Darwinism maintains that Man—and thus the culture he possesses—advanced from rudimentary, primitive, tribal stages toward civilization. However, archaeological findings show that since the very first day of human history, there have been periods with societies that maintained very advanced cultures along with others whose cultures have been more backward. Indeed, most of the time, very wealthy civilizations have existed at the same time as backward ones. Throughout the course of history, most societies of the same period had very different levels of technology and civilization, with very great sociological and cultural differences—just as is the case today. For example, though the North American continent is very advanced today in terms of medicine, science, architecture and technology, some communities in South America are rather backward technologically, with no links to the outside world. Diseases in many parts of the world are identified using the most advanced imaging techniques and analysis, and are treated in very modern hospitals. Yet in other parts of the world, diseases are thought to develop under the influence of so-called evil spirits, and attempts to heal the sick involve ceremonies to banish such spirits. Such societies as the people of the Indus, the Ancient Egyptians and the Sumerians, who all lived around 3,000 BCE, possessed cultures incomparably richer in all respects than that of these present-day tribes, and even than that of societies more advanced. This means that in all periods of history, societies with highly advanced civilizations have been able to survive together with more backward ones. A society that existed thousands of years ago may actually have advanced much further than one in the 20th century. This demonstrates that there has been no development within an evolutionary process—in other words, from the primitive to the civilized.

Over the course of history, of course, major advances have been made in all fields, with great strides and development in science and technology, thanks to the accumulation of culture and experience. However, it is neither rational nor scientific to describe these changes as an "evolutionary" process in the way that evolutionists and materialists do. Just as there are no differences in physical characteristics between a present-day human and someone who lived thousands of years ago, so there are no differences in regard to intelligence and capabilities. The idea that our civilization is more advanced because 21st-century man's brain capacity and intelligence are more highly developed is a faulty perspective, resulting from evolutionist indoctrination. The fact is people in very different regions today may have different conceptions and cultures. But if a native Australian may not possess the same knowledge as a scientist from the USA, that doesn't mean his intelligence or brain haven't developed enough. Many people born into such societies may even be ignorant of the existence of electricity, but who are still highly intelligent.

Moreover, different needs have arisen during different centuries. Our standards of fashion are not the same as the Ancient Egyptians', but that doesn't mean that our culture is more advanced than theirs. While skyscrapers are symbols of civilization in the 21st century, the evidence of civilization in the Egyptian period was pyramids and sphinxes.

A native Papuan, Australia

21st century – Colombia

Even in the 21st century, many societies have superstitious beliefs. They worship false deities that can do them neither harm nor good. Here we see the chief of the Arhuaco Indians performing a ritual after an attack was made on them. The chief states that they call on the help of the ancient spirits of nature to appease the mountain. (Stephen Ferry, “Keepers of the World,” National Geographic, October 2004)


21st century – Miami, USA

In one part of the world, people live in primitive environments, while on another continent, people live in comfortable skyscrapers and travel by airplane and luxurious cruise ships. Contrary to the claims of evolutionists, both advanced and “primitive” societies have always existed at the same periods, just as they do today.

What matters is the perspective from which facts are interpreted. Someone starting with the preconceived idea that the facts support a so-called evolutionary development will evaluate all the information he obtains in light of that prejudice. Thus he will try to support his assertions with imaginary tales. Based on fragments of fossil bone, he will conjecture a great many details, such as how people living in that region spent their daily lives, their family structures and their social relations, in a way adapted to that preconception. He’ll conclude, based on those fragments of bone, that the living people they belonged to were only semi-upright and grunting, covered in hair and using crude stone tools—not because that is what scientific evidence suggests, but because his ideology requires it. Actually, the facts obtained do not imply such a scenario at all. This illusory picture comes about through interpretations by a Darwinist mentality.

The environment where a people lives does not indicate whether their minds are primitive or advanced. In every period, people lived under different conditions and developed different requirements. For example, the ancient Egyptians’ understanding of architecture is different from ours, but that does not mean that our culture is necessarily more advanced. One emblem of 20th century civilization is the skyscraper; in ancient Egypt, it was the pyramids and the sphinxes.

