Books that demolish the theory of evolution

Documentaries that demolish the theory of evolution

Websites about the collapse of the theory of evolution

Books on the fact of creation

Documentaries on the fact of creation

Articles on the fact of creation

The logic that nothing, but chance, is scientific is a flawed one. It is a logical dead-end. If brand-new civilizations were discovered in outer space, would the logic of Darwinism and chance be employed in all of them? Would it be claimed that chance established civilizations everywhere? The portrayal of this miserable logic as scientific is the shame and disgrace of the current century.

Vol I:
Acrobat (pdf)
MS Word (rtf)
Vol II:
Acrobat (pdf)
MS Word (rtf)
Vol III:
Acrobat (pdf)
MS Word (rtf)
Vol IV:
Acrobat (pdf)
MS Word (rtf)

34 / 2006-07-22

New Scientist magazine carried an article headed “Evolution in action by Darwin’s finches” in its 22 July, 2006, issue. The article concerned various observations made during the drought that affected the Galapagos Islands in 2003 and 2004 by the researchers Peter and Rosemary Grant, known for their studies of the island’s finches. The drought-related reduction in the seeds that represent the finches’ food resulted in changes in the size of the beaks of the finch species Geospiza fortis and Geospiza magnirostris.

G. magnirostris, which has a larger and heavier beak, assumed a more advantageous position compared to G. fortis since it was more successful at breaking the shells of large and hard seeds left over during the drought. G. fortis, on the other hand, was forced to eat smaller seeds during this period. Since these seeds were better suited to a more agile and smaller beak, G. fortis individuals with their small beaks obtained a more advantageous position compared to the others and there was a rise in their population levels. Rather than enter into competition with G. magnirostris over large and hard-shelled seeds, G. fortis turned towards seeds with other characteristics, and the population began to be increasingly made up of small-beaked individuals.

The following misleading comment on this state of affairs appeared in New Scientist:

This is the first time that an evolutionary change to evade competition has been observed from start to finish.

However, the claim that the observation in question is an “evolutionary change” is absolutely and scientifically invalid. The observed reduction in the beak size of finches is not based on the acquisition of any new genetic information in the finches’ DNA. To put it another way, there is no question of any biological novelty here. The situation is all to do with external factor-related fluctuations in features that already existed in the finch population. No new information was bestowed on the finch population, and no life form turned into another. There is no question of any acquisition of new genetic information; in other words, there is no question of evolution.

G. fortis individuals turn to eating smaller seeds rather than compete with G. magnirostris for thick-shelled seeds. Since having a small beak emerged as an advantage during this process, those G. fortis individuals whose beaks were not sufficiently small experienced more difficulty in finding food, and their numbers declined accordingly. As a result, there was a proportional increase in the number of individuals with small beaks in the G. fortis population.

Note that this process concerns only the elimination of already existing characteristics (in this case, beak size). Even if drought is regarded as a factor determining beak dimensions, it cannot explain how finches or a structure such as the beak appeared in the first place.

In addition, this factor did not cause the organisms to acquire any new genetic information.

This is not the kind of biologic change hypothesized by Darwin’s theory, because there is no question here of organisms gradually acquiring new characteristics and turning into other species. Such a result has never been obtained, not in this example and not in any of the countless experiments and observations conducted by evolutionary biologists. All scientific experiments and observations have revealed that biological change is limited to variations within a species and that there are genetic obstacles that separate species from one another.

For these reasons, New Scientist’s interpretation of “evolutionary change” is erroneous. We hope that the magazine’s management will see that fluctuations observed in the variations within a population constitute no evidence for Darwinism, and advise them to put an end to such groundless Darwinist propaganda.


The way that all of Europe has become acquainted with Atlas of Creation and the declaration of the fact that living creatures have remained unchanged for millions of years and that evolution is devoid of any scientific worth have led to a major change of belief among the people of Europe. Independent polls conducted by well-known publishing institutions in different European countries have revealed a major drop in the numbers of people believing in Darwinism and that belief in Allah now dominates Europe. >>

In order to create, God has no need to design

It's important that the word "design" be properly understood. That God has created a flawless design does not mean that He first made a plan and then followed it. God, the Lord of the Earth and the heavens, needs no "designs" in order to create. God is exalted above all such deficiencies. His planning and creation take place at the same instant.
Whenever God wills a thing to come about, it is enough for Him just to say, "Be!"
As verses of the Qur'an tell us:
His command when He desires a thing is just to say to it, "Be!" and it is. (Qur'an, 36: 82)
[God is] the Originator of the heavens and Earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, "Be!" and it is. (Qur'an, 2: 117)

Home | Books | Documentaries | Articles | Audio | Contact us | Subscribe

2007 Darwinism-Watch.com
Our materials may be copied, printed and distributed, by referring to this site.