Darwin's Bullet Against Humanity - Part 1
Imagine that we are in a country
with lots of monkeys
that compete with humans
for their livelihood
Yet, we provided food,
housing and healthcare to these monkeys
and treated them just like humans
But all this was at the expense of humans
We didn't balance out the care
for humans with that for animals
Consequently, monkeys multiplied
and humans died off
Would that be ethical?
And what does this have to do
with atheism?
That's what we'll find out
in this episode
The Journey of Certainty
Darwin's Bullet against Humanity: Part 1
[Atheism and the world of monkeys]
All praise be to Allah
and Peace & Blessings be upon His Prophet
In the last episode, we saw how
morality indicates the existence of Allah
and how the deniers of Allah's existence
lack any moral foundation
Today, we will see that this denial
—this atheism— does not end there
but goes further to cause
crime and aggression
When atheists denied Allah,
most of them adopted
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
as an explanation for human existence
We will discuss this theory scientifically
in due course, Allah willing
What concerns us here
are the moral implications of
Darwinian Evolution
to see: For those who adopt evolution
as an alternative for Allah's existence;
has evolution provided them with any basis
for morality? Or is it quite the opposite?
Darwinian Evolution assumes that
organisms evolved from a primitive cell
through random genetic mutations
and natural selection
Natural Selection means
survival of the fittest:
The most able to adapt
to the environment
Survival of the fittest means
the struggle with species
lower on the evolutionary scale
Struggle is the law of nature
according to Darwin
He stated this in his book,
"The Origin of Species"
Then in his book.
"The Descent of Man"
Darwin applied his theory to humans
and theorized that Man evolved
from apelike ancestors
When Darwin says "evolutionary-superior"
he means white Europeans;
as for other races they are
in an intermediate stage
between apes, gorillas and
"their ancestors"; and humans
In other words,
they are not "fully-evolved" yet
Darwin based his theory
on the assumption that lower races
are closer (than Europeans)
to apes in some traits
such as skin color, head circumference,
flat nose, frontal bossing
and enlargement of the jaw or lips
Darwin then concluded
that the superior human races
will not continue to evolve
except through the struggle
to exterminate the inferior human races!
This is the basis of
"Social Darwinism"
which involves the application of
Darwin's biological concepts to sociology
Accordingly,
there is nothing wrong
if the "more evolved" races
hunt us on the streets,
steal our property and subjugate us
for their benefit.
Just like we do with animals!
Because humans,
according to Darwin
are simply a "more evolved"
form of animal
So, what humans do to animals
can be done to us
by those who are more evolved than us
Wait a minute!
This isn't just speculation;
It actually happened!
How?
In his book, "The Descent of Man"
(Chapter 6), Charles Darwin says,
"At some future period, not
very distant as measured by centuries,
the civilized races of man will
almost certainly exterminate and replace
the savage races throughout the world."
(The Arabic translation
of the previous sentence)
With this concept
Darwin fired his bullet at humanity,
and Europeans based their genocide and
ethnic cleansing campaigns
on this concept, especially
against Africans, Native Americans
and Australian Aborigines;
considering them closer to animals
—in the Darwinian view—
It is true that
many criminal acts were committed
before the propagation
of Darwin's theory but evolution
relieved the conscience of the criminals;
by providing "scientific justification"
for their crimes
So, they persisted in their criminal acts
and escalated the frequency
The record of crimes
is too large to be addressed here
but some examples
may provide a good idea:
After the publication of
the theory of evolution
campaigns were launched
to exterminate Australian Aborigines
in the late nineteenth century
The Vice-President of the Royal Society
of Tasmania —an island in Australia—
James Bernard wrote, in 1890,
"It has become an axiom
—according to the law of evolution
and survival of the fittest—
that the inferior human races must open
the way for the superior races."
We will provide the links
for the information we present,
as the facts are shocking
and almost unbelievable!
Moreover, the campaigns included
kidnapping Australian Aboriginal children
and sending them
—in large numbers—
to natural history museums
in America and Britain
to determine whether they represent
"the missing link"
between animals and humans
in the evolutionary path!
