Grab to eternal life!














Jesus is the way,
 the truth, and the life







In this work, we will study the belief in science and scientists. This is belief is very common in modern society, particularly in Western countries. It means that we fully trust anything that is called scientific. We never doubt scientists or think that they might be wrong; instead, we kindly believe anything they believe. Naturally, this may lead us to the truth if the scientists are correct; if they are wrong, however, we too will be lost. In this matter, we should take into account the following considerations:


Fact or assumption? First, we must learn how to tell facts from assumptions. There is scientific knowledge that cannot be questioned, and there are assumptions. The former can be verified through practical observation and experimentation and the latter cannot. Scientific knowledge would include the following examples:


- Mathematical calculations, such as 2 + 3 = 5. Such information is based on explicit facts and cannot be disproven.


- Physical and chemical experiments made in laboratories that always produce the same results. Such experiments can be duplicated and their results can be observed.


- Measurements and observations made in nature.


Scientific knowledge is based on facts established through observation and measurement, and it is beyond doubt. This kind of information is reliable and we can believe it.

   However, there is information that cannot be proven by means of tests or observations, such as theories about the origins of the universe or explanations about how life came into being and evolved. No modern man was present to witness these events and they cannot be proven now by means of tests because we cannot return to the past. We cannot board a time machine to see what happened, to verify how life began or whether or not it has evolved. We can only use the observational skills we have, and fossil records. We can form some theories about what happened, but we cannot prove what happened. In the end, it is a question of our belief in different theories and the validity of those theories. Such theories include beliefs about the past, among them the theory of evolution.


We can naturally observe only the things we can see in the present. (...)

   All the evidence available to scientists only exists in the present. All fossils, living animals and plants, the globe, the universe – everything – exist in the present. Ordinary people (also most of students) are not taught that scientists can only rely on the present and they cannot interact with the past. Evolution is a belief system about the past based on what people say – people who were not there personally but who try to explain how all the pieces of evidence we can now see (such as fossils, animals and plants) came into being. (1)


We do know something, however. We know at least two important things, and they are:


·        The birth of life has never been proven. There is a huge gap between living and inanimate things, and the problem of the beginning of life has not been resolved.

·        Fossils have always been found completely developed with all the characteristic features of their species visible. No clear intermediate forms have been observed, among living animals or in fossils.

   One of the world’s best known fossil researchers, Stephen Jay Gould, provided a theory about why no fossils of intermediate forms have ever been found. His theory, called Punctualism, claims that there are no intermediate form fossils because the development of life forms has sometimes been so fast that no remains of these intermediate forms were left behind. His idea is that this development has taken place in leaps.

   This is only deferring the problem, however. If there are no observations of intermediate forms available, can we conclude that any intermediate development has even taken place? If evolution cannot be traced through fossils or modern-day examples, then the entire theory should be called into question. This means that the theory is not true; it is a lie. This is the most reasonable conclusion one can draw based on the material available. Since there are no intermediate forms, species must have been completely formed and distinct from the very beginning. This clearly suggests Creation. This problem of absent intermediate forms is addressed below.


It is impossible, assuming that evolution from lower forms to higher forms is true, to reach the conclusion of it having taken place so quickly that it has not left any marks in the sands of time. But not even the fastest possible evolution can offer a single explanation as to how completely developed fish, birds, and mammals have suddenly appeared among different organisms. (...) These things have been extremely confusing to me, who for my entire life have been a supporter of the theory of evolution. If someone asks me what conclusion I have come to after this, my answer is that I do not know anything. However, I must honestly admit that things being what they are, the circumstances support those who believe in a special creation, as our fathers did. (George Paulin, English scientist, in a book Puuttuva rengas [Jakten på apemennesket] / Thoralf Gulbrandsen, p. 100, 101)


Prejudices in our lives. One assumption we may make is that scientists are infallible. Some people may trust that scientists know everything and are always impartial, unprejudiced and critical and that they are never wrong in their assessments. Scientists may be placed on a pedestal.

   This is a mistake, however. Scientists are just as imperfect as the rest of us. They eat what we eat, they went to the same schools as children, they drive the same cars, they read the same newspapers and they have the same prejudices as all of us; they may even have false information. It’s a mistake to think that they are infallible and always objective because this is surely not true. They have their own prejudices and their own way of seeing the world. Their prejudices may be correct in some cases, but they may also be mistaken. We should always take this into account when dealing with imperfect humans.


It is surprising how in this “era of science” so few people know what science really is and how it functions. Many think that scientists do not have biases because they impartially look for the truth in their white coats. However, there are two kinds of scientists, men and women, and they are similar to you and me. They have beliefs and biases. The biases determine what you do to scientific evidence, and it especially determines the way in which you decide that some pieces of evidence are more significant and important than others. The scientists are not impartial seekers of truth, they are not objective.

