BELIEF IN SCIENCE AND SCIENTISTS
In this work, we will study the belief in science and scientists. This
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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,
(...) 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
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
- (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
- (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.
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
- (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
- (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