Currently, the archaeologists who make detailed interpretations about the period in question based on fossil remains, carved stone or paintings on cave walls, are scarcely different from the above example. Yet evolutionists still write about pretty nearly all aspects in the life of so-called primitive man on the basis of a prejudiced analysis of the evidence. Their fanciful descriptions and illustrations still adorn the pages of many magazines and newspapers.

Here is one of the scenarios created by Louis Leakey, one of the best-known contemporary evolutionists, on the daily life of so-called primitive man:

Let us for a moment imagine that we can stand back and observe the sequence of events at a rock-shelter some twenty or thirty thousand years ago.

A Stone Age hunter is wandering down the valley in search of game when he espies a rock-shelter in the side of the rocky cliff above him. Carefully, and with the utmost caution, he climbs up to it, fearful lest he may find that it is occupied by the members of some other Stone Age family who will resent his intrusion, or possibly even that it is the lair of a lion or a cave bear. At last he is close enough, and he sees that it is quite unoccupied, and so he enters and makes a thorough examination. He decides that it is a much more suitable habitation than the little shelter where he and his family are living at present, and he goes off to fetch them.

Next we see the family arriving and settling into their new home. A fire is lit either from some embers carefully nursed and brought from the old home, or else by means of a simple, wooden fire drill. (We cannot say for certain what methods Stone Age man used for obtaining fire, but we do know that from a very early period he did make use of fire, for hearths are a common feature in almost any occupation level in caves and rock-shelters.)

Probably some of the family then go off to collect grass or bracken to make rough beds upon which they will sleep, while others break branches from bushes and trees in the near-by thicket and construct a rude wall across the front of the shelter. The skins of various wild animals are then unrolled and deposited in the new home, together with such household goods as they possess.

And now the family is fully settled in, and the day-to-day routine is resumed once more. The men hunt and trap animals for food, the women probably help in this and also collect edible fruits and nuts and roots. 2

A scientist evaluating evidence with evolutionist prejudices may make many interpretations about the relevant period. But for these interpretations to be accepted, they must be supported by clear findings and data. So far, evolutionists have found no evidence to support their myths of half-human and half-ape creatures that communicated by grunting, lived in caves, sat around fires wearing furs and hunted with primitive weapons. These are only figments of the evolutionist imagination. Science shows that human beings have always been fully human.

This description, right down to the tiniest detail, is based on no scientific findings whatsoever, but solely on its author's imagination. Evolutionists, who dress up similar tales with various scientific terms, base all their details on the basis of a few pieces of bone. (Actually, these fossils demonstrate that no evolutionary process ever took place—the exact opposite of what evolutionists claim!) Obviously, bone fragments cannot provide any definite information as to whatever emotions inspired people in very ancient times, what their daily lives were like, or how they divided work amongst themselves.

However, the tale of human evolution is enriched with countless such imaginary scenarios and illustrations, and widely used by evolutionists. Unable to rid themselves of this dogma of evolution since the theory was first put forward, they have produced differing versions of the scenario above. Yet their intention is not to elucidate, but to wield indoctrination and propaganda to convince people that primitive man once really existed.

Many evolutionists seek to prove their claims by producing such scenarios, even in the absence of any supporting evidence. Yet every new finding, when interpreted in an biased manner, very clearly reveals to them certain facts, one of which is this: Man has been Man since the day he came into existence. Such attributes as intelligence and artistic ability have been the same in all periods of history. Peoples who lived in the past were not primitive, half-human half-animal creatures, as evolutionists would have us believe. They were thinking, speaking human beings, just like us, who produced works of art and developed cultural and ethical structures. As we'll shortly see, archaeological and paleontological findings prove this clearly and incontrovertibly.


What Will Remain from Our Own Civilization?

