Now, at the beginning of the twenty first century, Darwin’s theory of evolution is rapidly losing its scientific credibility. This theory, which materialists embraced at the turn of the 20th century and imposed on the masses as scientific fact, has now been clearly recognized as invalid. The most influential factors behind this were developments taking place in microbiology, paleontology and biochemistry, all sciences that have a bearing on evolutionary theory. Discoveries in these scientific fields revealed that life could not have evolved progressively, by chance and through trial and error, as Darwin’s theory proposed. (For details see the chapter “The Evolution Misconception”)

The theory of evolution could never provide scientific evidence for its claims about the origins of life. Also, it left unanswered questions about the origins of living creatures’ countless extraordinary features. One of the many considerations that led the theory of evolution into an impasse is the devotion shown by living beings—the subject of this book.

Animals in nature often display acts of devotion and altruism, form relationships based on solidarity and cooperation; and exhibit tender behavior toward one another. These all represent important, irresolvable issues for the theory of evolution.

When Darwin proposed his theory, he based his claims on a mechanism he called “natural selection” that by itself, had no evolutionary capabilities. According to his thesis, all life originated from one common ancestor, which developed into different species as a result of environmental differences. Those who adapted best to their environments survived, to reproduce and pass on to the next generation whatever small genetic changes they had acquired. Thus, after a long period of time, only the fittest and most adaptable individuals escaped extinction. Darwin suggested that all species in nature engaged in a struggle for survival, in which the fittest came out on top and the weak perished.

Julian Huxley, an ardent supporter of evolution, defined nature in this way:

… [M]uch of the struggle for existence is not directed against the forces of nature, nor against enemies, nor against competitors of other species, but against other members of the same species. Not only does the species as a whole have to struggle (in a metaphorical sense) to survive and reproduce, but so do the individuals within it.1

But is it true, as the evolutionists claim, that the natural arena is governed by the merciless rules of a selfish struggle for survival, in which the strong dominate and the weak are eliminated?

We can find the answer to this question by investigating nature itself. Certainly all living things must seek out food and safety; and every creature must hunt for nourishment and become aggressive in its own defense. However, this is not the only principle at work. The great majority of creatures display selfless acts unequalled of devotion for their offspring and families, for other animals in the herd or in some cases, even for other species. The animal kingdom often displays behaviors that reflect devotion and cooperation, solidarity and guarding one another’s interests.

The theory of evolution, claiming that nature is only an arena for warfare, can in no way explain these examples of devotion. Living things disprove evolution’s central claim, clearly and definitely. Natural selection can never explain why a zebra that has just escaped a predators’ attack risks its own life by returning to save other members of its endangered herd—nor, for that matter, why the silverside fish should risk death by coming ashore so as to help ensure the survival of their eggs. According to the claims made by evolutionists, natural selection should have eliminated this kind of altruistic behavior long ago.

Along with invalidating the theory of evolution, devotion and cooperation in animals provide evidence of an important truth: that the whole universe has been created by a superior being; and that each and every creature acts on the inspiration of God, its Creator.

In the next few pages, you will be reading about some of the astonishing and admirable behaviors exhibited by animals, who have no power of intellect. Anyone of reason and conscience will easily understand that such behavior can occur only by the power and control of God, the Lord of all living things. As He reveals in the Qur’an:

And in your creation and all the creatures He has spread about, there are Signs for people with certainty. (Qur’an, 45: 4)


On Earth, Man is the only being possessing intellect and reason. Besides his physical characteristics, the most important features that distinguish him from all other beings are those that derive from his human intellect and powers of reason—the faculties of comparison, decision, reasoning, predicting, planning ahead and taking precautions, comprehension, working toward future goals, and other similar qualities. No other creatures in nature possess such an intellect or high degree of awareness. Therefore, we can’t expect animals to plan, anticipate future events, or apply engineering calculations to decide on any issue.

So how can we explain the behaviors, clearly the products of reason and consciousness, so often observed in nature? Especially since some of these behaviors are displayed by beings without a brain! Before moving to answer this question, we can more easily understand its importance if, first, we provide some obvious examples of animal behavior that arise from consciousness and reasoning.

Beaver Dams as Engineering Projects

Beavers calculate like real engineers, work like master builders, and build lodges of extraordinary design. With the same impressive skill, they build dams to slow the outflow of the water in which they build their dwellings. To accomplish this, they have to undergo some highly tedious procedures. First of all, they must obtain a large quantity of logs and branches, as sources of nourishment as well as for building material for the dam and nest. To this end, they fell trees by chewing through the trunks with their teeth. It has been observed that in this process, they assess the suitability of the environment: Generally, they prefer to work where the prevailing wind blows towards the water. This way, most of the trees they fell fall in the direction of the water making the logs easier for the beavers to transport.

Beaver nests are of a highly complex design. Each lodge has two underwater entries, as well as—just above water level—a larder and, further up, a dry sleeping chamber with a ventilation shaft.

Beavers construct the outside walls of their nests by piling up the building materials they gather, filling every crevice with twigs and mud, making sure not to leave any holes or cavities.
These building materials they use protect the lodge from sliding and keep out the cold. In winter, it becomes blanketed in snow, and even if the temperature outside falls below -35° C (-31° F), the temperature within remains above the freezing point. For when winter food is scarce, they also have a food stash concealed underwater.

Beavers also build a network of canals, each of them approximately one meter (three feet) wide, by which they can reach the trees they feed off, which are typically located on higher and drier ground considerable distances away.

Beavers build their dams of plant matter and stones, in a manner similar to their nests. First they weave branches across the water between the two banks of a stream, forming an interwoven triangular structure. In order to fill in the structure’s gaps and raise its height, they work against the current and keep on adding branches and mud, until their dam has finally transformed a narrow stream into a wide pool of calm water. Widening and deepening the water provides them with an ideal environment where they can store food for the winter, as well as area for them to swim freely and more easily transport food and building materials. In addition, it also creates a wide, safe moat around the beavers’ lodges that, just like the moat surrounding a human castle, makes it almost impossible for predators to attack them.2

This brief summary shows how every stage of beavers’ construction reflects intellect, planning, knowledge and calculation. But it would be irrational to credit the beaver, an animal without intellect or ability to reason, with all these qualities. Therefore we must find an explanation for the source of the beaver’s behavior. If this intellect and planning do not belong to the beaver, who does it belong to? The answer is God, Who brings out superior features in beavers, as well as in many other creatures, of which we’ll see many examples as we progress through the following chapters. With His infinite reason and power, God has created them, brings out their superior qualities by His inspiration, and commands them to effect their ingenious plans.

The Atlas Moth Caterpillar that Plans a Few Steps Ahead

Obviously, beavers are not the only creatures in nature that plan, calculate, and display rational behavior. One of the other successful creatures in this respect is a species of caterpillar, much smaller than a beaver, in which one would never expect to find the slightest glimmer of intellect. This is the atlas moth caterpillar.

This caterpillar pupates in a cocoon like all other moth caterpillars, concealing itself under a leaf once it has emerged from the larval stage. It does this according to a clever premeditated plan whose every stage requires great skill. Since a fresh green leaf cannot be bent to form a protective shelter, the caterpillar overcomes this problem by the simplest imaginable solution. To serve its purpose, it first ties the leaf to the branch with its silk, so that the leaf won’t fall when the caterpillar gnaws through its stem. Inevitably, the cut leaf dries out and, after a while, begins to curl. In this way, the caterpillar obtains an ideal leaf tube in the space of a few hours.

In the first instance, you might think that by hiding in a dry leaf to obtain a safe abode for itself, the caterpillar displayed intelligent behavior. This might well be true. But also, it would present an easy meal. A dry leaf’s difference in color would give it away, attracting the attention of birds and spelling doom for the caterpillar.

Here again, the caterpillar acts to prevent itself from being recognized easily. Like a mathematician who makes probability calculations, it prepares five or six other “decoy” leaves just like the one it will enter, and weaves silk around them. In this way, any hungry bird must choose among six or seven dry leaves, only one of which contains the caterpillar’s pupa. The others are all dummies. If a bird turns its attention towards any one of the dry leaves, the odds are six to one against its finding the caterpillar.3

It’s self-evident that these behaviors are all intelligent and premeditated. But is it really possible for a caterpillar with such a microscopic brain and simple nervous system to display such behavior? The caterpillar does not have the faculty of thought to let it plan ahead. Nor can it possibly have learned this stratagem from another caterpillar and, in reality, it’s not even aware of the dangers that birds might present. So who came up with this idea of how to mislead the caterpillar’s predators?

Were you to ask an evolutionist these questions, he would never give you clear and satisfying answers. But when cornered there’s one expression that evolutionists resort to: instincts. They say that any such animal behaviors are instinctive. In the case we’ve just examined, the first question they should be asked is, “Define instinct.” If such behavior is instinctive, as with the caterpillar concealing itself in a leaf, there must be some mechanism or force that drives it to do so. Similarly, some similar force must impel the beaver to build its dams and lodges. And, as we can deduce by the first syllable of the word instinct, this mechanism or force must lie somewhere within the creature.

What is the Source of Instincts?

Scientists use the word instinct to define animals’ inborn behaviors. Always left unanswered, however, are the questions of how these instinctive behaviors first appeared, and how animals developed these instincts and passed them down through later generations.

In his book, The Great Evolution Mystery, evolutionist and geneticist Gordon Rattray Taylor admits this logical dead end:

When we ask ourselves how any instinctive pattern of behavior arose in the first place and became hereditarily fixed, we are given no answer…4

Some evolutionists, who do not admit this dilemma as Taylor does, try to pass over such questions with vague rhetoric of no specific meaning. According to the theory of evolution, instinctive behaviors are coded in the genes. According to this rationale, bees build their extraordinary and mathematically precise combs because of their instincts. In other words, someone must have programmed into the genes of all the bees on Earth the instinct of how to construct regular six-sided combs.

If so, everyone of reason and common sense must wonder: If living things act out most of their behaviors because they are programmed to do so, who programmed them in the first place? No program is self-generating or self-fulfilling, and every program must have a programmer who originated it.

Evolutionists can find no answers to this question. In their publications on the subject, they use a convenient smokescreen: the claim that “Mother Nature” gives all creatures their innate qualities. But “Mother Nature” consists of rocks, soil, water, trees, and plants. Which of these elements could possibly make animals behave in a rational, conscious manner? Which part of nature has the intellect or ability to program living creatures? Everything we see in nature has been created and therefore, cannot create on its own. What intelligent person, on seeing a painting, would say, “What a nice picture these pigments have developed”? This is an obviously irrational question. To the same degree, it would be irrational to claim that creatures without intellect can program their own offspring to act rationally and intelligently.

Here, we’re confronted with a very clear fact: Since these creatures haven’t acquired these superior features with their own intellects but were born with these faculties, some superior Being of intellect and knowledge must have given them these abilities and created them in a way as to display their behaviors. No doubt the owner of the intellect and knowledge we see everywhere in nature is God.

In the Qur’an, God uses bees as an example, saying that it is He Who inspires in them their seemingly intelligent behavior. In other words, God’s inspiration is really what evolutionists attempt to explain as instincts, or that animals are “programmed” to do certain things. This reality is revealed in the Qur’an:

Your Lord revealed to the bees: “Build dwellings in the mountains and the trees, and also in the structures which men erect. Then eat from every kind of fruit and travel the paths of your Lord, which have been made easy for you to follow.” From inside them comes a drink of varying colors, containing healing for mankind. There is certainly a Sign in that for people who reflect. (Qur’an, 16: 68-69)

Evolutionists disregard this clear fact, in order to deny the existence of God. In reality, they themselves search for an explanation for observed animal behavior, but are well aware that the theory of evolution cannot explain it. In any current evolutionist book or publication on animal behavior, you will read sentences like, “To do this requires higher intelligence, but how do animals, lacking intellect, do it? This is a question that science cannot answer.”

The renowned evolutionist Hoimar Von Ditfurth’s comments on the atlas moth caterpillar are a classic example of what evolutionists have to say on the obvious awareness in animal behavior:

The thought of presenting predators with decoys (other dry leaves) in order to conceal itself is astonishing to us, but whose clever idea is this, anyhow? It’s an extremely original strategy to send away hungry birds who hunt for caterpillars by reducing the probability of their being discovered among the dry leaves. Who devised it for the caterpillar to use not long after it was hatched? . . . These are methods of survival that intelligent humans might resort to. However, if we consider the primitive central nervous system of the atlas moth caterpillar (Attacus) as well as its other behavior, it’s clearly incapable of reasoning or designing along those lines. Then how can this caterpillar protect itself this way? In the past, naturalists who made such observations believed not only in the existence of miracles, but in the existence of a supernatural Creator or God Who, in order to protect His creations, distributed such knowledge for them to defend themselves. Such an explanation is anathema for today’s naturalists. But on the other hand, its equally pointless for modern science to try and explain such a phenomenon with instincts. Contrary to what most of us might believe, attributing such behavior to instincts—in this case, the caterpillar’s—means interpreting them as inborn. That doesn’t get us anywhere else than where we started from, and prevents us from finding true answers to this problem… However, it’s well-nigh irrational to speak of the “intelligence” of caterpillars lacking a developed brain. Yet if we look at the behaviors that we’ve been examining from the start, we do notice that some features meet the criteria of intelligence. If focusing on a goal, predicting future events, calculating the potential behavior of another species, and responding appropriately are not indicators of intelligence, then what is?5

This is a famous evolutionist’s attempts to explain the behavior of a small caterpillar that acts with intelligence and planning. In such books or publications, it’s not possible to find other comments or explanations, aside from this sort of demagogic sentences and unanswered questions.

Actually Charles Darwin, father of the theory of evolution, realized the threat that animals’ instinctive behavior posed to his theory. In his book, On the Origins of Species, he admitted this clearly, here as well as in other places:

Many instincts are so wonderful that their development will probably appear to the reader a difficulty sufficient to overthrow my whole theory.6

In The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Francis Darwin, Darwin’s son, relates his father’s dilemma over instincts:

Chapter III of [The Origin of Species], which concludes the first part, treats of the variations which occur in the instincts and habits of animals… It seems to have been placed thus early in the Essay to prevent the hasty rejection of the whole theory by a reader to whom the idea of natural selection acting on instincts might seem impossible. This is the more probable, as the Chapter on Instinct in the “Origin” is specially mentioned (Introduction, page 5) as one of the “most apparent and gravest difficulties on the theory.”7

Instincts Do Not Develop Through Evolution

Proponents of this theory say that most animal behavior is instinctive, but as we stated before, evolutionists cannot explain the source of instincts, how they first arose, or how animals acquired their apparently knowledgeable behavior. When some evolutionists feel cornered, they claim that animals acquire some behaviors through experience, and the process of natural selection automatically chooses the most successful ones, which are then passed on to the next generation, through inheritance.

You need not reflect too deeply to detect the scientific flaws in this logic. We can now proceed to examine the errors in these evolutionists’ claims.

1. Invalidating the Claim thatAdvantageous Behaviors are Chosen Through Natural Selection

Natural selection, one of the central mechanisms of the theory that Darwin proposed, means that any change (either physical or behavioral) beneficial to an animal is selected in preference over others and thus becomes a permanent feature, to be passed on to the next generation.

But here is a crucially important point that we shouldn’t disregard: Darwin’s theory presumes that nature is able to distinguish between beneficial and harmful, thus making conscious decisions. However, no force or consciousness existing in nature is capable of such a feat. Neither the animal itself nor any other creature has the faculties to determine which behaviors are beneficial. Only a conscious Being of intellect Who has created both nature and animals can make such selections.

Darwin himself admitted the impossibility of acquiring complex and beneficial behavior by means of natural selection. He confessed that his claims owe more to imagination than to science and are therefore flawed. Nevertheless, he persisted:

Finally, it may not be a logical deduction, but to my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting its foster-brothers, ants making slaves… not as specially endowed or created instincts, but as small consequences of one general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.8

Professor Cemal Yildirim, one of Turkey’s foremost evolutionists, admits that natural selection cannot explain mothers’ tenderness and love for their offspring:

Can a mother’s love be explained by the blind process of natural selection, which has no spiritual aspects? For such questions, it’s hardly possible for Darwinist biologists to give satisfactory answers.9

In living creatures that are devoid of intellect and reason, there are some innate “spiritual” qualities that they could not have acquired by their own will. Therefore, there must exist some power that gives it to them. Neither nature nor the process of natural selection possess awareness and spiritual qualities, so therefore, they cannot be these qualities’ source. The obvious reality is that all beings live under the will and control of God. This is why, so often in the natural world, we witness extremely conscious behavior in unthinking animals that makes us ask, “How can any animal know this?” or “How could this creature think that?”
2. Invalidating the Claim that Behavior Can Be Acquired through Natural Selection and Passed
on to the Next Generation

The second of the evolutionists’ claims is the behaviors that surviving individuals acquire can be passed on to the future generations. But this assertion is full of inconsistencies. First of all, even if animals learn a behavior by means of experience, it’s impossible for them to pass it down to their offspring. The learned behavior belongs to—and stops with—the animal that acquired it. It’s definitely impossible to pass on learned behaviors via the gene pool.

Evolutionist Gordon R. Taylor, whom we quoted earlier, dismisses some biologists’ claim that an organism’s behavior can be passed down to its later offspring:

Biologists assume freely that such inheritance of specific behavior patterns is possible, and indeed that it regularly occurs. Thus [the late Theodosius] Dobzhansky [an evolutionist Professor of Zoology] roundly asserts: ‘All bodily structures and functions, without exception, are products of heredity realized in some sequence of environments. So are all forms of behavior, without exception.’ This simply isn’t true and it is lamentable that a man of Dobzhansky’s standing should dogmatically assert it. Some forms of behavior are, certainly; we have no way of knowing that all are.

But the plain fact is that the genetic mechanism shows not the slightest sign of being able to convey specific behavior patterns. What it does is manufacture proteins. By producing more of certain hormones it could affect behavior in an overall way— making the animal more aggressive, more passive or perhaps even more maternal. But there is not the faintest indication that it can hand on a behavioral programme of a specific kind, such as the sequence of actions involved in nest building.

If in fact behavior is heritable, what are the units of behavior which are passed on—for presumably there are units? No one has suggested an answer.10

As Gordon Taylor stated, it’s highly unscientific to assert that complex behavioral patterns are inbred. Conscious serial actions, like birds building nests, beavers constructing dams or bees making honeycombs, are of a complexity that requires foresight. The fact that worker bees and ants are sterile present another convincing proof that behavior cannot be inbred.

The colony’s worker ants display specific behavior that requires a certain level of knowledge and no little skill at evaluation. However, worker ants can’t possibly acquire any of it genetically because they are sterile and cannot pass on their features to the next generation. We must ask evolutionists this question: How did the first worker ant that acquired its specific behavior pass it along to the next generation? Not just ants, but also sterile worker bees and termites display behaviors requiring intelligence, skill, solidarity, discipline, teamwork and devotion. But from the day these creatures first appeared, millions of years ago, they have been unable to pass on any of their acquired characteristics.

Furthermore, it can’t be said that they learned their extraordinary behaviors. All these creatures begin to display these behaviors perfectly, from the first moment they emerged from their pupae. They do not go through any learning process on any subject; all their behavior is determined according to knowledge they have at birth. This is equally true for the “instinctive” behaviors of all other living beings anywhere on earth. If this is so, who does teach them these skills?

Darwin voiced this contradiction 150 years ago:

. . . [I]t would be a serious error to suppose that the greater number of instincts have been acquired by habit in one generation, and then transmitted by inheritance to succeeding generations. It can be clearly shown that the most wonderful instincts with which we are acquainted, namely, those of the hive-bee and of many ants, could not possibly have been acquired by habit.11

If a working ant or other neuter insect had been an ordinary animal, I should have unhesitatingly assumed that all its characters had been slowly acquired through natural selection; namely, by individuals having been born with slight profitable modifications, which were inherited by the off-spring; and that these again varied and again were selected, and so onwards. But with the working ant we have an insect differing greatly from its parents, yet absolutely sterile; so that it could never have transmitted successively acquired modifications of structure or instinct to its progeny. It may well be asked, how is it possible to reconcile this case with the theory of natural selection?12

Darwin’s objection remains unanswered by evolutionists today.

