VIEW OF THE WORLD
In this writing, we will study a
scientific view of the world. Usually, this refers to a conception of the world
based on reason, observations and hard evidence. It is thought to be an
objective way of studying reality, based on concrete information alone. Many
people like to stress in particular the idea that this ideology is the opposite
of religious thinking. They state that the religious view of the world is based
on "blind faith" but the scientific way of thinking is not. Instead,
their ideology is based on reason and facts, by which they very often mean
Darwin’s theory of evolution and random origin of life.
The following quote shows very well what this type of ideology, in which
people consider themselves to be scientific, is all about. It stresses the
difference between “scientific” and “religious” views of the world.
briefly that people would think scientifically.
Generally, it looks like most people try to
manage by thinking as little as possible. (…) The most important part of a
scientific way of thinking is freedom from prejudices, predilections and
devotions. The target of a scientist is always the truth, regardless of how
unpleasant it may be or how much confusion it may cause to people whose beliefs
it shows wrong. (...) One should think
that there is no need to point out the conflict between the scientific and the
religious ideology. (1)
IS THERE SUCH A THING AS A SCIENTIFIC VIEW OF THE WORLD? As stated above, people who stress the scientific
ideology usually also stress that their view of the world is different from the
religious view of the world. They consider their own ideology to be reasonable
while others’ religious ideology is based on blind faith in matters that one
cannot prove. This is the way some people think.
there any people whose ideology is scientific and not based on faith at all?
How many people act based on facts alone when doing science, or in their
everyday life, and not rely on their faith at all? Is there such a person?
If we are honest, we must state that nobody acts completely
without faith. In science, people trust in the credibility and information
provided by others. They consider the opinions of others trustworthy because
they consider the other people to be well-educated. The same applies to normal
life. We also trust in what others say and consider their words true. We
personally check only a small share of the things we consider true.
Therefore, everybody believes and nobody stands on neutral
ground. We all believe in something, including those who say they base
everything on facts. There is no such thing as a fully scientific person: that
is an impossibility.
The examples below show how important faith is and how it is
experienced in our everyday lives:
- A girl trusts her mother when
the mother says that she will get a new dress. This is an act of faith.
- People believe that there is such
a place as the Antarctica even though very few have actually visited it.
- When we see an advertisement of a
store in the newspaper, we believe in the information and shop based on it.
- History is a subject in which all
our knowledge is based on what others have said. For example, it is no longer
possible to completely scientifically and conclusively prove that Napoleon or
Caesar actually existed; we have to trust the words of others. This is faith
that we are forced to use.
- Understanding the origins of the
universe, life and humans requires faith. None of us were there to witness
their beginnings. There are only theories about what happened; it is impossible
to prove their origins in any scientific way.
Ken Ham proves how both the creationistic ideology and the theory of
evolution are beliefs rooted in the past. They cannot be proven true because we
cannot return to the past. Evolutionists equally base their ideology on faith
in the same way as people who believe in the Creation. These people are in the
same boat, in the same position: trying to understand what happened in the
past. They use the same present
evidence to interpret the past.
people have the wrong idea of the issues connected with the question of
creation versus evolution. Instead of seeing the real nature of this question,
people have been deceived into believing that evolution is science. It is not
science at all: it is all about beliefs about the past. We cannot visit the
It is important to see that Creation is
also by definition a belief about the past. The difference is that the ideas of
those who believe in Creation are based on a book that claims it is the word of God. God, who was there at the time, who knows everything and who tells
what happened. Evolution is based on stories of people who were not personally present and who do not even claim to know
All the evidence available to scientists only exist 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. (2)
Preconceptions play a huge role
here. A Christian believes in God, but atheists and scientists may similarly
believe that life came into being by itself on our planet and other planets.
They believe this even though they do not have any actual evidence of life
being spontaneously born or there being any life on other planets. This is
because of their atheistic view of the world and their attitude that denies
God’s role in the events of the universe. They believe that the universe is a
closed system, which God or anything supernatural cannot influence in any way.
The next quote is a good description of the atheistic beliefs and
preconceptions. The origins of life and the Earth have not been scientifically
explained – all experiments aiming at creating life have failed – but the
author of the text still believes that everything came into being by itself. It
is not a question of scientific knowledge but of what people want to believe. A
Christian who believes in Creation is, of course, in the same situation.
