not going to be punished." Say:
"My Lord expands the provision of anyone He wills or restricts it. But
the majority of mankind do not know it." It is not your wealth or your
children that will bring you near to Us-only in the case of people who
believe and act rightly; such people will have a double recompense for
what they did. They will be safe from all harm in the High Halls of Paradise.
(Qur'an; 34: 34-37)
Method # 3: They try to influence people by using scientific terms and
concepts that laymen cannot understand
One major tool in the power of persuasion used by supporters of Darwinism
is the suggestion that an idea is incomprehensible. These demagogues try
to impress by using terms and Latin names that many people cannot understand;
their impenetrable style employs dizzying logic and strange, irrelevant
examples. The method behind all of this is the bewitching principle of
Their writings and lectures string words together in such a way that
many cannot understand them; their effect on people is just like that
of a sorcerer using strange magic words as he conjures a spell. Their
incomprehensibility is even accepted as a sign of the authors' breadth
of knowledge, power and virtue; and this impact increases with the obscurity
of their words. The scientist who speaks or writes in the most opaque
manner is touted as the most brilliant.
This ploy that evolutionists use especially in titles of their articles,
is why so many people say from the start that they could not possibly
understand such lofty knowledge. As examples, here are the titles of some
of their articles:
"Crystal structure of the hereditary haemochromatosis protein HFEcomplexed
with transferrin receptor"
"An electroneutral sodium/bicarbonate cotransporter NBCn1 and associated
"Glycosylation of Nucleocytoplasmic Proteins:Signal Transduction and
All the subjects indicated in the titles above are of course serious
topics deserving of scientific investigation. It may be quite appropriate
to use such terms in an appropriate place. But using such words won't
help evolutionists get around their great impasse, for many other basic
questions stand in the way of their theory that evolutionists have to
answer, but cannot.
Evolutionists must especially answer how the first cells and first living
creatures came into being. Where did the mind-bogglingly sophisticated
systems within a cell come from? And how did the imaginary transition
from sea to land occur? Alternatively, they must explain what clear proofs
there are for such matters as the supposed evolution of human beings,
the origin of the extraordinary designs in animals, the source of self-sacrifice
and intelligent behavior in living creatures. They must also give concrete
proof for their claims about the gradual formation of structures like
DNA, eyes and wings; about the development over time of cells' ability
of to synthesize proteins flawlessly, and of blood to clot. As yet, no
evolutionist has come forward to present any clear, concrete proof of
these most basic matters regarding the formation of living creatures.
When you examine their lectures, books and articles, you will see that,
when required to explain these matters, they try to divert attention by
hiding them behind countless scientific terms, Latin words and sentences
that ordinary people cannot understand.
Taking this point of view, we can see that the theory of evolution is
a word game based on empty talk, interesting inferences, guesses and suppositions.
It relies on long philosophical excursions and repetition of words that
serve only to keep people from thinking. From the few titles of articles
listed above, you can see that it is a word game based on incomprehensibility.
Evolutionists believe that they will reach their goals by using such
methods, thinking they've given the impression of stating something in
a highly scientific style. However, they are benefiting only from the
fact that the general public knows very little about scientific matters.
To give their theory a scientific tone, evolutionists adorn their
unsubstantial writings with incomprehensible words, as these texts
To bring even more clarity to the matter, we can cite George Stavropoulos,
a proponent of the theory of evolution, from an article he wrote in the
journal American Scientist:
Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule
can ever form spontaneously, but will rather disintegrate, in agreement
with the second law. Indeed, the more complex it is, the more unstable
it will be, and the more assured, sooner or later, its disintegration.
Photosynthesis and all life processes, and even life itself, cannot yet
be understood in terms of thermodynamics or any other exact science, despite
the use of confused or deliberately confusing language.46
Stavropoulos clearly states that some explanations given by evolutionist
scientists are complex and deliberately convoluted. Moreover, he openly
admits that no branch of science can cast light on the processes of life.
Uncovering these Darwinist games and tactics is no doubt important for
those who don't know much about the matter and puts a heavy responsibility
on those who are aware of how evolutionists use the power of suggestion.
Carrying out this responsibility is one obvious way to remove the lies
and fabrications blocking advances in the scientific world.
Books with cold and incomprehensible
According to Darwinist principles,
to lend a scientific appearance to a given topic, the first
attribute is "coldness." Evolutionists try to make their books
seem heavy, gloomy and cold. They arrange their books' cover
designs and content so as to make them seem hard to read and
understand. Their illustrations and pictures are usually incomprehensible
drawings and vague pictures consisting of abstract shapes, incomprehensible
bone fragments and stones. Plenty of complex graphics and numerical
calculations, they believe, will make their works appear more
sophisticated. In this way, they hope to convey the impression
that evolution is "scientific," but that people cannot comprehend
this, due to their lack of knowledge.
One common feature of books promoting evolution is their austere
appearance and incomprehensible contents. The purpose is to make
these books look as if they contained abstruse scientific knowledge.
Complicated graphics and obscure mathematical calculations only
add to this illusion.
Method # 4: In order not to break the spell of Darwinism, they themselves
do not read, nor do they want their followers to read anything that criticizes
Those caught under the dark spell of Darwinism do not want to dispel
it. If they can help it, they do not read books, papers or scientific
reports debunking Darwinism because they believe such literature is very
dangerous. They become very upset if they hear of books and activities
that go against what they believe. News of the publication of a book demonstrating
the collapse of Darwinism is the worst news they could receive, because
people might buy and read it. For those who want to preserve the spell,
their greatest fear is that people will read opposing ideas, evaluate
them and then come to know the truth.