The evolutionist Cemal Yildirim expresses the dilemma that this subject presents to his fellow evolutionists:

From among the social insects, let us take the worker ants and bees. Since they are sterile, it’s impossible for them to pass on to later generations whatever characteristics and modifications they may have acquired during their lives. And yet these workers have adapted to their environment and way of behavior in an advanced manner.13

As we can see from these admissions, the astounding behavior of living things and their instincts cannot be explained by evolutionary mechanisms. These animals’ skills are not acquired by the processes of natural selection, nor is it possible to transfer them, through inheritance, from one generation to the next.

3. Invalidating the Claim that Instincts Evolve and Change Along with a Species

The theory of evolution claims that species evolve from one another. According to this proposition, amphibians—for instance—evolved from fish. But it must not be forgotten that each species’ behavior is distinct. A fish behaves completely different from an amphibian. If so, did the creature’s behavior change according to the biological changes that took place?

This question highlights the evolutionists’ dilemmas and contradictions. Darwin was well aware of them and even questioned the proposition that instincts can be acquired and then evolve through natural selection:

. . . [C]an instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to the instinct which leads the bee to make cells, and which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?14
We can multiply these contradictions by giving the examples of other living classes such as fish, reptiles, and birds:

Fish have their own unique ways of hunting, building and defending their nests, and propagating their species. These characteristics harmonize perfectly with their existing underwater living conditions. In the breeding season, some fish adhere their eggs to rocks under water and increase the oxygen flow to them by fanning their fins. Birds, on the other hand, conceal their eggs in specially constructed nests and hatch them through incubation.

Some fish build nests in rock cavities in the water, and some land animals build nests on trees using bark and twigs as building materials, whereas birds use grass and other fine matter. On the other hand, some reptiles such as crocodiles, bury their eggs in sand where they remain for their two-month incubation period.

Mammals, which evolutionists claim to have evolved from reptiles, reproduce altogether differently from other class of animals. While all other species lay eggs, mammals carry their young in their womb for months before giving birth to them, and then feed their babies with mother’s milk.

Each animal hunts for food in a different way. Some lurk in ambush over an extended period, others camouflage themselves, and yet others use the advantages of speed or flight. As we know, land animals’ behavior varies considerably from that of water dwellers, all depending on their environment and living conditions.

Under these circumstances, animals’ instincts must undergo great changes during the evolutionary process. For instance if a fish, following its instincts, sticks its eggs onto a rock and stirs up the water to provide an oxygen flow to them, this inner drive must also change, in the process of its evolving into a land animal. Furthermore, this instinct must change further, to the extent where the species starts building perfect nest structures high above the ground to incubate its eggs.

This is clearly not possible.

Yet another difficulty presents itself: If a species’ biological makeup and therefore, its living environment change, but its behavior does not, then it cannot survive. For instance, a fish able to conceal itself in the oceans must quickly develop new defense mechanisms for itself, wasting no time. All of its bodily functions, behavior, and way of life must change at once. Otherwise, it is doomed, and its species will quickly die out along with it.

Obviously a creature devoid of logic and awareness cannot make such sudden decisions requiring reason and strategy. How come, then, that all living things can behave in the most perfect ways, each one befitting its biological and environmental conditions?

In The Origin of Species, Darwin refers to this criticism:

It has been objected to the foregoing view of the origin of instincts that “the variations of structure and of instinct must have been simultaneous and accurately adjusted to each other, as a modification in the one without an immediate corresponding change in the other would have been fatal.”15

As we have seen, neither evolutionary processes, nor coincidences, nor “Mother Nature” can explain the behavior of animals and the true origins of instincts. How did species acquire the qualities that enable them to continue their existence?

Actually, the answer is clear and obvious. Anyone who has observed living organisms must agree that clearly, these behaviors neither originate in them nor are the product of successive “selective” coincidences. The true source for animal behavior is to be found neither in their bodies nor in their environment. It is self-evident that these behaviors are governed by an invisible power and intellect, which belong to God, the most compassionate and merciful.

Conclusion: All Living Things Act on the Urging and Behest of God

As we’ve seen in the previous pages, evolutionists dealing with the subject of animal behavior are facing serious difficulties. On the other hand, the truth is clear. If animals, which clearly do not have intellect or the ability to reason, can discriminate between details, link up events, make the proper decisions, and plan for or predict subsequent events that require intelligence and awareness, they must be governed and directed by some power outside themselves. Evolutionists say that animals are “programmed” to behave in certain ways—but who created their programs? What power inspires the bees to build their combs? The answer is clear and obvious. Every person who has observed living things can clearly see that these behaviors neither originate in them nor are the product of successive coincidences. It is self-evident that there is an intellect and power that controls everything in nature and governs these behaviors. The owner of this intellect and power is God, the Creator of all there is.

The theory of evolution cannot even explain how any organism came into being, much less explain the source of that being’s behavior. Therefore, it’s of great importance to observe animal behavior, because doing so quickly reveals that no creature is left to its own devices. It is God, the Lord of everything on earth, in the heavens and in between, Who creates every being from nothing, controls it, guards it, and commands its behavior. As the Qur’an reveals:

[Hud said], “I have put my trust in God, my Lord and your Lord. There is no creature He does not hold by the forelock. My Lord is on a Straight Path.” (Qur’an, 11: 56)

Animals’ Devotion Belies Darwin’s Thesis that Only the Fittest Survive

As we have examined over the last few pages, the natural selection process that Darwin proposed suggests that those animals that are strongest and best adapted to their geography’s living conditions can survive and continue their species, whereas those that have not adapted well and are weak in comparison perish. According to Darwinism’s natural selection scenario, nature is an arena in which all creatures are engaged with one another in a fierce struggle for survival, and where weak individuals succumb to the stronger, leading to the extinction of their species.

According to this claim, every being needs to be stronger, fitter than its counterparts, and must fight to survive. Such an environment leaves no room for devotion, selflessness or cooperation, because any of these traits could work against the animal in question. For this reason, each individual must be as selfish as possible and consider only its own needs—its food, personal safety, and defending its nest.

Is nature really full of selfish and fiercely competitive individuals, where each animal is pitted against every other, trying to destroy or subdue one another?

So far, all the observations made in this respect belie evolutionists. Contrary to their claim, nature is not an arena governed by warfare alone. Quiet the opposite is true. There are many examples of devoted animals that often endanger their own lives, displaying selfless behavior at their own expense for the good of the herd, and intelligent group behavior with no personal benefit. In his book Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik (The Theory of Evolution and Bigotry), Cemal Yildirim—though himself an evolutionist, explains why Darwin and other evolutionists of his time concluded that nature is a battleground:

Scientists of the nineteenth century were easily misled into adopting the thesis that nature is a battlefield, because more often than not, they were imprisoned in their studies or laboratories and generally didn’t bother to acquaint themselves with nature directly. Not even a respectable scientist like Huxley could exempt himself from this error.16

In his book, Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution, evolutionist Peter Kropotkin expresses the error of Darwin and his followers as follows:

… the numberless followers of Darwin reduced the notion of struggle for existence to its narrowest limits. They came to conceive the animal world as a world of perpetual struggle among half-starved individuals, thirsting for one another’s blood. . . . In fact, if we take Huxley, who certainly is considered as one of the ablest exponents of the theory of evolution, were we not taught by him, in a paper on the “Struggle for Existence and its Bearing upon Man,” that, “from the point of view of the moralist, the animal world is on about the same level as a gladiators’ show. The creatures are fairly well treated, and set to, fight hereby the strongest, the swiftest, and the cunningest live to fight another day.” . . . [I]t may be remarked at once that Huxley’s view of nature had as little claim to be taken as a scientific deduction.17

This state of affairs also indicates that this theory is not based on scientific observation. To support their evolutionist ideology, scientists have misinterpreted some clear features of nature. The war that Darwin imagined taking place in nature is nothing more than imaginary, because there aren’t creatures who fight solely for their own gain. Many animals are friendly with others of their species and even behave selflessly. For this reason, evolutionists find it hard to explain such selfless behavior they regularly encounter. An article on the subject published in a scientific magazine exposes this dilemma:

The question is, Why do living beings help one another? According to Darwin’s theory, every animal is fighting for its own survival and the continuation of its species. Helping other creatures would decrease its own chances of surviving, and therefore, evolution should have eliminated this type of behavior, whereas we observe that animals can indeed behave selflessly.18

Honeybees sting, even kill any animal that threatens their hive. But in stinging, they will have committed suicide. The barb of their sting breaks off in the adversary, taking with it part of the bee’s lower abdomen and some of its internal organs. As we see here, the bee sacrifices its own life for the survival of the rest of the hive.

Male and female penguins protect their young even to the death. Both parents are totally devoted to their young. The male penguin shelters its baby between its legs for four months and during this period, it cannot feed. The female penguin goes in the sea, hunting for food for the baby and transports it back in its gullet.

The crocodile is one of the most ferocious animals, but the female crocodile shows astonishing devotion to her offspring. Once they hatch from their eggs, she carries them to the water in her jaws. From then on, she will keep them either in her mouth or on her body until they become self-sufficient. When the baby crocodiles encounter danger, they instantly seek refuge in their mother’s mouth.
The crocodile is not just ferocious, but also an animal devoid of reason and logic. It would not be surprising, therefore, if she were to eat her young for food instead of protecting them.

Some animal mothers are forced to leave their own communities until their offspring are weaned, which exposes them to great dangers. Many species look after their young after they are born or hatched for many days or months and, in some cases, even years, providing them with food, shelter, warmth and protection from predators. Many species of birds feed their fledglings between four and 20 times an hour throughout the day. Mammal mothers have a different set of problems to deal with, for while suckling their babies, they need increased nourishment and therefore, need to hunt for more food. While her baby gains weight, she continues to lose it.

Animals without foresight or reason could be expected to desert their offspring at birth, because they could not be aware that those tiny creatures signify the survival of their species as a whole. Yet instead, they take all the responsibility of caring for their young entirely upon themselves.

Animals do not behave selflessly simply because they protect their young. In many cases, animals have been seen to behave very considerately and constructively toward other animals in their community. One example for this can be observed when food becomes scarce. In such a situation, one might assume that the stronger individuals would eliminate the others and seek to keep the limited resources for themselves. But things don’t happen the way evolutionists would expect. In his book, the renowned evolutionist Peter Kropotkin gives examples of such behavior: In situations where food resources dry up, he states, ants begin to draw from their food stores. Birds migrate in flocks. And in a stream where the number of beavers becomes unsustainable, the younger ones migrate north, and the older ones south.19 As these facts demonstrate, no merciless struggle for food or shelter is going on. To the contrary, it can be observed that even in the hardest of times, there is solidarity and cooperation in nature, as if each animal were trying to help ease the conditions for the others.

We must not disregard one important point: None of these animals possesses the intelligence or awareness to make such decisions or to create such a protocol. How is it, then, that they can set a common goal to which they all adhere—and that their chosen aim can be the most effective of all?

No doubt it is God, the Lord of all the universe, Who created these creatures, inspires them to the most befitting behavior, and guards them at all times. God reveals His protection over all His creation as follows:

There is no creature on the Earth which is not dependent upon God for its provision. He knows where it lives and where it dies. They are all in a Clear Book. (Qur’an, 11: 6)

In the face of these realities, the evolutionists’ claim that nature is a battlefield, that the selfish ones that fight in their own self-interest come out on top, is unsustainable. The famous evolutionist John Maynard Smith asks his fellow evolutionists the following question:

Here one of the key questions has to do with altruism:How is it that natural selection can favor patterns of behavior that apparently do not favor the survival of the individual?20

The “Instinct” for Continuing the Species

As we saw in the preceding pages, evolutionists cannot explain the important subject of animals’ devotional behavior… The many examples observed in nature disprove the central propositions of the theory of evolution. The late Stephen Jay Gould, a renowned evolutionist, stated that acts of devotion in nature pose “the vexatious problem of altruism.”21 Gordon R. Taylor, giving voice to the evolutionists’ woes, says that living beings’ devotional behavior “has long presented a challenge for Darwinism.”22 Wholly “spiritual” qualities like care and compassion deal a clear sharp blow to the materialist worldview that views nature as the sum total of random interactions of matter.

Some evolutionists, refusing to admit defeat, came up with a proposition they termed “selfish gene theory.” Richard Dawkins, one of the most ardent adherents and the pioneer of this position, claims that what appears to be selfless devotion is really driven by egotism. According to his view, animals displaying devotional behavior are doing so not because they want to help others of their species, but are acting on behalf of their own genes. To put this idea in context, any animal mother who sacrifices her life for her young is thereby helping pass along her genes. If her offspring survive, they will be more likely to perpetuate her genetic characteristics to the next generation. According to this rationale, all creatures—humans included—are simply “gene machines.” Every living organism’s foremost responsibility is to pass its genes along for future generations.

Evolutionists claim that living things behave according to their programming, to “want” to continue the species by transmitting their genes along to future generations. The following quote, from the evolutionary book Essentials of Biology, is a fine example of the explanations that classical evolutionists offer for animal behavior:

What might account for potentially self-destructive behavior? At least some altruistic acts are reputed to stem from so-called selfish genes. Parents that work themselves ragged to feed insatiable offspring or go without food as long as a predator is near are probably carrying out genetically programmed behavior—behavior that increases the chances of parental genes within the offspring being passed on to yet another generation. These innate, instinctive responses to predators may seem “purposeful” to the human observer, but in fact they are behavioral programs triggered by sights, sounds, odors, and other cues.23

This quotation says, in effect, that animals’ behavior looks as if it has a purpose, an “ulterior motive”—but that these organisms don’t commit these acts consciously, much less in order to serve any future end, but simply because they are “programmed to do so.” The question that needs asking is this: What is the source of this programming? Yes, genes are encoded data banks, but they cannot think or reason. Genes do not possess intelligence or judgment; so therefore, if a living being’s genes contained an order demanding selfless devotion, the gene itself could not be the source of it.

For example, if you press a computer’s ON\OFF button, it will shut down—because an intelligent, conscious, knowledgeable programmer designed it to do so. Notice the distinction: The computer does not do this by itself; the button did not become by chance, through trial and error, a device that switches the computer off. Some engineer designed this switch, consciously and deliberately.

In this case, even if a creature’s genes were programmed to act selflessly so that the species might continue, this would clearly indicate the existence of an intelligent, knowledgeable power that programmed the genes this way in the first place. God is this power, and He directs all living things, supervises them, and commands their actions—as the Qur’an reveals:

Everything in the heavens and every creature on the Earth prostrates to God, as do the angels. They are not puffed up with pride. They fear their Lord above them and do everything they are ordered to do. (Qur’an, 16: 49-50)

It is God Who created the seven heavens and of the Earth the same number, the Command descending down through all of them, so that you might know that God has power over all things and that God encompasses all things in His knowledge. (Qur’an, 65: 12)

Living Creatures Help not Only Related Animals with the Same Genes, but Other Species Too
In Chapter 3, we’ll see more detailed examples of animals that help not only their own young, but also other animals in need. This is an irresolvable issue for the evolutionists, because this behavior does nothing to pass genes along. The following example by the renowned evolutionist John Maynard Smith openly exposes the theory of evolution’s dilemma:

In spite of male baboon’s lack of genetic relationship, they do display one type of cooperative behavior. When two baboons are in some kind of contest, one of them may enlist the aid of a third baboon. The soliciting baboon asks for help with an easily recognized signal, turning its head repeatedly back and forth between its opponent and its potential assistant.24

Clearly, in short, animals help one another and act selflessly because God commands them to do so.

As we continue through the book, we’ll see many more examples of selfless altruism, compassion, and devotion. It must not be forgotten that God has created these animals in the most perfect way, making them behave in this way.



Some animals remain with other family members for a very long time, or even for life. Penguins and swans, for instance, are birds that mate for life. Female elephants stay together with their mothers and even their grandmothers.25

In mammals, usually the males establish families consisting of females and their young. But leading a family brings with it many responsibilities. The male must hunt for food more often, as compared to a single male. He can easily protect himself, but must take care for and protect the other family members as well. Guarding the defenseless young often requires selfless behavior.

This is an important matter that should be reflected on: Animals make great efforts to establish their families, to care and provide for them. To do so, they risk their own lives and forsake an easy life for themselves. Why should animals choose these harder options?

This tendency completely disproves Darwin’s “the fittest survive and the weaker perish” thesis. As the many examples over the following pages will demonstrate to the contrary, the weak are often protected by the strong, who thereby endanger their own lives.

Family Members Recognizing One Another

One prerequisite for social life is that family members can immediately recognize each other. Even in wide open spaces where animals live side by side in large colonies, they can recognize their own offspring, mates, parents, and siblings.

Each species has a different method of recognizing its own. Ground-nesting birds recognize their young’s voices as well as their looks. One example of this are Herring gulls, which raise their young in huge colonies. Even when their chicks are out of sight, parents recognize and respond to their calls without ever confusing their calls with other young gulls’. If a stray young bird trespasses their nesting spot, they recognize and chase away the intruder.26

Usually mammals recognize their own young by their smell and taste. As soon as a baby is born, the mother sniffs and licks it and from then on, never confuses it with any other.27

Among the most successful creatures in this respect are penguins. They look so alike that when humans observe them carefully, it’s almost impossible to tell them apart. Thus it is so astonishing that the members of a penguin family can recognize one another with no difficulty. Consider that the mother leaves her mate and young for a period of two to three months in order to search for food. Yet on her return, she recognizes them both.

Among the hundreds of other penguins, the mother penguin easily finds her own mate and their chick. More interestingly, before the adult females set off to go hunting in the sea, they gather all the young to form a nursery as a precaution against the freezing cold. The young birds stay closely packed together, taking advantage of one another’s body heat. But there is one problem: How are the adult birds going to recognize their own young on their return from their hunting trip from among the hundreds of other birds. This though does not seem to pose a problem for penguins. Each adult begins to call at high pitch and the young birds recognize their parents by their sound and move towards them.28 No doubt, recognition by voice is under these circumstances the most appropriate method for the thousands of penguins. But, how come penguins have the very same appearance but distinct voices so they can recognize one another? Furthermore, how did they acquire the skill to distinguish each other by voice? No penguin could have come up with the idea of such qualities and skills and then adopt them by themselves. These must be given qualities, but by whom? According to evolutionists, it is nature—but what part or feature of it could provide animals with such abilities? The ice on the poles, maybe? Perhaps the rocks? Obviously neither, because “nature,” to which evolutionists ascribe this and many other powers consists of rocks, stones, trees, ice and the like, which are a totality of created matter. Therefore, the answer to the above question is simple: God creates everything perfect within itself, gives each penguin a distinct voice note and the ability to recognize by voice, thereby making their lives easier for them.

Cozy Nests Built for Offspring

Nests play an important role in protecting animals, in particular their young. Many species use a wealth of astonishing techniques to construct nest with a variety of diverse architectural details. Animals plan often like architects, working like master builders, finding technical solutions like engineers, and sometimes adorning their nests like decorators. Often they work tirelessly, day and night, in constructing their nest. Their mates often share the workload, and the two assist each another. The nests most carefully prepared are those built for the expected arrival of the young.

The various techniques used to build these nests are so perfect that one would not expect them from animals devoid of intellect and technological skills. As the following pages will show in great detail, they could not have been designed by the animals themselves, because they would have to plan out the many stages of the project before even beginning to build. First off, they’d have to realize the need for a nest for the safety of their eggs and young. Next, they’d need to locate the most suitable place for their nests, since no creature builds its nest just anywhere.

Building materials used in the nest’s construction are carefully selected from those available in the environment. For example, water birds build nests from plant matter that will float, in case of unexpected flooding. Birds living among reeds, on the other hand, make their nests wide and deep, to prevent their eggs from falling out when the reeds bend in the wind. Birds inhabiting deserts build their nests atop of shrubs and cacti, where the temperature is 10o C (50o F) lower than on ground level, where the oven-like 45o C (113o F) heat would kill the young birds in a very short time.

Choosing the right location for a nest requires knowledge as well as intelligence. An animal cannot foresee the risks of flooding, or the danger that high temperatures pose for young birds—much less how to prevent their adverse effects. We are faced, then, with a paradox: On the one hand, animals of little intelligence and no knowledge and, on the other, behavior that is conscious, intelligent and knowledgeable. God is the owner of consciousness, intelligence, and knowledge; and expresses these qualities in His perfect creations.

