include_once("common_lab_header.php");
Excerpt for The Disasters Darwinism Brought to Humanity by , available in its entirety at Smashwords

The Disasters Darwinism Brought to Humanity

Harun Yahya



{C} All rights reserved

All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be

Reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the

prior written consent of the publisher.

Title: The Disasters Darwinism Brought To Humanity

Author: Harun Yahya

Translated by: Carl Rossini

Copyright: All rights reserved

Printed: 2001

Printing supervised by: M.R.Attique

Printed at : Toronto – Canada

First Published by Vural Yayıncılık, İstanbul, Turkey in October 2000

{C} Al-Attique Publishers Inc. Canada 2001

ISBN 1-894264-44-4

Published by: Al-Attique Publishers Inc.Canada

65-Treverton Drive Tel: (416) 615-1222

Scarborough Ont. Fax: (416) 615-0375

M1K 3S5 CANADA

E-mail: quran@istar.ca Website: www.al-attique.com

E-mail: al-attique@al-attique.com

Contents

Introduction: The Bringers of Pain to the 20th Century

Part 1: A Short History of Darwinism

Part 2: Darwin’s Racism and Colonialism

Part 3: The Terrible Alliance Between Darwin and Fascism

Part 4: Darwinism, the Source of Communist Savagery

Part 5: Capitalism and the Fight for Survival in the Economy

Part 6: The Moral Collapse Brought about by Darwinism

Conclusion: The Swamp of Darwinism must be Drained

Appendix: The Misconception of Evolution

Notes

Introduction: The Bringers of Pain to the 20th Century

The 20th century, which we have just left behind us, was a century of war and conflict, leading to disasters, pain, massacres, poverty, and enormous destruction. Millions of people were killed, massacred, abandoned to hunger and death, and left without home or shelter, protection, or support. And all for nothing: in the name of serving deviant ideologies. Millions were left exposed to inhuman treatment that not even animals should be allowed to suffer. On nearly every occasion there were despots' and dictators' signatures beneath all the suffering and disasters: Stalin, Lenin, T rotsky, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco… While some of these men shared the same ideology, others were enemies to the death. For the simple reason that their ideologies were opposed to each other, they dragged societies into conflict and turned brother against brother, having them start wars, throw bombs, burn and destroy cars, homes, and shops, and hold riotous demonstrations. Putting weapons in their hands, they had them pitilessly beat the young, the old, men, women, and children to death or stand them against a wall and shoot them… They were ruthless enough to hold a gun to a person's head and, looking into his eyes, kill him, and crush his head with their feet, just because he supported another idea. They ejected people from their homes, whether women, children, or the elderly…

That is a short resume of the nightmares of the 20th century that we have just emerged from: people who supported conflicting ideas and who drowned mankind in pain and blood in the name of supporting these ideologies.

Fascism and Communism come at the head of the ideologies that caused mankind to suffer those dark days. These are seen as enemies, as ideas that tried to destroy each other. In actual fact, there is a most interesting truth here: for these ideologies were nourished by a single ideological source, drew strength and support from that source, and, thanks to that source, were able to draw societies to their side. At first sight, this source has never drawn any attention, has always remained behind the scenes up until now, and has always shown people its innocent-looking face. That source is the materialist philosophy, and DARWINISM, the state of that philosophy as adapted to nature.

Darwinism emerged in the 19th century as the restating of a myth, dating back to the Sumerians and Ancient Greece, by the amateur biologist Charles Darwin, and has since then formed the fundamental idea behind all the ideologies that have been harmful to mankind. Wearing a so-called scientific mask, it allowed these ideologies and their supporters' practical measures to win a false legitimacy.

By means of this false legitimacy the theory of evolution soon left the fields of knowledge of biology and palaeontology and began to comment on fields from human relations to history, and to influence fields from politics to social life. Because some particular claims of Darwinism supported several currents of thought which began to come into motion and take shape in the 19th century, it gained wide support from these circles. In particular, people began trying to apply the idea that there is a "fight for survival" among living creatures in nature, and as a result, the idea that "the strong survive, the others are defeated and disappear" began to be applied to human thought and behaviour. When Darwinism's claim that nature was a place of struggle and conflict began to be applied to human beings and societies, Hitler's deviation of building a master race, Marx's claim that "the history of mankind is the history of class struggle," capitalism's provision for the "strong growing even stronger at the expense of the weak," the colonisation of third world countries by such imperialist nations as Britain and their suffering inhuman treatment, together with the fact that coloured people still face racist attacks and discrimination, all found some kind of justification.

Despite his being an evolutionist, Robert Wright, the author of the book The Moral Animal summarises the disasters that the theory of evolution has brought to the history of mankind in this way:

Evolutionary theory, after all, has a long and largely sordid history of application to human affairs. After being mingled with political philosophy around the turn of the century to form the vague ideology known as "social Darwinism," it played into the hands of racists, fascists, and the most heartless sort of capitalists.1

As will be seen in this book and from the evidence it contains, Darwinism is not just a theory which attempts to explain the origin of life and which is restricted to the field of scientific knowledge. Darwinism is a dogma still stubbornly defended by the supporters of certain ideologies, despite the fact that it has been proven totally invalid from the scientific point of view. In our day many scientists, politicians and men of ideas, whether aware or not of Darwinism's dark face, lend their support to this dogma.

