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)

75 / 2003-06-10

Certain evolutionist claims have been inserted into this documentary which gives various information about snakes. The first of these concerns the ability of snakes to swallow prey larger than their own heads. On this subject, Discovery Channel makes this claim:

Amongst the first developments of snakes in evolution was the reconstruction of their heads. From being tightly connected, their jawbones and skulls were attached to one another with flexible connections. This provided snakes with wider jaw aperture and an increased mouth capacity. The division into two of the jawbone at the extremity of the jaw increased opening capacity still further.

The claim put forward here rests not on any scientific finding but on prejudice. Discovery Channel first assumes that the snake is a creature which has emerged through evolution, then tries to marry this characteristic to the evolution it has assumed. However, this marriage is based on no scientific evidence. In truth the most ancient snakes are no different from those of the present day.

Discovery Channel glosses over the issue by saying "ambiguity" and claims that snakes evolved from the lizard group. This is expressed in the documentary as follows:

The origins of snakes are a little obscure. But on the other hand, it is certain that snakes go back more than one hundred million years and we are almost certain that they evolved from the lizard group.

As we expected, right away we switch to protrusions in the python; the small protrusions found in the rear part of this creature"s body are shown as evidence for the fable that in time a creature such as a lizard lost its legs and turned into a snake. Believing this to be evidence of evolution, Discovery Channel puts forward two significant deceptions. Firstly, it is known that these projections are used in holding the mate during mating and in fights between males. As this organ has a function, the claim that it was at one time the leg of a lizard is completely unproven speculation. Discovery Channel"s second deception is that it fails to understand that the loss of a lizard"s legs does not mean evolution. Just as the theory of evolution upholds development from molecule to human being, evolutionists have to base themselves not on changes in which existing characteristics are lost but on changes of characteristics not previously found in groups of living creatures through so-called evolution. Because of this, snake fossils which have vestigial legs do not demonstrate development from simple to complex, they are not evidence of evolution, though they are indicators of change. (For example, as with the Haasiophis terrasanctus fossil of a snake with legs reported in Science magazine in 2000: "A Fossil Snake with Limbs", Science 287(5460): 2010-2012, March 17, 2000)

In this situation, there are two questions evolutionists have to answer. Firstly, how could a lizard which lost its legs go on living with half legs and without the extremely complex muscular structure which provides the snake with movement? Certainly such a creature could be expected to be open to attack by predators and to have great difficulty in obtaining its own food. Secondly, it is known from countless experiments that random mutations do not gain creatures new characteristics by adding to their genetic knowledge. This being the case it emerges that the crawling muscles of snakes which are not to be found in lizards cannot be explained by evolution.

The different muscle systems are arranged in such a way as to enable the snake to move, to crawl through synchronized expansion and contraction. Both these muscles and the nerve network which controls them are encoded in the snake"s genes. A random mutation which gains useful characteristics for an organism by adding information to its DNA has not been observed even once. This being the case, assuming that the snake"s muscle system emerged through evolution means nothing other than setting truth totally aside and building castles in the air.

Discovery Channel can be seen as blindly believing in these dreams and trying to make its viewers believe in them as well. Discovery Channel characterizes the snake as the product of an experiment tried over and over again on creatures of the lizard group. The documentary includes this statement on the subject:

"If you look at this lizard group, the loss of their limbs and the extension of their bodies are things which in evolutionary terms have been repeated time and again, perhaps dozens of times. In a way, it is as if certain lizards carried out experiments to lose their legs and become extended creatures crawling along the ground. Snakes (because of the loss of their legs) developed a complex system consisting of as many as 300 hundred muscle fibers and ligaments around the rib area to make up for this loss... With incomparable evolutions it has been proved that for certain things there are no organs. Such as running and swimming... The ancestors of snakes emerged as a result of an incomparable evolutionary experiment on their organs. This evolution is one of the greatest success stories of nature."

As can be seen, Discovery Channel attempts directly to impose its own beliefs without providing any explanation which could constitute an answer to the question "How?" It speaks of imaginary experiments and declares that snakes are the result of these. In this situation, it would be more appropriate for Discovery Channel to attribute the greatest success story not to nature but to itself because from beginning to end the Discovery Channel program does nothing but tell a story about the so-called evolution of the snake.

In the program the poison of snakes is shown as a more recent development in their so-called evolution. Apart from claiming that snake venom emerged through evolution, Discovery Channel makes no comment on how the glands where this poison is secreted, the channels which carry the venom from these glands to the hollow teeth in the mouth and the sharp tubular fangs which function as injectors could have evolved, or more accurately it is not brave enough to do so. The reason which lies behind this is the complexity of the enemy-poisoning system.

All the parts which play a role in the snake"s poisoning of its enemies (the venom, the gland which secretes it, the channels which transfer it and the sharp fangs with tubular wells inside them which serve as injectors) show a special design. Different structures assuming different functions have come together in correct organization to carry out a certain purpose. A similar design which is far simpler than the system inside the snake from the point of view of complexity can be seen in the serum drip. A serum bottle, serum, a pipeline and at the end a needle... The system inside the snake is far more complex and just as the serum drip had a designer, the snake has a Creator. The design of the snake is an indication of the boundless power of Exalted God.


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.