The healthy survival of their offspring is vitally important for all living species; and from the moment of laying their eggs or giving birth to their young, protecting them becomes the parents’ sole occupation. The penduline tit, paying utmost attention to the safety of its offspring, builds a number of dummy nests in the vicinity of its real nest, to divert the attention of any hungry enemy. This diversion strategy, obviously the result of careful planning, couldn’t possibly be the product of the penduline tit’s own intellect.

One of the most common methods birds use to protect a nest from predators is to build it in a thorny bush or camouflage it among dry leaves. Some species, in order to protect the female and her eggs, wall off the entrance to their nest structure with mud while she is inside, or else mix their saliva with soil to form a sort of mortar they use to build a wall covering the entrance.

These can hardly be skills those animals could develop on their own. What, then, enables these birds and other animals to build nests so intricate and perfectly designed? How do animals acquire these skills?

Another detail should not be disregarded. At birth, every animal possesses the knowledge of building its characteristic nest. Every member of that species, wherever on Earth it might be, builds its nest in the same way. This clearly shows that creatures did not learn their nest-building methods or acquire them in any casual sort of way, but that this knowledge and skill was given them by the same power. God, the All-knowing and All-powerful, creates them together with their skills and gives them this knowledge.

Quite aside from their architectural perfection, the extraordinary dedication that parents invest in building their nests is certainly worth noticing. Whereas birds build ordinary nests for themselves, they build ones for their offspring with the utmost care. Considering the different phases involved in nest building, we can better understand the scale of the efforts birds put into it, the energy they invest and the selflessness of their behavior. To build its nest, a bird can carry only a few twigs or grass stalks at a time in its beak, and so must make hundreds of flights to gather the building materials it requires. But this does not discourage the bird. It continues to forage patiently. It never becomes frustrated, never settles for less, is never too tired or lazy to complete its nest in every last detail.

According to Darwin’s natural selection theory, these animals should be concerned only with themselves. In an environment where only the fittest and strongest could succeed in the battle for survival, would animals exhaust themselves so that their vulnerable offspring could survive? What could explain their preparing in advance a secure environment for the arrival of their vulnerable young? Natural selection cannot answer these questions; neither can the theory of evolution, nor any other atheist ideology. These questions have one answer only: God gives to these animals dedication, patience, endurance, persistence and ambition. God instills them with these qualities so that the strong can protect the weak, so that natural balances can continue and these species can exist until their appointed times and can become living signs of God’s artistry, power, wisdom and the superiority of His creation.

Subsequent pages will give examples of animals renowned for their architectural and decorative skills. Eggs and later on, the young birds that hatch from them are vulnerable in the extreme, and especially in need of protection. Therefore, God directs their parents to build them exactly the right type of nests.

How do Birds Build Their Spectacular Constructions?

Birds are the ultimate nest-builders. Each different species has its own unique nest-building techniques and constructs these structures without ever getting confused.
When the parent birds leave the nest to search for food, their offspring are completely defenseless. Their nests that are concealed with great skill in treetops, holes in trees and cliffs, or even amidst tall grass, provide a safe, hidden shelter for the chicks.

Another purpose of the nests is to provide protection from the cold. Birds are hatched featherless, and since their muscles do not get exercised within the egg, they are relatively immobile and thus need nests to insulate them from the cold. Woven nests in particular trap body heat, providing warmth for the chicks—but constructing these structures is a detailed and difficult undertaking. The female builds the nest by carefully weaving grasses, twigs, and scavenged yarn over a fairly long period of time. She cushions the inside with feathers, hair and fine grass, thereby further insulating the nest.29

For every type of nest, finding the right building materials is essential. Birds can spend a whole day in their quest for the building materials their structure needs. Their beaks and talons are designed for carrying and arranging the materials they gather. The male bird chooses the location of the nest, and the female builds it.

These nests’ features depend on the materials and techniques used in their construction. All building materials for their architectural masterworks must be pliable and compressible. Nests are built taking into account the elasticity, durability and toughness of the different materials birds use—mud, leaves, feathers, cellulose and the like. This increases the structure’s durability. Using plant fibers mixed with mud, for instance, prevents cracks from developing.

First, birds mix the mortar from the materials they gather. One species that uses this technique is the cliff swallow, which builds its nests on cliffs and the walls of buildings, using mud as an adhesive to glue their nests together. They gather mud and feathers and transport them in their beaks to the construction site, where they mix mud with their saliva, smearing the mixture against the face of the cliff to form a pot-shaped structure with a round opening on top. This structure they fill with grass, moss, and feathers. Usually they build these structures in cavities under overhanging cliffs, to prevent rain from softening and thus destroying the nest.30

Some South African birds like the penduline-tit build nests comprised of two compartments. The real entrance to the brooding chamber is concealed, while the other entrance is readily visible, presenting a false doorway to any predators.31

The oropendola, a large and quite distinctive bird, builds its nest next to the those of wasps, which automatically keep snakes, monkeys, toucans and botflies (a type of fly deadly for these birds), from approaching their nests.32 In this way, the oropendola protects its young from the dangers that all these creatures pose for their young.

The “Stitched” Nests of Tailor Birds

The tailor bird of India has a beak like a sewing needle. As thread, it uses silk from cobwebs, cotton from seeds, and fibers of tree bark. This bird selects two or more large green leaves growing close together at the end of a branch and pulls them together. It then punches holes along the edges of each leaf, and pulls the spider silk or plant fiber through the holes to sew the leaves together, finally tying knots in each stitch to keep it from slipping. It does the same on the other side, stitching the leaves together, taking approximately six stitches to curve a leaf around. Eventually the bird fills this resulting purse with grass.33 Finally, it weaves another nest into the purse, where the female will lay her eggs.34

Weaver Birds

Naturalists consider these birds’ nests to be the most astonishing structures built by birds. This species uses plant fibers and tall plant stems to weave themselves extremely solid nests.

First of all, a weaver bird collects the building materials. It will cut long strips from leaves or extract the midrib from a fresh green leaf. There is a reason for its choice of fresh leaves: The veins of dry leaves would be stiff and brittle, too difficult to bend, but fresh ones make the work much easier. The weaver bird begins by tying the leaf fibers around the twig of a tree. With its foot, it holds down one end of the strip against the twig while taking the other end in its beak. To prevent the fibers from falling away, it ties them together with knots. Slowly it forms a circular shape that will become the entrance to the nest. Then it uses its beak to weave the other fibers together. During the weaving process, it must calculate the required tension, because if it’s too weak, the nest will collapse. Also it needs to be able to visualize the finished structure, since while building the walls, it must determine where the structure needs to be widened.35

Once it finishes weaving the entrance, it proceeds to weave the walls. To do so, it hangs upside down and keeps on working from the inside of the structure. It will push one fiber under another and pull it along with its beak, until it accomplishes a stunning weaving project.36

The weaver bird won’t just begin building its nest. It proceeds by calculating in advance what it needs to do next—first, collecting the most suitable building materials, then forming the entrance before going on to build the walls. It knows perfectly well where to thin or thicken the structure, and where to form a curve. Its behavior displays intelligence and skill, with no trace of inexperience. With no training, it can do two things at once—holding down one end of the fiber with its feet, while guiding the other end with its beak. None of its movements is coincidental; its every action is conscious and purposeful.

Another member of the weaver bird family builds a solid, rainproof nest. This bird obtains the perfect mortar by gathering plant fibers from the environment and mixing them with its saliva, which gives the plant fibers both elasticity and makes them waterproof.

Weaver birds repeat this process until their nest is complete. It’s no doubt impossible to claim that they have acquired these skills unconsciously, by chance. These birds construct their nests like an architect, construction engineer, and site foreman all rolled into one.

Another interesting example of nest building is performed by sociable weaver birds of southern Africa, which nest in a single huge, cooperatively built structure with separate entrances. With the ingenuity of accomplished architects, sociable weavers build these nests, some of which are home to as many as 600 birds.37

When it comes to nest building, why does this species choose the more complex over the easier option? Can we possibly ascribe to chance the fact that they can build such complex nest structures all by themselves? Surely not—like all other creatures in nature, they too act by the directives of God.

Swallow Burrows

Some birds hide their nests underground. Bank swallows, for instance, dig long tunnels in the sides of steep slopes along rivers and shorelines. They slant their tunnels at an upwards angle to prevent them being flooded with rainwater; and at the end of each tunnel is a grass- and feather-lined nesting chamber.38

The cloud swifts of South America build their nests behind waterfalls, even though it is almost impossible for birds to penetrate waterfalls. Hawks, herons, gulls or crows cannot manage to break through the fast-falling water. One would expect any bird attempting this feat to be crushed in mid-air under the tons of water. But these swifts are very small and fly fast enough that they can shoot through the waterfall like arrows. Their chosen nesting sites are safe, because no other animal dares try to reach them there.

However, these swifts do have problem in gathering building materials for their nests. Their feet are too small to let them pick up materials from the ground, as other birds do. So instead, they catch feathers, fragments of dried grass and such materials that float in the air. Then they stick them to the cliffs behind the waterfalls with spittle from their salivary glands.39

Cave swiftlets inhabiting the shores of the Indian Ocean build their nests in caves. Each wave breaking against the shore completely floods the entrance to the cave. That is why these birds can sometimes be seen hovering above the waves outside a cave, waiting for the foaming water to recede, so that they can dart into the cave. Before they begin to build their nests, swiftlets determine the highest water level by observing the marks that water leaves on the walls around the cave entrance, and then build their nests above that.40

The long-legged secretary bird of Africa builds its nest in prickly thorn trees to protect it from predators. Woodpeckers in the American Southwest drill nesting holes in the stems of giant cactus plants;41 while the marsh wrens, on the other hand, prepares dummy nests. While the female is building the real nest for their young, the male wren flies around the marsh, building the decoy nests that will draw predators’ attention away from their real one.42

Albatross Nests

Almost every species of bird is greatly dedicated to its young. To mate, albatrosses always return to their place of birth, where they form huge colonies. Weeks before the females arrive, the males restore last season’s old nests to provide a comfortable abode for the coming young. Albatrosses’ dedication to their eggs is remarkable, inasmuch as they sit for 50 days without getting up.

Nor is their dedication limited to protecting and caring for their eggs. Often they fly distances of over 1,500 km—a thousand miles—to gather food for their chicks.43

Hornbill Nests

For the hornbill, the mating season heralds the beginning of great activity. During this period, both males and females make an outstanding performance. The first thing they need to do is build a safe nest for the female and their offspring.

The female hornbill starts work by finding a suitable hole in a tree that will shelter the nest. She narrows the opening on the tree by plastering it with pellets of mud she carries in her beak. After entering the nest through the narrowed hole, she seals the entrance with mud that has dropped inside, thus reducing the gap to a beak-size slit. This will protect the female and their offspring from external dangers, particularly from snakes. After the nest is finalized, the female sits for three months without once leaving the nest. The male gathers food and feeds his mate through this small opening. When the young hatch, they too are fed by the same way.44 Both birds are very patient and dedicated to their offspring. While the female bird sits in this tree hole barely big enough for herself, for three month without ever leaving, and the male never deserts them in all this time.

From these examples, we have seen that each species of bird has its own way of constructing nests. Each technique requires a design planned in advance, and is of such a complexity that couldn’t be expected from creatures without intellect or the faculty of forethought.

We’re faced with organisms devoid of reason and the willpower necessary to behave with compassion, mercy and devotion. However, these creatures clearly demonstrate the products of intelligence, reason, planning and design and compassionate and altruistic behavior. So what is the source of their behaviors? If they lack the capacity to produce these actions through their own willpower, there must be a power that teaches them to act in this way. This power is God, the Lord of the earth, the heavens and everything in between.

Nests that Other Creatures Build: Bumblebees

Bumblebees display quite interesting dedication. The young queen, just before it’s time to lay her eggs, starts seeking out a suitable place to start her own colony. Once she determines the location, she begins gathering the building materials she needs to upholster her hive—feathers, leaves, and grass—and also as insulation material.

First, with material collected in the vicinity, she builds in the center of the nest a small chamber the size of a tennis ball. Then it’s time to gather food. On leaving, she flies in circles in the air above her nest, facing it at all times, so as to memorize its location. After collecting nectar and pollen for food, she returns and deposits her loads into the center of the chamber.

The queen feeds on nectar and, after a certain time, begins to secrete beeswax. She doesn’t discard the portion of nectar that she cannot consume, but lets it dry and uses it to bond together the building materials she’s collected to construct the chamber. She fills the cells she has made with nectar for food, and places a tiny lump of pollen in the bottom of the other cells and lays white eggs on top, which will hatch into the first worker bees. The cells are sealed with more wax and the queen bee keeps them warm until they hatch.

She does not lay her new eggs randomly, but places them symmetrically and with utmost care. However, equally important as the hatching of the eggs is feeding the young. Their food is ready in the cells filled by nectar by the queen bee. After an incubation period of from four to five days, the larvae hatch and begin to feed on the pollen and nectar readied for them.

It is noteworthy that the creature that distributes nectar where the young can reach it and builds a system that will ensure healthy growth for the young bees that will form the colony is not a being of intelligence, but a little bee only a few centimeters in size.

Why is the queen bee so devoted? That’s the first question that jumps to mind. She’ll derive no benefit from the young she feeds, especially since on the arrival of a new queen, she can be forced to leave the colony for which she worked so hard and sacrificed so much. There can be only one reason for the bumblebee to show such selfless devotion and put so much effort into raising new generations: Like all other creatures on Earth, the queen shows all this devotion because God directs her to be devoted and raise new generations. This means that the creatures of nature are not possessed by a selfish survival instinct as the evolutionists claim.45

The Ice Dens of Polar Bears

When they are pregnant or have cubs, female polar bears living in the freezing cold of the Arctic build themselves dens under the snow and ice. Otherwise, they do not live in dens. Cubs are usually born in midwinter—tiny, blind and naked. In the winter cold, a den is essential for these dependent, defenseless cubs to survive.

A typical polar bear’s den is a tunnel usually about two meters (6.5 feet) by 1.5 meters (5 feet) in size, and approximately one meter (3 feet) in height. This common abode is not simply dug out. In an environment entirely covered in ice and snow, it comprises essential details necessary for the cubs’ survival.

Usually these dens have more than one room, which are built higher than the entrance. In this way, body heat from the chamber cannot escape through the den’s entrance. Throughout the winter, snow piles onto the entrance and atop the den itself. In this great heap of snow, the polar bear leaves an opening just big enough for ventilation.46

The mother polar bear makes the den’s roof between 75 cm (2.5 feet) and 2 m (6.6 feet) thick, which insulates the den quite well, keeping in the heat and fixing the air at a constant temperature.47 In this lukewarm, protected environment, the mother bear stores energy and adjusts her fat reserves according to her period of hibernation.

Researcher Paul Watts from Norway’s Oslo University placed a thermometer in the upper wall of one den. Monitoring the temperature, he made an interesting discovery. While the outside temperature measured below -30 C (-22 F) degrees, the internal temperature never fell below 2 to3 degrees. How does the mother bear know that the roof’s insulation property changes according to its thickness? This has been the subject of scientific curiosity.

This poses another, even more interesting issue. During her hibernation, the mother bear reduces her metabolism rate, so as not to use up any energy and to provide more milk for her cubs. For seven months, she converts her stores of fat into protein. Because of this, she does not eat for all that time, reducing her pulse rate from 70 to 8 and slowing down her metabolism. Neither, during this period, does she have to relieve herself. During the period when she will give birth, she won’t have used up much energy.


In Florida’s Everglades, the female crocodile builds a very unusual nest for her eggs. First, she mixes decomposing plant matter with mud and builds a mound approximately 90cm (35 inches) high. She makes a little hole at the top, in which she lays a few dozen eggs, then covers them all with some more vegetable matter. From then on, she guards the mound against predators. As the eggs begin to hatch, she hears the noises the baby crocodiles make and removes the covering of decaying vegetation. The young quickly clamber to the top of the mound, where the mother crocodile takes them into her mouth and carries them to the water inside it.48

The Smith Frog

Among amphibian parents, one of the best nest builders is South African smith frog. The male builds a nest by the edge of the water, going around in circles until it has made a hole in the mud, then pushes against the hole’s walls to widen it. Once its work is finished, it will have built a pool 10cm (4 inches) deep, with solid mud walls.

Sitting in this pool, the smith frog makes its mating call until it attracts the attention of a female frog. Responding to his call, she lays her eggs in his pool. After the male fertilizes the eggs, both frogs guard them until they hatch. When the tadpoles emerge, they swim about in this enclosure, safe from fishes and insects. After they grow large enough and develop legs, they climb the walls and leave this carefully prepared nursery.49

Underwater Architects

It is not widely known that fish build nests, but a surprising number of freshwater species do—in ponds, lakes and streams. Usually they clear shallow depressions in the sand or gravel bottom. Once they have laid their eggs, salmon and trout close up the nests and then leave the eggs to hatch. In species that leave their eggs exposed in an open nest, one or both parents guard them. In many species, only the male fish builds the nest and guards the fertilized eggs.

The nests of some other species are more complex. Male sticklebacks, found in rivers and ponds in North America and Europe, build nests even more sophisticated than those of most bird species. The stickleback collects plant material and secretes a substance produced in its kidneys to bond it together. It swims along and around this material to give it an oblong shape, then finally forces its way through the middle, to form a tunnel through which water can circulate. If a female approaches the nest, the male performs his courting display by darting around to left and right. He leads the female to his tunnel nest and indicates its entrance by pointing with his head. When the female finishes laying her eggs inside the tunnel, the male enters through the front, fertilizes the eggs and finally, pushes the female out the back. After several females have filled the tunnel with eggs, the male guards the nest and makes sure fresh water keeps on circulating through the tunnel. Repairing and maintaining the nest as needed, he will keep on guarding the nest for a few more days after the eggs have hatched. Then he removes the nest’s top half, leaving the rest as a nursery for the baby fish to use.50

How do Animals Achieve All This?

Consider whether it’s possible for someone who’s never worked on a building site before, without anyone to explain materials or how to use them and with no plan to fall back on, to build himself a perfect residence. Surely not! It’s hardly reasonable to expect this feat of an intelligent human being, never mind a fish.

If this behavior of intelligence and skill cannot be expected of a human, how can we expect it in an animal? They work patiently and with much dedication in building their nests; and often only their young live in them. Many of the species given as examples in the preceding pages don’t even have a very complex nervous system, much less a highly developed brain. When they build their nests, however, they plan and calculate, apply the laws of physics, use weaving and stitching techniques requiring skill, along with satisfying their own needs as well as their offspring’s in a practical way. They mix mortar and insulate their nests with easily obtained materials. But how can a polar bear or bird know how insulation works? Or deduce that it needs to retain the heat in its nest? It’s self-evident that none of these qualities originates in the animal itself. So how do creatures come by this inborn knowledge?

These animals’ intelligent behavior, knowledge and dedication have only one source: All these are God-given qualities. God has created these creatures to be hard working and dedicated, providing them with the abilities to hunt, feed, breed, and protect themselves so that they can continue their species. In His infinite compassion and mercy, God makes them build their nests; enables them to make perfect plans; protects and nurtures them. Neither Mother Nature nor chance can program them to build sophisticated nests. Because all animals obey their Creator’s directives, they display behavior that could not be expected of them.

With the 68th verse of the Sura 16 —”… Build dwellings in the mountains and the trees, and also in the structures which men erect”—God reveals that it is He Who tells the bees where to build their nests.

Continuation of the Species and Selfless Devotion to Protect Offspring
Many animal species suffer hardship in order to raise and protect their offspring, even risking death on occasion. Some migrate for hundreds of miles to their chosen nesting grounds, where they build sophisticated nests requiring much effort. A few, like the male praying mantis, die after mating; or—like the salmon—after laying their eggs. Others guard their eggs for many weeks, some even carrying their eggs in their mouths and therefore cannot feed.

All these acts of altruism serve an important purpose: survival of the species. The weak and vulnerable young can survive only if protected and cared for by strong adults. The chances of survival are next to nothing for a newborn deserted at birth or for eggs laid just anywhere. But living beings take it upon themselves to care for their defenseless young without any signs of laziness, hesitation or frustration. Each species fulfills its role, ordained by God, without fail.