It is a
fact that life started on Earth at a specific point in time, but the way how it
came into being is – at least for the time being – an unsolved mystery. There
is no other possibility, however, than life starting on its own, i.e. the birth
of life being an event that is part of the natural order anywhere with similar
conditions as on the Earth when life came into being. The birth of life is no
larger or smaller mystery than the birth of the Earth, for example. If we were
able to experimentally – i.e. artificially – generate in a laboratory or
elsewhere the conditions that prevailed on Earth in the beginning, we would
surely see life starting from something inanimate. We might achieve this some
day. We may also get in contact with life on other planets at some point. It is
surely so that as we gain more knowledge, God and the Creator will have to move
farther and farther away. (3)
Another quotation suggests that faith appears to be a factor in
answering questions concerning the origin of the universe. The author is sure
that life was born by itself from the materials of the globe, stars and
universe, but is forced to admit that there is no evidence for this certainty.
It is a question of one’s way of thinking, which is not scientific. It is based
on an exercise of faith, just like believing that God created everything.
(Note: Bolds have been added for clarification in the passage below by this
Once you get rolling, the story of life becomes
a logical, absolutely unavoidable chain of causes and consequences. Science can
find out its links along with all the fascinating details, but how life
started is still a huge mystery. There is no convincing explanation for it.
The chemical components of living organisms and biochemical reactions that
sustain life are known very accurately, but the final spark of life still
remains unclear. Life: such a self-evident and simple phenomenon, yet so
difficult to explain...
There is no question that life came into existence from
earthly material, and from the stars and universe. From the same
materials that have circulated in timeless space over and over again. We are
all basically stardust. Just as life evolved from one cell and became
more and more complicated and endlessly varied, so there has also been
evolution on earth. It has become denser from the dust cloud that was between
the stars and cooled down almost four billion years ago into a compact ball,
but to this day is subject to what its own internal heat has created. (John
Reader, Alkumerestä maalle, p. 9, 25, 26 / The Rise of Life)
Is there such a thing as objective research? The logical conclusion we are to make from the
information above is that each person shows faith at some level, including
people who think their view of the world is purely scientific. All of us have
to rely on faith: in everyday life, when interpreting history, and in forming
opinions about origins of the universe and life. We either believe in random
origin or in God's Creation. There are no people who do not use their faith.
What about the idea that science and thought can be completely neutral
and objective? Those people who stress the merits of scientific thought usually
state that there are no prejudices in their worldview. They are neutral and
base their conclusions on natural science. They give no room for religious
views. Their view is based on facts alone.
One might well question this attitude, however. It is unlikely that there
are any people who are completely free of prejudices and beliefs. Quite the
contrary, it is likely that all of us have some prejudices based on the way in
which we assess our world. It is like we are wearing glasses through which we
see and assess things.
The same applies to the way we ask questions about the origin of the
universe, life and humans. We are usually seeking data that will confirm our
view of the world. If a person believes in the Creation and in what the Bible
says, he will try to find evidence supporting this view of the world.
Similarly, a person who believes in random origin and Darwin’s theory of
evolution will try to find evidence supporting this view of the world. This is
supported by the following points, for example:
person is seeking the missing link and the ancestor of the human race from the
wilderness of Africa. If this person didn’t have his faith and his view of the
world, he would surely not bother searching. He does research because he
believes in the theory. - A scientist believes that random origin of life is
possible anywhere if the conditions are right. He believes this even though no
one has proven how life began, even in a laboratory.
Evolutionists try to find intermediate forms between the main groups because
they believe that all species are related and originate from the same original
person who believes that the Earth is very old usually rejects any evidence
suggesting the opposite. He does not accept this evidence or wish to ponder any
This means that our prejudices
clearly influence the way in which we do science and study the evidence. All
scientists and regular people have prejudices based on which they interpret
information and take actions. It is unlikely that there is a person who does
not act based on some kind of prejudice.
The following quote is about this same subject. It shows that we first
accept a theory and then start to seek evidence to support this theory. The
order of acceptance is not facts first, but theory first. Based on the theory
we start our research. This is the way people usually act.
