3 - Evolution And Ideologies

                  "The law of nature must take its  
                  course in the survival of the fittest."  
                  - Heinrich Himmler, SS Chef  

                  "To Charles Darwin, from a true devotee of him"  
                  - From the introductory note of the second printing  
                  of Das Kapital which Karl Marx wanted to dedicate to Darwin"  

                  This is not an evil tendency in business.  
                  It is merely the working-out of a law of  nature  
                  and a law of God.  
                  - John D.Rockefeller  
                  The biggest capitalist in the American history 

Darwin’s theory helped Karl Marx immensely who was striving to bring an anti-religionist explanation to the whole universe. It was to such an extent that Marx wanted to dedicate his most important book Das Capital to Darwin. According to Engels, the biggest comrade of Marx, Origin of Species was a work almost as important as Das Capital. The importance given to evolution by the two founders of communism caused all the succeeding leftist actions to accept and defend this theory as an absolute reality. 
The information gathered in the previous sections has revealed the importance of the theory of evolution in terms of the war waged against religion in Europe and the entrenchment of the New Secular Order established in furtherance of this war. 

Yet the New Secular Order was not a whole in itself; it had its fractions and variations. Religion was now replaced by the "human reason" as the sole guide to truth. However human reason was a relative notion which consequently could diverge in different, even opposite ways. For this reason, various "systems of thought", in other words ideologies developed within the New Secular Order. 

In some aspects, these ideologies differed from each other to a great extent. For instance, socialism and liberalism seemed to be in symmetric antimony. Yet, these ideologies that were thought to be so incompatible with each other as to cause wars were, in one sense, absolutely the same. Since they were the "outputs" of the New Secular Order, they were strictly attached to its basic intellectual sources. 

As indicated at the beginning, one of the most important of these intellectual sources was the theory of evolution. All of the ideologies of the New Secular Order claimed to guide people to truth through "human reason" and God-revealed information had to be disregarded for the human reason to be esteemed. Therefore, people had to forget that a Creator existed and that they had to live according to the rules and purposes set by Him. They had to explain their existence in terms of "not being created". Albeit through forgery, evolution was the only alternative that could introduce some kind of an explanation for this cause. 

Therefore, theory of evolution was warmly welcomed by all ideologies of the New Secular Order. Moreover, these ideologies assumed an important responsibility of leading people to believe that they ought to defend the theory of evolution to sustain their cause. 

This is the main reason why the theory of evolution is still being preached today to the societies with great perseverance. Most of the contemporary societies are governed by ideologies produced and, therefore, based on the justification provided by the New Secular Order. 

Now, let’s analyze these ideologies respectively: 

Imperialism, Racism and "Taming of the Uncivilized Races" 

At the time Darwin’s Origin of Species was published, the "white-man" was rapidly going ahead with expanding its rule to other continents and civilizations. Together with the other European states, particularly England and France were doing their best to colonize a major part of South Asia, almost the whole of Africa, and some part of Latin America. Meanwhile, the "white man" was still carrying on the massacre of the Indians in North America. USA was expanding towards West by killing the natives of the lands it is located on. 

Briefly, in that era, mainly the second half of the 19th century, the world was suffering from the severest form of imperialism. The West was ransacking other civilizations using the technology it had attained. 

Yet the West felt the necessity to find an explanation to justify its deeds just like every villain does. They could freely kill the African or North American natives, drive them out of their home lands and confiscate their lands. All were being recorded in history and they very well knew that they would be referred to as burglars and even plunderers in history if they could not bring an explanation to justify all they have done. 

What kind of an explanation could be found to justify imperialism? 

Intrinsically this question had emerged at the beginning of the 16th century and brought its explanation along with it. This was actually the explanation introduced during the time Spain began to colonize America after its conquest by Christopher Columbus in 1492. It relied on a quite simple rationale: Natives were not actual human beings, but an advanced animal species. 

