Next, there are some writings
published in the Letters to the Editor section of Finnish newspapers. They deal
with science and faith, and indicate how the outlook on life can lead research and
how faith in the area of science is as possible as in spiritual life.
Mister X spoke about evolution and creationism, and was
frustrated by that some do not believe in evolution.
I myself can tell that I have collided with the same wall, as I
have acted from an opposite viewpoint or creationism, and as I have tried to
prove it sensible among other things on my website. Formerly I thought that if
you try to bring out the facts as logically and convincingly as possible,
people can be won but now I understand that it isn’t this simple. This is not
possible. Instead, the conversation ends at least when an evolutionist takes
out an arrogant smile and states the magical word “fundamentalist”, and so the
person who believes in creation goes away depressed. This is what usually
I think that both viewpoints are based on faith, i.e., we
believe in either creation or evolution. Neither of them cannot be properly
proven, simply because we cannot bring back the past conditions. It is
impossible because we cannot go to the past to check how it actually went. We
can only draw conclusions on grounds of the information we have, and I myself
think that the information much better fits the creation model. (Etelä-Suomen
Sanomat on March 31, 2009)
article was published in the newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat on May
AND COMMON SENSE
April 27, there was a writing in Etelä-Suomen Sanomat in which creation was
treated and which expressed how it is unscientific to believe in it, as “wise
people” usually do.
But what is scientific and what is faith?
Paul says straight out in Hebrews that “Through faith we
understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which
are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Hebr 11:3), in other words he admitted the impact of faith
in understanding matters. He said that only by faith can we understand how
everything was created out of nothing.
However, he who believes in a random
beginning and evolution also relies fully on faith. This is a fact that cannot
be denied. We cannot prove the foundation of the evolution theory, the big bang
and spontaneous generation in a laboratory: they are based on faith in the
minds of people. Attempts to generate the latter in a laboratory have been made
but with no success whatsoever. No scientist has been able to get even near to
solving the origin of life, i.e., people believe in it even though practical
observations do not support it. The belief is only in the people’s minds. As a
matter of fact, many so-called scientific issues are based on faith like the
spiritual life and faith in the supernatural God. The question is: which of the
alternatives do we deem more realistic – the belief in the haphazard origin or
creation – because neither of them cannot be properly proven afterwards.
In this issue, one should use his common
sense because in that way it is possible to proceed at least a little. So, when
you ask an ordinary plain man how possible he considers that a new universe
like the present one with dozens of billions galaxies, hundreds of billions
stars, a sun like the present one, the planets, sea and water, the rocks,
humans, the birds, elephants, mosquitoes and so on could be born from, for
example, an ordinary chip of a stone (in the big bang theory it is supposed
that everything came into being from a pin-sized space), what would he say?
How reasonable would he deem the whole issue when holding a chip of stone in
his hand? Is it not likely that his answer would be something to the effect,
“Don’t be crazy, that’s just an impossible idea! Such cannot be born from a
small stone. How could anyone believe in such foolishness?”