If everyone comes to know the scientific invalidity of this theory, which acts as an inspiration for cruel dictators, and ruthless, inhuman, and self-centred mentalities and currents of thought, that will spell the end of these harmful ideologies. Those who do and systematise evil will be unable to defend themselves by saying, "But this is a law of nature." They will have no more so-called scientific backing for their self-centred, selfish, and pitiless world view.

Once the idea of Darwinism, the root of harmful ideologies, is finally overturned, only one truth will remain. That is the truth that all human beings and the universe itself were created by Allah (God). People who understand this will also realise that the only reality and the only truth are in the holy book He sent down to us. When a large majority of people come to realise this truth, the pains, troubles, massacres, disasters, injustices, and poverty in the world will be replaced by enlightenment, openness, wealth, plenty, health and abundance. For this, every false idea harmful to humanity must be conquered and left to rot by the holy idea which will bring beauty to mankind. To reply to stones by throwing others, to answer blows with blows, to answer the aggressor with more aggression is not a solution. The solution is to bring down the ideas of those who do these things and to explain, patiently and kindly, the one truth with which they must replace them.

The aim in writing this book is to show those who defend Darwinism without seeing its dark face, knowingly or unknowingly, what it is they are actually supporting, and to explain what their responsibility will be as long as they pretend not to see the truth of it. Another aim is to warn those who do not believe in Darwinism, but who also do not see Darwinism as a threat to humanity.

Part 1: A Short History of Darwinism

Before we turn to the pain and disaste rs that Darwinism has brought to the world, let us take a brief look at its history. Many people believe the theory of evolution, first put forward by Charles Darwin, to be a theory based on firm scientific evidence, observation and experiment. Whereas, as the originator of the theory of evolution is not Darwin, so the source of the theory is not scientific proof.

At one period in Mesopotamia, when idol-worshipping religions had hegemony, superstitions and myths regarding the roots of life and the universe abounded: one of these was the belief "evolution." According to the Enuma-Elish epic, which dates back to the Sumerians, there was a raging flood, and from this the gods called Lahmu and Lahamu suddenly emerged. According to the superstition, these idols first created themselves and then, becoming universal, formed other matter and living creatures. In other words, according to Sumerian myth, life suddenly came into being from the non-living watery chaos, evolved and developed.

We can see that this belief shows a close accordance with the theory of evolution's claim that "living things developed and evolved from non-living things." From this we can see that the idea of evolution does not belong to Darwin, but originally to Sumerian idol-worshippers.

Later, the myth of evolution found more space to live in another idol-worshipping civilisation, Ancient Greece. Ancient Greek materialist philosophers counted matter as the only thing which existed. They turned to the myth of evolution, an inheritance from the Sumerians, to explain how living things came about. In this way, materialist philosophy and the myth of evolution came together in Ancient Greece. From there it was carried to the culture of Rome.

These two concepts, each a myth belonging to idol-worshipping cultures, reappeared in the 18th century. Some European thinkers who studied ancient Greek sources took a liking to materialism. The common feature of these thinkers was that they were opponents of religion.

In this environment the first person to take the theory of evolution on in a detailed way was the French biologist Jean Baptiste Lamarck. In his theory, which would later be understood to be false, Lamarck proposed that all living creatures evolved from one another by small changes throughout their lives. One person who repeated Lamarck's claims, in a slightly different way, was Charles Darwin.

Darwin put forward this theory in his book The Origin of Species, which he published in England in 1859. In this book, the myth of evolution, which had come down from ancient Sumer, was put forward in some detail. He claimed that all species of living creatures came from one ancestor, born by chance in the water, and that they had grown different from one another by small changes which came about by coincidence.

This claim of Darwin's did not win much general acceptance from the men of science of his time. Fossil experts in particular were aware that Darwin's claim was nothing but the product of a fantasy. But despite this Darwin's theory began to win more support from different circles as time passed. Because Darwin and his theory provided the missing foundation for the forces ruling in the 19th century.

The Reason for the Acceptance of Darwinism is Ideological

In the period when Darwin published his book The Origin of Species and put forward his theory of evolution, science was very backward. For example, the cell, which is today known to possess a most complex system, was only visible as a blot through the primitive microscopes in use at the time. For this reason Darwin saw no problem in claiming that life came about by chance from non-living material.

In the same way, the insufficiency of the fossil record at that time made it possible for it to be claimed that living creatures had come about from each other by minute changes. Whereas today, it is certain that the fossil record, as we explained a short while above, offers not one piece of evidence to support Darwin's claim that living creatures had come about by developing from one another. Up until recently, evolutionists used to try to get over the dilemma facing them by saying, "It will be found one day in the future." But they are now in the position of being unable to hide behind this explanation. (For detailed information see Chapter "The Misconception of Evolution")

Whatever the case, there was no change in the Darwinists' attachment to the theory of evolution. Supporters of Darwin have come down to our day by handing their faithfulness to Darwin on to one another like an inheritance for the last 150 years.

All right, what is the reason for Darwinism, despite the fact that its scientific invalidity is now openly apparent, appealing to certain circles, and for heavy propaganda being made regarding it?