   (…) An atheist, agnostic, a person who believes in the Bible (and a theist), each have their own religious standpoint. What they do to evidence depends on their suppositions (beliefs) and religious standpoint. It is thus not a question of whether or not someone has biases. The real question is: Which of the biases is the best? -Meaning a bias that is worth to adopt as your own. (2)


Since scientists – like all of us – have prejudices, biases and their own way of seeing the world, they usually reject any evidence suggesting the contrary, which is what we all do. A person who believes in Creation will find evidence supporting this belief and reject any other ideas. Similarly, a person who believes in random creation and evolution will try to find evidence supporting this view of the world and reject any other evidence. Such a person will reject opposing views and consider people who have a different view to be ignorant.

   The next quote is about this behaviour. The writer shows how people who believe in the theory of evolution try to hide behind their psychological barrier of infallibility or denigrate people who think otherwise while being unable to show any proof to support their view. This way, they move the focus away from the main issue, i.e. whether the theory of evolution is correct or not. This is quite common in modern society.


Let’s recap: if the theory of evolution were true, it would endure examination. Regardless of whether it endures examination or not, we have the right to study it to find out its worth.

   Nobody can demand us to accept any claims someone gives without assessing them. Nobody demands blind and grovelling admiration – this should be least true of all people who call themselves scientists.

   Therefore, it seems very suspicious that the people who defend the theory of evolution are offended when others discuss their theories and assumptions. They like to say that only ignorant and not enlightened people doubt the theory of evolution in the modern society. True science does not need to slur the opposition in this way. True science does not try to hide behind a psychological barrier of infallibility. What do the evolution theorists want, then?

   (...) We are not asking about the reasons of evolution or the assumptions on which it is based – we want facts. If somebody can prove in an experiment that life can be born from something inanimate, we would not want somebody to explain how this can be. If somebody could show even a single example of one species being evolved from another, we would have to accept it – even if nobody on earth could explain why the species changed. – This is what the evolution theorists have not been able to do: they cannot prove their claims true.

   Many Darwinist books state that people who are opposed of the theory of evolution reject the theory because of purely emotional reasons. This is not true, obviously. Even if we don’t like to think that we have evolved from apes and pigs, this is not why we do not accept the theory. Arguments against the theory of evolution are not about emotion, they are about science.

   We are not rejecting the theory of evolution because of its lack of rationalisation – even though one must note that there is no such rationalisation. Neither are we rejecting it because of emotional reasons and not even for ethical ones, at least not primarily. We are rejecting the theory of evolution because there is no proof to show that it is true.

   We want proof. (3)


Right perspective. The media often dubs people who believe in Creation or that homosexuality is a sinful lust from which people can be freed to be extreme conservatives. Many prejudiced news reporters do this.

   Such reporters should take eternity into account, however. We are modern, wise and reasonable only if we also take into account the alternative that damnation and heaven may exist. If we do not even take life after death and the Judgement into account, we are fools. This is also important because Jesus often talked about heaven and damnation, and surely He is the expert, not any of us. Furthermore, Jesus said that He is telling the truth; In fact, He said that He is the truth, so if we do not believe what He said we are actually calling Him a liar. And surely He was no liar.

   So, please, take into account the following words of Jesus and look into the future. If what Jesus said is true, the things He said about damnation (Matt 25:41,46), heaven (John 14:2:  In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.) and other matters are surely true. We should not belittle His words:


- (John 8:45,46) And because I tell you the truth, you believe me not.
46  Which of you convinces me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do you not believe me?


- (John 14:6) Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.


If you do not want to consider everything only at the theoretical level and if you truly want to experience being born again, receiving a new life and getting into God’s new eternal kingdom, please read the following lines. In this, you should take into account the following:


Belief in Jesus Christ. Firstly, you should note that belief in science and scientists cannot get anyone to heaven – belief in Jesus Christ can. If we trust Him and turn to Him, we will experience salvation:


- (Acts 16:30,31) And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31  And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.


- (John 5:39,40) Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40  And you will not come to me, that you might have life.


Receiving. Since eternal life is available only in Jesus Christ, you must accept Him into your life. If you have already done this, you already have eternal life and you are a child of God:


- (John 1:12)  But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name


 - (1 John 5:11-13) And this is the record, that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12  He that has the Son has life; and he that has not the Son of God has not life.

13  These things have I written to you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may believe on the name of the Son of God.


THE PRAYER OF SALVATION: Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn away from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven through Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.






1. Ken Ham: Valhe, evoluutio, (The Lie: Evolution) p. 34,35

2. Ken Ham: Valhe, evoluutio, (The Lie: Evolution) p. 27.28

3. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas [Jakten på apemennesket], p. 6,57





Jari Iivanainen











shopify analytics ecommerce