This assertion was first put forward by Christopher Columbus and his men and then defended by the Spanish "Conquistadors" (Conquerors) who undertook to colonize South America. However, Catholic Church had stood against these secular raiders who were only after new lands, gold and fame. This was primarily manifested in the defense of Bishop of Chiapas, Bartolome de Las Casas, announcing that the natives were "actual humans" in response to the assertions stating that "the natives were an animal species" which were put forward by the colonizers stepping on the new lands along with Columbus. For this reason, Las Casas had started to be referred to as the "apostle of the natives". Later in 1537, Pope Paul III had cursed the colonizer violence in his decree called Sublimis Deus and announced that Indians were actual human beings (veros homines) and despite the impudence of some who degraded them, they were human beings competent to be endowed by faith in God. 

However, the Church had lost all of its authority over "worldly affairs" with the establishment of the New Secular Order. For this reason, the Church could not firmly oppose to the 19th. century colonization and announce openly that the exploited people were also actual human beings (veros homines). It did not make much difference even if it did. Imperialism was determined to abuse the natives and regard them as an "animal species" to justify their deeds. 

At this point, Darwinism offered a big opportunity to the imperialists by providing a "scientific" basis to the assertion that the maligned natives were an "animal species". Darwin was claiming that man had evolved from ape-like ancestors. Moreover, as stated in the long introduction part of Origin of Species, there were some "races favored by nature" in the evolution process. This favored race was the "white-man". Indians, Africans and natives all around the world were constituting the uncivilized races within the evolution process. These were not even homo sapiens. The taming of these uncivilized races, misusing them as slaves and confiscating their lands were as legitimate as the taming and using of the apes or other animals by the homo sapiens. White man even claimed that by introducing the "advanced" culture to the "primitive" races, they were doing good to them by helping out to their evolution. 

This theory that developed as a consequence of the application of Darwinistic theory of evolution to societies was later called as Social Darwinism and became both the major argument of justification of Imperialism and the biggest keystone of racism. According to the Indian anthropologist Vidyarthi, "His (Darwin) theory of the survival of the fittest was warmly welcomed by the social scientists of the day, and they believed mankind had achieved various levels of evolution culminating in the white man’s civilization. By the second half of the nineteenth century racism was accepted as fact by the vast majority of western scientists." 

The biggest leader of Social Darwinism was Darwin himself. In his book, Descent of Man, he made many assumptions regarding "the obviousness of the inequality among human races".  He had clearly expressed his racist biases while defining the natives of Tierre del Fuego which he met during his long voyage in 1871. Darwin depicted the natives as humans "wholly nude, submerged in dyes, eating what they find just like wild animals, uncontrolled, cruel to everybody out of their tribe, taking pleasure in torturing their enemies, offering bloody sacrifices, killing their children, ill-treating their wives, full of awkward superstitions". However, W.P. Snow, who had been at the same region a decade ago described the same natives as "good-looking, strong, fond of their children, having inventive handicrafts, bearing the notion of private ownership for some goods and accepting the authority of the elder women in the community."  The reason why Darwin humiliated these people in such an exaggerated way was his desire to define them as a "race that had fallen astern in the evolution process" 

Because of the justification Darwin has endowed to imperialist racism, the famous Chinese scientist Hsu refers to Darwin as "a gentleman scientist of the Victorian Era, and an establishment member of a society that sent gunboats to forcibly import opium into China, all in the name of competition (in free trade) and survival of the fittest." 

Social Darwinism provided grounds to the imperialists and racists not only in England, but also in other countries. This is why it had expanded immediately. The president of USA, Theodore Roosevelt was one of the primary advocates of Darwinism. Roosevelt was the foremost defender and procurer of the ethnic catharsis operation practiced to the Indians under the term of "deportation". In his four volume work entitled The Winning of The West, he had set the ideology of the massacre straight, and maintained that a "racial war" had to finish with the Indians was inevitable.  His greatest support was Darwinism which gave him the opportunity to define natives as a "primitive species". Unsurprisingly, in that period, all the agreements made with Indians were violated as was foreseen by Roosevelt and a so-called legitimate basis was provided by the "primitive species" fallacy of Darwin. In 1871, the Congress pushed aside all the agreements made with Indians and decided to drive them away to the dead lands where they would wait for death. Since the other side was not considered to be "human beings", how worthy an agreement made with them could be… 