The most defining feature of Darwin's theory is its denial of the existence of a Creator. According to the theory of evolution, life formed itself, by coincidence, from innate matter. This claim of Darwin provided a false scientific support for all atheist philosophies, beginning with materialist philosophy. Because up until the 19th century the great majority of men of science looked at science as a method of learning and discovering what God had created. Because this belief was widespread, atheist and materialist philosophies were unable to find suitable ground in which to develop. But by denying the existence of a Creator and forming an illusory support for atheist and materialist belief, the theory of evolution was a wonderful opportunity for them. For this reason they both identified with Darwinism and adapted the theory to their own ideologies.

Beside Darwinism's denial of the existence of God, another claim emerged to support 19th century materialistic ideologies: "The development of living creatures is linked to the struggle for life in nature. This struggle goes to the strongest. The weak are condemned to defeat and extinction."

Darwinism's co-operation with ideologies which have brought pain and disaster to the world is clearly revealed in this point.

Social Darwinism: The Adaptation of the Law of the Jungle to Human Behaviour

One of the most important claims of the theory of evolution is its basing the development of living creatures on the "fight for survival" in nature. According to Darwin, in nature there is a pitiless fight for survival, an eternal conflict. The strong always overcome the weak, and this makes development possible. The subtitle of the book The Origin of Species summed up this point of view. "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

The source of Darwin's inspiration on this matter was the English economist Thomas Malthus's book An Essay on the Principle of Population. This book indicated that a rather dark future awaited mankind. Malthus had calculated that left to itself, the human population would increase at enormous speed. The numbers would double every 25 years. However, food supplies would in no way increase at the same rate. In this event, mankind faced the permanent danger of starvation. The forces keeping population under control were disasters, such as war, famine, and disease. In short, in order for some people to live, it was necessary for others to die. Existence meant "permanent war."

Darwin declares that it was Malthus's book which made him think about the struggle for existence:

In October, 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long continuous observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work.2

In the 19th century Malthus's ideas had been adopted by quite a wide public. Upper-class European intellectuals in particular supported Malthus's ideas. The importance that 19th century Europe gave to Malthus's ideas on population is put across in the article The Scientific Background of the Nazi "Race Purification" Programme:

In the opening half of the nineteenth century, throughout Europe, members of the ruling classes gathered to discuss the newly discovered "Population problem" and to devise ways of implementing the Malthusian mandate, to increase the mortality rate of the poor: "Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations," and so forth and so on.3

As a result of this cruel policy, the strong would defeat the weak in the struggle for survival, and in this way the rapidly increasing population would be balanced. In 19th century England this "crush the poor" programme was actually implemented. An industrial system was founded where children of eight or nine were made to work 16 hours a day in the coal mines and where thousands died from the bad conditions. The theoretical "struggle for survival" which Malthus's theory found necessary, condemned millions of poor people in England to a life full of suffering.

Darwin, influenced by Malthus, applied this view to the whole of nature, and proposed that this war, which actually existed, would be won by the strongest and the fittest. This claim of Darwin's included all plants, animals, and human beings. He also stressed that the struggle for survival in question was a permanent and unchanging law of nature. By denying creation he was inviting people to abandon their religious beliefs and in this way aiming at all ethical principles that might be an obstacle to the ruthlessness of this "struggle for survival."

For this reason Darwin's theory found the support of the Establishment at its back, right from the moment it came to be heard, first in England and later in the entire West. The imperialists, capitalists and other materialists who greeted this theory, which provided a scientific justification for the political and social system they had founded, did not delay in taking it up. Within a short time the theory of evolution was brought to be the sole criterion in every sphere of interest to human societies, from sociology to history, from psychology to politics. In every sphere the basic idea was the slogan of the "fight for survival" and "the survival of the fittest," and political parties, nations, administrations, commercial firms, and individuals began to live in the warmth of these slogans. Because the ruling ideologies in society had identified with Darwinism, Darwinist propaganda began to be carried out in every field, from education to art, from politics to history. It was attempted to establish links between every subject and Darwinism and to shed light on them from a Darwinist viewpoint. As a result of this, even if people did not know Darwinism, models of society living the lives predicted by Darwinism began to be formed.

Darwin himself recommended that his views based on evolution be applied to ethical understanding and social sciences. Darwin said the following to H. Thiel in a letter in 1869:

You will readily believe how much interested I am in observing that you apply to moral and social questions analogous views to those which I have used in regard to the modification of species. It did not occur to me formerly that my views could be extended to such widely different, and most important, subjects.4

With the struggle in nature also being accepted as being in human nature, conflicts in the name of racism, Fascism, Communism, and imperialism, and the efforts of strong peoples to crush peoples they perceived as weaker were by now clothed in a scientific façade. It was now impossible to reproach or obstruct those who carried out barbarous massacres, treated human beings like animals, turned peoples against each other, who despised others on account of their race, who closed down small businesses in the name of competition, and who refused to extend the hand of help to the poor. Because they were doing this in accordance with a "scientific" natural law.

This new scientific account came to be known as "Social Darwinism."