Another interesting point is that those species that devote the greatest care and attention to protecting their eggs or young, are those that reproduce in the fewest numbers. Birds, for instance, lay only a limited number of eggs each year, but guard them meticulously. Likewise, larger mammals produce only one or two young, but take it upon themselves to protect and care for them for a very long time. Some fish and insects lay thousands of eggs at any one time; and mice have several litters per year. But they do not pay the same attention to their eggs or offspring. Even if only a few survive, they are enough to guarantee the continuation of the species, because of the original high numbers involved. Were they to try and show the same devotion to every single one of their offspring, there would be a significant damage done to the world’s ecological balance. For example, were this the case with field mice, who reproduce in great numbers, their population would increase to such an extent that they would overrun the world.51 Reproduction is a vital factor in the preservation of the ecological balances, but it is impossible for animals themselves to monitor and balance this factor by conscious control.

None of these animals is a rational being. They cannot know that they need to reproduce to begin with, nor that they should consider the balances of the ecosystem and act accordingly. However, natural balances are indeed preserved, and each animal exactly fulfills its responsibilities. This clearly shows that all living things are governed by the same authority. Nothing in nature is unsupervised or uncontrolled; all bow to God, their Creator, and act accordingly.

God says in the Qur’an that no creature could reproduce unless He wills it, and that He determines death as well as life:

God knows what every female bears and every shrinking of the womb and every swelling. Everything has its measure with Him. (Qur’an, 13: 8)

. . . And no fruit emerges from its husk, nor does any female get pregnant or give birth, without His knowledge. . . (Qur’an, 41: 47)

The kingdom of the heavens and earth belongs to God. He creates whatever He wills. He gives daughters to whoever He wishes; and He gives sons to whoever He wishes; or He gives them both sons and daughters; and He makes whoever He wishes barren. Truly He is All-Knowing, All-Powerful. (Qur’an, 42: 49-50)

Extraordinary Care for Eggs and Young

It is possible to see many species of birds, fish or reptiles displaying acts of great devotion and compassion. Many species of animals suffer much hardship to protect their next generation—concealing them, placing the eggs carefully to prevent their breaking, warming or protecting the young from excessive heat, removing them to safety in case of danger, even carrying them around in their mouths, and guarding them for weeks on end.
Pythons can be dangerous to other larger creatures, including man, but are very protective and devoted to their eggs. The female python lays approximately 100 eggs, then curls up over them. This action cools the eggs by shading them when it’s too hot; when it is too cool, she warms them by vibrating her body. In this way, the female python prevents life-endangering threats to her eggs.52

Another interesting group of animals is the mouthbrooders—fish that incubate their spawn in their mouths. Some continue to keep them in their mouths even after the eggs hatch. Catfish, for example, swim around for weeks with their mouths full of their marble-sized eggs. Sometimes they gurgle with their mouths to increase the eggs’ oxygen supply. After the eggs hatch, they stay in the mouth of the male catfish for a few more weeks. During this period, the male sustains himself by drawing from his fat reserves and hardly ever eats.53

Another species that carries its young in its mouth is the frog. Rhinoderma carries its spawn inside itself. In the mating season, the females lay their eggs onto the ground, and the males gather to form a protective shield around the eggs. As the eggs develop, they begin to wobble within their globes of jelly, signaling for the males to come forward. They pick up the eggs and take them into their vocal sacs, which are unusually large. The eggs develop inside. One day, the male frog retches several times, then opens up its mouth wide and fully developed froglets emerge from his mouth.54

Another species of frog, native to Australia, does not keep its eggs in a separate sac, but swallows them down to its stomach. But while the offspring inside the stomach are protected from the external world, still they are exposed to a great danger from the acidic stomach juices that can digest eggs. Therefore, if the female continues to secrete stomach juices as she usually does, she will digest her own young. But, this does not happen because preventive measures kick in. When the frog swallows her spawn, her stomach ceases to secrete digestive juices, so that the spawn are saved from being digested.55

To guarantee the safety of their offspring, some other frogs use altogether different methods. For instance, after the Pipa toad spawns, the male frog gathers the eggs with his webbed feet and places them on the female’s back. The eggs stick to her skin, which begins to swell, and the eggs are embedded in it. A thin membrane forms over the eggs. Within thirty hours, they sink far enough as to become invisible, and the back of the female frog is level once again. The eggs develop under her skin. After 15 days, the back of the frog begins to stir with the movements of tadpoles. On the 24th day, the young frogs penetrate the skin, emerge into the water, and they immediately seek a safe place to hide.56

The midwife toad, native to Europe, spends the best part of its life in holes on land in the proximity of water. It mates on land and, after the female has spawned, the male fertilizes her eggs. A quarter of an hour later, the male begins to stick the eggs together into strings, which he then bonds to his hind legs. Wherever the male goes over the coming few weeks, he drags the spawn along with him. When the eggs are ready to hatch, the male returns to the water, where he stays until all the tadpoles have emerged. He then returns to his hole in the ground.57

In all these examples, one important point must not be missed. The behavior of these frogs is in complete harmony with their physical characteristics. One of these frogs has a sac made for the spawn that extends right down the underside of its body. The frog could not possibly be conscious of this, but instead of swallowing the eggs, it takes them into its vocal sac as if it were. The other species of frog, because it lacks the faculty of thought and intellect, could not know that its digestive juices would harm its spawn, much less how to stop secreting it. No living creature is able to stop its stomach from secreting digestive juices. Yet another species has a back uniquely suited to carry its spawn. Its physical attributes and behavior are so complex that they couldn’t possibly have developed by chance.

In each of these examples, there is an intrinsic design and plan. It is self-evident that God, the All-Knowing and All-Wise, has created these physical and behavioral characteristics in frogs, letting them be in harmony with one another as well as all the other living things. God, the Infinitely Compassionate and Merciful, protects all babies and offspring.

God has given the instincts of protection and compassion not only to the creatures mentioned here. Similarly, the eggs and larvae of ants, termites, bees and other colony-forming insects are the central point of their care and attention. Ants keep their eggs and larvae in underground chambers built especially for that purpose. Worker ants frequently move them from chamber to chamber, according to fluctuations in humidity and temperature, going to and fro, carrying the larvae in their jaws. When their nest comes under attack by other creatures, the worker ants immediately evacuate these chambers and carry the larvae to safety outside the nest.58

Birds’ care for their eggs is truly astonishing. For example, the little ringed plover lays four eggs in a hole in the ground. If the temperature rises dangerously, it plunges its abdomen in water and on its return, cools the eggs with the moisture on its feathers.59

Most egg-laying animals regulate the temperature of their eggs’ environment. Water fowl, like ducks and geese, for example, cover their eggs with feathers that they pluck from their own own breasts. This prevents heat loss from the eggs.60

Like many smaller birds, swans maintain their eggs’ warmth by sitting on them. The female frequently gets up and turns the eggs so they will warm evenly.61

For incubating its eggs, the phalarope bird uses an altogether different method. Once the female lays her eggs, her mate takes over the responsibility of looking after them. Sitting on the eggs, he soon loses the feathers on his breast and abdomen. This increases blood flow to these areas of skin, and the warmth is sufficient for the male to incubate the eggs in just over three weeks.62

Regulating the temperature in the nest is vital for the development of the eggs of all creatures. It is very significant that animals are most sensitive in this regard and regulate the temperature by a variety of methods. It’s not likely that any bird, snake or ant should know the importance of proper temperature and then, all by itself, discover an appropriate method for keeping temperatures at the needed level. That knowledge must lie outside of these animals. To thinking people, God, the Creator of everything, reveals His endless wisdom by creating different qualities in countless different creatures.

Often these animals tire endlessly in the effort to look after their young. Birds, in particular, are often required to build nest after nest, in one breeding season. While providing for their young in one nest, they have to incubate the eggs in another. For instance, in the little ringed plover and the grebes, both male and female, spend their days between incubating the eggs in one nest and feeding their young in the other.63

More interestingly, in the water hen and window swallow species, the young in the first nest help raise of the younger birds in the second. Many bee-eater pairs aid other pairs. This type of cooperation among one another is common among birds.64 No doubt, every one of these acts of selfless devotion rocks the whole premise of the theory of evolution. Such higher behavior should not exist in a natural ecosystem that, according to the evolutionists, has been formed by random chance and is populated by creatures with no concern for any individual beyond themselves. However, countless examples of altruism and helpfulness prove that nature is not the product of chance, but has been created by a superior being.

The Emperor Penguin’s Unequalled Patience

This is yet another species that goes to great effort to protect its eggs, and shows an astonishing level of patience and endurance. These birds, native to the inhospitable conditions of Antarctica, migrate a few miles to suitable grounds in March or April (when winter begins in the Southern Hemisphere) in order to reproduce and raise their young. Around 25,000 penguins congregate to mate. In May or June, each female lays one egg. The pair will not build a nest for their egg, as their whole environment is a land of ice and snow. Nor will they lay their egg on the ice, because it would not withstand the cold and freeze instantly. That is why the female carries the egg on her feet. A few hours after the female lays the egg, the male joins her, and they stand breast to breast.

The male takes the egg from the female, both making sure that the egg doesn’t make contact with the ice. He pushes his toes under the egg, then raises them to roll it onto his feet, doing this with utmost care and attention so as not to break the egg by accident. After this difficult exercise, he buries the egg in his feathers.

Producing the egg has almost exhausted the female penguin’s fat reserves, and she must immediately return to the sea to find food and restore her body fat to its former level. This is why the male needs to incubate her egg. But this is a much more difficult incubation period than other birds experience, and requires much patience. A male penguin never puts the egg down on the ice and therefore, he is almost completely immobile. He can move for only a few meters by dragging his feet and using his tail like a third foot. He rests on his heels while raising his toes, to prevent the precious egg from rolling onto the ice to freeze. Because his feet are covered by feathers, the temperature there is 80 degrees Centigrade (176 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the outside air. The egg never gets chilled by the freezing cold.
As the Southern Hemisphere winter progresses, snowstorms begin to wreak havoc. Winds can reach speeds of 120-160 kilometers an hour (75-95 mph). Under these murderous conditions, the male penguins go without food for a month and hardly ever move, proving their dedication for their offspring. In order not to freeze, male penguins huddle closer together, forming a solid bloc. To prevent cold air from blowing in between them, they press their beaks against their chests and their necks curve to the horizontal, thus forming a feathered roof with no gaps in between. Those penguins on the fringes are forced to stomach all the harshness of the South Pole. Not for long, though, because they keep rotating so as to face the cold in turns, proving their solidarity. No one bird refuses to take his turn.

It is very significant indeed that thousands of penguins can live side by side under the harshest conditions without conflict. It would be very unlikely for man, blessed with consciousness and intellect, to live in harmony, considerate and unselfish, where such a conflict of interest exists. But penguins do not desert their eggs, despite these inhospitable conditions and the threats to their own lives. This deals a lethal blow to the evolutionists’ claim that the weak die out and perish, destroyed by the strong. Instead, nature is where the vulnerable are protected and cared for, despite all the hardships involved.

After a most difficult 60 days, the penguins’ eggs hatch. The males, even after 60 days of resisting the cold without any food, are still preoccupied with their young rather than themselves. The new arrivals need nourishment. From their gullets, the male penguins produce a milky secretion which they feed to their offspring. At this critical moment, the females return. They call for their mates, who return their call. The pairs recognize one another by their voices during the mating ritual. Despite their three-month separation, they recognize each other immediately, and their ability to do so is a God-given gift.

The females have full crops and regurgitate in front of the chicks, which then eat their first real meal. You might expect the male, upon the female’s return, to leave its offspring to mind its own business, but not so: he looks after the chick for another ten days, keeping it warm on his feet. Only then does he return to the sea to find his first meal in four months.

After about three to four weeks at sea, he returns to take over the responsibility of looking after the young from the female, who then sets off to feed in the ocean again.

In the first stages of their lives, baby penguins cannot generate their own body heat. If left alone, they die within minutes. This is why the male and female penguin take turns feeding their offspring and protecting it from the cold, not hesitating to endanger their own lives in this cause.66

God directs male and female penguins to cooperate in protecting their eggs and young under the worst conditions, sharing the work at the risk of death. They never desert their young at any cost, even for a single moment. Under those conditions, a creature devoid of reason could be expected to soon abandon its egg in order to find for itself. But thanks to the feeling of protection that God inspires in them, penguins guard the egg not for hours or days, but for months.

The Only Species Where the Male Conceives: The Seahorse

The male seahorse has a brood pouch wherein he keeps the eggs he receives from the females. She deposits her eggs into the brood pouch of the male, who keeps them there until they develop into tiny little seahorses. Here they are fed with fluid from a placenta-like structure, and oxygen is supplied them by the capillaries. Depending on the species, this pregnancy lasts between 10 and 42 days. During this time, the female visits the male every morning. These visits and greeting rituals give the female an idea about her mate’s due date and in this time, the female prepares to produce new eggs.67

The Dangerous Journey of the Grunion

The grunion, unlike other species of fish, buries its eggs on land because its eggs can develop only in such an environment. For the grunion, leaving the water for even a short time means death. Yet they must do so, or else their lineage will terminate. These fish, acting according to God’s guidance, come ashore at the right time and when conditions are just right to bury their eggs in the sand. They wait for the full moon, because then the tides are bigger and waves can reach further up the shore. They await the high tide, which lasts for three hours, and then come ashore with the biggest wave they can ride. The females that succeed in coming ashore this way, skillfully wriggle into the sand and spawn approximately 5 cm (2 inches) under the surface.

Their danger has not yet passed, however, since they still must return to the sea. They have to complete spawning and bury their eggs in the sand before the tide withdraws. If they miss this opportunity, they will die on the dry shore. As we see, these fish expend much effort into the correct placement of their eggs and run a great risk—but at the same time, acting intelligently.68

The dangers the grunion faces and the intelligent behavior it displays, both reveal that there is a mind and consciousness outside of this little fish. There are many easier methods of spawning, yet it prefers to bury its eggs in the sand on shore. Let’s presume that it acquired this habit through a series of chance events. What would happen, according to this scenario? The female would die at the first hurdle—trying to come ashore to bury her eggs. She would face prohibitive conditions, making it impossible for her to learn by trial and error—much less pass her “learning” along to the eggs, already in her body! God makes the grunion’s eggs able to develop in the sand, as well as inspiring the fish to choose the right time to come ashore and thereby, reproduce and survive.

The Weedy Nest that the Bowfin Prepares for its Eggs

The female bowfin spawns between May and June. In this time, the dark spot on the top of her tail fin becomes more pronounced. The male bowfin prepares an underwater nest in shallow, weedy areas by tearing loose the stems and leaves of plants, leaving a small circular clearing surrounded by vegetation. When the female releases her spawn, the eggs stick to the bottom of the nest, and the male stays to guard them, swimming in circles to create a current that increases the oxygen flow. The male fish continue to protect its offspring until they reach a length of approximately 10cm (4 inches).69

Another Creature That Migrates Vast Distances to Reproduce: The Grey Whale

Every year in December and January, pregnant grey whales leave the icy waters of the Arctic Ocean and migrate towards California, passing by North America’s western shoreline, seeking out temperate waters to give birth. On this journey, interestingly, the whales do not feed. But, they are well prepared, however, since throughout the summer, in the krill-rich waters of the north they’ve been building up stores of energy in the form of thick layers of blubber. As soon as the grey whales reach the tropical waters of western Mexico, they give birth. The baby whales feed on their mothers’ milk and build up their own stores in preparation for the journey back to the northern hemisphere in March together with the other grey whales.72

The Diligent Care of the Cichlid Fish

Both male and female cichlids take good care of their spawn and young. At all times, one of them is fanning the spawn with its fins from above. They alternate in this duty, once every few minutes, in order to increase oxygen flow for the better development of the eggs and also to prevent fungal spores from settling and developing on the spawn.

The cichlids’ care serves mainly to keep their spawn clean, which is why they eat their unfertilized eggs, to prevent contamination of the healthy ones. Later on, they transfer their spawn to holes they made earlier in the sand, carrying a few eggs at a time. While one fish goes to the hole, the other guards the rest of the eggs, and this continues until all have been moved. Once the young emerge, the parents keep on protecting them. The young stay close together, and if one of them should stray, one parent brings it back in its mouth.73
The cichlid is not the only creature that’s sensitive about cleanliness. For instance, the female centipede regularly licks her eggs clean in order to prevent fungal spores from attacking them and curls her body around them, protecting the eggs against predators until they hatch.74

The female octopus releases her spawn into cavities in rocks, then guards it and frequently cleans them with her tentacles and rinses them with clean water.75

The Selfless Devotion of the Ostrich

For creatures on the African continent, the hot sun can often be deadly. To protect themselves from its rays, many animal species seek out places in the shade. But the South African ostrich is more concerned about shielding its eggs and offspring from the intensity of the sun. For this reason, it stands above its eggs and later, its hatchlings, spreading its wings to provide shade for them.76 Meanwhile, it exposes itself to the sun, proving its dedication.

How the Wolf Spider Carries its Young

The female of this species lays her eggs into a concave silk cocoon which she has spun for just this purpose. She sticks this cocoon to her lower abdomen and takes it wherever she goes. If it falls loose, she will stick it back onto her abdomen.

Once the young spiders emerge from the eggs, they will stay for some more time in her cocoon and, when the time is right, climb onto her back. The female carries her young around with her. In some species, the young are so numerous that they pile up high on her back. As far as we know, the young do not feed during all this time.

A different species of wolf spider removes the cocoon from her body in June or July, when the eggs are about to hatch. She then spins a tent over it and guards it. After hatching, the young remain in this tent, shedding their skin twice until they are fully developed. Then they disperse.77

How can an invertebrate like a spider show loyalty, interest, compassion and patience? This question provides food for thought.

Insects Caring for their Eggs

Water bugs face a real dilemma. If they deposit their eggs above water, they will dry up; if they lay them in the water, their grubs will drown when they emerge from the eggs. The male bugs shoulder the responsibility of keeping the eggs laid above water, moist and ventilated.

The female giant water bug, Lethocerus, lays her eggs on a branch afloat on the water. The male bug dives into the water frequently and then climbs up on the branch where he lets water drip on the eggs and also keeps predatory insects away.

The female giant water bug Belostoma (often found in swimming pools) attaches her eggs with a sticky substance onto the male’s back. He swims on the surface, airing the eggs, pedaling backward and forward with his hind legs, doing push-ups or holding onto a branch, and sprinkles water onto the eggs for hours on end.

Three different species—Bledius rove beetles, Bembidion ground beetles, and Heterocerus—all have an interesting method of preventing their eggs from drowning on tidal mudflats. They plug their narrow-necked brood chambers when the tide is coming in and unplug them again when water recedes.79

That even insects can show such foresight and protect their eggs intelligently once again shows the clear reality of creation.

Devotion of the Wasp for Offspring It Will Never See

The digger wasp digs a slanting burrow for its larvae to grow in. This is a difficult task for such a small creature, but the wasp first lifts the soil with its jaw and then throws it behind with its front legs.

This wasp has another important ability:It digs its burrow without leaving a trace around it. Trapping soil between its jaws, it removes it bit by bit and deposits it at some distance away from the burrow without forming piles anywhere, so as not to draw the attention of predatory insects.

When the hole is enlarged to the size of the wasp’s body, it excavates a nursery chamber just big enough for its egg and a supply of food. It then covers up the entrance temporarily and goes hunting for insects.

Each species of digger wasp specializes in hunting for caterpillars, grasshoppers, or crickets. When hunting for its young, it will not kill its prey, but paralyze it with its sting and drag it back to its burrow. There, it deposits a single egg onto the prey. The insect remains alive and fresh until the egg hatches and the larva begins to feed on it.
Once the wasp has arranged the nest and food for its young, it’s time to cater for the larva’s safety. Carefully it conceals the entrance with soil and little pebbles. It picks up a little pebble with its jaws and uses it like a hammer to drive the soil level with the ground. Then it rakes the surface with its spiky legs and sweeps the ground until the burrow’s entrance is perfectly concealed. But this is still not good enough for the wasp! As a precautionary measure, it digs a few dummy burrows nearby. In this enclosed and well-protected burrow, with the food it has, the larva will develop into an adult and can then emerge by itself.80

The wasp will never see its young, but nevertheless prepares with due care and attention everything the larva will need. All this patience and hard work reveals dedication, foresight and careful thinking. It is obvious that this tiny creature cannot possibly do all this by itself and must be enabled to do so by a knowledgeable, intelligent power.

As mentioned before, evolutionists say that animals are programmed to behave in this way. According to their theory, this program originated in a series of random occurrences. If we consider the extraordinarily complex features of living things, it becomes obvious how irrational and illogical this claim really is. Anyone of thought and conscience can easily recognize that all creatures act on God’s inspiration.