Theodore Roosevelt, maintained that a racial war to the finish with the Indians was inevitable and represented the culminating achievement of the spread of the English-speaking peoples over the world.  One of the leading advocates of Anglo-Saxon racism, the American Protestant bishop Josiah Strong was making use of the same convictions. He once wrote: 

Then will the world enter upon a new stage of its history - the final competiton of races for which the Anglo-Saxon is being schooled. If I do not read amiss, this powerful race will move down upon Mexico, down upon Central and South America, out upon the islands of the sea, over upon Africa and beyond. And can anyone doubt that the result of this competition will be "survival of the fittest"? 
Antagonists of the blacks came first among the racists who sought to justify their cause through Social Darwinism. Racist theories that graded races and ranked the "white race" above all others while presenting the black race to be the most "primitive", embraced the theory of evolution with great zeal.  One of the leading evolutionist-racist theoreticians, Henry Fairfield Osborn wrote in his article headlined "The Evolution of the Human Races" that average IQ level of a black man could only be equal to eleven years old Homo sapiens.   According to this outlook, the Negroes were not even considered as Homo sapiens, that is modern men. Being one of the latter defenders of this view, Carletoun Coon asserted in his book titled "Origin of Species" published in 1962 that the black race and the white race were two distinct "species" set apart from each other in the Homo erectus age. According to Daniel Gasman, after this distinction, the white race went fore-ahead.  The defenders of the segregation carried out against the Negroes in U.S.A made the most of this "scientific" argument bestowed to them by the theory of evolution until recently. 

Another country where Social Darwinism flourished was Germany. Here, the famous biologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) had the biggest part in the development of racism based on Darwinism who also had led the way for the discovery of the fossil of Java man. Being quite impressed by Darwin’s studies, Haeckel made an unpretentious contribution to Darwinism by advancing the theory summarized as Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny which suggested that the embryos of mammals reflected the evolution process. (As we had mentioned at the beginning of the book, the falsehood of this theory was realized definitely years later and moreover, it was revealed that Haeckel made forgery on the sketches he made.) 

However, Haeckel, who could be considered as the "Representative of Darwinism in Germany" was extremely influential. Haeckel established a society under the name of "Monist League". Monism was a different version of atheist materialism. The mode Haeckel produced gave way to the same effect: the reinforcement of racism. According to Daniel Gasman "He became one of Germany's major ideologists for racism, nationalism and imperialism". Having arisen in the 20th. century on the heritage of evolutionists like Haeckel, two racists regimes, that is, fascism and one of its versions, Nationalist Socialism took Darwinistic thought as reference to themselves. 

Fascism And "The Life Struggle Among Nations" 

Imperialist racism paved the ground for fascist racism by presenting the human races as "species" at various stages of the evolution process. Then adding the notions of "life struggle among species" and "selection of the weak" upon this racist basis, fascism tried to justify the wars, occupations, and massacres. 
Being the greatest source of inspiration for fascism, Nietzche had taken up the theory of evolution personally and interpreted the "superior-man" he formulated as the highest stage of evolution. He defined war as the motivating force of development setting out from the notion of life struggle in evolution. These ideas were to be the starting point for all fascists following Nietzsche.
This Social Darwinistic Fascist interpretation which had great impact on the development of German racism and Nazism took the first important steps with Friedrich Nietzsche’s appropriation of Darwin. Nietzsche regarded most people as miserables carrying the "soul of a slave" and considered only a few among them to be "superior humans". The same distinction was also true for the races; most of the races were miserables, only one of them was a "superior-race". He also believed that a permanent state of war and struggle was necessary for these superior qualities to emanate. He had adopted the concept of "life struggle" to history and placed these wars, the concept of "purification of race", and the thought of "cleansing" of the lower races on a "scientific" basis. 

After Nietzsche, perceiving war not as an essential wickedness but as a good providing the development of races and nations became one of the basic beliefs of every kind of racism and nationalism. A.Senel, in his book Race and the Thought of Racism (Irk ve Irkçilik Düsüncesi) writes the following on this point: "The social Darwinists gave priority to ‘life struggle and selection’ in the relations between people and societies. Like Nietzsche, they sublimated war which they regarded as the expression of life struggle in international relations. They viewed war as a way of creating superior nations and superior races." 