One of the most famous evolutionist scientists, the late American palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould accepted the truth by writing that following the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, "subsequent arguments for slavery, colonialism, racial differences, class struggles, and sex roles would go forth primarily under the banner of science."5

One point requires careful attention here. All periods of human history have seen wars, atrocities, ruthlessness, racism, and conflict. But there was at all times a Divine religion teaching people that what they were doing was wrong and calling them to peace, justice, and calm. Because human beings knew this Divine religion, they at least had a measure of understanding that what they were doing was wrong when they engaged in violence. But from the 19th century, Darwinism showed that the struggle for profit and injustice had an element of scientific justification to them, and said that all of these were part of human nature, that man carried savage and aggressive tendencies left over from his ancestors, and that in the same way that as the strongest and most aggressive animal survived, the same laws applied to human beings. Under the influence of this thinking, wars, suffering, and massacres began to affect a very large part of the world. Darwinism supported and encouraged all those movements which brought pain, blood, and oppression to the world, showed them to be reasonable and justified, and backed all their practical applications. As a result of this so-called scientific backing all these dangerous ideologies grew increasingly stronger, and stamped the name "the age of suffering" on the 20th century.

In his book Darwin, Marx, Wagner professor of history Jacques Barzun evaluates the scientific, sociological, and cultural causes of the current moral breakdown of the world. These comments from Barzun's book are striking from the point of view of Darwinism's influence on the world:

in every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power, and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens–all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, or even before, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say, science incarnate… Race was biological, it was sociological, it was Darwinian.6

In the 19th century, when Darwin put forward his claim that living things had not been created, that they had emerged by coincidence, and that the human being had a common ancestor with animals and had emerged as the most highly developed organism as the result of coincidence, perhaps most people could not imagine what the results of this claim would be. But in the 20th century the end result of the claim was lived out in terrible experiences. Those who saw human beings as a developed animal, did not hesitate to rise by treading on the weak, to find a way of disposing of the sick and weak, and to carry out massacres to get rid of races which they saw as different and inferior. Because their theory with a mask of science told them that this was a "law of nature."

The disasters Darwinism brought to the world began in this way, and gathering speed, spread over the whole world. Whereas in the 19th century, until materialism and atheism grew stronger through the support they received from Darwinism, the great majority of people believed that God created all living things and that human beings, unlike other living creatures, possessed a soul created by God. From whatever race or people, human beings were each seen as a servant created by God. Lack of religion, however, brought about and strengthened by Darwinism, gave rise to social groups with a competitive and ruthless world view, attaching no importance to morals, seeing human beings as highly developed animals. People who denied that they had any responsibility to God brought about a culture where every type of selfishness was justified. From this culture were born many "isms," and each of these became a calamity, in the real sense of the world, for mankind.

In the following pages we will examine the ideologies in question to which Darwinism lent justification, the close relationships between these ideologies and Darwinism, and what this co-operation has cost the world.

Part 2: Darwin's Racism and Colonialism

Darwin's close friend Professor Adam Sedgwick was one of the people who saw what dangers the theory of evolution would give rise to in the future. He remarked, after reading and digesting The Origin of Species, that "if this book were to find general public acceptance, it would bring with it a brutalisation of the human race such as it had never seen before."7 And truly, time showed that Sedgwick was right to have doubts. The 20th century has gone down in history as a dark age when people underwent massacres simply because of their race or ethnic origins.

Of course, there were discrimination and genocide based on it in human history long before Darwin. But Darwinism lent this discrimination a false scientific respectability and a false rightfulness.

"The Preservation of Favoured Races..."

Most Darwinists in our day claim that Darwin was never a racist but that racists comment on Darwin's ideas in a biased manner for the purpose of supporting their own views. They claim that the expression "By the Preservation of Favoured Races" in the subtitle to The Origin of Species is used only for animals. However, what those who make this claim ignore is what Darwin says about human races in his book.

According to the views put forward by Darwin in this book, human races represent different stages of evolution, and some races have evolved and progressed more than others. Some of them, in fact, were pretty much at the same level as monkeys.

Darwin claimed that the "fight for survival" also applied between human races. "Favoured races" emerged victorious from this struggle. According to Darwin the favoured race were the European whites. As for Asian and African races, they had fallen behind in the fight for survival. Darwin went even further: these races would soon completely lose the world-wide fight for survival and disappear, he claimed.

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.8

Again in another part of The Origin of Species, Darwin claimed that it was necessary for the inferior races to disappear and that there was no need for developed peoples to try to protect them and keep them alive. He compared this situation to people who raised breeding animals:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.9

As we have seen, in his book The Origin of Species Darwin saw the natives of Australia and Negroes as being at the same level as gorillas and claimed that these races would disappear. As for the other races which he saw as "inferior," he maintained that it was essential to prevent them multiplying and so for these races to be brought to extinction. So the traces of racism and discrimination which we still come across in our time were approved and lent justification by Darwin in this way.

As for the task befalling the "civilised person," according to Darwin's racist idea, it was to speed this evolutionary period up a little, as we shall see in the details which follow. In this situation there was no objection, from the "scientific" point of view, to these races, which were going to disappear anyway, being done away with now.