Everything for the Young

Young animals are often born totally dependent on their parents’ care and protection. Creatures born blind or naked, unable to hunt for themselves, will usually die of hunger or cold if not taken care of and protected by their parents, or by other adult members of the herd. However, animals act on God’s inspiration and therefore, feed and protect their young at any cost.

Protecting the Young from Dangers

When it comes to protecting their young, animals can be quite vicious and dangerous. If they sense danger or come under attack, usually they prefer to flee the area with their young. But if not, they will throw themselves at the attacker without hesitation. For example, birds and bats are known to attack naturalists who remove their young from their nests.82

When hoofed animals like zebras are attacked, they split into groups, gather their young into the center, and run for their lives. If cornered, the adult members of the herd defend their foals bravely against the predators.

When giraffes are attacked, they shelter their young under their bodies and kick out at the attacker with their front legs. Antelopes and deer are timid, nervous animals who choose to run if they have no young to protect. But should foxes or wolves endanger their offspring, they do not hesitate to use their sharp hoofs.

Smaller, weaker mammals prefer to conceal their young or take their offspring somewhere safe in order to protect them. If they lack the opportunity to do that, however, they can become very aggressive to scare away any attacking predator. For example, the cottontail rabbit—ordinarily a very timid animal—takes great risks to drive enemies away from its young. If its young are attacked, it will run back and kick out at the enemy with its powerful hind legs. This bravery is often enough to drive even stronger predators away from its burrow.83
When predators are chasing a young fawn, the mother gazelle gets behind her young, because predators usually catch their prey from behind. She will try to stay close up behind the fleeing fawn, and if the predator comes close, she will try to divert it away. She will use her hoofs against jackals or run close by the predator to draw attention away from her young.84

Some mammals’ colors blend in with their environment. Sometimes, however, the young need to be guided by their mothers in order to take advantage of this feature. A mother deer will use her young’s camouflage as an advantage on its behalf. She hides her young among the undergrowth and makes it stay there. The fawn’s brown fur with white spots keeps it from being spotted when seen from even a close distance. The white spots in the fur give the impression of dappled sunlight falling on the undergrowth. Predators passing even only a few meters away will not spot the fawn. The mother will be close by, but won’t do anything to draw attention to her youngster’s location. Very cautious, she will visit her young only to nurse it. Before returning to the forest, she will budge her young to get it to lie down again. Even if the young gets up every now and then, it will immediately drop to the ground again if it hears any unfamiliar sound. The young animal hides this way until it grows big enough to run with its mother.85

Some other animals try to scare off predators to drive them away from their young. Owls and some other birds spread their wings wide open in order to appear larger than they really are, to frighten away predators approaching their young. Others will hiss like snakes. The blue tit hisses at a high pitch and beats its wings against the walls of its nest. Since the nest is totally dark inside, the aggressor can’t determine what it’s up against and usually withdraws quickly.86

Adult members of some bird colonies take it upon themselves to protect all of the young. For shellduck flocks, gulls are particularly dangerous. The shellduck adults on guard will show off their strength to drive the gulls away. Adult birds take turns protecting their young and, when they come off duty, will leave to feed in remote waters.87

When deer realize that they’ll be unable to cope with an enemy, they’ll throw themselves at the predator, offering themselves as prey and thus leading the predator away from their young. Many animal species use the same strategy. For instance, when the female tiger sees a hostile predator approaching, she immediately leaves her cubs and begins drawing the predator’s attention. A raccoon, on the other hand, will take its young up the nearest tree, and quickly climb back down to face the enemy. It will let itself be chased for a long distance, and when it believes that it has led the predator far away enough, it quietly returns to its young. It goes without saying that not all these strategies are always completely successful. Even if the young survive, their parents may meet their deaths trying to protect the offspring.

Some birds pretend to be injured to draw predators’ attention away from their offspring and onto themselves. Seeing a predator approach, a female bird quietly sneaks away from her nest. When she comes near the predator, she will beat the ground with one wing and cry out as if in pain. This makes her appear to have been injured and therefore, vulnerable. However, she’s always careful to leave enough space between herself and the predator to let her escape. Her “performance” invariably attracts the predator’s attention. It approaches in the expectation of an easy meal, not realizing it’s being led away from the bird’s nest. When it’s safely out of reach, the female bird will stop pretending to be injured and, just as the predator reaches it, will fly off.

This theatrical show is very convincing indeed; it fools dogs, cats, snakes and even other birds. Many ground-nesting birds protect their offspring in this way. When a predator approaches, for instance, the mother duck pretends to be unable to fly, beating her wings wildly around the lake but always making sure she keeps a safe distance. Having led the intruder away sufficiently, she takes off and returns to her nest.

Scientists can in no way explain these birds’ “injured wing” script.89 Could a bird really write such a scenario? It would have to be extremely clever to do this, since calculated pretense requires intelligence and skill. Also, the bird would have to be very brave to offer itself without hesitating and let the predator stalk it. No bird copies this behavior from other birds; this is an inborn defense mechanism.90

We have related here only a small fraction of the conscious, selfless acts of devotion found in the animal world. Millions of different species populate this Earth, each with its own defense mechanisms. More important than these systems is the lesson they teach us. Is it rational and logical to claim that a bird risks its life, consciously and by its own free will, in order to protect its young? Surely not. The animals we mentioned here are devoid of intelligence and cannot possibly possess feelings of compassion and mercy. It is God, Lord of the heavens and the Earth, Who creates them with these qualities, enabling them to act intelligently, compassionately and mercifully. By inspiring these animals, God reveals His own infinite compassion and mercy.

Insects Too Protect Their Young from Dangers

In 1764, the Swedish naturalist Adolph Modeer discovered that parent bugs protect their offspring and care for them. He observed that the female European shield bug, remains firm over its eggs when predators approach, protecting them against the enemy instead of flying away.91

At first, however, many scientists did not want to acknowledge that beetles cared for their next generation. Professor Douglas W. Tallamy, an evolutionist expert on insect behavior, explains the reason why:

Still, the ecological penalties for parental care can be so severe for insects that some entomologists wonder why it has persisted at all. The far easier strategy, followed by most insects, is simply to produce an abundance of eggs.92

Even though Tallamy believes in evolution, he is questioning one of the theory’s dead ends. According to the theory of evolution, behavior that endangers a species’ own lives should have been quickly phased out. But obviously, this did not happen! Many insects, like most other creatures in nature, never hesitate to risk their lives for their offspring and often—as in the case of wasps, bees, and ants— for one another.

One of the tiny creatures that does so is the lace bug that lives on horse-nettle plants. The female lace bug protects her eggs and later, her nymphs to the bitter end. One of the nymphs’ worst enemies is the damsel bug—a beetle that, given the opportunity, will eat all the larvae with its sharp beak. But the female lace bug has no weapons to protect her young, and the only thing she can do is sit on the back of the enemy and beat her wings, trying to force it away.

Meanwhile, the nymphs use the leaf’s central vein like a speedway, escape via the stem and hide in some fresh uncurling new leaves. If the mother can manage escape with her life, she will follow the nymphs to whatever leaf they’ve hidden in and sit on the stem to guard them. In this way, should the enemy pursue, she cut offs the route leading to the nymphs. Sometimes, the mother chases her young for a short distance, to prevent them from going to an unsuitable leaf, and then leads them to a safer one instead. Mothers often die in these attacks, but they have bought time for their nymphs to escape and hide.95

The Feeding of the Young

For defenseless young to survive, their parents must feed and protect them. At all times, the adults need to be on guard against predators to protect their young, and must hunt for more food to feed them. Male and female birds feed their offspring between 4 and 12 times an hour throughout the day. If there are many chicks, they will fly hundreds of sorties to gather enough food for them. For instance, the great tit will deliver food to its nest up to 900 times a day.96

Female mammals have an additional problem to deal with: They can feed their young only by suckling them. In this lactation period, they need to increase their food intake substantially. For instance, seals suckle their young for between 17 and 18 days after they give birth to them. The young gain much weight over this time, whereas the mothers will lose much, because they do not feed during this time.97

Parents that must care for their offspring use three to four times the energy they expend at other times.98
To determine the “cost” to parents of raising their young, biologist Heinz Richner and his students at the University of Lausanne made an experiment with the great tit—which revealed the difficulties of being a father. During this experiment, Richner frequently changed the number of young birds the father cared for by moving the fledglings around between nests. He found that father birds forced to feed an increased number of offspring worked twice as hard, and died sooner as a result. Parasites and illnesses associated with them affected 76% of these fathers, as opposed to an average of 36% under normal conditions.99

These results are important in helping to understand a bird’s dedication for its young and the hardship it’s prepared to suffer for them.

Feathers that a Grebe Feeds its Young

The grebes serve as floating nests for their own young. Young grebes climb up on one of their parents. Once they have settled down, the adult bird raises its wings slightly to prevent the chicks falling off. It feeds its young by bending its beak back towards them and passing morsels through it, but their first meal is not food. First, the young birds are fed feathers collected from the water’s surface or pulled from the parent’s breast. Each little bird is made to swallow a considerable amount of feathers. But why?

These first feathers are fed to the young birds as a very important precautionary measure for their health. The young birds cannot digest these feathers, and so store them in their stomachs. Some of these feathers pack together like felt at the entrance to the intestine. Fish bones and other indigestible matter are caught there, preventing damage to the delicate lining of the stomach and intestinal walls. This habit of eating feathers will continue throughout the bird’s life.100

In some species like the European kingfisher, the mother bird dives into the water at great speed and catches fish by the tail for her offspring. There is an important reason for her to catch them by their tails, because when caught like this, they can be fed to the young birds headfirst, so that the fins lie flat and do not stick in the young birds’ gullets when they swallow the fish. If however the adult bird catches the fish just any which way, it will swallow the fish itself.101

The Guacharo Bird that Travels Miles to Feed Its Young

This species builds its nest at a height of 20 meters (65 feet). It will forage five or six times a night to gather fruit for its young. First it chews up the fruit, then feeds its young with the pulp.

The guacharo flies in flocks to search for food and covers an extraordinary distance of 25 kilometers (15 miles) a night.102

Like the guacharo, many other animal species will prepare food before feeding it to their young. Pelicans, for instance, prepare a sort of “fish soup.” Shearwaters prepare a rich oil from the fish and plankton they ingest. In their crops, pigeons secrete a substance called “pigeon’s milk” that is rich in fats and proteins. Unlike mammals, both male and female pigeons produce this “milk,” and many other species of bird produce similar substances.103

Baby birds are totally dependent on their parents. They’re able only to open their beaks wide and wait for the parents to feed them. Young herring gulls instinctively push their beaks towards a red spot on the mother’s bill. At the slightest vibration that could indicate their parents’ return, young thrushes, still blind, stretch their necks upwards and open their beaks wide in anticipation, as if the swollen yellow rims of these young birds’ beaks were indicating where their parents should deposit their food. The edges of their gapes are quite sensitive. If a baby has its beak closed for whatever reason, the slightest touch will stimulate it to open its beak.

The color and sensitivity of young birds’ mouths, especially in birds whose nests are located in deep down places, make life easier all around. A mother can easily find the gapes of her young, even when they’re sitting in a dark corner of the nest.

Gouldian finches build their nest in a dark hole in the ground. Their young have brightly colored green and blue knobs at the corners of their gapes, which act as reflectors for the little light that filters through into the deeper corners of the nest.

In some species of birds, colorful gapes serve purposes other than just indicating the location of the young. They can also indicate which of the young has recently been fed, and which are still in need of feeding. The gapes of young linnets are ruddy because of the blood vessels located just under the skin of the throat. After the young have been fed, their blood is drawn to their stomach in order to digest the food. Therefore, those birds that have gone without food the longest will have the reddest gape. Experiments conducted in this area have revealed that parent birds utilize these color differences when determining which of their youngsters to feed.104

The way bird behavior harmonizes with their environment is clear proof that creatures, and all of the natural world they live in, are the handiwork of one Creator. No string of coincidences can possibly produce such perfect harmony.

Sandgrouse that Carry Water to Their Offspring

In nature, all animals’ features are in accord with their environments. An excellent example of this is sandgrouse, which has no specific place of abode in the vast desert. When they need to lay eggs, they find a shallow hole in the sand and lay three eggs at most. As soon as the chicks hatch, they leave the nest and begin roaming for seeds, which they can find for themselves. But because they cannot fly yet, they are unable to reach water to still their thirst. Therefore, water needs to be brought to them—and the male sandgrouse caters to this need.

Some other species of bird transport water for their young in their crops. But because the male sandgrouse must bring water from so far away, the quantity he can store in his crop covers only his own needs during this long journey. But he has a unique feature for this purpose. The inner surface of the feathers on his breast and underside are covered with very fine filaments. When the bird reaches a waterhole, he rubs his underside against sand or dust, thus removing any preen oil that might prevent the absorption of water. After drinking as much water as he can for his own needs, he then enters the water, raises his wings and tail, and wriggles about. This soaks all the feathers on his belly, and the filaments lining his feathers absorb the water like a sponge.

The water he transports between his body and feathers is protected against evaporation, but some still does evaporate if he must cover a distance of greater than 30 kilometers (20 miles). When he finally reaches his chicks, who are roaming for seeds, they run up to him straight away. When the male sandgrouse lifts his body, the young can drink the water like mammals drinking milk from their mother’s body. Once they have drunk all the water, he dries himself by rubbing his body against the sand. The male sandgrouse continues to repeat this every day until the chicks are about two months old and molt for the first time, after which time they can get their own water.107

We need to reflect on a number of aspects in sandgrouse’s behavior. Besides endowing it with the exact features it needs to survive in this environment, He also inspires it to know exactly what it needs to do.

Insects Feeding Their Young

Many insect species feed their larvae and offspring. Burrowing bugs, for example, feed their larvae, concealed in a burrow, with seeds. Treehoppers open up spiral slits in the bark of trees, exposing the tiny tubes that carry nourishing sap from which their tiny larvae feed. Wood eaters have a hard life. They must somehow convert wood, which is not only difficult to digest but contains only little nitrogen, into an edible form for their larvae. Wood roaches and passalid bess beetles that feed on wood have solved this problem by feeding their nymphs with softened wood fibers and single-cell organisms that can break down cellulose, along with intestinal fluids rich in nitrogen. Bark beetles chew the wood and lay their eggs in the tunnels they open up. On the wood, they place fungus that will break down the cellulose into a substance their larvae can eat.108

God sustains every species in a different way. The insects mentioned find their sustenance in the way God wills. He makes their parents provide for these tiny creatures and in the Qur’an, He reveals that it is He Who sustains every living thing:

How many creatures do not carry their provision with them! God provides for them and He will for you. He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing. (Qur’an, 29: 60)

Transporting Offspring

Newborn animals, generally weak and clumsy, need their parents to carry them away in case of danger or if they need to be moved elsewhere. Each species has a different method of transporting its young. Some carry them on their backs, others in their mouths and still others in special pouches under their wings. While being transported, the young are not harmed in any way and are quickly taken to a safe environment.

Transporting the young out of harm’s way is an important example of parental devotion, because carrying the young considerably reduces the parent animals’ speed and mobility. Despite this, animals never desert their young in the face of danger.

Most commonly, animals transport their young on their backs. Monkeys, for example, can carry their young everywhere they go. The mother can move around unhindered with her baby because it grips the mother’s back or belly fur with its hands and feet. With her baby on her back, the mother can easily climb up a tree, run along a branch, and jump to the next tree.

Kangaroos and other marsupials carry their dependent young on their bellies in fur-lined pouches. For its first five months, a baby kangaroo lives in its mother’s pouch. When it leaves the pouch, it will not stray far for the first few days. If it senses danger, it will run back to its mother and jump into the pouch headfirst, whereupon the mother departs rapidly on her strong hind legs.

Mother squirrels will grip their youngsters’ droopy bellies in their teeth. If a mother squirrel’s nest is disturbed, she will carry her young as far away as need be, taking them one at a time and returning back to the old nest until all of them have been removed to safety.
Baby mice hold on tightly to the mother’s nipples for hours on end without letting go. In case of danger, the mother can drag her offspring quickly away. The young have such a good grip on her that she can run away without pausing to gather her infants together and placing them securely between her legs. When danger has passed, she will return to the old nest, just in case she might have left one behind.

When bats are roaming for insects or fruit, they will carry their young with them throughout the night. A baby bat grips the nipple with its milk teeth and holds on to its mother’s fur with its claws. Some bats can still fly with three or four young all holding onto their body.

Many species of birds will fly with their young. If a woodcock’s nest is endangered, the mother can quickly take off with her chick between her legs. Rails, marsh hawks, and chickadees fly their young to safety by carrying them in their beaks. Red-tailed hawks grip their young in their talons, just as when they carry prey.

Grebes carry their young on their backs. If they spot danger, they dive under water with their young still clinging on.

Tropical frogs can hop to safety while carrying their eggs or tadpoles on their backs.

More interestingly, some fish carry their young to safety in their mouths. A male stickleback guards and protects its offspring by swimming around its nest made of water weeds. If one of the young strays, the male fish will follow, suck it in into his mouth and release it back at the nest.

Ants carry larvae and developing eggs in their jaws from one nursery chamber to another. Every morning, worker ants carry the colony’s larvae to a chamber near the top of the anthill, where it’s warmed by the sun. As the sun moves across the sky, the larvae are transported from one side of the nest to the other. Come evening, the workers carry them back down to a chamber at the bottom of the anthill which has retained the sunlight’s heat. At night, the entrance to the nursery chambers is closed off in order to keep out cold air. In the morning, the entrances are opened again, and the larvae are carried back up.110

As we see, all living things from lions to insects, frogs to birds, carry their offspring to safety. For the parents, this is always hard work and often endangers their own lives. How can such a strong protective impulse be explained? We’ve examined in detail how many creatures take on the responsibility of rearing offspring until they can fend for themselves. They cater without fail to all their offspring’s needs, and it is possible to see examples of this devotional behavior in a wide variety of beings.

Once again, the obvious truth confronts us: Each of these creatures is under the protection of God, Who inspires their behavior. All act accordingly, bowing to His will. The Qur’an reveals this truth in the following way:

Everyone in the heavens and earth belongs to Him. All are submissive to Him. (Qur’an, 30: 26)


So far in this book, we have dealt with animals’ compassionate behavior and selfless devotion for their offspring. But these qualities are not observed only between parents and their offspring. Many animals in nature show great solidarity with one another, and sometimes it is even possible to see such behavior between different species. In particular, herd animals and those living as part of a colony have many advantages.

Evolutionists’ claim that animals are engaged in a great struggle for survival, and must compete with one another in order to survive, is disproved by the lives of herd animals. Except during mating season, animals mostly do not compete but take advantage of solidarity, cooperation, devotion and guarding each other’s interest.

In reality, evolutionists are aware of this obvious reality, but choose to try and find ways of integrating it into their theory. To take one example, the renowned evolutionist Peter Kropotkin has found many examples of cooperation between animals in research that he conducted in eastern Siberia and Manchuria. Kropotkin has even written a book about this, in which he says the following about the solidarity between animals:

The first thing which strikes us as soon as we begin studying the struggle for existence under both its aspects—direct and metaphorical—is the abundance of facts of mutual aid, not only for rearing progeny, as recognized by most evolutionists, but also for the safety of the individual, and for providing it with the necessary food. With many large divisions of the animal kingdom mutual aid is the rule. Mutual aid is met with even amidst the lowest animals.111

Even though Kropotkin is an evolutionist, he contradicts evolutionary theory’s basic claim, in the face of the clear evidence he observed. As we will see in the next few pages, solidarity and cooperation between animals, even between species, is essential for their safety and even nourishment. Order and balance in nature is clear evidence for God’s flawless creation. Those who are astonished to witness the intelligent behavior of animals in nature can’t help but feel admiration. One such person is the famous scientist Kenneth Walker. An expert in physiology and medicine, he relates what he observed during a safari in east Africa:

I remember being very much impressed by many instances of the cooperation between animals which I witnessed when shooting in East Africa many years ago. On the Athi plains were large flocks of different varieties of antelopes and herds of zebras that collaborated in posting sentries to give alarm at the first approach of any danger. I had no desire to shoot a zebra, but often it was impossible to get within range of the antelope without some zebra sentry discovering me and making my presence known to the antelopes. Giraffes and elephants were also frequently found in company and apparently for a very good reason. The elephants had enormous ears and excellent hearing but poor eye-sight, whilst the giraffes were like sentries posted on watch-towers. When they combined their capacities it was almost impossible to get near them without being heard or seen. A still stranger combination was formed by the rhinosceros and the rhinosceros-birds which sat in a row on its back preying on the ticks and other parasites with which its skin was infested. These birds were always on the alert and generally discovered my presence long before their short-sighted host knew of it. With shrill cries and vigorous pecks they stirred the rhinoceros into action and away the great beast swung with the birds precariously clinging to its back like outside passengers on a madly careering coach.112

Walker’s observations form only a small part of the many examples of devotion and cooperation. Everyone can observe similar behavior in the animals in his environment. But more important is to reflect on these astonishing behaviors.