It was made possible by Darwinism to shift from the Christian thought viewing people coming from the same ancestors as brothers and approving the war only when there is no other way to forestall wickedness, to fascism perceiving war as a value on its own. Indeed, when looked at the theoreticians of the fascist ideology, it can be observed that all had made attributes to Darwinism. 

One of those was the German historian Heinrich von Treitschke who was one of the most important leading theoreticians of the Nazi ideology. Saying that "the nations could prosper only by conducting a severe rivalry with each other similar to Darwin’s life struggle", Treitschke put forward that this necessitated a permanent state of war. While sublimating war, he was careful enough to arrange for a hierarchy of races. Treitschke explained the evolutionary scheme he drew as follows: "Yellow nations are deprived of art faculties and an understanding of political freedom. The black races are destined to serve to the white men and be subject to the disgust of the white men until the end… (because) no culture can exist without servants". 

This ideological substructure offered great inspiration to Hitler. On top of the most important sources supporting Hitler’s theories on "the superiority of Aryan race" was again coming Darwin’s theory. The Nazi leader believed that "the superiority of the Aryan race" was ordained by "nature". In his famous book My Battle he wrote: "...The noblest of all human stocks was the Nordic race… History would culminate in a new millennial empire of unparalleled splendor, based on a new racial hierarchy ordained by nature itself." Moreover, according to an interpretation, he was inspired from the Darwinistic idea of "life struggle" imposed on him by Haeckel while choosing the name "My Battle" for his book. 

Evolution was one of the most important elements of Hitler’s struggle against Christianity. Daniel Gasman states as follows in his book The Scientific Origins of National Socialism

Hitler stressed and singled out the idea of biological evolution as the most forceful weapon against traditional religion and he repeatedly condemned Christianity for its opposition to the teaching of evolution… For Hitler, evolution was the hallmark of modern science and culture, and he defended its velocity as tenaciously as Haeckel.
While saying "…Take away the Nordic Germans and nothing remains but the dance of apes…", Hitler depended upon the Darwinistic ideas which concluded that the man had evolved from apes and some still could be maintaining this "ape" status. 

Except Hitler, oral and verbal expressions of a number of Nazi elite from Heinrich Himmler to Joseph Mengele, made attributions to the principle that "the strong survived and the weak died". Having been developed setting out from this natural selection principle, the concept of "eugenie" depended upon the principle of the selection of the weak and defected from the race. For this purpose, the Nazis established "reproduction farms" with healthy-young men and women who have all the characteristics of the Aryan race. On the other hand, with a law passed in 1933, they castrated 350 thousand mental patients, 30 thousand gypsies and hundreds of black children. A nazi officer told that national socialism was no different than applied-biology. 

Benito Mussolino also took the Darwinistic concepts as reference for the imperialist Italy he was trying to establish. He particularly tried to rationalize Ethiopia occupation within the principle of hierarchy among races. According to Mussolini, the Ethiopians were inferior people because they were from the black race and they should be proud of being governed by such a superior race like Italians. In public utterances Mussolini repeatedly used the Darwinian catchwords. For him, the reluctance of England to engage in war only proved the evolutionary decadence of the British Empire. 

By the end of World War II, the right wing representatives of Social Darwinism also disappeared in history. However the racist interpretation of Darwinism still survived often under the name of nationalism. The nationalist ideas which still have great popularity worldwide, again inevitably depend on Darwin’s theory. Many people who are already taken by this ideology may not be aware of this; but the vanguards of the ideology are well aware of this and they continuously try to keep the concept of "life struggle" upright-even if they do not mention Darwin’s name. 

 . . .

Marxism And "The Basis Of Class Struggle 

In Respect Of Natural Sciences" 

Further than imperialism, racism and fascism, Marxism was definitely the ideology which was based on the theory of evolution in the most evident and open manner. 