Imagine what will be left of today's great civilizations in hundreds of thousands of years. All our cultural accumulation—paintings, statues and palaces—will all disappear, and barely a trace of our present technology will remain. Many materials designed to resist wear and tear will gradually, under natural conditions, begin to succumb. Steel rusts. Concrete decays. Underground facilities collapse, and all materials require maintenance. Now imagine that tens of thousands of years have passed, and they have been subjected to thousands of gallons of rain, centuries of fierce winds, repeated floods and earthquakes. Perhaps all that will remain will be giant pieces of carved stone, the quarried blocks that make up buildings and the remains of various statues, just like what has come down to us from the past. Or maybe not a definite trace of our advanced civilizations will be left to fully understand our daily lives, only from tribes living in Africa, Australia or some other place in the world. In other words, of the technology we possess (televisions, computers, microwave ovens, etc.), not a trace will remain though the main outline of a building or a few fragments of statues will perhaps survive. If future scientists look at these scattered remains and describe all societies of the period we are living in as "culturally backward," will they not have departed from the truth?

Year 2000

Archaeologists with an evolutionist prejudice assert that the bison sculptures in the Tuc d’Audoubert cave in the foot-hills of the Pyrenees in southern France—which statues have no less artistic value than today’s works of art such as, for example, the statues of Rodin—were made by so-called primitive people. But the technique and aesthetic appearance of the works show that whoever produced them was no different physically or mentally from present-day human beings, and was actually more artistically sophisticated than most.

Year 8000

If Rodin’s “The Thinker” is discovered 6,000 years from now, and people interpret it with the same prejudice that some scientists interpret past today, they will think that 20th-century peoples worshipped a man who pondered, and were not yet socialized, etc. Wouldn’t this show how far they were from the truth?

Or, if someone discovers a work written in Mandarin and concludes, solely on the basis of this text, that the Chinese were a backward race communicating by means of strange signs, will this be any reflection of the true facts? Consider the example of Auguste Rodin's statue "The Thinker," which is familiar to the whole world. Imagine that this statue is re-discovered by archaeologists tens of thousands from now. If those researchers hold their own preconceptions about the beliefs and lifestyle of our society, and lack sufficient historical documentation, they may well interpret this statue in different ways. They may imagine that the members of our civilization worshipped a thinking man, or may claim that the statue represents some mythological false deity.

Today, of course, we know that "The Thinker" was a work produced for aesthetic, artistic reasons alone. In other words, if a researcher in tens of thousands of years lacks enough information and holds his own preconceived ideas about the past, it's impossible for him to arrive at the truth, because he will interpret "The Thinker" in the light of his preconceptions and form an appropriate scenario. Therefore, evaluating the information at hand without prejudice or bias, avoiding all forms of preconception, and thinking in broader terms is of the greatest importance. Never forget, we have no evidence that societies evolve or that societies in the past were primitive. These suggestions consist solely of conjecture and are based solely on analysis by historians and archaeologists who support evolution. For example, drawings of animals on a cave wall were immediately described as primitive drawings by cavemen. Yet these pictures may well say volumes about the aesthetic understanding of the humans at that time. An artist wearing the most modern clothing for the time may have produced them solely for artistic reasons alone. Indeed, many scientists now emphasize the impossibility of these same cave drawings being the work of a primitive mind.

Another example is the interpretation of sharp-edged stones as the first tools made by "ape-men." People at that time may have shaped these stones and used for decorative purposes. There is no proof, only an assumption, that the pieces found were definitely used by these people as tools. Evolutionist scientists have examined the evidence found during excavations from a biased perspective. They have played about with some fossils that, in their own view, prove their theories, and have ignored or even discarded others. Similar games have been played to demonstrate that history evolved as well.3 The American anthropologist Melville Herskovits describes how the "evolution of history" thesis emerged and the way that evolutionists interpret the evidence:

Every exponent of cultural evolution provided an hypothetical blueprint of the progression he conceived as having marked the development of mankind, so that many examples of nonlinear sequences have been recorded. Some of these progressions were restricted to a single aspect of culture . . . 4

One of the most important examples to confirm Herskovits' view is one study carried out by the evolutionist ethnographer Lewis Henry Morgan, who examined the phases a society undergoes to achieve the patriarchal and monogamous structure that, he claimed, had "evolved" from the primitive to the more developed. But in carrying out this research, he used for his examples different societies from all over the globe, entirely unconnected from one another. He then set them out in accord with the result he wanted to achieve. It's clear that from the hundreds of thousands of cultures in the world, he selected only those compatible with his preconceived thesis.