They hesitate to let their followers to read this kind of literature,
because they themselves have never read it. At their lectures, in their
books and in their conferences, the salient message they give is people
should not read this literature. They fear not for themselves, but that
other Darwinists will lose their faith. They're especially upset at the
prospect that young people will come to know that Darwinism is a fabrication,
since they trust that youth will be defenders of the theory in the future.
Seeing them as a guarantee for the future, they want to make sure that
youngsters never lose the suggestions about Darwinism put into their minds.
In order to protect them from supposedly dangerous influences-that is,
from people who tell them the facts of Creation-they make every effort
to insulate their pupils from the outside world.
To achieve this, they first gather young people together in camps and
courses they have organized and instill strong suggestions in their minds.
They educate them with incomprehensible words, complex narratives and
depictions; this education continues while they eat, play sports, read
books and converse. They meet together so often in the belief that in
order for the Darwinist "trance" not to be broken, youth need to be kept
under constant observation and under the power of suggestion. Even the
shortest break could let some suspicion enter their minds that the theory
of evolution is a myth.
They want to prevent youth from reading works about the invalidity of
evolution and the fact of Creation out of fear that their trance will
be broken, the spell will lose its effect, and that young people will
entertain doubts about the theory. To remove such doubts, the only thing
they can do is exaggerate the idea of the significance and the power of
evolution. Teilhard de Chardin was one of the leaders of Universal Humanism
in France; these words he wrote are a clear example of this kind of evolutionist
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 henceforth 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
From this quote, we can see that Chardin is blindly attached to evolution,
even if scientific evidence points in the opposite direction. And, in
a tactic used generally by all evolutionists, he proclaims his faith in
no uncertain terms. Against the possibility that supporters may read and
be influenced by other ideas, evolutionists always speak with total certainly.
If they read anything that says that logic and evidence from science have
invalidated evolution, they take measures to keep their followers from
abandoning the theory by such reasoning as this: "Even if there is no
proof for evolution, nevertheless it has happened."
Umit Sayin, a long-time writer for the evolutionist journal
Bilim Utopya (Science Utopia), expresses this blind allegiance with the
words, "Let's assume that we have not found any fossils yet; then this
shows that all life forms have disappeared, or amalgamated into nature,"
or "Let's say that all fossils had not ended up as we hoped! Even such
an incident does not make the theory of evolution collapse."48 So, in order that no supporter may be influenced by any work explaining
the scientific invalidity of evolution, he took measures on his own to
prevent the breaking of the spell.
Everyone is familiar with
the illustrations in newspapers and magazines, depicting the evolution
of a human being from an ape. Such illustrations, frequently employed
by evolutionists, have no basis in fact. Their purpose is to perpetuate
the effect of the Darwinist spell.
Method # 5: In order that the spell of Darwinism
may not be broken, evolutionists keep their supporters from thinking
Darwinists' main aim is to prevent their supporters from thinking, because
any person of conscience would take very little time to realize how much
evidence points towards the theory being invalid. So, making use of every
means at their disposal, they bombard their followers with propaganda,
leaving them no time to think for themselves. They use advertisements,
movies, music videos, song lyrics, cartoons, books, articles and anything
else they can find to perpetuate the spell's effect. Their purpose is
to have people memorize a few words and catchy phrases and become familiar
with images. They occupy our every moment with imaginary transitions from
apes to human beings, fossil images and reconstructions of primitive man.
Newspapers and magazines belabor the subject-whether in passing or comprehensively,
with a single word or entire text-to ensure that all is in order not to
break the spell.
Various film stills familiar to everyone. Depicting half-human,
half-ape characters is a classic method to prevent breaking the
Evolutionists know perfectly well that doubting their theory leads to
religion and the acceptance of Creation. Therefore, they try to perpetuate
the spell in daily conversation, which is the reason behind all their
anti-religious anecdotes, conversations, caricatures and writings. The
motive behind their anti-religious humor and almost insulting comments
is to dissuade individuals from the slightest tendency toward religion
and to destroy all doubts that arise in their minds about the origins
The evolutionist design to forestall people from thinking can be illustrated
by a recent occurrence in 1999, when our book entitled The Evolution Deceit
was distributed in all parts of Turkey. Readers saw all the facts proving
that the idea of evolution was full of deceptions. This created an atmosphere
of panic among Turkey's evolutionist and materialist circles; they were
threatened that The Evolution Deceit was informing people about their
theory's scientific invalidity. What upset them most was the chapter entitled
"The Secret Beyond Matter," which demolished the materialists' philosophical
idea that everything is composed of matter.
Facts presented in the book The Evolution Deceit were traumatizing
for materialists like Rennan Pekunlu.
The person who expressed most clearly the worry and panic experienced in
Turkey's evolutionist-materialist circles was Rennan Pekunlu, a lecturer
and writer for Bilim Utopya (Science Utopia), a journal whose mandate is
to promote materialism. Both in articles for the journal and in comments
on a number of panel discussions, Pekunlu indicated that The
Evolution Deceit was a major threat. Beside the chapters debunking Darwinism,
what worried him most was the section entitled "The Secret Beyond Matter."