Karl Marx’s family was originally Jewish but they had accepted Protestantism during Marx's childhood and educated him as a Christian. However young Marx’s ideas changed rapidly in the German schools where atheism was prevailing. He abandoned his religious beliefs in a short while and moreover, he became an ardent adversary of religion. In his teens he used to say "my purpose is to dethrone God". He also had a wayfarer which he thought was symbolic for this purpose: dating from that period, his youthful poems in adoration of "Oulanem"- a ritualistic name for Satan. 

Marx adopted the dialectic developed by Hegel, who had profound supremacy on German thought in that period, to materialism and founded dialectical materialism, or scientific socialism by other means. He devoted his whole life to develop this scientific nationalism with the intellectual and financial support he received from his best friend Engels. He left behind a sophisticated ideology which explained, or better to say, supposed that it did, the history of all humanity. 

Marx based the development of history on economy. The society was undergoing various stages in history and the factor assigning these stages was the change in the production means and relations. Economy was determining the rest. Within this ideology, religion was defined as a tale invented in the name of economic interests. In this vein, religion was developed by the dominant classes to be able to pacify the classes they suppressed and it was the "opium of people". 

Marx also thought that historical societies succeeded each other within a developmental process. Slavery society had transformed into the feudal society, feudal society to the capitalist society. Finally, a socialist society would be instituted by means of a revolution and this would be the highest stage of evolution attained. Briefly, Marx’s views were evolutionist even before Darwin published the Origin of Species

However Marx and Engels were having difficulty in explaining only the question of how the living things had come into existence. Because unless there was a theory explaining the existence of the living things on the basis of  "not being created", it would be impossible to claim that religion was a fabricated opium and to base the entire history upon matter. 

The explanation Marx awaited came from Darwin. Marx understood the significance of Origin of Species when he first took the book in his hands. In the letter he wrote to Engels on 19th of December, 1860, for Darwin's book, he said "this is the book which includes the natural historical basis of our views". In the letter he wrote to Lasalle on 16th of  January, 1861, he said: "Darwin’s book is a great work. It provides the basis for class struggle in respect of natural sciences."  Marx showed his sympathy to Darwin by dedicating his great work Das Capital to him. He wrote as follows in his  handwriting in the German edition of the book: "To Charles Darwin, from a true devotee of him, Karl Marx." 

The big comrade of Marx, Engels stated his admiration of Darwin as follows: "Nature operates not metaphysically, but dialectically. Darwin’s name should be remembered in the first place in relation to this." Engels admired Darwin as to equalize him with Marx and said, "Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in humanity." 

The theory of evolution, exalted so much by the two founders of Communism, was naturally accepted fervently by their followers. Every communist regime or movement wherever in the world supported Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism till the end and assumed it as one of the corner stones of its own intellectual structure. 

Undoubtedly, one of  the most famous and absolutely the most bloody comrades was Joseph Stalin. Stalin had attended a Christian school in his childhood during Czar’s reign. He was a faithful Christian in his school years. Yet, one day he read a book and his whole life changed. The book was the Origin of the Species. After adopting atheism, he enlisted to the communist party in a short time. During his power costing to the life of nearly 60 million people, he paid a special attention to the propaganda of evolution. It was written as follows in his autobiography: "There are three things that we do to disabuse the minds of our seminary students of the myth that the world was created in six days.  We had to teach them the age of the earth, the geologic origin, and Darwin’s teachings." 

Being a shallow version of Marxism and aiming to establish the socialist order not by revolution but by democracy, Social Democracy is also based on Darwinism. The distinction between Communists and Social Democrats depends on the different interpretation of dialectics and theory of evolution in  theoretical terms. In the divorce years, the communists claimed that thesis and anti-thesis would cause a synthesis by conflicting while Social Democrats affirmed that synthesis might be attained by reaching consensus through thesis and antithesis. The evolution interpretations of two parties were quite different. Communists were referring to the ‘mutation’ concept in evolution and corresponded the revolution to it. Social Darwinists, on the other hand, defended that the evolution process would develop by stages without these kind of "leaps", and therefore socialism would be attained by stages without any need for revolutions. 