Darwin's racist side showed its effect in much of his writing and observations. For example, he openly set out his racist prejudices while describing the natives of Tierra del Fuego whom he saw on a long voyage he set out on in 1871. He described the natives as living creatures "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 bloddy sacrifices, killing their children, ill-treating their wives, full of awkward superstitions". Whereas the researcher W. P. Snow, who had travelled the same region ten years before, presents a very different picture. According to Snow, the Tierra del Fuegians were "fine powerful looking fellows; they were very fond of their children; some of their artefacts were ingenious; they recognised some sort of rights over property; and they accepted the authority of several of the oldest women."10

As has been seen from these examples Darwin was a complete racist. As a matter of fact, in the words of the author of the book What Darwin Really Said, Benjamin Farrington, Darwin made many comments regarding "the greater differences between men of distinct races" in his book The Descent of Man.11

Furthermore, Darwin's theory's denying the existence of God had been the cause of peoples' not seeing that man was something created by God and that all men were created equal. And this was one of the factors behind the rise of racism and the acceleration of its acceptance in the world. The American scientist James Ferguson announces the strict link between the denial of creation and the rise of racism in this way:

The new anthropology soon became a theoretical background between two opposed schools of thought on the origin of humans. The older and more established of these was 'monogenism,' the belief that all humankind, irrespective of colour and other characteristics, was directly descended from Adam and from the single and original act of God's creation. Monogenism was promulgated by the Church and universally accepted until the 18th century, when opposition to theological authority began to fuel the rival theory of 'polygenism,' (theory of evolution) which held that different racial communities had different origins.12

The Indian anthropologist Lalita Vidyarthi explains how Darwin's theory of evolution led racism to be accepted by social sciences:

His (Darwin's) 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.13

As for the Darwinists who came after Darwin, they put up a great struggle to prove his racist views. In the name of doing so they had no scruples about making many scientific inconsistencies and falsehoods. They thought that when they had proved these, they would have scientifically proven their own superiority and "rights" to oppress, colonise, and if needs be exterminate other races.

In the third chapter of his book The Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould pointed out that some anthropologists were not above falsifying their data to prove the "superiority" of the white race. According to Gould, the method they used most was falsifying the brain size of the fossilised skulls they found. Gould mentions in his book that, assuming brain size had something to do with intelligence, many anthropologists intentionally exaggerated the size of Caucasian skulls and underestimated the size of skulls from Blacks and Indians.14

In his book Ever Since Darwin, Gould explains the perverted claims the Darwinists undertook to demonstrate that some races were inferior.

Haeckel and his colleagues also invoked recapitulation to affirm the racial superiority of northern European whites. They scoured the evidence of human anatomy and behaviour, using everything they could find from brains to belly buttons. Herbert Spencer wrote that "the intellectual traits of the uncivilized.. are traits recurring in the children of the civilized." Carl Vogt said it more strongly in 1864: "The grown up Negro partakes, as regards his intellectual faculties, of the nature of the child… Some tribes have founded states, possessing a peculiar organization, but, as to the rest, we may boldly assert that the whole race has, neither in the past nor in the present, performed anything tending to the progress of humanity or worthy of preservation."15

And the French medical anatomist Etienne Serres really did argue that black males are primitive because their belly buttons were in a lower level.

Darwin's contemporary, the evolutionist Havelock Ellis, supported the distinction between superior and inferior races with an alleged "scientific" explanation, saying:

The child of many African races is scarcely if at all less intelligent than the European child, but while the African as he grows up becomes stupid and obtuse, and his whole social life falls into a state of hidebound routine, the European retains much of his childlike vivacity.16

The French Darwinist anthropologist Vacher de Lapouge suggested that non-white classes were the descendants of savages who had not learnt to be civilised, or else the degenerate representatives of mixed-blood classes. He produced results by measuring the skulls from Paris' upper and lower classes in graveyards. According to his results, depending on their skulls some people were inclined to be rich, self-confident, and free, and others conservative, content with little, and possessing all the qualities of a good servant, classes were the products of social selection, society's upper classes went together with superior races, the degree of wealth was in proportion to the skull index. Lapouge later made a prophesy, "It is my view that in years to come people will kill each other because their heads are round or pointed," he said17, and this prophesy came true, as we shall see in detail in later pages of this book, and the 20th century saw massacres carried out for reasons of racism…!

And it was not only anthropologists: entomologists (those who study insects) also jumped on the racist bandwagon that Darwinism had set in motion with perverted claims. For example, in the year 1861, one English entomologist arrived at the conclusion, after collecting lice that lived on peoples' bodies in different parts of the world, that the lice of one race could not live on the bodies of another, which when looked at from the scientific level of today, is just plain ridiculous.18 When even people with the status of scientists made such announcements, it was not surprising that some dogmatic racists should use such illogical, unintelligent, and completely meaningless slogans as "even Negroes' lice are Negro."

In short, the racist side to Darwin's theory found very fertile ground in the second half of the 19th century. Because at that time the European "white man" was still waiting for such a theory to justify his own crimes.

British Colonialism and Darwinism

The country which profited most from Darwin's racist views was Darwin's own land, Britain. In the years when Darwin put forward his theory, Great Britain was in the position of having founded the world's number one colonialist empire. All the natural resources of an area stretching from India to Latin America were exploited by the British Empire. The "white man" was plundering the world for his own interests.

But, of course, starting with Great Britain, no colonialist country wanted to be seen as a "plunderer" and to go down in history as such. For this reason, they were looking for an explanation to show that they were right in what they were doing. Such an explanation might be to portray the colonised peoples as "primitive people" or "animal-like living creatures." In this way, for those who were massacred and subjected to inhuman treatment to be able to be seen not as human beings, but as half-human half-animal creatures, and their mistreatment would not be regarded as a crime.