Herskovits illustrates how Morgan re-arranged history to validate his ideas. Starting with the very primitive matrilineal Australians, he drew a line leading to the patrilineal American Indians. He then moved his sequence to Grecian tribes of the proto-historic period, when descent was firmly established in the male line, but with no strict monogamy. The last entry in his ascending scale was represented by today's civilization—with descent in the male line and strict monogamy.

Herskovits comments on this imaginary sequence:

But this series, from the point of view of a historical approach, is quite fictitious… 5

True History Covered Up

If a historian analyzing World War II holds National Socialist views, he may well portray Hitler as a magnificent leader, based on the picture to the side alone. Yet the photograph below, taken at the Buchenwald concentration camp, shows only one of the examples of the terrible slaughter that Hitler unleashed.

Most of what we know about history we learned from books. Readers seldom doubt the contents of such books and accept their contents at face value. But especially when it comes to human history, very often the book presents a theory shaped by a concept that is no longer valid in the fields of biology, molecular biology, paleontology, genetics, biogenetics and anthropology. Along with the scientific collapse of the theory of evolution, our understanding of history based on it has also been invalidated.

The historian, Edward A. Freeman, discusses how our historical knowledge reflects the "facts":

For in all historical inquiries we are dealing with facts which themselves come within the control of human will and human caprice, and the evidence for which depends on the trustworthiness of human informants, who may either purposely deceive or unwittingly mislead. A man may lie; he may err. 6

So, how can we be certain that the history handed down to us is true?

First of all, we must make sure of the objective certainty of the facts presented to us by historians and archaeologists. As with most abstract concepts, the interpretation of history may mean different things to different people. The account of an event may vary according to the point of view of who relates it. And the interpretation of events is often quite different when recounted by individuals who did not witness them.

"History" is defined as the chronological record of past events. What gives meaning and significance to these events is how the historian presents them. For example, the history of a war may be influenced by the writer's opinion of whether the winning side was right or wrong. If he feels sympathy for either side, he will consider them to be the "champion of freedom," even if it invaded the other's territory and committed numerous atrocities. 7 For example, if you examine the history books of two nations hostile to each other, you'll see that each interprets the same events in a totally different way.

This is exactly what evolutionist historians and scientists have done today. With no concrete proofs to rely on, they present the so-called evolutionary history of human beings as a certain truth. They ignore the strong evidence that refutes their theory, interpret the evidence they have in terms of their prejudice, and present this theory, that some scientists adopted as an ideology, as a law.

What Will Remain in Tens of Thousands of Years' Time?

Compared with the history of mankind, the lifespan of the materials often used in construction, industry, technological products, and many areas of daily life is relatively short. If people lived in extremely sophisticated timber buildings tens of thousands of years ago, it is perfectly understandable that little evidence should remain today. Imagine that our civilization were destroyed in some terrible disaster. How much of it would be left in a hundred thousand years? If a future people were to regard us as primitive on the basis of a few bones and pieces of foundation, how accurate would their interpretation be?

In tens of thousands of years' time, the modern stone houses shown here will look no different than the ruins unearthed in the excavations at Catal Huyuk. Under natural conditions, first timber will decay, then metals will corrode. In all likelihood, all that remains will be stone walls, and ceramic pots and bowls. If so, any claims by the future archaeologists that all people of the 2000s lived primitive lives will clearly not reflect the truth. Present-day evolutionists find themselves in the same position.