Consequently, considering all these, it is possible to draw such a conclusion; the theory of evolution plays a relentless role in the philosophical basis of all kinds of socialist movements. Therefore, every leftist movement or regime is bound to accept evolution and make the society accept it as well in order to provide intellectual support and justification for itself. 

This situation negotiates the leftists with the rightists which they claim to be their antagonists. Because evolution provides a strong basis for racism and fascism as well as for socialism. Although these ideologies may conflict with each other on certain issues, they are reach to a certain consensus when evolution is at hand. Because both of them are by-products of the New Secular Order whose biological basis is provided by evolution. 

Moreover, by-products of the new secular order are not limited with left or extreme right. There is also the ‘center’. 

Capitalism, Globalism and "The Market Where Only the Strongest Win" 

The two ideologies we have mentioned so far, that is, fascism and Marxism were actually by-products of the New Secular Order. Yet, the main ideological course of the New Secular Order has always been political and economic liberalism. The other two, that is, fascism and Marxism were only born and developed out of a reaction to this main course. Today they have already fulfilled their mission. Even though they continue to exist in the New Secular Order and take their shares from the "pie" of the order, the sovereignty of political and economic liberalism, in other words capitalism and its political order have been firmly affirmed. 

This sovereignty was introduced by Francis Fukuyama only a few years ago as a ‘global victory’ and was even interpreted as ‘the end of history’. Today, Fukuyama’s thesis is regarded to be slightly farfetched, yet it is evident that capitalism has become a common identity for different civilizations in the current world system by excelling its  rivals. Likewise, it is surrounding the world by utmost speed through the period of ‘globalization’. 

The most important component of this global "conquest" of Capitalism is the "capitalist mentality" rather than corporations, landmarks, hamburgers or computers. The most important constituent of the capitalist mentality is individualism. The anticipated global victory of capitalism primarily required that people should deem themselves not as part of a community or society, but as individuals standing on their own and earning their own lives. 

And capitalism needs Darwinism to justify and maintain individualism. 

Malachi Martin, one of the historians of the University of Vatican, divides the elite that have devoted themselves to the global victory of capitalism into two: Internationalists  and transnationalists. Internationalists are the political bureaucrats whose activities center around the development of commercial relations between  the nations or between blocks of nations. Transnationalists are strong businessmen trying to spread the power of their corporations to all of the other nations. According to Martin, the motto of the transnationalists was set out most clearly by Montagu Norman who served as Governor of Bank of England from 1920 to 1924: "The hegemony of world finance", declared Norman, "should reign supreme over everyone, everywhere, as one whole supernational mechanism."(30) This principle was expressed in a more frank and direct way by Meyer Amschel Rothschild, the founder of the Jewish finance dynasty, Rotschilds; "Give me the power to control a nation’s money, and I care not who writes his laws." 

Martin stresses by examples that there is a very slight distinction between the internationalists and the transnationalists. Many internationalist bureaucrats emerge as a transnationalist  on the top of a company or the other way round becomes to be the case. Those who are at the top of American state mechanisms; CIA chiefs, ministries of foreign affairs, National Security Advisors are in the executive committee of the corporations operating for the global victory of capitalism either before or after their current posts. 

And Martin demonstrates the common point of those two groups working for the global victory of capitalism: they are both "socio-political Darwinists". Martin explains what this means as follows: 

"Both of these globalist groups operate on the same fundamental assumptions about the meaning of human society today. Both agree on the face of it that the most important single trait that pervades the life of all nations is interdependence. And both agree that interdependence is a progressive function of evolutionary progress. Evolutionary, as in Darwin."
In other words, these two groups working for the global victory of capitalism transfer the concepts of development and progress to the sociopolitical world and affirm that corporations and nations are in such a period of progression. The way leading to progression is Darwin's progression theory advanced for the biological world; a world in which the strong win and the weak disappear. 

According to this rationale constituting the foundation of capitalism, each ‘individual’ - be it a human being or a company or a nation- should only fight for its own development. Everyone should produce the best possible and fully compete with the others. Thus competent manufacturers survive while the weak and the insufficient disappear. Hence the most "productive" production model and therefore the most productive world will be formed. This is called capitalism if practiced within a country, and global capitalism if practiced between countries by the elimination of the customs borders. The duration leading to this consequence is globalism. 