The Australian Prime Minister,
Kevin Rudd
appologized to the stolen generations
on February 13, 2008
The headline ran as follows:
"The National Apology from Kevin Rudd
to the Stolen Generations"
This is in addition to
forced sterilization
which was carried out
by Darwinists across the world
against "less evolved" races
or those with undesirable genetic traits;
because they were a "burden on nature"
Thus, their progeny must be halted
through sterilization to make them extinct
and improve genetic traits:
what is known as Eugenics
For your information
in February 2015
the U.S. House of Representatives approved
a compensation of $25,000 for each
living victim of forced sterilization
This came after a long struggle
which started with the
U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1927
to allow state-enforced sterilization
in Virginia
They apologize for stolen generations
and compensate for sterilization
But the question remains:
Are they —by doing so—
renouncing Darwinian evolution?
Are they admitting —through this apology—
that all humans are biologically equal?
Never!
They still adopt Darwinism
and stubbornly cling to it
Moreover, motivated by Darwinism
white men convinced some African tribes
that they were more evolved than others
due to differences in height,
nose length, etc.
This was one of the motives behind
the genocidal wars between tribes
who had previously co-existed in peace;
such as the tragedy of Rwanda
between the Tutsis and Hutus
According to Darwinian ethics
it's ok for a nation to put "less-evolved"
humans in human zoos
just like animals!
This is not just speculation;
it actually happened!
It was a phenomenon in America
and many European countries
You can find the related
images and information online
Search for "Human Zoos"
There is a shameful photo archive
and many articles on this topic
such as:
"The Forgotten History of Human Zoos"
But bear in mind that they contain
nude images, as some "zoos" prevented
the humans on display from wearing
clothes, leaving them completely naked;
men and women!
They were told to go out to
the zoo visitors and turn around
to allow the "higher" classes
to look them over like animals
This little girl in Brussels, Belgium
was treated by white people
as a "less evolved" specimen
She was kept in a cage
and fed like an animal
This is Ota Benga in 1906
His family and tribe were killed
by merchants in Africa
They then sold him to the Darwinians;
who viewed him as evidence for evolution!
He was required to have
his picture taken with chimpanzees
at The Bronx Zoo in New York
and there are many others
This is a picture from France
of a woman and her child in a human zoo
This is from a "Negro village"
in France
where Blacks
were displayed alongside animals
The list of Darwinian
tragedies is long...
Darwinians were not spared
from their own evil
—also in the name of Darwinism—
as some Darwinians saw themselves
as more evolved than others
40 years after the publication of
"The Descent of Man"
the First World War broke out
What is the relevance of the
First World War?
Wasn't it caused
—as we studied—
by the assassination of the Austrian Crown
Prince and his wife by a Serb?
Apparently this was only the spark
—not enough to explain why Europe
exploded and rushed, within days, to war—
but there were other factors
which provoked this war:
Religious, political and other factors
including the
spread of Social Darwinism
which primed many Europeans
who adopted it to rush into war
and behave like wild animals;
because struggle and bloodshed
—to them— is the law of nature
Many writers have commented on
this Darwinian role in the war
such as the British writer James Joule
in his book,
"The Origins of the First World War"
and Richard Hofstadter
in his book,
"Social Darwinism in American Thought"
which was written during
the Second World War
Furthermore, the Darwinian ideology
produced mass murderers
such as Hitler who
founded Nazism on the concept
of superiority for the Aryan race
as discussed in,
"Darwinism and the Nazi Ethnic Holocaust"
And Stalin, as in Yaroslavsky's,
"Landmarks in the Life of Stalin"
Yaroslavsky states,
"At an early age, and while he was still
at the ecclesiastical school,
Comrade Stalin showed maturity
in his critical thinking
and revolutionary feelings,
as he read the works
of Darwin and became an atheist."
Furthermore, in 2015
CNN published
an article titled: "Wars:
A Manifestation of Social Darwinism"
which concluded the following:
"With Social Darwinism at play in
the jungle of international politics,
wars seem to be inevitable."
Here, an atheist might say,
“But there are countless wars
for religious motives.”
First: This comparison with religions
in general, does not concern us;
religions may be true,
distorted or invalid
Yet we say,
"We are discussing Darwinism
in which war is a goal in itself;
without any ethics or regulations
This is not Darwinism malpractice
but Darwinism itself;
at the root of the ideology
As for war in Islam;
we'll discuss later insha Allah
whether it's a goal in itself,
its objectives and ethics
Peace be upon you