Pekunlu sent a message to his readers and to his few listeners telling them
not to be taken in by these ideas and to remain loyal to materialism. For
his thesis, he found support in Vladimir I. Lenin and advised everyone to
read Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, the book Russia's bloody communist
leader wrote a century earlier. But the only thing Pekunlu managed to accomplish
was to repeat Lenin's warning to his readers not to think about this subject,
or they would be carried away by religion. In his article, Pekunlu quoted
these words of Lenin's:
Once you deny the objective reality [that
is] given us in sensation, you have already lost every weapon against
fideism [reliance on faith alone], for you have slipped into agnosticism
or subjectivism-and that is all that fideism requires. A single claw ensnared,
and the bird is lost. And our Machists [an adherent of Machism, a modern
positivist philosophy], have all become ensnared in idealism, that is,
in a diluted, subtle fideism;They became ensnared from the moment they
took "sensation" not as an image of the external world, but as a special
"element." It is nobody's sensation, nobody's mind, nobody's spirit, nobody's
These words reveal that the reality-which Lenin himself feared and wanted
to erase from his mind as well as his comrades'-is the same thing that
worries evolutionist-materialists today. But Pekunlu and other materialists
have much more to worry about than did Lenin: Compared to a hundred years
ago, the truth has become clearer, stronger and more definite. For the
first time in history, this truth is being discussed in a very challenging
way-posing a great danger for the Darwinist spell that materialists have
taken such pains to perpetuate. (For a detailed discussion of this matter,
see Harun Yahya's The Evolution Deceit, 8th Edition, Taha Publishing, 2003.)
Method # 6: They pass over questions about evidence for the collapse
of the theory of evolution with dismissive responses and later, give the
impression that they answered them
Scientists who support the theory of evolution pretend to answer a question
without really doing so. When confronted with a question they can't answer,
they weave long and complicated sentences, so that people who know little
about the subject will doubt their ability to understand it. They'll think
they are in the presence of a "great" scientist. And, no matter what nonsense
comes out of his mouth, they will be influenced by the way he strings
sentences together in a way that sounds beautiful.
The evolutionists' imagination is lively enough to transform a starfish
into a fish.
One example concerns the transitional forms that evolutionist paleontologists
cannot account for. Following is a quotation from a Darwinist's book on
the subject of transitional forms. After declaring that there's a basic
explanation for them, author Richard Milner gives the following strange
Transitional fossils ("links" between major
groups) are notably rare because most species remain stable for long periods.
When change occurs, it is fairly rapid (in relation to the geological
time), and often begins among small, isolated populations. Imagine a multi-level
parking garage frozen in time. Large "populations" of cars would be found
on the various floors, but only a few on the ramps. The time the cars
spent in the ramps is short compared to time they remained parked, yet
each must have traveled the ramp.50
To briefly consider the reasons for the irrationality of this answer:
First, there are millions of living species in the world today. According
to evolutionists, each of them evolved in slow stages from another creature.
For example, we can look at the imaginary change of a starfish into a
fish. First, there was a starfish; then two arms of the starfish begin
to take the shape of fins. Then it develops a backbone. Later, other changes
in its body become noticeable. And in the final stage, there is no more
starfish; there is a fish. Now let us look at the relation between this
example and the imaginary claims of evolutionists. Of course, there is
no relation between the above analogy of a parking garage and the imaginary
stages in the formation of living creatures. That is, cars can afford
to be parked in a garage for long periods of time, but those creatures
that are said to have evolved have no time to wait.
According to the evolutionist claim, any species had to undergo this
evolutionary change within a specific period of time. This means that
there must have been many transitional forms. So, it is no longer a question
of life forms in stasis, similar to the cars parked in a garage, with
very rare episodes of sudden transformation. On the contrary, there must
be millions upon millions of transitional stages for every one of the
myriad of species alive in the world today. How strange that there is
not one extant example of these millions of transitional forms!
Now it becomes apparent just how meaningless and deceptive such examples
are. Actually, evolutionists themselves may be aware that their examples
don't correspond to reality, but they want to give the impression that
they haven't remained mute but given thoughtful answers to such questions.
In this way, they hope to preserve the faith of their supporters.
Behe and his book,
Darwin's Black Box.
To answer questions posed by the fact of Creation, evolutionists give
courses, hold panel discussions, and write books containing the kind of
logic we saw in the above examples. With these initiatives, they try to
indicate that the spell has not been broken and that they are continuing
as usual. They want to send the message that that they are still standing
on their two feet, and to have that message reach the right people, they
publish books and journals that only illustrate the hopelessness of their
position. Their publications are nothing more than works of rhetoric designed
to console one another, but do not give any response to basic scientific
evidence that invalidates their theory. They talk repeatedly about the
same subjects as if no proof had been given to cause their theory's collapse.
One of the most serious impasses for evolution is the molecular stage
in the appearance of life on Earth. From a molecular point of view, the
theory of evolution has not been able to explain how life began or how
proteins and cells-the building blocks of life-came into being. Disregarding
all such objections, evolutionists opt to concentrate on questions of
For example, as Michael J. Behe states in his book, 80% of the articles
on molecular evolution published in the Journal of Molecular Evolution (JME),
the world's best known molecular biology periodical, have to do with the
comparison of amino acid sequences. For example, all the amino acids of
two proteins are arranged and examined in a series or the nucleotides on
a DNA molecule are compared. Behe says that this comparison does nothing
to remove the impasse confronting molecular evolution. He writes:
But the root question remains unanswered: What has caused
complex systems to form? No one has ever explained in detailed, scientific
fashion how mutation and natural selection could build the complex, intricate
structures discussed in this book.51
The reality stated in Behe's words is quite clear: Evolutionists give
no clear answer to questions about life's real origins, because it's impossible
to answer these questions in terms of evolutionary processes and random
stages of development. For this reason, they ignore their deficiencies
and continue to perpetuate the Darwinist spell. They fill their publications
with irrelevancies, decorative illustrations and Latin words that have
nothing to do with proving evolution. In this way, they obscure their
explanations of basic subjects and trust that they have deceived people.