John D. Rockefeller was America's biggest capitalist ever. At the same time, he was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the theory of evolution. Following him, many capitalists went on to support the theory of evolution. Most of the "scientific" researches conducted for the purpose of proving evolution were financed by these big capitalists. Because these people were well aware that the capitalist world system governed by themselves could only find a "scientific" justification thanks to evolution. The ruthless notion of competition which constituted the foundation of capitalism was reinforced by the theory of the "survival of the fittest". 
Of  course, the capitalist mentality adapting the concept of "struggle to live" asserted by Darwin to be existent in nature feels no ethical responsibility for the "disappearance of the weak". It even rejects all kinds of communal assistance and justice like helping the weak or taking care of the poor. According to Tille, the most famous of those who expressed the Darwinist-capitalist thought, to help out the "defeated classes" and inhibiting poverty is a great fault as it means to stop the natural selection law which provides for the evolution. 

According to the American professor E.A. Ross, the famous theoretician of social Darwinism,  "the christian cult of charity as a means of grace has formed a shelter under which idiots and cretins have crept and bred. The state gathers the deaf mutes into its sheltering arm, and a race of deaf mutes is in process of for motion". According to Ross who opposes all these because they prevent the natural evolutional development, "the shortest way to make this world a heaven is to let those so inclined hurry hell-ward at their own pace." 

The most dramatic of all is that these ideas are not misinterpretations of Darwinism but Darwinism itself. As it is stressed in the book of  Benjamin Franklin named as What Darwin Really Said, "the argument legalizing the weak being eliminated by th strong in human society". 

This is why Darwinism lays the philosophical foundation of all the capitalist economic systems and political regimes shaped by them. The capitalist ethic which maintains the inequalities between people and even provide to enlarge them for the benefit of the strong, structures its biological basis on Darwinism. It is very natural to support Darwinism for those who want to use the fortune they have made to satisfy  their own greed, ignore the poor, and justify all they have done. 

It is very noteworthy that those who give the greatest verbal and financial aid to Darwinism in U.S.A. are capitalist dynasties like Rockefeller  and Carnegie. The foundations established by these two dynasties, the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Institution, have given very large sum of financial support for researches on evolution. Michael A.Cremo and Richard L.Thompson recount in their books The Hidden History of Human Race  that the Carnegie Institution intents the victory of scientific cosmological vision which claims to replace old religious cosmologies.  Rockefeller Foundation also gives support to materialist cosmology and serves to the mission of developing modern civilizations which tries to imprison the concepts of God and soul into the world of mitology. 

It is not quite difficult to understand the reason: since capitalism is based on a philosophy esteeming merely the matter and assuming the human being to be "the creator of his own fate", it can not maintain its existence in a community accepting the ethics of the Providential religions. The most "scientific" way to combat with this sense of ethics is to support the theory of evolution. In our age in which capitalism has acquired a global sovereignty, the theory of evolution is an important part of the ‘global official ideology’ because of that reason. Global lies again need global lies to be able to maintain their existence. 

Progress and Progressivism 

When we closely look at the expressions of those who want to exclude or remove religion from the social life, we can read between the lines a basic thought expressed by different sentences. 

These barren statements starting with such clichés as "We have reached the 2000s, we are in the age of computers and Internet, men have stepped on the moon..." and continuing with such suggestions as "we must be modern, harmonize with the age,  not be left behind the times...", always lead to the same conclusion. Since we live in a very "advanced" age, we should not pay very much attention to the "rules and principals foreordained hundreds of years ago", or else, we should at least revise them according to the so-called "advanced" age we live in. 

Briefly, this common thought basically relies on the supposition that religious sources (that is, divine inspiration) are outdated and cannot explain the "advanced" age we are in. 

At the heart of this mentality lies the supposition that people living in our age are intellectually more developed and modern than those that have lived hundreds or thousands of years ago. This mentality leads to the conclusion that the society addressed by the revered books - Old Testament, New Testament and the Kor'an - on which the Providential religions are based are intellectually backward, that is, less smart than the modern man. This thought implies two arguments, one more moderate than the other. 