Over next few pages, we will examine in greater detail examples that clearly reveal God’s control over all living things.

Creatures Warning One Another of Dangers

One great advantage of living in a community is the increased safety it provides, since any individual sensing danger can warn the others, instead of quietly stealing away. Each species has its own warning call. For instance, hares and some species of deer raise their tails to warn other animals when they sense danger. Some gazelles, on the other hand, make a strange hopping display for the same purpose.113

When they spot danger, many small birds give an alarm call. Species like the blackbird, great tit and chaffinch will make a high-pitched noise at a narrow frequency range. It’s not possible for humans to detect the direction of this call—important for any flock of birds, because any one bird risks drawing attention to itself by making this noise.114 But the danger of this happening in this case is very limited.

An insect that lives as part of a colony will alert the others if it becomes aware of danger. But the alarm scent (pheromone) it emits is also perceived by the enemy. Therefore, whatever insect raises the alarm, also risks its life.115

Prairie dogs live in large communities comprising as many as a thousand animals. Their network of burrows is like an underground village, each burrow housing approximately 30 of them. Each animal in the group recognizes every other member. Some are always on the lookout, standing upright on their hind legs atop the little hills of excavated earth near the entrance of their burrows. If one of the sentries detects a predator, it makes a series of whistling sounds, echoed by the other animals on the lookout. That then sounds the alarm.116

It’s thought-provoking that animals warn each other out of their devotion, but it’s more important to notice that they can all understand each other. A hare, for example, gives a warning signal by raising its tail, and all other nearby hares then take the necessary measures. They will leave the area if they must, and if they have to hide, they’ll do that too. But if hares know to run when they see this signal, they must have agreed it beforehand by communicating about it. How else could they put it into practice all at once? To any rational human being, this proposition is obviously unacceptable. We must therefore acknowledge that these animals, having been created by the one Creator, all act according to His directives.

The other example cited earlier was the birds that stand on the backs of rhinos, who understand these birds’ warning cry and respond accordingly. These intelligent behaviors cannot be ignored. It’s evidently impossible for an animal to figure out that it should warn the others of possible danger—and for them to understand its signal and respond accordingly. For these intelligent, rational behaviors there is only one possible explanation: All their abilities and behavior have been taught to them! God teaches these animals their behaviors and makes them put it into practice. God, the Most Compassionate and the Most Merciful, creates everything, protects and sustains everything.

Animals Defending Themselves as One

Not only warning each other of dangers, animals living in communities also defend themselves against dangers en masse. For instance, small birds swarm around or “mob” predatory birds like hawks or owls that venture into their territory. By making a special clicking sound, they also call other birds into the area. The aggressive behavior these small birds display is usually enough to drive off predatory birds.117

A flock of birds flying together provides protection for each individual. Starlings fly in flocks with wide spaces in between. But when they see a hawk, they quickly close the gaps, making it nearly impossible for the hawk to dive into the flock. If it did, it would likely injure its wings and no longer be able to hunt.118

When their herd comes under attack, mammals too act as one body. When zebras run from predators, they position their young in the middle of the herd. During her observations in east Africa, English scientist Jane Goodall saw three zebras, separated from the rest of their herd, being surrounded by wild dogs. Other members of the herd, realizing that three of their own were in danger, returned to attack the predators with their hooves and teeth, and drove them away to save the three zebras.119
Generally, when a herd of zebras comes under attack, the herd’s leader runs to the rear, while the females and foals run up front. The stallion runs in zigzags, kicks out with his hind legs. He’s even been observed to it turns the battle around and chase the attacker.120

Dolphins too swim in shoals and defend themselves as a group against sharks, their greatest enemies. If the shark comes dangerously close to their young, two adult dolphins will split off from the others and draw the shark towards themselves. With the shark’s attention diverted, the other dolphins will quickly surround it and begin to deal blows to its gills until it drowns.121

In an even more interesting behavior, families of dolphins will usually swim with shoals of tuna and feed with them. For this reason, tuna fishermen will follow dolphins for a good place to cast their nets. Sometimes dolphins get caught in the nets meant for tuna. Since dolphins are air-breathing mammals, they panic when caught in the net, suffer shock, and begin sinking to the bottom. Because of their devotion, other members of the dolphin family immediately come to its aid. They all follow the dolphin down, trying to push it back up. Sadly, as they cannot breathe, often they drown too.

This is not an isolated instance affecting just one dolphin family. All dolphins show the same devotion under similar circumstances.122

If a female grey whale is injured, one or more males will come to her aid. They keep the female on the surface in order to let her breathe and protect her from killer whales.123

Instead of running when attacked, musk oxen will form a defensive circle. All members of the herd move slowly backwards, never turning their backs on the predators until all have taken up their positions in the circle. Their calves will be in the center of the circle, hiding under their mother’s long fur. The males will keep the calves in the middle providing them with total protection. Occasionally, one bull will charge the predators before again withdrawing to his position in the circle.124

Very interesting examples of cooperation are also seen in hunting. American white pelicans, for instance, always hunt in teams. Locating a suitable bay, they form a semi-circle facing the land, plunging in the water periodically and driving the fish ahead of them. When the right time comes, they close the circle and catch all the fish inside it.125 In narrow streams or canals, they will even form two groups. At night, all withdraw to their resting places. No one ever sees them fight over their patch in the bay or over the spot they sleep on.

Reflect on the fact that animals in these close communities watch out for one another and act as one body. As we said at the beginning, these animals are not intelligent human beings, but zebras, insects, and dolphins.

Surely, no intelligent person can say that these animals cooperate by their own free will. The conclusion any rational person will draw is this: Everything in nature is the work of an infinitely knowledgeable and powerful Creator. God has made all living things, including man, animals, insects, plants—everything that is alive, and everything that is not. He possesses infinite power, compassion, mercy, intelligence, knowledge and wisdom. Then we should reflect upon the following verses of the Qur’an:

All praise belongs to God, the Lord of the heavens and the Lord of the Earth, Lord of all the worlds. All greatness belongs to Him in the heavens and earth. He is the Almighty, the All-Wise. (Qur’an, 45: 36-37)
Lord of the heavens and the Earth and everything between them, the Almighty, the Endlessly Forgiving. (Qur’an, 38: 66)

African Birds that Watch Out for One Another

Flocks of African birds are in great harmony with one another, and many examples illustrate their cooperation. Their staple food is fruit found on the trees they visit. Feeding of the fruit at the tips of the branches is difficult, because that is where most fruit grow, and only the birds that happen to perch nearby can feed easily. All other birds face hunger, being either too far from the fruit or there won’t be enough for them all.

But not so! Birds land on a fruit tree in flocks, lining up along the branches as if they’d agreed to do so beforehand. Whatever bird is closest to the fruits picks them and passes them along. This way, the fruit travels down along the branch to the birds at the other end. Considering that these creatures lack reason and intelligence, it would be only reasonable for the bird nearest the fruit to keep it all, thereby disrupting the disciplined feeding order. But instead of feeding themselves first, members of the flock apply a most practical method of distributing the fruit among them all. None of the birds lined up on the branch do anything that would disrupt this amazing precision. By itself, however, this cooperation isn’t sufficient to feed all members of the flock in one sitting, as the fruit of one tree is not enough. Therefore even if the birds pass the fruits beak to beak some of them would have to go hungry. To overcome this problem, they land on trees in a different order each time, so that those that did not get any fruit last time, will be the first to get some this time.126

Animal Cooperation During Birth

Mammals especially are exposed to great dangers during birth, when both mother and her baby become easy prey for predators. However, when a pregnant animal is ready to give birth, another animal of the herd is commonly present. For instance, the female antelope when she is ready for birth, withdraws to a place in the bushes, and another female from the herd goes with her to assist.

Dolphins are another species well known for their cooperation during parturition. As soon as they are born, baby dolphins need to surface in order to breathe. For this reason, the female dolphin pushes her baby up towards the surface. Just before birth, the mother’s movements slow down. This is why there are two other females present during birth for assistance. The assistants swim on either side of her to protect her if need be, since she might not have enough energy to deal with any potential danger. They guard her especially against sharks, as the blood that flows during birth might attract them to the area.

For the first two weeks, the dolphin mother will not leave her baby’s side. Soon after birth, the infant dolphin begins to swim and gradually begins to stray further and further. But the mother, still weak from giving birth, cannot keep up with the agility of her young one. Her assistants help provide the protection the baby needs.127

Another mammal that gets—and gives—assistance during labor is the elephant. One of the other females in the herd always assists a pregnant elephant when she gives birth. The mother hides skillfully in the bush and together with her assistant, protects the newborn and cares for it for many years to come. When the female has her young with her, she is considerably more on guard and aggressive.128

How do elephants and these other animals communicate with one another? How can the female assistant know the time of birth, and that the pregnant one needs her help. No animal has either the intelligence or the awareness to grasp all this just by itself. Elephants everywhere on earth help each other out in this way. This is true for dolphins and all other animals as well, proving that they are all created by the same Creator and they all are under His control.
Creatures that Look After One Another’s Offspring

Mammals usually form strong family bonds. A typical wolf pack consists of one male and female, their newly born pups, maybe one or two of their previous season’s offspring, and often the aunts and uncles of the newborns. All adult members defend the offspring. Sometimes one female of the pack stays behind in the den through the night to “pup-sit” the young. In this way the mother can hunt and feed with the rest of the pack.

African hunting dogs live in similar packs of approximately ten members. Males and females share the responsibility of protecting and feeding their offspring. They even compete to care for them. When the pups are ten weeks old, they start to go hunting with the pack. After they bring down prey, adults will form a circle around it to keep hyenas at bay, and the young are the first to feed.129

In baboon families, the dominant male usually helps the sick or injured. Adult baboons will adopt orphaned young animals. They let the orphans accompany them and stay with them at night. When the family is on the move and one of the mothers has a young one she cannot carry on her back, she will hold it with one arm. Because the young animals tend to tire quickly, the mother will soon be lagging behind, because she needs to stop frequently to let the young baboon rest. The dominant male notices this and returns to them, walking by their side and stopping when they do.130

Even after jackals stop weaning, usually they stay on with their mothers to help look after the younger pups. They bring back food for the young, keep danger away from their den, and thus help them survive.131

Jackals are hardly the only animals who care for their siblings. The moorhen’s and window swallow’s young from the first nest will help rearing the newborn hatchlings in the second.

That animals will share in the responsibility of looking after the young of others is more evidence against the claims of evolutionists. As we stated before, evolutionists believe that animals cooperate only for the purpose of continuing their lineage to the next generation and that therefore, behaviors that appear to be acts of selfless devotion are actually driven by selfish genes. As we’ve seen in this chapter, however, animals help not only those carrying their genes, but also those in need who do not. In other words, the evolutionists’ “selfish gene” theory, cited earlier, has no scientific value. Anyhow, it is not possible for animals devoid of reason to be concerned about transferring their genes to the later generations. To claim that animals are programmed to carry such ambitions is to acknowledge the existence of a mind and foresight responsible for such programming.

The characteristics of every animal encountered in nature clearly prove the existence of a superior Creator, who is God, the most compassionate and the most merciful.

Devotion in Colonies

Ants, termites and bees live in groups based on discipline, obedience, solidarity, devotion and sharing work. From the moment they emerge from the pupae until their death, these tiny insects concentrate all their efforts into protecting the colony and feeding larvae, with total disregard for their own welfare. They share their food with one another, clean their environment and even die for one another.
Each member of the colony knows exactly what to do and does it faultlessly. Their top priority is the welfare of the larvae and their fellow insects. One never observes any selfish behavior in bees, ants and termites, which is why these colonies live in a faultless order and are so successful.

On termites’ highly successful lives, based on cooperation, Peter Kropotkin says the following:

Their [The ants’ and termites’] wonderful nests, their buildings, superior in relative size to those of man; their paved roads and overground vaulted galleries; their spacious halls and granaries; their corn-fields, harvesting and “malting” of grain; their rational methods of nursing their eggs and larvae . . . and, finally, their courage, pluck, and superior intelligence—all these are the natural outcome of the mutual aid which they practise at every stage of their busy and laborious lives.132

This next section will deal with examples of devotion and cooperation observed in ant colonies and beehives.

Selfless Devotion in Ant Colonies

1. One striking aspects of colony life is that all ants share food. If two ants from the same colony meet, one hungry and the other with a belly full of digested or semi-digested food, the hungry ant will ask the other one to share some. This kind of request is never turned down. Ants also feed their larvae from the food in their stomachs and often, end up keeping less for themselves than what they offer to others.133

2. In ant colonies, there is perfect sharing of tasks, and each ant fulfills its responsibility with great devotion. The responsibility of the “soldier ant” is to guard the entrance to the nest. It will admit only ants belonging to its colony and refuse entrance to all others. The heads of these guard ants serve as a living “gate” to the nest. They guard the entrance all day and never leaving it unattended.134 In the case of an attack, these ants form the first line of defense.

3. Along with sharing food, ants will also share, with as many other ants they can, information about the location of food sources. In their behavior, there is no sign of selfish struggle. The ant who discovers a new source of food eats her fill and then returns to the nest, leaving behind a chemical trail on the way by touching her lower abdomen to the ground at regular intervals. Also, she goes around the nest three to six times, speedily communicating the news to the other ants and on returning to the source of food, is accompanied by many others.

4. Medium-sized workers in a colony of leaf-cutting ants spend their whole day transporting leaves. During this time, they are exposed and highly vulnerable to attacks, especially from a species of fly that deposits its eggs onto the ants’ heads. The maggots hatching from these eggs will feed on the ant’s head and decapitate it by eating into its brain. When carrying leaves, worker ants are defenseless against these flies, but other ants will fight back for them. Smaller ants from the same colony take up positions on the leaves being carried back to the nest and fight off these predatory flies.135

5. Some ants feed on the highly sugary digestive wastes of aphids, which is why they are known as honey ants. They carry this sugary substance they extract from the aphids to their nest, where they store it using a very original method. A few of the worker ants serve as living storage tanks. Ants returning to their nest regurgitate the food into their mouths, and those ants store it in their lower abdomens, which can inflate to the size of blueberries.136 Each chamber contains between 25 to 30 of them, each dangling from the ceiling, where she remains immobile. Should one of them fall to the ground, the other ants will return her to her original position.
These living storage tanks can hold up to eight times the original mass of the ant. During winters or droughts, hungry ants visit them to feed. The hungry insect puts her mouth into the mouth of the “storage” ant which, by contracting the muscles around her lower abdomen, delivers a drop of nectar to the visitor. These ants couldn’t possibly have developed such a method of storing food on their own. Those that serve as living honey jars clearly demonstrate their selfless devotion, by remaining suspended upside down from the ceiling, carrying eight times their own body weight, expecting nothing in return. Patiently they help to feed other ants of the colony, one by one. Clearly, these ants’ system and the physical capabilities that make it possible couldn’t be the results of chance. In each generation of honey ants, a few take it upon themselves to serve in this way, which proves that all of them act on the inspiration of their Lord God.

6. One method that ants use to defend their colony is to commit suicide. They can deliver their kamikaze attacks against an enemy in a variety of ways. One of the most interesting examples is provided by a species living in the rainforests of Malaysia. This ant has a venom gland stretching from its jaw towards the back of its body. If confronted by an enemy, the ant contracts its abdominal muscles so forcefully that the gland and surrounding tissues burst, spraying the enemy with its poison before it dies.137

7. In order to reproduce, male and female ants must be very dedicated. Soon after their mating flight, the winged male ants expire. The female looks for a suitable place to build her nest and when she finds one, will enter it and break off her wings. Then she seals off the entrance and remains inside without food for weeks, even months, all alone. Later she will lay her first eggs as a queen ant. The only things she will have eaten in all this time are her own wings. The very first larvae that emerge she feeds with her saliva. This is a period of great devotion for the queen ant, in beginning a new colony.

8. If their nest is attacked and occupied, the ants move to protect their brood at any cost. The soldier ants move to the area under attack to fight the invaders, while workers rush to the nursery chambers, evacuating the larvae and young ants between their jaws. They carry them outside the nest and hide them somewhere safe until the attack has been fought off.138 It would be expected for a creature like the ant to be concerned only with itself, seeking a place to hide. But the worker ants, soldiers and those guarding the entrance aren’t concerned about their own lives and will die for one another if necessary. This is selfless devotion at the highest level, and all ants have been behaving in this way for millions of years.

Thus far, we have related astonishing behavior in the animal kingdom, but still need to point out that the creatures acting in these surprising ways are tiny ants. These insects are no importance to those who are used to seeing them every day. But when we observe them carefully, we see the intelligence inherent in their behavior is too significant to be ignored. With their little brains that cannot be seen by the naked eye, consisting of so few nerve cells, they perform intelligent actions that wouldn’t be expected of them. For millions of years, they have been obeying their Creator God’s orders in great discipline and without fail. They have surrendered to Him and move only by His will. All beings submit to God like the ants. As the Qur’an says:

Is it other than the religion of God that you desire, when everything in the heavens and earth, willingly or unwillingly, submits to Him and to Him you will be returned? (Qur’an, 3: 83)

Altruism in the Beehive

A similar display of harmony and solidarity can be observed in hives. The devotion of worker bees is especially reminiscent of ants. Both species work tirelessly until they die—for the sake of the queen and for the larvae which are not theirs.

A beehive’s population consists of the queen, the drone males responsible for fertilizing the queen and the hundreds if not thousands of worker bees. All work is performed by the workers: building the combs, cleaning and defending the hive, feeding the queen and the drones, caring for the larvae, building and preparing the brooding chambers according to the type of bee (worker, queen, drone) that will develop inside, cleaning the hive and regulating its humidity and temperature, feeding the larvae according their specific needs (nectar, honey and pollen), and collecting nectar, pollen, water and resins.

We can list the phases of a worker bee’s life and its devotional behavior as follows:
1. A worker’s lifespan is between four and six weeks. Once it emerges from the pupal stage, it works for approximately three weeks inside the hive. Its first job is to nurse the developing larvae. The worker lives off the pollen and honey from the feed store, but feeds most of it to the larvae. It regurgitates some of the food it has eaten, mixes it with substances drawn from glands inside its head, and feeds this mixture to the larvae.

How does a creature which has just emerged from the pupa know its job? Why do all bees comply without objection? The bee ought to emerge from the pupa and seek to continue its own life without showing any signs of conscious devotion. But not so: The bee fulfills its nursing duties in a highly disciplined, responsible manner.

2. When the bee is approximately twelve days old, its wax glands develop and it begins to restore and build the hexagonal comb structures in which larvae develop and honey is stored.

3. Between the age of twelve days and three weeks, the worker receives the pollen and nectar brought back to the hive by the other bees, converts it into honey and stores it. It also cleans the hive, removing from it dead bees and other waste.

4. When it has reached the age of three weeks, it’s old enough to gather the nectar, pollen, water and resins needed in the hive. These mature workers leave the hive to look for flowers and nectar. Obtaining food is a tiring process: After only two to three weeks, a worker bee will die of exhaustion.139 However, a point hard to explain is that each bee produces far more honey than it requires for its own needs. It is impossible for evolutionists to explain why an unthinking creature, supposedly in a struggle for its own survival, should persist in this hard work without ever giving up.

Here we confront another sign of God. As stated before, God reveals in Sura 16 that He commands the bee to make honey. This is why bees display devotion to such a degree: They are obeying their Lord’s order. What man needs to do is revealed in the continuation of the verse:

… There is certainly a Sign in that for people who reflect. (Qur’an, 16: 69)

5. Before worker bees set out to find food, they have another important obligation to fulfill: guard duty.

In each hive, there are bees guarding the entrance. Their duty is to fight off intruders trying to enter the hive. Every creature that does not have the hive’s resident scent is considered an enemy of the hive’s larvae and bees.