“error” is probably my claim that evolutionists assess facts based on their
theory or philosophy. They believe that it is vice versa: their theory has been
created based on the facts. This is where evolutionists err. However, I do not
dare to judge evolutionists based on this in order to avoid judging us all. The
old saying that facts create a theory is commonly believed even though it is a
completely incorrect generalisation.
Already in 1935 Austrian scientific
philosopher sir Karl Popper (who was later employed by the University of
London) proved in his important book The
Logic of Scientific Discovery that scientists do not work in accordance
with the so-called scientific method. They do not do their work in compliance
with this method, even though they would like to do so. The claim that research
can be started with observations and no theory is absurd. Scientists do not
simply tour around the world to collect random observations and results, and
then try to apply theories to these facts: instead, they start with a theory or
an insight. This gives them the direction based on which they start to gather
(...) Theory influences facts in a very
significant manner in all fields from physics to anthropology. This is the way
science works because this is the way people act: evolutionists, those who
believe in Creation and everybody else. It is just that nobody ever voices this
fact. Why is this? Because it sounds so wrong. It sounds so wrong that we
refuse to even think about it. It is not wrong, however: it is just the way us
people work. It is the only way for us to work. The only deceit is us deceiving
ourselves when we try to convince ourselves that we do not act this way, that –
unlike everybody else – we are objective and have no prejudice. In theory facts
govern the theory but in actuality it is the theory that governs the facts.
Everything is eventually about philosophy – or theology. (4)
WHICH THEORY IS SUITABLE FOR THE FACTS? Above, we addressed the fact that our view of the world influences the
way in which we interpret the world. All of us have presuppositions and preconceived
ideas based on which we act. So, if a person believes in the Creation and in
what the Bible says, he or she will try to find evidence supporting this view
of the world. It is also easy for him or her to believe in miracles because he
or she thinks that God exists.
Similarly, a person who believes in random origin and evolution will try
to find evidence supporting this view of the world. If you offer such a person
a different kind of data that contradicts his or her own idea of the world, the
person will usually immediately reject it. Such a person does not easily accept
it because he or she considers him/herself to be right and to be using a
scientific approach. Such a person considers different kinds of views to be
irrational or religious.
Next, we will study facts that one can observe in nature and elsewhere.
Are these best suited to the naturalistic and materialistic view of the world,
or are they best suited to the Bible’s description of the universe as having
been created by God? Let’s start with the naturalistic view of the world, which
needs to explain in some way that the following issues, for example, take place
by themselves – or at least these issues must be taken into account:
The beginning of the universe has never been explained. At present, the most common theory raised by
those who hold a naturalistic view of the world is the big bang theory, which
suggests that everything – galaxies, stars, the Sun, planets, oceans, other
bodies of water, rocks, humans, birds, elephants, mosquitoes, flowers – all
known existence – exploded from a space the size of a pinhead. We can all judge
for ourselves how likely this is and how rational it is to believe such a
The birth of galaxies has
never been proven. The belief in their birth stands on shaky ground:
I do not want to claim that we
really understand the process that created the galaxies. The theory on the
birth of the galaxies is one of the major unsolved problems in astrophysics and
we still seem to be far from the actual solution even today.
Weinberg, Kolme ensimmäistä minuuttia
/ The First Three Minutes, p. 88)
There are several theories for how the solar system came into being but none are proven:
when astrophysics has progressed enormously, many theories concerning the
origin of the solar system are unsatisfactory. Scientists still disagree about
the details. There is no commonly accepted theory in sight. (Jim Brooks, Näin alkoi elämä, p. 57 / Origins of
All presented hypotheses about
the origin of the solar system have serious inconsistencies. The conclusion, at
the moment, seems to be that the solar system cannot exist. (H. Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History and Physical
Constitution, 6th edition, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p.