The first and the more radical one belongs to those who straightforwardly repudiate the holy books to be divine revelations. These allege that the holy books are directly written by the prophets to whom they are revealed and that they do not have any divine roots. In this case the thought of ‘advanced age-inferior age’ becomes very serviceable for them by which they can claim that the prophets were "backwards" than the modern man just like the other members of the "unenlightened" society they lived in. Therefore they claim that those books can in no way address the "advanced society" of the modern age as they are products of the age they are produced in. 

The second and seemingly the more moderate - yet more contradicting - argument,  belong to those who do not honestly confess their hesitations about the holy books. These accept that the Koran, New Testament or the Old Testament are divine revelations, yet think that they appeal only to those they are revealed to because they also believe in the concept of "progression" we have described above. Hence they assume that the modern societies which are mentally more progressed than the old societies have "surpassed and left behind" the contents of the divine books. 

As a result of all these, a standardized terminology has developed; Those who wish to comply with the holy books completely and thoroughly are defined as "conservative". Those who reject these books or consider them as "outdated" are called "progressivists". For those who employ the terminology, to be "conservative" is the biggest vice whereas being "progressivist" is the biggest virtue. 

All of these "progressivist literature" relies on the fallacy of "evolution of the human mind" which was advanced by Darwin and then attempted to be proven by numerous evolutionists after him, but has always turned out to be a fiasco. 

The main preconception of this fallacy is that the human mind is a product of the tools he uses. Just as it is the human mind which creates the tool, it is as well the tool which creates the mind! According to this, "primitive man" has started to use the first tool made up of stone (for example a stone with a sharp edge), then faced difficulties while using it and  these difficulties forced him to use his mind and consequently his mind has improved. It is accepted that each tool started to be used by man helps to improve his mind further. 

Today those who speak of "progressivism" and utter stereo-typed statements such as "why should we be bound by the rules of fourteen centuries ago at the computer age" actually rely on the assertion of "the evolution of the human mind through tools". While speaking of the "computer age", they actually mean that the sophisticated instrument of computer and the stages that led to it have refined the man's mind.  Hence, the modern man using computer or other sophisticated devices is considered to be smarter than the man of the old ages - therefore surely than the prophets and his followers - who did not use such devices. 

Due to of the master-card of "progressivism", evolutionists starting from Darwin worked hard to prove the theory of "mental evolution through tools". As noted above, each time and always they ended up with a fiasco. The main method they employed to prove this so-called mental evolution, was the correlation of the intelligence of the person and the volume of his skull. As the skull volume of the monkeys were much smaller than the humans, it could be asserted that the tools used by man had forced him to improve his mental capacity and thus his skull volume  was enlarged. This is what has inspired the skull development charts stretching from the ordinary monkeys to ordinary man and seeking to fill up the big gap between them with various forgeries and distortions. We had examined in depth the inside story of those in the first part of the book. 

One of the most radical defenders of the evolution of man’s mind through tools was the French evolutionist anthropologist Paul Broca. Holding the belief that "primitive tribes had smaller brain volumes due to their intellectual backwardness", Broca claimed that European civilizations had attained greater brain volumes because of the "advanced civilization" they have developed. He dated the turning point of this "advanced European civilization" back to the 12th century. He began to dig the cemeteries in Paris to find how much "the brain volume of the Europeans have increased" between the 12th and the 19th centuries. He assumed that the average volume of the skulls of the corpses buried in the 12th century would be significantly less than those buried in the 19th century. However, despite all his efforts, he ended up with a complete failure; The average 1426 cc. of the 12th century decreased to 1409 cc. in the 18th century and increased to 1462 in the 19th century. Yet a simple calculation showed that the varying averages were a result of natural statistical differences. 

Briefly, the theory that the tools used developed the human mind and therefore technically advanced civilizations had also intellectually advanced minds was never proven to be true. 

SOURCE: http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution_introduction.php (Note: I do not endorse the Muslim religion, but the information published here is very truthful concerning the evils of evolution. —David J. Stewart)

Previous | Contents | Next