Actually, this search was not new: the first spread of colonialism in the world went back to the 15th and 16th centuries. Claims to the effect that some races had semi-animal characteristics were first put forward by Christopher Columbus on his American journey. According to these claims, Native Americans were not human beings, but a species of developed animal. For this reason they could be put to the service of the Spanish colonialists.

No matter how much Columbus is portrayed in films about the discovery of America as having a warm and humane attitude to the natives, the fact is that Columbus did not regard the native people as human.19

Christopher Columbus was the person who first set in motion a great massacre. Columbus established Spanish colonies in the places he discovered, made slaves of the natives and was responsible for the starting of the slave trade. The Spanish "conquistadors" saw the policy of oppression and exploitation that Columbus implemented, and continued it: the massacres carried out reached enormous dimensions. For example, the population of one island, 200,000 when Columbus first came to it, was only 50,000 20 years later, and by 1540 only a thousand people remained. When the most famous of the Spanish conquistadors, Cortes, first set foot in Mexico in February 1519, the total native population was 25 million, but in 1605 this had fallen to 1 million. On the island of Hispaniola, the population, which was 7-8 million in 1492, fell to 4 million in 1496, and to just 125 people in 1570. According to historians' figures, in less than a century after Columbus first set foot on the continent 95 million were massacred by the colonialists. When Columbus discovered America 30 million natives were living on the continent. As a result of the massacres between then and now they have come to the position of being a lost race of less than 2 million.

The reason for these massacres reaching such pitiless proportions was the indigenous peoples' not being seen as human beings, as being looked on as animals.

But these claims of the colonialists did not win many supporters. In Europe at that time, the truth that all people were created equal by God and that they all descended from one ancestor–Adam–was so widely accepted that the Catholic Church in particular took a clear position against such plundering invasions. One of the best known examples of this is the reply by the bishop of Chiapas, Bartolome de las Casas, who set foot in the New World together with Columbus, who said that the natives were "each a real human being," in reply to the colonists' claim that the natives were "a species of animal." Pope Paul III cursed the savage treatment of the natives in a papal bull in 1537, and declared that the natives were real human beings with the capacity for faith.20

But in the 19th century the situation changed. Together with the spread of materialist philosophy and societies' growing distant from religion, the truth that human beings were created by God began to be denied. This, as was touched on in the preceding pages, was at the same time the rise of racism.

With the rise of Darwinist-materialist philosophy in the 19th century, racism grew stronger, and this created a great support for Europe's imperialist system.

James Joll, who spent long years as professor of history at such universities as Oxford, Stanford and Harvard, in his source book Europe Since 1870, which is still used as a text book in universities, describes the ideological relationship between Darwinism, imperialism, and racism.

The most profound groups of ideas inspiring the concept of imperialism were those which can be roughly classified as 'social Darwinism', and which saw the relations between states as a perpetual struggle for survival in which some races were regarded as 'superior' to others in an evolutionary process in which the strongest had constantly to assert themselves.

Charles Darwin, the English naturalist whose books On the Origin of Species, published in 1859, and The Descent of Man, which followed in 1871, launched controversies which affected many branches of European thought… The ideas of Darwin, and of some of his contemporaries such as the English philosopher Herbert Spencer, …were rapidly applied to questions far removed from the immediate scientific ones… The element of Darwinism which appeared most applicable to the development of society was the belief that the excess of population over the means of support necessitated a constant struggle for survival in which it was the strongest or the 'fittest' who won. From this it was easy for some social thinkers to give a moral content to the notion of the fittest, so that the species or races which did survive were those morally entitled to do so.

The doctrine of natural selection could, therefore, very easily become associated with another train of thought developed by the French writer, Count Joseph-Arthur Gobineau, who published an Essay on the Inequality of Human Races in 1853. Gobineau insisted that the most important factor in development was race; and that those races which remained superior were those which kept their racial purity intact. Of these, according to Gobineau, it was the Aryan race which had survived best… It was.. Houston Stewart Chamberlain who contributed to carrying some of these ideas a stage further… Hitler himself admired the author (Chamberlain) sufficiently to visit him on his deathbed in 1927.21

As has been shown, there is an ideological chain linking Darwin to racist thinkers and imperialists, and stretching from there as far as Hitler. Darwinism is the ideological basis of both imperialism, which drowned the world in blood in the 19th century, and Nazism, which did the same thing in the 20th.

Victorian Great Britain also found its so-called "scientific basis" in Darwinism. Great Britain made great profits out of colonialism, and saw no reason not to visit disasters upon the heads of those living under that colonialism for its own advantage. One example of British imperialism's dirty politics was the "Opium Wars" against China. Great Britain began to smuggle the opium it grew in India into China from the first quarter of the 19th century. This opium smuggling was speeded up as time passed to make good the deficit in its foreign trade. The flow of the drug into the country also had the effect of weakening the Chinese state's authority over its own territory. The collapse in society soon reached serious dimensions. The prohibition of opium, which the Chinese government had to implement after a long period of doubt, led to the first Opium War (1838-1842). There is no doubt that this war dragged the country to bankruptcy. China was forced to bow its head because of the inadequacy of its army in every confrontation with the foreign forces and to accept their ever-growing demands. The Westerners slowly formed settlement centres inside Chinese territory from the year 1842. They took large port quarters (concessions) from out of the hands of the Chinese, rented their fields, and obliged the country to open up to the outside world in a way that would bring the most benefit to themselves. As a result of all of this, the poverty in the country, the weakness of the government, and the slow loss of Chinese territory led to many rebellions.