Method # 7: Darwinists resort to every kind of rhetorical device to get
people under their influence
As we have often pointed out, one of Darwinists' main characteristics,
is their skill in rhetorical demagoguery. They are very deft in their
use of language and word games. It may seem as if they are saying a lot,
whereas they are actually stating nothing of substance. In spite of the
hours they spend in their conferences, they cannot utter a single word
to substantiate their theory. They aim to make people believe them by
releasing an avalanche of complicated words and explanations, thereby
creating the illusion that what they say follows along scientific lines.
Darwinists go into detail about geology, genetics, medicine and other
areas that have nothing to do with the basics of evolution. They discuss
these issues at such length, in such a weighty manner that they put their
listeners into a stupor. They insert evolutionist explanations into subjects
that have nothing to do with their theory, creating the impression that
they are actually relevant to their topic and support their propositions.
For instance, they deliver long-winded speeches about recent developments
in genetics. But in what they say, there is nothing to support the theory
of evolution. Despite this, they end their articles or lectures by saying,
"You see, the science of genetics provides important evidence for the
theory of evolution," in this way, giving the impression that genetics
They also get people under their dark spell by such deceptions as: "We
do have a lot of evidence, but not have enough time to consider it all,
so, we'll talk about something else." Or, "This book-or even an encyclopedia-isn't
big enough to contain the proofs for evolution, so I will talk only about
one or two," or, "I could explain proofs for the theory of evolution,
but you wouldn't understand, so never mind." This way, they never resolve
the basic questions that their theory should. The evolutionary biologist
Christopher Wills resorts to the same method in one of his books:
It will be necessary first to take a quick
glance at some of the evidence that has accumulated since the time of
Darwin about how evolution works. I will try to make this as painless
and interesting as possible. There is in any case no way a book this size
could cover it all. A friend of mine has been working on an encyclopedic
evolution book for years and I wish him luck.52
However, what Wills says here has no relation to reality. As we said
earlier, evolutionist claims are totally incredible since they clearly
go against scientific discoveries. So he is completely wrong to state
there is more proof than can be fitted into an encyclopedia. He repeats
this explanation so often to cover up why evolutionists always present
the same supposed proofs in every book and in every lecture. The proof
they offer has in fact been frequently refuted in many anti-evolutionist
publications. Evolutionists realize that if they acknowledge these facts,
they'll be forced to admit the invalidity of their theory. For this reason,
it seems, they act as if no one has refuted their proofs.
Phillip E. Johnson states that the theory of evolution is supported only
by demagoguery and the power of persuasion:
The theory is sustained largely by a propaganda campaign
that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical persuasion:hidden assumptions,
question-begging statements of what is at issue, terms that are vaguely
defined and change their meaning in midargument, attacks on straw men,
selective citation of evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected
by its cultural importance.53
It is possible to give many examples of the rhetoric that Johnson mentions.
One good example of the word games that evolutionist scientists play to
deceive people is the following statement by the Turkish Darwinist, Umit
Life originated in the Earth's sea or lakes; or the molecular
information likely to form life came from meteorites or comets falling
Here, Sayin accounts for the beginnings of life in a very unclear way,
and based on no scientific evidence. He always uses equivocal expressions
so that, if evolution is not tenable in terms of this world, he can leave
a door open to outer space. From statements like these, it's clear that
evolutionists have nothing to say about the origins of life.
Another method Darwinists employ is to select examples that have nothing
to do with logic or reason and propose them as if they indicated some
major scientific reality. Evolutionists mislead the public by giving examples
from daily life to make illogical ideas seem reasonable. We looked at
one example of this-comparing a transitional fossil to a car in a parking
garage-earlier, but it will be useful to give further examples.
A pertinent example is one that Umit Sayin took from an
evolutionist by the name of Tim M. Berra. In his book, Berra showed a
series of pictures of the 1953, 1962, 1978 and 1990 models of a Corvette
and suggested that "the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious"
in this process and that "this is what paleontologists do with fossils."55
It's easy to see how irrational and unrealistic this example is. The
author speaks about the "evolution" of a Corvette, never attributing it
to the long, coordinated work of engineers, designers, and computers-as
if it were wholly a result of the chance effects of mountain winds, lightening,
rain and sunlight. However, no Corvette appeared by chance, but as the
result of an intelligent design. So Berra's example proves not the theory
of evolution, but Creation. The public in general has never considered
these matters to any great extent, however, because their opportunities
to do so are limited, and so evolutionists can exploit them for their
own ends. In what they say and write, they hide behind their positions
as scientists and employ many senseless explanations.