The beginning of life has not been proven, even in a laboratory. There
is a huge gap between living and inanimate materials:
Knoll, a professor of Harvard University: “As we try to compile a summary of
what we know about the deep history of life on Earth, the origin of life and
phases of its forming which led to the biology that can be seen around us now,
we have to admit that it is in the dark. We do not know how life began on this
planet. We do not know exactly when it began and under what conditions. ” (5)
The changing of species into other species has not
been proven. The
naturalistic philosophy is based on a belief that this has happened even though
it has been impossible to observe. Nobody has been able to present a single
piece of evidence supporting it. Darwin’s finches, variation of bacteria,
variation of the peppered moth or variation of other species is always
variation within the basic group. They have not become another species. Decades
of tests in mutation or breeding have proven that species remain unchanged:
When talking about actual
macroevolution changes, there is practically no evidence available. Regardless
of opposing claims, the mechanism of macroevolution is unknown. (...)
Scientific literature of the field does not even try to seriously explain the
mechanisms with which complex biological molecules, mechanisms and structures
came into being. A fictive story of a possible path of evolution is usually
considered sufficient proof. (6)
After having observed mutations
in the banana flies for many years, Goldschmidt gave up hope. He complained
that the changes were so hopelessly minuscule that even if a thousand mutations
were to be combined in one individual, a new species would not be created. (7)
Clark: Since its very beginning, the animal kingdom has been similar as the one
we know now, in all its essential aspects. (...) Thus so far as concerns the major
groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument.
There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from
any other. (8)
Darwin also had to admit that he did
not have any evidence proving one species changed into another. He also had to
admit that nature is not in confusion but that species are clearly
differentiated from each other. In The
Origin of Species, he was able to offer good examples of variants within
the basic species but no examples of macroevolution, i.e. actual changes of
species. (When talking about evidence that proves evolution, evolutionists
almost always refer to adaptation, such as bacteria becoming better adapted to
their environment. This is why studying what evolution means is important: Does
it refer to macroevolution, i.e. new species, or only to species adapting and
changing? The latter is something everybody admits and there is no uncertainty
about it. The controversy is about the former. One cannot proceed without first
clearing this obstacle.) Everybody who believes in evolution should read
Darwin’s book in detail to fully understand the level of the examples given.
Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd
of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave
that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to
the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that
are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory. These difficulties and objections
may be classed under the following heads: Firstly, why, if species have
descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not
everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in
confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? (9)
I am actually
tired of telling people that I do not claim to have any direct evidence of a
species having changed into another species and that I believe this view
correct mainly because so many phenomena can be grouped and explained based on
Human evolution. The
naturalistic philosophy assumes that humans have evolved even though it is well
known that remains which are clearly from the modern man have been found in
older layers than those of their assumed forefathers. We face this problem also
if we use only the dating and classification used by the evolutionists
The next facts are about fossil
data of man. First of all, fossils that cannot be distinguished from the modern
man based on their external characteristics have been timed at up to 4. 5
million years in the past. Based on this it seems that there were genuine
people well before the Australopithecus appeared in the fossil data.
(...) Based on the fossil data, we can
state that when humans first appeared they were already fully humans. The fact
that our forefathers suddenly appeared, morphologically fully humans, means
that the fossil data complies with the ideology of Creation. This fact is
undisputable even if fossils are arranged in order based on the evolutionistic
dating system (although we believe this dating system is inherently flawed). In
other words, even if we were to approve the evolutionists’ fossil dating
system, the final result would not support the idea of human evolution. In
fact, the results reject human evolution in that they prove the theory wrong in
practice. This is the true nature of human fossil history. (11, translated by
The matter of time. People who say
that the Bible is outdated are usually thinking about the theory of evolution
and the millions of years mentioned in it. They believe that everything, even
the improbable, is possible given enough time and that this would negate
Genesis. Richard Dawkins teaches about this kind of thinking where time is a
factor similar to God:
some would-be events that are too improbable to be contemplated, but we can’t
know this until we have done a calculation. And to do the calculation, we must
know how much time was available, more generally: how many opportunities were
available for the event to occur. Given infinite time, or infinite
opportunities, anything is possible. (12)
The belief of Dawkins and many
evolutionists that the Earth is infinitely old can be called into question by a
number of observations, such as these:
• Radioactive measurement has
been used to support the theory of evolution over long periods of time. People
believe that the radioactive content of rocks is related to their age. This is
just an assumption, however, and it cannot be verified. Many rocks that were
formed recently in a volcanic eruption have been dated and determined to be
tens- or hundreds of millions of years old. This proves that the radioactive
content of rocks does not reveal their actual age.