If an outsider appears at the hive’s entrance, the guard bees respond mercilessly and sting the intruder. Their venom contains a fast-dispersing odor perceived by other bees as an alarm call, and they all rush to the entrance, ready for battle.
If a bee stings the enemy, she will inject as much venom as possible, giving off a stronger odor. The stronger the odor, the fiercer her mates become.140

Of course, defending the hive means usually suicide. The sting of a bee is barbed like the porcupine’s quill and in most cases, cannot be extracted once it has been inserted. When the bee tries to fly away after the sting, its lower abdomen tears away. But the part that comes off contains the poison gland and the nerves controlling them. Even though the bee herself dies from this injury, the gland that she left behind continues to pump poison into the wound of the victim.141 And so, the rest of the colony benefits from her sacrifice.

How can we explain a tiny creature working tirelessly for others from the moment it is born, caring for and even risking its life for them? All bees and ants have been doing this for millions of years, wherever they lived on Earth. Obviously these creatures, in their short but dedicated lives, act according to the will of God, their Creator.

[Hud said,] “I have put my trust in God, my Lord and your Lord. There is no creature He does not hold by the forelock. My Lord is on a Straight Path.” (Qur’an, 11: 56)


The animals mentioned in this book share devotion, altruism, compassion and care in common. Each of these species is protective, considerate and compassionate towards its young, its mate or some other animal; taking clever precautions for their safety, using smart solutions to help one another find food, and working like craftsmen to produce wonderful architectural structures.

However, it needs to be pointed out once again that the creatures mentioned—beetles, birds, frogs—do have simple brain structures, but would it be rational to expect them to show such intelligence and know-how and to behave the way they do?

Can a beetle or bird know compassion, mercy or selfless devotion?

Can an animal possess high moral values?

How can we explain that a penguin develops so strong a bond for its mate and young that it will risk its life for them?
Why do antelopes or zebras throw themselves between their young and the pursuing predators?

Each of these questions poses an insurmountable problem for the theory of evolution, which proposes that life was formed by chance from inanimate matter. Evolutionists claim that animals behave instinctively and that their instincts are programmed into their genes. But actually, this only adds to their dilemma, because it leads to the further question: Who has programmed their genes with these instincts of devotion, compassion, and the knowledge of building nests? How could such a program take shape suddenly in genes composed of lifeless elements like carbon and phosphate?

To such questions, evolutionists have no answers. To fill the void and to put up a smokescreen for those people who do not reflect sufficiently on these matters, they say only that Mother Nature placed these features into the genes of animals. We often read statements like “Nature gave animals the instinct to care for their young,” or “Nature provided birds with the ability to build nests.” But can nature possibly have such powers? What we call nature is the sum total of created things like trees, stones, rivers, mountains, water and earth. The question is, which part of it has the power, ability, knowledge and consciousness to bestow such features?

People who ascribe such creative powers to nature are really behaving according to the classic denial mentality of crediting nature with divinity. But nature itself is the totality of created beings. The Qur’an exposes those who ascribe divinity to helpless beings:

But they have adopted gods apart from Him which do not create anything but are themselves created. They have no power to harm or help themselves. They have no power over death or life or resurrection. (Qur’an, 25: 3)

From a rational, logical point of view, it is impossible for beings devoid of skill and reason to give to other beings qualities such as awareness, intelligence, knowledge, skills or any other mental faculty.

The truth is clear and open for all to see: God is most compassionate and most merciful, He is the Creator and Sustainer of all living things, and it is He Who makes animals’ behavior devoted, compassionate and merciful.

The few examples of altruism, compassion and mercy cited in this book are the signs of our Lord’s infinite compassion and mercy Who has created and sustains us and everything else. It is not an unthinking parent who decides to protect, feed and watch over a baby bird or young gazelle. God inspires these animals to protect and feed their young, which explains why they are so dedicated towards them, working day and night, even if it costs them their lives. Our Lord’s compassion and mercy is not only for these beings, but also for everything else in the universe, including us humans. For this reason, intelligent people who reflect and see the truth remember God in the following way:

My Lord is the Preserver of everything. (Qur’an, 11: 57)

Say: “My Lord, forgive and be merciful! You are the Best of the Merciful.” (Qur’an, 23: 118)

Darwinism, in other words the theory of evolution, was put forward with the aim of denying the fact of creation, but is in truth nothing but failed, unscientific nonsense. This theory, which claims that life emerged by chance from inanimate matter, was invalidated by the scientific evidence of clear “design” in the universe and in living things. In this way, science confirmed the fact that Allah created the universe and the living things in it. The propaganda carried out today in order to keep the theory of evolution alive is based solely on the distortion of the scientific facts, biased interpretation, and lies and falsehoods disguised as science.

Yet this propaganda cannot conceal the truth. The fact that the theory of evolution is the greatest deception in the history of science has been expressed more and more in the scientific world over the last 20-30 years. Research carried out after the 1980s in particular has revealed that the claims of Darwinism are totally unfounded, something that has been stated by a large number of scientists. In the United States in particular, many scientists from such different fields as biology, biochemistry and paleontology recognize the invalidity of Darwinism and employ the concept of intelligent design to account for the origin of life. This “intelligent design” is a scientific expression of the fact that Allah created all living things.

We have examined the collapse of the theory of evolution and the proofs of creation in great scientific detail in many of our works, and are still continuing to do so. Given the enormous importance of this subject, it will be of great benefit to summarize it here.


Although this doctrine goes back as far as ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was advanced extensively in the nineteenth century. The most important development that made it the top topic of the world of science was Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species, published in 1859. In this book, he denied that Allah created different living species on Earth separately, for he claimed that all living beings had a common ancestor and had diversified over time through small changes. Darwin’s theory was not based on any concrete scientific finding; as he also accepted, it was just an “assumption.” Moreover, as Darwin confessed in the long chapter of his book titled “Difficulties of the Theory,” the theory failed in the face of many critical questions.

Darwin invested all of his hopes in new scientific discoveries, which he expected to solve these difficulties. However, contrary to his expectations, scientific findings expanded the dimensions of these difficulties. The defeat of Darwinism in the face of science can be reviewed under three basic topics:

1) The theory cannot explain how life originated on Earth.

2) No scientific finding shows that the “evolutionary mechanisms” proposed by the theory have any evolutionary power at all.

3) The fossil record proves the exact opposite of what the theory suggests.
In this section, we will examine these three basic points in general outlines:


The theory of evolution posits that all living species evolved from a single living cell that emerged on the primitive Earth 3.8 billion years ago. How a single cell could generate millions of complex living species and, if such an evolution really occurred, why traces of it cannot be observed in the fossil record are some of the questions that the theory cannot answer. However, first and foremost, we need to ask: How did this “first cell” originate?

Since the theory of evolution denies creation and any kind of supernatural intervention, it maintains that the “first cell” originated coincidentally within the laws of nature, without any design, plan or arrangement. According to the theory, inanimate matter must have produced a living cell as a result of coincidences. Such a claim, however, is inconsistent with the most unassailable rules of biology.


In his book, Darwin never referred to the origin of life. The primitive understanding of science in his time rested on the assumption that living beings had a very simple structure. Since medieval times, spontaneous generation, which asserts that non-living materials came together to form living organisms, had been widely accepted. It was commonly believed that insects came into being from food leftovers, and mice from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty piece of cloth, and it was believed that mice would originate from it after a while.

Similarly, maggots developing in rotting meat was assumed to be evidence of spontaneous generation. However, it was later understood that worms did not appear on meat spontaneously, but were carried there by flies in the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye.

Even when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from non-living matter was widely accepted in the world of science.

However, five years after the publication of Darwin’s book, Louis Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, that disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin’s theory. In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said: “Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.”142

For a long time, advocates of the theory of evolution resisted these findings. However, as the development of science unraveled the complex structure of the cell of a living being, the idea that life could come into being coincidentally faced an even greater impasse.

The first evolutionist who took up the subject of the origin of life in the twentieth century was the renowned Russian biologist Alexander Oparin. With various theses he advanced in the 1930s, he tried to prove that a living cell could originate by coincidence. These studies, however, were doomed to failure, and Oparin had to make the following confession:

Unfortunately, however, the problem of the origin of the cell is perhaps the most obscure point in the whole study of the evolution of organisms.143

Evolutionist followers of Oparin tried to carry out experiments to solve this problem. The best known experiment was carried out by the American chemist Stanley Miller in 1953. Combining the gases he alleged to have existed in the primordial Earth’s atmosphere in an experiment set-up, and adding energy to the mixture, Miller synthesized several organic molecules (amino acids) present in the structure of proteins.

Barely a few years had passed before it was revealed that this experiment, which was then presented as an important step in the name of evolution, was invalid, for the atmosphere used in the experiment was verydifferent from the real Earth conditions.144

After a long silence, Miller confessed that the atmosphere medium he used was unrealistic.145

All the evolutionists’ efforts throughout the twentieth century to explain the origin of life ended in failure. The geochemist Jeffrey Bada, from the San Diego Scripps Institute accepts this fact in an article published in Earth magazine in 1998:

Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth?146


The primary reason why the theory of evolution ended up in such a great impasse regarding the origin of life is that even those living organisms deemed to be the simplest have incredibly complex structures. The cell of a living thing is more complex than all of our man-made technological products. Today, even in the most developed laboratories of the world, a living cell cannot be produced by bringing organic chemicals together.
The conditions required for the formation of a cell are too great in quantity to be explained away by coincidences. The probability of proteins, the building blocks of a cell, being synthesized coincidentally, is 1 in 10950 for an average protein made up of 500 amino acids. In mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 over 1050 is considered to be impossible in practical terms.

The DNA molecule, which is located in the nucleus of a cell and which stores genetic information, is an incredible databank. If the information coded in DNA were written down, it would make a giant library consisting of an estimated 900 volumes of encyclopedias consisting of 500 pages each.

A very interesting dilemma emerges at this point: DNA can replicate itself only with the help of some specialized proteins (enzymes). However, the synthesis of these enzymes can be realized only by the information coded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, they have to exist at the same time for replication. This brings the scenario that life originated by itself to a deadlock. Prof. Leslie Orgel, an evolutionist of repute from the University of San Diego, California, confesses this fact in the September 1994 issue of the Scientific American magazine:

It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.147

No doubt, if it is impossible for life to have originated from natural causes, then it has to be accepted that life was “created” in a supernatural way. This fact explicitly invalidates the theory of evolution, whose main purpose is to deny creation.


The second important point that negates Darwin’s theory is that both concepts put forward by the theory as “evolutionary mechanisms” were understood to have, in reality, no evolutionary power.

Darwin based his evolution allegation entirely on the mechanism of “natural selection.” The importance he placed on this mechanism was evident in the name of his book: The Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection…

Natural selection holds that those living things that are stronger and more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will survive in the struggle for life. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of attack by wild animals, those that can run faster will survive. Therefore, the deer herd will be comprised of faster and stronger individuals. However, unquestionably, this mechanism will not cause deer to evolve and transform themselves into another living species, for instance, horses.

Therefore, the mechanism of natural selection has no evolutionary power. Darwin was also aware of this fact and had to state this in his book The Origin of Species:
Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur.148


So, how could these “favorable variations” occur? Darwin tried to answer this question from the standpoint of the primitive understanding of science at that time. According to the French biologist Chevalier de Lamarck (1744-1829), who lived before Darwin, living creatures passed on the traits they acquired during their lifetime to the next generation. He asserted that these traits, which accumulated from one generation to another, caused new species to be formed. For instance, he claimed that giraffes evolved from antelopes; as they struggled to eat the leaves of high trees, their necks were extended from generation to generation.

Darwin also gave similar examples. In his book The Origin of Species, for instance, he said that some bears going into water to find food transformed themselves into whales over time.149

However, the laws of inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel (1822-84) and verified by the science of genetics, which flourished in the twentieth century, utterly demolished the legend that acquired traits were passed on to subsequent generations. Thus, natural selection fell out of favor as an evolutionary mechanism.


In order to find a solution, Darwinists advanced the “Modern Synthetic Theory,” or as it is more commonly known, Neo-Darwinism, at the end of the 1930’s. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, which are distortions formed in the genes of living beings due to such external factors as radiation or replication errors, as the “cause of favorable variations” in addition to natural mutation.

Today, the model that stands for evolution in the world is Neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent “mutations,” that is, genetic disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the contrary, they are always harmful.

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only harm it. The American geneticist B.G. Ranganathan explains this as follows:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.150
Not surprisingly, no mutation example, which is useful, that is, which is observed to develop the genetic code, has been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be harmful. It was understood that mutation, which is presented as an “evolutionary mechanism,” is actually a genetic occurrence that harms living things, and leaves them disabled. (The most common effect of mutation on human beings is cancer.) Of course, a destructive mechanism cannot be an “evolutionary mechanism.” Natural selection, on the other hand, “can do nothing by itself,” as Darwin also accepted. This fact shows us that there is no “evolutionary mechanism” in nature. Since no evolutionary mechanism exists, no such any imaginary process called “evolution” could have taken place.


The clearest evidence that the scenario suggested by the theory of evolution did not take place is the fossil record.

According to this theory, every living species has sprung from a predecessor. A previously existing species turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. In other words, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.

Had this been the case, numerous intermediary species should have existed and lived within this long transformation period.

For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles should have lived in the past which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile-birds, which acquired some bird traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already had. Since these would be in a transitional phase, they should be disabled, defective, crippled living beings. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as “transitional forms.”

If such animals ever really existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. In The Origin of Species, Darwin explained:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed… Consequently, evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.151


However, although evolutionists have been making strenuous efforts to find fossils since the middle of the nineteenth century all over the world, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All of the fossils, contrary to the evolutionists’ expectations, show that life appeared on Earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.
One famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact, even though he is an evolutionist:

The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.152

This means that in the fossil record, all living species suddenly emerge as fully formed, without any intermediate forms in between. This is just the opposite of Darwin’s assumptions. Also, this is very strong evidence that all living things are created. The only explanation of a living species emerging suddenly and complete in every detail without any evolutionary ancestor is that it was created. This fact is admitted also by the widely known evolutionist biologist Douglas Futuyma:

Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.153

Fossils show that living beings emerged fully developed and in a perfect state on the Earth. That means that “the origin of species,” contrary to Darwin’s supposition, is not evolution, but creation.


The subject most often brought up by advocates of the theory of evolution is the subject of the origin of man. The Darwinist claim holds that modern man evolved from ape-like creatures. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started 4-5 million years ago, some “transitional forms” between modern man and his ancestors are supposed to have existed. According to this completely imaginary scenario, four basic “categories” are listed:

1. Australopithecus

2. Homo habilis

3. Homo erectus

4. Homo sapiens

Evolutionists call man’s so-called first ape-like ancestors Australopithecus, which means “South African ape.” These living beings are actually nothing but an old ape species that has become extinct. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world famous anatomists from England and the USA, namely, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, shows that these apes belonged to an ordinary ape species that became extinct and bore no resemblance to humans.154

Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as “homo,” that is “man.” According to their claim, the living beings in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus. Evolutionists devise a fanciful evolution scheme by arranging different fossils of these creatures in a particular order. This scheme is imaginary because it has never been proved that there is an evolutionary relation between these different classes. Ernst Mayr, one of the twentieth century’s most important evolutionists, contends in his book One Long Argument that “particularly historical [puzzles] such as the origin of life or of Homo sapiens, are extremely difficult and may even resist a final, satisfying explanation.”155

By outlining the link chain as Australopithecus > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens, evolutionists imply that each of these species is one another’s ancestor. However, recent findings of paleoanthropologists have revealed that Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus lived at different parts of the world at the same time.156

Moreover, a certain segment of humans classified as Homo erectus have lived up until very modern times. Homo sapiens neandarthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) co-existed in the same region.157

This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that they are ancestors of one another. A paleontologist from Harvard University, Stephen Jay Gould, explains this deadlock of the theory of evolution, although he is an evolutionist himself:

What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth.158

Put briefly, the scenario of human evolution, which is “upheld” with the help of various drawings of some “half ape, half human” creatures appearing in the media and course books, that is, frankly, by means of propaganda, is nothing but a tale with no scientific foundation.

Lord Solly Zuckerman, one of the most famous and respected scientists in the U.K., who carried out research on this subject for years and studied Australopithecus fossils for 15 years, finally concluded, despite being an evolutionist himself, that there is, in fact, no such family tree branching out from ape-like creatures to man.

Zuckerman also made an interesting “spectrum of science” ranging from those he considered scientific to those he considered unscientific. According to Zuckerman’s spectrum, the most “scientific”—that is, depending on concrete data—fields of science are chemistry and physics. After them come the biological sciences and then the social sciences. At the far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to be most “unscientific,” are “extra-sensory perception”—concepts such as telepathy and sixth sense—and finally “human evolution.” Zuckerman explains his reasoning:

We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man’s fossil history, where to the faithful [evolutionist] anything is possible—and where the ardent believer [in evolution] is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.159

The tale of human evolution boils down to nothing but the prejudiced interpretations of some fossils unearthed by certain people, who blindly adhere to their theory.


Besides all the technical evidence we have dealt with so far, let us now for once, examine what kind of a superstition the evolutionists have with an example so simple as to be understood even by children:

The theory of evolution asserts that life is formed by chance. According to this claim, lifeless and unconscious atoms came together to form the cell and then they somehow formed other living things, including man. Let us think about that. When we bring together the elements that are the building-blocks of life such as carbon, phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium, only a heap is formed. No matter what treatments it undergoes, this atomic heap cannot form even a single living being. If you like, let us formulate an “experiment” on this subject and let us examine on the behalf of evolutionists what they really claim without pronouncing loudly under the name “Darwinian formula”:

Let evolutionists put plenty of materials present in the composition of living things such as phosphorus, nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, iron, and magnesium into big barrels. Moreover, let them add in these barrels any material that does not exist under normal conditions, but they think as necessary. Let them add in this mixture as many amino acids—which have no possibility of forming under natural conditions—and as many proteins—a single one of which has a formation probability of 10-950—as they like. Let them expose these mixtures to as much heat and moisture as they like. Let them stir these with whatever technologically developed device they like. Let them put the foremost scientists beside these barrels. Let these experts wait in turn beside these barrels for billions, and even trillions of years. Let them be free to use all kinds of conditions they believe to be necessary for a human’s formation. No matter what they do, they cannot produce from these barrels a human, say a professor that examines his cell structure under the electron microscope. They cannot produce giraffes, lions, bees, canaries, horses, dolphins, roses, orchids, lilies, carnations, bananas, oranges, apples, dates, tomatoes, melons, watermelons, figs, olives, grapes, peaches, peafowls, pheasants, multicoloured butterflies, or millions of other living beings such as these. Indeed, they could not obtain even a single cell of any one of them.

Briefly, unconscious atoms cannot form the cell by coming together. They cannot take a new decision and divide this cell into two, then take other decisions and create the professors who first invent the electron microscope and then examine their own cell structure under that microscope. Matter is an unconscious, lifeless heap, and it comes to life with Allah’s superior creation.

The theory of evolution, which claims the opposite, is a total fallacy completely contrary to reason. Thinking even a little bit on the claims of tevolutionists discloses this reality, just as in the above example.


Another subject that remains unanswered by evolutionary theory is the excellent quality of perception in the eye and the ear.
Before passing on to the subject of the eye, let us briefly answer the question of how we see. Light rays coming from an object fall oppositely on the eye’s retina. Here, these light rays are transmitted into electric signals by cells and reach a tiny spot at the back of the brain, the “center of vision.” These electric signals are perceived in this center as an image after a series of processes. With this technical background, let us do some thinking.

The brain is insulated from light. That means that its inside is completely dark, and that no light reaches the place where it is located. Thus, the “center of vision” is never touched by light and may even be the darkest place you have ever known. However, you observe a luminous, bright world in this pitch darkness.

The image formed in the eye is so sharp and distinct that even the technology of the twentieth century has not been able to attain it. For instance, look at the book you are reading, your hands with which you are holding it, and then lift your head and look around you. Have you ever seen such a sharp and distinct image as this one at any other place? Even the most developed television screen produced by the greatest television producer in the world cannot provide such a sharp image for you. This is a three-dimensional, colored, and extremely sharp image. For more than 100 years, thousands of engineers have been trying to achieve this sharpness. Factories, huge premises were established, much research has been done, plans and designs have been made for this purpose. Again, look at a TV screen and the book you hold in your hands. You will see that there is a big difference in sharpness and distinction. Moreover, the TV screen shows you a two-dimensional image, whereas with your eyes, you watch a three-dimensional perspective with depth.