Books by Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most noted evolutionist
scientists, frequently feature examples designed to portray evolutionary
theories in a comprehensible and rational light. In his book, The Selfish
Gene, he writes that genes may be compared to Chicago gangsters:
The argument of this book is that we, and all other animals,
are machines created by our genes. Like successful Chicago gangsters our
genes have survived, in some cases for millions of years in a highly competitive
Dawkins cannot explain how even one gene came into being, but does make
the preposterous comparison, suggesting that genes survive as the result
of chance events. But what a pity that readers who know nothing about
the subject may accept this as logical and convincing, just because Dawkins
is a professor.
As we can see from the examples so far, Darwinists have nothing else
to do but try to persuade people with absurd analogies such as Chicago
gangsters, Corvettes and parking garages. Apart from such empty examples,
they have no accepted scientific findings to prove their assertions.
Method # 8: By continually repeating empty words as in a hypnotic spell,
they try to put people's logic to sleep
Another point to stress in relation to the evolutionists'
suggestive rhetoric is their continued use of their empty words and formulas
in place of scientific proof. Through such persuasive methods, these "magic"
words and formulas occur dozens, even hundreds of times in every book
they write, so as to implant them in readers' minds. They load their sentences
with expressions such as, "If human beings exist today, evolution must
have happened," "Humans are the most highly developed animals," "Among
all the species of animals, only human beings . . . ," "Finally, evolution's
missing link has been found," "In the transition from primitive to modern
man … , " "definitely proven, unquestionable facts, has been proven
once again, there is no doubt." All these expressions intend to insinuate
in people's minds the idea that their every statement has a scientific
foundation. In their book Hamlet's Mill:An Essay Investigating the Origins
of Human Knowledge and Its Transmission Through Myth, Giorgio de Santillana
and Hertha von Dechend state that evolutionists use this method:
Gradually, we are told, step
by step, men produced the arts and crafts, this and that, until they emerged
in the light of history . . . Those soporific words "gradually" and "step-by-step"
repeated incessantly, are aimed at covering an ignorance which is both
vast and surprising. One should like to inquire: Which steps? But then
one is lulled, overwhelmed and stupefied by the gradualness of it all,
which is at best a platitude, only good for pacifying the mind, since
no one is willing to imagine that civilization appeared in a thunderclap.57
Actually, if any ordinary person used the terms mentioned
in the above quote, he wouldn't be considered reliable. But when someone
acting sure of himself and looking like a serious scientist uses this
style, people listen with amazement.
Another example of evolutionists' demagoguery came from Umit Sayin,
again in the magazine Bilim Utopya. After providing a brief list
of a few books printed in the past and criticizing evolution, Sayin's
article went on to give a longer list of twenty or so books under
the heading "A few books written by scientists in response to Creationists."
He then resorted to an infantile logic, "Evolutionists have many
more publications, so evolution must be true." The fact is that
even in the last few years, a large number of works and studies
by American, German, Israeli and Australian scientists have appeared,
showing-with scientific data and methods-that the theory of evolution
is a hypothesis whose validity has been disproved by all branches
of science. These books have left not a single evolutionary scenario
unanswered and undemolished. There is, therefore, no need for thousands
of books and studies to state that the myth of evolution is totally
fictitious. Just one small paperback can undermine many volumes
promulgating evolution. The simple fact that not even a single protein
could ever materialize by chance is enough to refute evolution completely.
The word "programmed" Dawkins uses has
the kind of magical effect we've been talking about. He uses this word
frequently in his books; in The Selfish Gene, for example, he analyses
the phenomenon of altruism from an evolutionary point of view: "It may
just be more difficult to learn altruism than it would be if we were genetically
programmed to be altruistic."58 Throughout his book,
Dawkins speaks constantly of creatures being programmed and analyzes their
behavior based on this idea. But he cannot answer questions about who
did the programming, how creatures were programmed and what the purpose
of this programming is. According to Dawkins, there is a program of which
the programmer is unknown. If someone asked Dawkins, and those who share
his mindset, who created the program, they would probably reply-to perpetuate
the Darwinist spell-that it's a "miracle of nature."
Someone whose awareness isn't clouded by Darwinism's
spell can easily understand that nature could not encode in the genes
of living creatures the millions of bits of information it contains; no
creature in nature possesses one bit of this information by its own will
that it can encode in another being.
Obviously, it is God, with His supreme power and knowledge,
Who created the genetic information in every creature. But someone under
the influence of the evolutionist spell does not understand this. The
veil over his eyes means he cannot see the plain truth. The Qur'an gives
us many examples of this spiritual state. It tells us that throughout
the course of history, there have been those who could not see the obvious
fact of Creation. One verse reveals this outright inability to understand:
As for those who disbelieve, it makes
no difference to them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they
will not believe. God has sealed up their hearts and hearing and over
their eyes is a blindfold. They will have a terrible punishment. (Qur'an,
Method # 9: They try to prove evolution
on the evidence of irrelevant topics and discoveries
Another method Darwinists use to perpetuate their spell
is to present topics that have nothing to do with evolution as "evidence"
for the validity of their theory. For example, they'll write pages about
the marvelous examples of Creation to be found in the bodies of humans
and animals, but end their treatise by saying, "Here is a beautiful product
of evolution." But learning how a system functions is not enough to understand
how and why it came into being. By observation, for example, we can learn
how the solar system works, how the planets interact with one another,
and how fast they rotate. That does not relate to how and why the solar
system came to be-but this is what evolutionists do. They talk endlessly
about matters of genetics, space research, biology, anatomy, geology and
sociology; but never do deal with the basic question of how or why these
things came into existence.