The experiences in China were only one of the results of British policy. Throughout the 19th century the oppression and painful dimensions of British imperialism were experienced in such regions as South Africa, India, and Australia.

The job of justifying this oppressive system of Britain's and attempting to show it was in the right, fell to various British sociologists and scientists. And Charles Darwin was the most important and effective of these. It was Darwin who claimed that throughout evolution there had been "superior races," that these were the "white race," and showed that the whites' oppression of the others was a "natural law."

Because of the justification which Darwin provided for colonialist racism, the famous scientist, Kenneth J. Hsü, the head of the Geography department of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and himself of Chinese descent, describes 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."22

Darwin's Enmity Towards the Turks

The most important target British colonialism set itself towards the end of the 19th century was the Ottoman Empire.

At that period the Ottoman state ruled a huge area from Yemen to Bosnia-Herzegovina. But by now it was finding it hard to control this area which it had managed in peace, calm, and stability. Christian minorities were beginning to rise up in the name of independence, and such great military powers as Russia were beginning to threaten the Ottomans.

In the last quarter of the century Britain and France joined the powers which were threatening the Ottomans. Britain particularly set its eyes on the Ottomans' southern provinces. The Berlin Agreement, signed in 1878, is an expression of the European colonialists' decision to divide up the Ottoman territories. Five years later, in 1882, Britain occupied Egypt, which was an Ottoman territory. British colonialism set about its plans to later take over the Ottoman territories in the Middle East.

As always, Britain based these colonialist policies on racism. The British government deliberately tried to portray the Turkish nation, the basic element of the Ottomans, and particularly the Ottoman state, as a so-called "backward" people.

British Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone openly said that the Turks are examples of mankind's non-humans, and for the sake of their civilisation, they must be pushed back to the Asian steppes and eliminated from Anatolia.23

These, and words like them, were for decades used by the British government as a propaganda tool directed against the Ottomans. Britain tried to portray the Turkish nation as a backward nation that had to bow its head to more advanced European races.

The so-called "scientific basis" for this propaganda was Charles Darwin!

Darwin's comments regarding the Turkish nation appeared in the book The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, published in 1888. Darwin proposed that by the so-called "backward races" were eliminated as a result of natural selection and therefore natural selection would play a role in the development of civilisation, and later said these exact words about the Turkish nation:

I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.24

This nonsense of Darwin's was a written propaganda tool to give support to Britain's policy of destroying the Ottoman Empire. And in fact this propaganda tool was an effective one. Darwin's words to the effect that "The Turkish nation will soon disappear, this is a law of evolution" gave a so-called scientific support to Britain's propaganda directed at creating enmity towards the Turks.

Britain's desire to bring about Darwin's prophecy basically came to life in the First World War. This giant war, which began in 1914, was born of conflicts of interest between Germany and Austria-Hungary on the one side, and the allies Britain, France, and Russia on the other. But one of the most important calculations within this war was the aim of destroying and dividing up the Ottoman Empire.

Britain attacked the Ottoman Empire from two separate directions. The first was the Canal, Palestine, and Iraq fronts, opened with the intention of taking the Ottoman territories in the Middle East. The second was the Gallipoli front, scene of one of the bloodiest battles of the First World War. The Turkish Army at Çanakkale fought heroically and lost 250,000 men to resist the enemy forces mustered by the British. As for the British, they sent more Indian troops and Anzac units recruited from such colonies as Australia and New Zealand to fight the Turks, whom they saw as a "backward race," than their own soldiers.

The echoes of Darwin's hostility to the Turks continued to ring after the First World War. The European Neo-Nazi groups who treacherously attack the Turks in Europe still draw their inspiration from Darwin's stupid nonsense about the Turkish nation. Darwin's words about the Turks are still to be found on the Internet pages of these racist enemies of the Turks. (See the chapter on The Bloody Alliance Between Darwin and Hitler.)

Racism and Social Darwinism in America

Social Darwinism provided support for racists and imperialists in other countries too, not just Britain. For this reason it spread quickly through the whole world. At the head of those subscribing to the theory came U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt was the foremost proponent and implementer of the programme of ethnic cleansing applied against the Native Americans under the name of "forced relocation." In the book The Winning of the West, he founded the ideology of massacre, maintaining that a racial war to the finish with the Indians was inevitable.25 His greatest prop was Darwinism, which gave him the opportunity to define the natives as a backward species.

As Roosevelt had foreseen, none of the treaties with the Native Americans were respected, and this too was provided a false justification under the "backward race" theory. In 1871, Congress disregarded all the treaties made with the Native Americans and decided to exile them to dead lands where they could await death. If the other side were not perceived as human beings then how could the treaties made with them have any validity?