For many years, tens of thousands of engineers have tried to make a three-dimensional TV and achieve the vision quality of the eye. Yes, they have made a three-dimensional television system, but it is not possible to watch it without putting on special 3-D glasses; moreover, it is only an artificial three-dimension. The background is more blurred, the foreground appears like a paper setting. Never has it been possible to produce a sharp and distinct vision like that of the eye. In both the camera and the television, there is a loss of image quality.

Evolutionists claim that the mechanism producing this sharp and distinct image has been formed by chance. Now, if somebody told you that the television in your room was formed as a result of chance, that all of its atoms just happened to come together and make up this device that produces an image, what would you think? How can atoms do what thousands of people cannot?

If a device producing a more primitive image than the eye could not have been formed by chance, then it is very evident that the eye and the image seen by the eye could not have been formed by chance. The same situation applies to the ear. The outer ear picks up the available sounds by the auricle and directs them to the middle ear, the middle ear transmits the sound vibrations by intensifying them, and the inner ear sends these vibrations to the brain by translating them into electric signals. Just as with the eye, the act of hearing finalizes in the center of hearing in the brain.

The situation in the eye is also true for the ear. That is, the brain is insulated from sound just as it is from light. It does not let any sound in. Therefore, no matter how noisy is the outside, the inside of the brain is completely silent. Nevertheless, the sharpest sounds are perceived in the brain. In your completely silent brain, you listen to symphonies, and hear all of the noises in a crowded place. However, were the sound level in your brain was measured by a precise device at that moment, complete silence would be found to be prevailing there.

As is the case with imagery, decades of effort have been spent in trying to generate and reproduce sound that is faithful to the original. The results of these efforts are sound recorders, high-fidelity systems, and systems for sensing sound. Despite all of this technology and the thousands of engineers and experts who have been working on this endeavor, no sound has yet been obtained that has the same sharpness and clarity as the sound perceived by the ear. Think of the highest-quality hi-fi systems produced by the largest company in the music industry. Even in these devices, when sound is recorded some of it is lost; or when you turn on a hi-fi you always hear a hissing sound before the music starts. However, the sounds that are the products of the human body’s technology are extremely sharp and clear. A human ear never perceives a sound accompanied by a hissing sound or with atmospherics as does a hi-fi; rather, it perceives sound exactly as it is, sharp and clear. This is the way it has been since the creation of man.

So far, no man-made visual or recording apparatus has been as sensitive and successful in perceiving sensory data as are the eye and the ear. However, as far as seeing and hearing are concerned, a far greater truth lies beyond all this.


Who watches an alluring world in the brain, listens to symphonies and the twittering of birds, and smells the rose?

The stimulations coming from a person’s eyes, ears, and nose travel to the brain as electro-chemical nerve impulses. In biology, physiology, and biochemistry books, you can find many details about how this image forms in the brain. However, you will never come across the most important fact: Who perceives these electro-chemical nerve impulses as images, sounds, odors, and sensory events in the brain? There is a consciousness in the brain that perceives all this without feeling any need for an eye, an ear, and a nose. To whom does this consciousness belong? Of course it does not belong to the nerves, the fat layer, and neurons comprising the brain. This is why Darwinist-materialists, who believe that everything is comprised of matter, cannot answer these questions.

For this consciousness is the spirit created by Allah, which needs neither the eye to watch the images nor the ear to hear the sounds. Furthermore, it does not need the brain to think.

Everyone who reads this explicit and scientific fact should ponder on Almighty Allah, and fear and seek refuge in Him, for He squeezes the entire universe in a pitch-dark place of a few cubic centimeters in a three-dimensional, colored, shadowy, and luminous form.


The information we have presented so far shows us that the theory of evolution is a incompatible with scientific findings. The theory’s claim regarding the origin of life is inconsistent with science, the evolutionary mechanisms it proposes have no evolutionary power, and fossils demonstrate that the required intermediate forms have never existed. So, it certainly follows that the theory of evolution should be pushed aside as an unscientific idea. This is how many ideas, such as the Earth-centered universe model, have been taken out of the agenda of science throughout history.

However, the theory of evolution is kept on the agenda of science. Some people even try to represent criticisms directed against it as an “attack on science.” Why?

The reason is that this theory is an indispensable dogmatic belief for some circles. These circles are blindly devoted to materialist philosophy and adopt Darwinism because it is the only materialist explanation that can be put forward to explain the workings of nature.

Interestingly enough, they also confess this fact from time to time. A well-known geneticist and an outspoken evolutionist, Richard C. Lewontin from Harvard University, confesses that he is “first and foremost a materialist and then a scientist”:

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.160

These are explicit statements that Darwinism is a dogma kept alive just for the sake of adherence to materialism. This dogma maintains that there is no being save matter. Therefore, it argues that inanimate, unconscious matter created life. It insists that millions of different living species (e.g., birds, fish, giraffes, tigers, insects, trees, flowers, whales, and human beings) originated as a result of the interactions between matter such as pouring rain, lightning flashes, and so on, out of inanimate matter. This is a precept contrary both to reason and science. Yet Darwinists continue to defend it just so as “not to allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Anyone who does not look at the origin of living beings with a materialist prejudice will see this evident truth: All living beings are works of a Creator, Who is All-Powerful, All-Wise, and All-Knowing. This Creator is Allah, Who created the whole universe from non-existence, designed it in the most perfect form, and fashioned all living beings.


Anyone free of prejudice and the influence of any particular ideology, who uses only his or her reason and logic, will clearly understand that belief in the theory of evolution, which brings to mind the superstitions of societies with no knowledge of science or civilization, is quite impossible.

As explained above, those who believe in the theory of evolution think that a few atoms and molecules thrown into a huge vat could produce thinking, reasoning professors and university students; such scientists as Einstein and Galileo; such artists as Humphrey Bogart, Frank Sinatra and Luciano Pavarotti; as well as antelopes, lemon trees, and carnations. Moreover, as the scientists and professors who believe in this nonsense are educated people, it is quite justifiable to speak of this theory as “the most potent spell in history.” Never before has any other belief or idea so taken away peoples’ powers of reason, refused to allow them to think intelligently and logically and hidden the truth from them as if they had been blindfolded. This is an even worse and unbelievable blindness than the Egyptians worshipping the Sun God Ra, totem worship in some parts of Africa, the people of Saba worshipping the Sun, the tribe of Prophet Abraham (pbuh) worshipping idols they had made with their own hands, or the people of the Prophet Moses (pbuh) worshipping the Golden Calf.

In fact, Allah has pointed to this lack of reason in the Qur’an. In many verse, He reveals in many verses that some peoples’ minds will be closed and that they will be powerless to see the truth. Some of these verses are as follows:

As for those who do not believe, it makes no difference to them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe. Allah has sealed up their hearts and hearing and over their eyes is a blindfold. They will have a terrible punishment. (Qur’an, 2: 6-7)

… They have hearts with which they do not understand. They have eyes with which they do not see. They have ears with which they do not hear. Such people are like cattle. No, they are even further astray! They are the unaware. (Qur’an, 7: 179)

Even if We opened up to them a door into heaven, and they spent the day ascending through it, they would only say: “Our eyesight is befuddled! Or rather we have been put under a spell!” (Qur’an, 15: 14-15)

Words cannot express just how astonishing it is that this spell should hold such a wide community in thrall, keep people from the truth, and not be broken for 150 years. It is understandable that one or a few people might believe in impossible scenarios and claims full of stupidity and illogicality. However, “magic” is the only possible explanation for people from all over the world believing that unconscious and lifeless atoms suddenly decided to come together and form a universe that functions with a flawless system of organization, discipline, reason, and consciousness; a planet named Earth with all of its features so perfectly suited to life; and living things full of countless complex systems.

In fact, the Qur’an relates the incident of Prophet Moses and Pharaoh to show that some people who support atheistic philosophies actually influence others by magic. When Pharaoh was told about the true religion, he told Prophet Moses to meet with his own magicians. When Moses did so, he told them to demonstrate their abilities first. The verses continue:

He said: “You throw.” And when they threw, they cast a spell on the people’s eyes and caused them to feel great fear of them. They produced an extremely powerful magic. (Qur’an, 7: 116)

As we have seen, Pharaoh’s magicians were able to deceive everyone, apart from Moses and those who believed in him. However, his evidence broke the spell, or “swallowed up what they had forged,” as the verse puts it.

We revealed to Moses, “Throw down your staff.” And it immediately swallowed up what they had forged. So the Truth took place and what they did was shown to be false. (Qur’an, 7: 117-118)

As we can see, when people realized that a spell had been cast upon them and that what they saw was just an illusion, Pharaoh’s magicians lost all credibility. In the present day too, unless those who, under the influence of a similar spell, believe in these ridiculous claims under their scientific disguise and spend their lives defending them, abandon their superstitious beliefs, they also will be humiliated when the full truth emerges and the spell is broken. In fact, world-renowned British writer and philosopher Malcolm Muggeridge also stated this:

I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.161

That future is not far off: On the contrary, people will soon see that “chance” is not a deity, and will look back on the theory of evolution as the worst deceit and the most terrible spell in the world. That spell is already rapidly beginning to be lifted from the shoulders of people all over the world. Many people who see its true face are wondering with amazement how they could ever have been taken in by it.


1 Julian Huxley, Man in the Modern World (USA: The New American Library, October 1952), p. 173.
2 John Sparks,The Discovery of Animal Behaviour (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1982), pp. 114-117.
3 Hoimar von Ditfurth, Dinazorların Sessiz Gecesi 1 (Turkish translation of the German original of Im Amfang War Der Wasserstoff ((In the Beginning Was Hydrogen)), (Istanbul: Alan Publishing, Nov. 1996) Trans. By Veysel Atayman, pp. 12-19.
4 Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (London: Martin Secker & Warburg Ltd, 1983), p. 222.
5 Ditfurth, Dinazorların Sessiz Gecesi 1, pp. 12-19
6 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (New York: The Modern Library), p. 184.
7 Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1896), Letter of C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker, Down, March 1, 1854.
8 Darwin, C.,The Origin of Species, p. 208.
9 Cemal Yildirim, Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik (The Theory of Evolution and Bigotry) (Ankara: Bilgi Publishing House, January 1998), p. 185.
10 Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, p. 221.
11 Darwin, C.,The Origin of Species, p. 185.
12 Ibid., p. 204.
13 Cemal Yildirim, Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik (The Theory of Evolution and Bigotry), p. 34.
14 Darwin, C.,The Origin of Species, p. 124.
15 Ibid., p. 124.
16 Cemal Yildirim, Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik (The Theory of Evolution and Bigotry), p. 49.
17 Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, Chapter I.
18 Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology Journal), no. 190, September 1983, p. 4.
19 Kropotkin,Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, Chapter II.
20 John Maynard Smith, “The Evolution of Behavior”, Scientific American, September 1978, Vol. 239, no. 3, p. 176.
21 Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, p. 223.
22 Ibid., p.223.
23 Janet L. Hopson and Norman K. Wessells, Essentials of Biology (USA: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 1990), p. 838.
24 John Maynard Smith, “The Evolution of Behavior”, Scientific American, September 1978, Vol. 239, no. 3, p. 184.
25 Russell Freedman, How Animals Defend Their Young (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1978), p. 4.
26 Ibid., p. 4.
27 Peter J. B. Slater, The Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior (New York: Facts on File Publications, 1987), p. 87.
28 Glenn Oeland, “Emperors of the Ice”, National Geographic, Vol. 189, no. 3, March 1996, p. 64.
29 Giovanni G. Bellani, Quand L’oiseau Fait Son Nid (When The Bird Makes Its Nest) (Arthaud, 1996), p. 85.
30 Freedman, How Animals Defend Their Young, pp. 13-14.
31 Bellani, Quand L’oiseau Fait Son Nid, pp. 24, 90.
32 Ibid., 89.
33 David Attenborough, The Life of Birds (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1998), pp. 233-234.
34 Freedman, How Animals Defend Their Young, p. 47.
35 Attenborough, The Life of Birds, p. 234.
36 Slater, The Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior, p. 42; and Attenborough, Life of Birds, pp. 234-235.
37 “Kalahari Gems,”
38 Freedman, How Animals Defend Their Young, p. 13.
39 Attenborough, Life of Birds, p. 225.
40 Freedman, How Animals Defend Their Young, p. 14.
41 Ibid., p. 14.
42 Ibid., p. 47.
43 Attenborough, Life of Birds, pp. 149-151.
44 The Marvels of Animal Behavior (National Geopraphic Society, 1972), p. 301; and Attenborough, Life of Birds, p. 228.
45 Curt Kosswig, Genel Zooloji (General Zoology) (Istanbul: 1945), pp. 145-148.
46 Thor Larsen, “Polar Bear: Lonely Nomad of the North”, National Geographic, April 1971, p. 587.
47 International Wildlife, November-December 1994, p. 15.
48 Freedman, How Animals Defend Their Young, p. 15.
49 Ibid., p. 16.
50 Ibid., p. 17.
51 Ibid., p. 6.
52 Tony Seddon, Animal Parenting (New York: Facts on File Publications, 1989), p. 27.
53 Freedman, How Animals Defend Their Young, p. 19.
54 David Attenborough, Life on Earth (Glasgow: William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd, 1979), p. 147.
55 Seddon, Animal Parenting, p. 31.
56 Attenborough, Life on Earth, p. 145.
57 Ibid., p. 146.
58 Seddon, Animal Parenting, p. 19.
59 Bellani, Quand L’oiseau Fait Son Nid, p. 59.
60 Attenborough, The Life of Birds, p. 241.
61 Roger B. Hirschland, How Animals Care for Their Babies (Washington D.C.: National Geographic Society, 1987), p. 6.
62 “When This Water Bird Is Hungry, It Simply Summons Food to the Surface”, National Wildlife, Oct-Nov. 1998
63 Bellani, Quand L’oiseau Fait Son Nid, p. 23.
64 Ibid., p. 20.
65 Ibid., pp. 104-105.
66 Attenborough, Life of Birds, pp. 288-292.
67 Amanda Vincent, “The Improbable Seahorse”, National Geographic, October 1994, pp. 126-140.
68 Encyclopedia of the Animal Kingdom, C.B.P.C. Publishing Ltd. (London: Phoebus Publishing Company, 1976), p. 92.
69 Ibid., p. 33.
70 Ibid., p. 37.
71 Jacques Cousteau, The Ocean World of Jacques Cousteau, Quest for Food (New York: World Publishing, 1973), p. 32.
72 Ibid., p. 35.
73 “A colorful Jewel from Southern Mexico, ‘Cichlasoma’ salvini,”
74 Seddon, Animal Parenting, p. 26.
75 Ibid., p. 26.
76 “Ostrich,” San Diego Zoo,
77 Encyclopedia of the Animal Kingdom, pp. 246-247.
78 Douglas W. Tallamy, “Child Care among the Insects,” Scientific American, January 1999, Vol. 280, no. 1, p. 55.
79 Ibid., pp. 53-54.
80 Freedman, How Animals Defend Their Young, pp. 43-45.
81 Slater, The Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior, p. 88.
82 Freedman, How Animals Defend Their Young, p. 1.
83 Ibid., p. 56-58.
84 Ibid., p. 36.
85 Ibid., pp. 47-48.
86 Ibid., p. 5049.
87 Attenborough, Life of Birds, p. 2598.
88 Freedman, How Animals Defend Their Young, p. 501.
89 Ibid., p. 53.
90 Ibid., p. 52.
91 Douglas W. Tallamy, “Child Care among the Insects”, Scientific American, January 1999, Vol. 280, no. 1, p. 52.
92 Ibid., pp. 52-53.
93 Ibid., p. 53.
94 Ibid., p. 52.
95 Ibid., pp. 51-52.
96 Attenborough, Life of Birds, p. 270.
97 Slater, The Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior, p. 86.
98 Bellani, Quand L’oiseau Fait Son Nid, p. 22.
99 Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), April 1998, no. 365, p. 12; and Science et Vie, no. 967, April 1998.
100 Attenborough, Life of Birds, p. 256.
101 Bellani, Quand L’oiseau Fait Son Nid, p. 100.
102 Ibid., pp. 123-124.
103 Attenborough, Life of Birds, p. 262.
104 Ibid., p. 263.
105 Bellani, Quand L’oiseau Fait Son Nid, p. 95.
106 Seddon, Animal Parenting, p. 32.
107 Attenborough, Life of Birds, p. 279.
108 Tallamy, Scientific American, January 1999, p. 53.
109 Seddon, Animal Parenting, p. 34.
110 Freedman, How Animals Defend Their Young, pp. 36-42
111 Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, Chapter 1.
112 Kenneth Walker, Meaning and Purpose, (London: Jonathan Cape Ltd., 1944), pp. 45-46.
113 Seddon, Animal Parenting, p. 42.
114 Slater, Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior, p. 114.
115 Edward O. Wilson, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1975), p. 123.
116 Attenborough, Life on Earth, pp. 254-255.
117 Wilson, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, p. 123.
118 Freedman, How Animals Defend Their Young, p. 69.
119 Ibid., pp. 66-67.
120 Attenborough, Life on Earth, p. 265.
121 Freedman, How Animals Defend Their Young, pp. 66-67.
122 Ibid., p. 77.
123 Encyclopedia of the Animal Kingdom, p. 105.
124 Freedman, How Animals Defend Their Young, p. 75.
125 Attenborough, Life of Birds, p. 143.
126 Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), September 1992, p. 58.
127 Encyclopedia of the Animal Kingdom, p. 29.
128 Ibid., p. 80.
129 Freedman, How Animals Defend Their Young, p. 69.
130 Ibid., p. 72.
131 Sparks, The Discovery of Animal Behaviour, p. 264.
132 Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, Chapter 1.
133 Ibid., Chapter 1.
134 Bert Hölldobler – Edward O. Wilson, Journey to the Ants (Harvard University Press, 1994), pp. 330-331.
135 National Geographic, July 1995, Vol. 188, no. 1, p. 110.
136 National Geographic, June 1984, p. 803.
137 Bert Hölldobler – Edward O. Wilson, Journey to the Ants (Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 67.
138 Freedman, How Animals Defend Their Young, p. 42.
139 Encyclopedia of the Animal Kingdom, pp. 97-98.
140 Freedman, How Animals Defend Their Young, pp. 21-22.
141 Ibid., p. 63.
142 Sidney Fox, Klaus Dose, Molecular Evolution and The Origin of Life, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1972, p. 4.
143 Alexander I. Oparin, Origin of Life, Dover Publications, New York, 1936, 1953 (reprint), p. 196.
144 “New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life”, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol 63, November 1982, p. 1328-1330.
145 Stanley Miller, Molecular Evolution of Life: Current Status of the Prebiotic Synthesis of Small Molecules, 1986, p. 7.
146 Jeffrey Bada, Earth, February 1998, p. 40.
147 Leslie E. Orgel, “The Origin of Life on Earth”, Scientific American, vol. 271, October 1994, p. 78.
148 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, The Modern Library, New York, p. 127.
149 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 184.
150 B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988, p. 7.
151 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 179.
152 Derek A. Ager, “The Nature of the Fossil Record”, Proceedings of the British Geological Association, vol 87, 1976, p. 133.
153 Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, Pantheon Books, New York, 1983. p. 197.
154 Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, pp. 75-14; Charles E. Oxnard, “The Place of Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt”, Nature, vol 258, p. 389.
155 “Could science be brought to an end by scientists’ belief that they have final answers or by society’s reluctance to pay the bills?” Scientific American, December 1992, p. 20.
156 Alan Walker, Science, vol. 207, 7 March 1980, p. 1103; A. J. Kelso, Physical Antropology, 1st ed., J. B. Lipincott Co., New York, 1970, p. 221; M. D. Leakey, Olduvai Gorge, vol. 3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1971, p. 272.
157 Jeffrey Kluger, “Not So Extinct After All: The Primitive Homo Erectus May Have Survived Long Enough To Coexist With Modern Humans”, Time, 23 December 1996.
158 S. J. Gould, Natural History, vol. 85, 1976, p. 30.
159 Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, p. 19.
160 Richard Lewontin, “The Demon-Haunted World,” The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28.
161 Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1980, p. 43.



































more post like this