According to the noted American professor of biochemistry,
Michael J. Behe, evolutionists strive to explain every subject, relevant
or irrelevant, in terms of evolution:
The theory has even been stretched
by some scientists to interpret human behavior: why desperate people commit
suicide, why teenagers have babies out of wedlock, why some groups do
better on intelligence tests than other groups, and why religious missionaries
forgo marriage and children. There is nothing-no organ or idea, no sense
or thought-that has not been the subject of evolutionary rumination.59
Julian Huxley, one of the leading evolutionists of the
twentieth century, explains how they want to have their theory accepted
as a principle encompassing the whole universe:
The concept of Darwinism was
soon extended into other than biological fields. Inorganic subjects such
as the life history of stars and the formation of the chemical elements
on the one hand, and on the other hand subjects like linguistics, social
anthropology, and comparative law and religion, began to be studied from
an evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as
a universal and all-pervading process.60
technique that evolutionists use is to title an article to give
the impression that it's about evolution, when it gives only general
information on the subject or is about a totally irrelevant topic.
For example, the headline of the article entitled "New Zealand,"
contains such stereotyped terms as, "fringe of the evolutionary
raft." The rest of the coverage includes general information and
photographs about the natural beauties of New Zealand. A similar
tactic is used in the other articles. This technique seems intended
to give the impression that the article has something to do with
evolution, although the text contains nothing to prove evolution.
As the above examples show, their goal is to persuade
the public that evolution is a universal principle and a process that
encompasses everything. Therefore, they rate everything from economy to
the marriage as a matter of evolution. At the same time, this method lets
evolutionists cast their spell over every area of life. For example, when
speaking about technological operations or the development of computers,
at any moment they can stop what they are saying to make a comment devoid
of all scientific meaning such as, "This is a fine example of the process
of evolution." Any thinking person, free of the evolutionist spell, can
easily understand that this comment is like a Communist ideologue saying,
"Marx was right again: The dollar has lost value in relation to the German
mark." Surely, Marxist ideology has nothing to do with the dollar and
the German mark, just as the supposed process of evolution has nothing
to do with computers.
| Misleading Titles AND COVERAGE
These journals' reports contain tiny references tucked away in a
corner or else make covert evolutionary suggestions by using the
terms "natural selection," or "the evolution of a modern brain."
However, instead of offering proofs regarding evolution, all they
actually contain is facts confirming creation-such as the extraordinary
features of creatures which use camouflage. Even if the pages-long
coverage is about the signs of creation, such journals still include
strained references to evolution with no substance in their reports.
Method # 10: They use scientifically
unwarranted topics and discoveries as proofs of evolution
Darwinists loyal to their theory present scientifically
unwarranted topics to the public as if they were facts. For example, a
presenter takes a simple fossil bone; for hours he discusses the complex
information revealed by various markings on the bone; he gives the bone
a Latin name that most people cannot pronounce, together with exhaustive
information about the ancestors and the lifestyle of the person to whom
the bone belonged. Ordinary people are very impressed by his presentation.
Listeners assume he knows a lot about the bone's provenance and authenticity
and that everything he says rests on scientific evidence. But the truth
is otherwise; the presentation is nothing other than a deceptive game
with supposed proofs.
Just like a sorcerer, an evolutionist takes bones into
his hand and creates the illusion that it can reveal many secrets about
the evolutionary process. But actually, he has no proof that can let him
make any assertions.
In order to understand this matter better, it will be
useful to examine a book explaining the origins of human life and the
process of evolution, written by a fossil expert who is a proponent of
the theory of evolution. The most important aspect of any book written
by an expert would be in descriptions relevant to the geographical region
where he conducts his studies. As in a legend or a tale, the writer describes
the region's climate, flora and fauna, mountains, lakes and meadows, in
order to put the reader out of touch with his personal reality and usher
him into an imaginary world. Because he has no substantial evidence, he
must resort to obfuscation and telling of fairytales in order to influence
and persuade the public. But when the topic of discussion comes to the
fossils that have already been discovered, we see something very interesting:
His account of fossils begins with long descriptions of an environment
that supposedly existed millions of years ago. Based on no information
or discoveries, he makes statements such as, "These are the places where
our ancestors lived." Some statements contain interesting admissions-for
example, in his book The People of the Lake, the world-famous fossil expert
Richard Leakey admits that it is actually not possible to learn very many
details from a piece of bone:
Now, if we are absolutely
honest, we have to admit that we know nothing about Ramapithecus; we don't
know what it looked like; we don't know what it did; and, naturally, we
don't know how it did it! But with the aid of jaw and tooth fragments
and one or two bits and pieces from arms and legs, all of which represents
a couple of dozen individuals, we can make some guesses, more or less
The important sentences to read here include, "we have
to admit that we know nothing" and "we can make some guesses, more or
less inspired." The man who wrote these statements is one of the world's
best known fossil experts, whose suppositions are highly respected and
regarded as scientific proof. So just what kind of suppositions does this
scientist make throughout his book?
When experts first discover a fossil, generally they
make surprising suppositions about the creature's size, environment, what
land areas it inhabited, how and what it ate, its physical structure in
relation to other individuals, its habits, whether it was two or four-footed,
its social life and reproduction patterns, whether it was hairy, its colors
and level of intelligence. A look at Richard Leakey's interpretations
in his The Origin of Humankind of the fossils he discovered will be useful
in understanding the kind and extent of experts' suppositions.