Roosevelt also proposed that the above mentioned racial war represented the culminating achievement of the spread of the English speaking peoples (Anglo-Saxons) over the world.26

One of the foremost proponents of Anglo-Saxon racism, the American evolutionist and Protestant clergyman Josiah Strong, employed the same logic. He once wrote these words:

Then will the world enter upon a new stage of its history - the final competition 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"?27

The foremost of the racists who used Social Darwinism to justify themselves were the enemies of the blacks. Their racist theories, which divided the races into levels and defined the white race as the most superior and the black race as the most primitive, enthusiastically embraced the concept of evolution.28

The most prominent of the evolutionary racist theoreticians, Henry Fairfield Osborn, wrote in an article headed The Evolution of Human Races that "The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old-youth of the species Homo Sapiens."29

According to this logic blacks were not human beings at all. Another of the best-known proponents of evolutionary racist thought, Carleton Coon put forward, in his book The Origins of Race, published in 1962, that the black and white races were two different species which had split from each other back in the Homo Erectus period. According to Coon, the whites had evolved further following this separation. The supporters of discrimination against blacks employed this so-called scientific explanation for a long time.

The existence of a scientific theory which supported it rapidly increased racism in America. W. E. Dubois, known for being against racial discrimination, stated that "the problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the colour line". According to him, that the problem of racism should have emerged in such a widespread manner in a country which wants to become the world's greatest democracy, and which from some points of view has accomplished this, is not the least important of paradoxes. The abolition of slavery has not sufficed for the establishment of brotherhood between black and white people. He thought that official discrimination, set up in a short time, has in our day turned into an ipso facto and legal situation, a way out of which is still being sought.30

The emergence of the first racial discrimination laws, known as the "Jim Crow Laws," (Jim Crow was one of the derogatory names for blacks used by the whites) also happened at this time. Blacks were definitely not treated like human beings, and were despised and treated with contempt everywhere: furthermore this was not the attitude of a few racist individuals but that determined by the American state by its own laws. Immediately after the first law approving racial segregation on railways and trams was passed in Tennessee in 1875, all the Southern states implemented segregation on their railways. "Whites Only" and "Blacks" signs were hung up everywhere. Actually, all of these just meant the granting of official status to a situation which already existed. Marriage between different races was forbidden. Under the law, segregation was compulsory in hospitals, prisons, and graveyards. In practice, this included hotels, theatres, libraries, and even lifts and churches. The field where segregation was most sharply felt was in schools. This was the practice which had the heaviest effects on the blacks and was the greatest obstacle in the face of their cultural development.

The practice of racial segregation was accompanied by a wave of violence. There was a swift rise in the number of black lynchings. Between 1890 and 1901 some 1,300 blacks were lynched. As a result of these implementations blacks rose up in several states.

Racist thought and theories accompanied this period. Shortly after, American biological racism would express itself in the results arrived at by R. B. Bean's method of skull measurement, and under the pretence of protecting the people of the new continent from a wave of uncontrolled migration, a particular kind of American racism arose. Madison Grant, author of the book The Passing of the Great Race (1916) wrote that the mixing of the two races will open the way to the emergence of a more primitive race than the inferior species, and he wanted inter-racial marriages to be banned.31

He also wanted inter-racial marriages to be banned.

Racism existed in America before Darwin, as it did in the whole world. But as we have seen, Darwinism gave racist views and policies apparent support in the second half of the 19th century. For example, as we have seen in this chapter, when racists put forward their views they used the claims of Darwinism as slogans. Ideas which before Darwin had been regarded as cruel, now began to be accepted as natural law.

Darwinist Racists' Inhuman Policies the Extermination of the Aborigines

The natives of Australia are known as aborigines. These people who had lived on the continent for thousands of years suffered one of the biggest exterminations in history with the spreading of European settlers over the country. The ideological basis of this extermination was Darwinism. Darwinist ideologues' views of the aborigines formed the theory of the savagery these people suffered.

In 1870 Max Muller, an evolutionist anthropologist from the Anthropological Review of London, had divided human races into seven categories. Aborigines appeared at the bottom, and the Aryan race, that of the white Europeans, at the top. H. K. Rusden, a famous Social Darwinist, had this to say about the aborigines in 1876:

The survival of the fittest means that might is right. And we thus invoke and remorselessly fulfil the inexorable law of natural selection when exterminating the inferior Australian and Maori races… and we appropriate their patrimony coolly.32

And in 1890 the Vice-President of the Royal Society of Tasmania, James Barnard, wrote: "the process of extermination is an axiom of the law of evolution and survival of the fittest." There was therefore, he concluded, no reason to suppose that "there had been any culpable neglect" in the murder and dispossession of the Aboriginal Australian.33

As a result of these racist, ruthless, and savage views nourished by Darwin, a terrible massacre was begun with the aim of exterminating the aborigines. Aboriginal heads were nailed over station doors. Poisoned bread was given to Aboriginal families. In many parts of Australia, aborigine settlement areas disappeared in a savage manner within 50 years.34

The policies aimed at aborigines did not end with massacres. Many members of the race were treated like experimental animals. The Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. held the remains of 15,000 people of various races. 10,000 Australian aborigines were sent by ship to the British Museum with the aim of seeing whether or not they were the "missing link" in the transition from animals to human beings.


Continue reading this ebook at Smashwords.
Download this book for your ebook reader.
(Pages 1-24 show above.)