In tens of thousands of years' time, all that will remain of any of today's buildings will be a few blocks of stone. Wooden materials, and objects made of iron will rot away. For example, nothing will remain of the Ciragan Palace's fine wall paintings, its beautiful furniture, its splendid curtains and carpets, the chandeliers or other lighting equipment. These materials will decay and vanish. Someone coming across the remains of the Ciragan Palace in the distant future may see only a few large chunks of stone and perhaps a few of the palace's foundations. If it's suggested, on the basis of this, that the people of our time had not yet established settled patterns of living and lived in primitive shelters made by piling stones atop one another, this analysis would be completely mistaken.

The Ciragan Palace in Istanbul after it was burned and its interior design and decorations destroyed. Someone looking at the palace in this condition could never fully imagine how magnificent it had once been.

The remains that have survived down to the present may have once been exceedingly beautiful buildings, just like the Ciragan Palace. If one were to place furniture atop of these ruins and decorate them with curtains, carpets and lamps, the result would be quite impressive once again.

The Ciragan Palace in its restored state, with all its décor completed.

The Qur'an refers to bygone societies as being highly advanced in terms of art, architecture, culture and knowledge. In one verse, we are told that societies of the past were very superior:

Haven't they traveled in the Earth and seen the final fate of those before them? They were greater than them in strength and left far deeper traces on the Earth. . . . (Qur'an, 40:21)

People Living 1.5 Million Years Ago Also Protected and Looked After the Elderly

In a special issue evaluating the year’s major scientific discoveries, Discover magazine devoted considerable space to this discovery, which revealed that people looked after the sick millions of years ago and took an interest in their well-being. This finding, which was reported in an article under the title “Did Homo erectus* Coddle His Grandparents?”, revealed that human beings have never lived like animals at any time in history, but always like human beings.

A fossil discovered in Dmanisi, Georgia in 2005 once again revealed that the "evolution of human history" scenario in no way squares with the facts. According to evolutionists' unscientific claims, the first human beings lived like animals, with no family life or social order. However, a fossil skull belonging to an elderly human being, discovered by the paleoanthropologist David Lordkipanidze, showed that these claims are untrue.

The fossil discovered belonged to an older human who had only one tooth left. Scientists believe that the owner of the skull had other diseases as well as being nearly toothless. That this person survived well into old age, despite having so many infirmities, represents significant evidence that this individual was cared for and that others took an interest in others' welfare. Lordkipanidze says:

It is clear that this was a sick individual… We think this is a good argument that this individual had support from other members of the group. 8

Evolutionists maintain that human beings developed social cultural behavior at least 1.5 million years after the owner of this skull died. The fossil in question thus refutes evolutionist claims, showing that millions of years ago people felt compassion toward the sick, looked after and protected them. This discovery once again shows that humans have never lived like animals, but always like human beings.

(*) Evolutionists claim that Homo erectus was an intermediate species between apes and human beings in Man’s supposed evolution. The fact is, however, that there is no difference between the present-day human skeleton and that of Homo erectus, whose skeleton is fully upright, and fully human.


2. L.S.B. Leakey, Adam's Ancestors: The Evolution of Man and His Culture, New York and Evanston: Harper & Row, Publishers, 4th Ed., 1960, pp. 9-10.
3. Abram Kardiner, extract from "Posthumous Essays by Branislau Malinowski," in Scientific American, June 1918, p. 58.
4. Melville Herskovits, Man and His Works, New York: Knopf, 1950, p. 467.
5. Ibid., p. 476.
6. Edward Augustus Freeman, "Race and Language," in Essays, English and American, with introductions notes and illustrations, New York: P. F. Collier & Son, [c1910] Harvard classics; No. XXVIII.
7. Ahmad Thomson, Making History, London: Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., 1997, p. 4.
8. Zach Zorich, "Did Homo erectus Coddle His Grandparents?," Discover, Vol. 27, No. 01, January 2006, p. 67..