For instance, a group of early
humans, might have spent some time beneath a tree simply for the shade
it afforded, knapping stones for some purpose other than butchering carcasses-for
example, they might have been making flakes for whittling sticks, which
could be used to unearth tubers. Some time later, after the group had
moved on, a leopard might have climbed the tree, hauling its kill with
it, as leopards often do. Gradually, the carcass would have rotted, and
the bones would have tumbled to the ground to lie amid the scatter of
stones left there by the toolmakers. How could an archeologist excavating
the site 1.5 million years later distinguish between this scenario and
the previously favored interpretation of butchering by a group of nomadic
hunters and gatherers? My instinct was that early humans did in fact pursue
some version of hunting and gathering, but I could see Isaac's concern
over a secure reading of the evidence. 62
In these statements, Leakey clearly says that these detailed
descriptions are based not on science, but on "instinct." In a similar
statement, Leakey indicates the importance of the power of dreaming in
the science of fossils:
Although we can never know
for certain what daily was like in the earliest times of Homo Erectus,
we can use the rich archeological evidence of site 50, and our imagination,
to re-create such a scene, 1.5 million years ago...63
fossils, Richard Leakey, noted evolutionist, did not rely on proof,
nor did he not abstain from using his instincts.
After saying this, Leakey goes on for five pages to construct
a dream-like fantasy. The details create the impression that he has seen
and is reporting what he has gone and observed. Anyone reading it wouldn't
think that it was the product of a fossil scientist's imagination, but
that, every description was based on clear evidence. From Leakey's statements,
however, we can see that his description is nothing more than hallucinations
caused by the spell of Darwinism. His explanations do express no scientific
reality, but are based totally on his broad imaginative power.
Method # 11: They try to spread
the Darwinist spell by suggestions made by visual effects
The man pictured below uses his imagination to make artistic reconstructions.
All the half-man and half-ape creatures you see in films, newspapers
and magazines come from the imaginations of people like this. But
no such intermediate creatures ever existed.
Darwinists are carrying on a serious campaign of suggestion to persuade
a significant number of people to accept the idea that half-human, half-ape
creatures lived at one time. Visual methods are an important part of this
campaign; people may forget what they hear, but do remember what they see.
Evolutionists' most widespread use of visual suggestion is to be seen
in reconstructions from fossils. Pictures or models can be made of a creature
from which only one bone fragment has been found. All the "ape-men" you
have seen in newspapers, magazines and films are reconstructions.
The fossil record of human origins is fragmentary and
incomplete, and any suppositions made on the basis of it are largely imaginary.
That is, reconstructions claiming to describe the origins of human beings
reflect only the imagination of the fossil expert, the illustrator, or
the sculptor. For this reason, reconstructions that evolutionists make
on the basis of the fossil record are designed solely to conform to the
requirements of their own ideology. Someone looking at a depiction of
a half-human, half-ape creature will get the impression that he is seeing
something that really existed. Many museums display these models, and
the public is led to believe that they have a close-up view of their true
ancestors. But these drawings and models have no scientific validity.
Reconstructions based on bone remains can reveal only a creature's most
general characteristics, since all the really distinctive morphological
features of an animal are soft tissues which quickly vanish after death.
Therefore, due to the speculative nature of the interpretation of the
soft tissues, the reconstructed drawings or models totally depend on the
imagination of the person producing them. In fact, all such reconstructions
have been produced to convince observers that half-human, half-ape creatures
once lived in the past.
Inculcations in Media
One tactic that evolutionists frequently use is to present scientifically
worthless articles with large headlines claiming to offer proof
of evolution. These headlines, far from being scientific, can sometimes
be actually comical. Reading them, you can immediately see their
logical speciousness and fairytale-like quality. With this technique,
however, people who read only the headlines and not the articles
can get the impression that there is such a thing as evolution.
Examples in these pages show how, using illustrations of a few bone
fragments, conjectural illustrations, and sensationalistic headlines,
evolutionists try to give their articles credibility, even though
they contain no scientific reality.
A second method of visual effects is used to perpetuate
the Darwinist spell and mislead the public: colorful magazines and striking
page designs. At the start of this chapter, we mentioned the great importance
Darwinists give to appearances in order to portray a scientific aura.
People are very influenced by outer appearances and form their ideas on
that basis. Therefore, Darwinists make the most of technology and all
other means at their disposal to persuade the public.
Reconstruction of an imaginary half-human, half-ape. The article
above bears an interesting headline suggestive of evolution, but
contains nothing but a lot of strange nonsense.
From the point of view of content, these publications
are often filled with complete misinformation but do contain striking
layouts designed to mislead. Every detail has been considered in their
formation. For example, the general appearance, cover design, page layout,
colors used on the cover and the pages, the photographs and the style
of language are all prepared with qualities that the reader will find
attractive. The information and topics are presented in an attractive
package to awaken trust in the reader. Hiding behind this mask of striking
beauty, the spell will combine with the other elements to produce the
desired effect. The reader won't suspect that such a magazine or book
with its high-quality, authoritative appearance could propose a theory
with no scientific foundation. For this reason alone, he won't feel it
necessary to examine the truth of the theory of evolution for himself.
On examination, this eye-catching picture is meaningless. Its only
purpose is to attract people's attention with its visual effects
and to instill the suggestion of evolution.
Once again, however, we must point out that the rhetorical accounts of
evolutionists decorated with hundreds of fragments of bone labeled in
Latin, and volumes filled with photographs can be completely invalidated
by one plain and concise explanation. For example, a dense three-volume
book with a supposedly scientific appearance can be proven wrong by a
few paragraphs with true scientific value. In fact, as said before, all
the information and accounts presented as scientific proofs in every evolutionist
book are weak and insubstantial enough to be invalidated by a pamphlet
you could fit into your pocket.
Evolutionist Inculcations in Media
The media have exerted the greatest influence in getting the theory
of evolution, with no scientific foundation, to be viewed as scientific
reality. Various periodicals have kept the theory in the public
eye by publishing regular articles about it. Apart from the media,
we can see mass "selling" of evolution in scientific journals, encyclopedias
and even biology texts. Books and magazines are published with striking
covers, interesting page designs and color pictures, to attract
attention with their visual effects and instill the suggestion that
"evolution does exist."
Evolutionists often create
a spell with their visual presentations. Their illustrations of
primitive human beings, cavemen and human ancestors are all imaginary.
The sole purpose of the attractive page layouts and illustrations
is to publicize the idea of evolution.
Method # 12: They try to make the public believe that to be a real scientist,
one must accept the theory of evolution
In our time, certain circles
in the scientific world use Darwinism as a means of applying pressure.
Various methods are used to intimidate scientists who don't accept this
theory's validity. In order for a scientist to be accepted in certain
academic circles-most of which are evolutionist-he must support the theory
and even publish articles dealing with it. Those who do not are rejected
by other scientists-also evolutionists-in that academic environment. Especially
in the West, if a scientist wants to advance his career and become an
associate or full professor, he must publish his articles according to
a certain standard. As its most important element, this standard includes
the absolute acceptance of the theory of evolution and the rejection of
religion. In an article titled, "Scientists and Religion in America" published
in the September 1999 Scientific American, Rodney Stark, a sociologist
from Washington University, points out this pressure put on scientists,
"There's been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific
person you've got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion."
In research universities, "the religious people keep their mouths shut,"
Stark says, "And the irreligious people discriminate. There's a reward
system to being irreligious in the upper echelons."64
One of the most serious problems faced by these scientists subjected
to pressure occurs during the publication of their articles in scientific
periodicals. Most well-known journals are controlled by people under the
influence of the Darwinist spell, and they do not accept for publication
articles by pro-Creationist scientists, so they cannot circulate their
evidence against the theory of evolution.
Besides this, pro-Creationist scientists meet with many difficulties
in the universities where they teach. To become a professor or to wield
any influence in universities where the majority of the faculty is Darwinist,
an individual must accept the theory of evolution. Those who do not accept
this precondition are given no consideration or respect. Furthermore,
attempts are even made to intimidate and deride them.
This is one of the evolutionists' most effective methods of suggestion
used to perpetuate the Darwinist spell. For that reason, it will be useful
to examine it in a little more depth.
The Darwinists' Weapon of "Defamation"
Defamation is a morally evil attempt to harm another person and to humiliate
him before his peers. Those who practice it also hope to elevate themselves
to the forefront and receive the respect of others. For Darwinists who
seek to win respect for their theory and harm their pro-Creationist colleagues,
defamation is an indispensable tool. For this reason, it's the very basis
of the Darwinist spell.
Everything that is said and written in evolutionist circles, their facial
expressions and the way they look, is peppered with defamatory statements.
Knowing that they cannot succeed on a scientific platform, they treat
pro-Creationist scientists so as to destroy them psychologically. When
proofs for the fact of Creation are presented to them, they make their
puny statements twisting their mouths, eyes and eyebrows into scornful
expressions. In this way, they hope to cover up their deficiencies and
lack of knowledge. For example, one of the main proponents of the theory
of evolution today is Richard Dawkins, who also makes frequent use of
this disparaging style. In these words, he describes those who do not
It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody
who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid
As we can see from what he says, Dawkins closes his eyes to scientific
proofs presented to him by anyone else, adopting a prejudiced stance in
order not to break the Darwinist spell under which he labors, hoping to
instill this same prejudice in others.
In this area, another method evolutionists use is to listen to a presentation
on the facts of Creation and then, in an actively aggressive way, to assert
that those influenced by it are deficient in some manner. They believe
that these people are on the wrong path and they don't hesitate to call
them names and assault their sacred values.
Another method evolutionists use is to make snide comments about books
and articles critical of Darwinism. Instead of responding with scientific
evidence, they try to pass over the matter with a dismissive smile. Peter
Van Inwogen, professor of philosophy at Notre Dame University, in his
review of Michael J. Behe's famous book, Darwin's Black Box comments on
the prejudiced attitude of evolutionist scientists:
If Darwinians respond to this important book by ignoring
it, misrepresenting it, or ridiculing it, that will be evidence in favor
of the widespread suspicion that Darwinism today functions more as an
ideology than as a scientific theory.66
Thus, we realize that the reason why Darwinists react snidely to scientific
proofs is totally ideological. Evolutionists espouse it just in order
that they can reject religion and the fact of Creation. And as we have
said so far, still they use the Darwinist spell to perpetuate this rejection.
At the basis of this method is treating opposing ideas with disdain. Using
this behavior, they attempt to instill the suggestion that the way of
evolution is the only way, and that believing in Creation will make people
appear ridiculous. But Darwinists are making a great error and deceiving