• Fossils. It should be noted that fossils do not have any tags showing
their actual age. They exist in the present (which should be noted) but nobody
can say for sure when in the past they lived on the Earth. They cannot
themselves tell us. Since radiocarbon has been found in all fossils including
those from the Cambrian period and other early eras, millions of years are
impossible. The half life of radiocarbon is only 5,600 years, which means that
fossils cannot even be 100,000 years old, not to mention millions of years.
• Verified history of the human race extends only around 4,000 or 5,000
years into the past. Buildings, ceramics and other cultural features appeared
at the same time. This suggests that people appeared on the Earth only a couple
of thousand years ago, and the first people were fully evolved. This is what
Genesis says, too. If the theory of evolution with its millions of years is
true, why is no historical data from the earlier periods available?
• One assumption of the theory of evolution is that strata slowly gathered
on top of each other over the course of millions of years. This assumption can
be defeated by considering one single event: the Flood. If the Flood really
happened, it could have formed the strata in a couple of weeks. It does not
take millions of years. Forming of strata during a large catastrophe is much
more likely and much faster. This is something several scientists have
DOES THE EVIDENCE FIT THE DESCRIPTION IN THE BIBLE? Above we studied facts that contradict the naturalistic
ideology. They show the problems that occur if we assume that everything
appeared and evolved by itself.
What about evidence that proves the Bible’s description of the beginning
of the universe and appearance of life?
It seems that it is much easier to find evidence to support this idea.
Evidence is found in both history and nature. Naturally, it is true that this
evidence is not complete. No evidence collected after the fact can be used to
absolutely prove that events in history actually occurred. However, this
evidence should still be taken into account.
Something does exist. The
fact that something does exist -- there is not just nothing – suggests
Creation. It is difficult to get anything from nothing, no matter what the scientists
say. The fact that the universe exists in all its beauty and versatility
suggests a Creator, whose existence many people deny.
- (Ps 19:1) The heavens declare the
glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork.
- (Rom 1:19,20) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them;
for God has showed it to them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal
power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
- (Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
- (Col 1:16,17) For by him were all things created, that
are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities,
or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all
There is a beginning to the universe. If the universe
were eternal, the radiation from all the stars and the sun should have already
ceased and the internal energies of the Earth should have been depleted. The
universe should be in a state of heat death. The fact that the orbs are still
radiating and releasing energy proves that they were created at some point in
time. This fits the description in the Bible.
There is a beginning to life. Since the sun
cannot have been there forever warming us, it means that life started at some
point, too. Genesis also proves this. It proves that there was a time when life
Furthermore, life and the simple cell are so complex that it suggests
Creation: scientists in laboratories have not even come close to resolving how
life started. The more they have studied this subject, the wider the gap has
become between animate and inanimate objects. If the creation of life were
simple then we would have come to an understanding at some point in the last
hundred years. This is not the case, however. This serves as indirect proof of
Creation. The problem is that people fail to accept God as their Creator and do
not want to give glory to Him.
- (Rev 4:11) You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory
and honor and power: for you have created all things, and for your pleasure
they are and were created.
- (Rev 10;5,6) And the angel which I saw stand on the sea and on the earth
lifted up his hand to heaven,
6 And swore by him that lives for ever and
ever, who created heaven, and the
things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and
the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:
- (Rev 14:7) Saying with a loud voice, Fear
God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come:
and worship him that made heaven,
and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
The complexity and beauty of nature suggests Creation. If random origin were possible (which has not been
proven), then the Earth would probably have been inhabited by a simple
single-cell mass. However, we can see the beauty of nature and complex structures
around us: flowers, trees, beautiful animals, etc. That these are the product
of impersonal and irrational is a difficult thing to explain. Chance is no more
scientific an idea than that God created everything.
What about the emergence of our minds, our rationalizations and our
emotions (joy, sorrow, hope, fear, anger, infatuation, etc.)? If there is no
Creator then how could human beings -- intelligent, thoughtful, communicative,
and emotional human beings – have emerged from something having none of those
features? The theory of evolution proposes that this is exactly what happened.
However, is it not much more reasonable to explain our species’ emergence by
relying on the historically-held belief that God created us in His image, and
that He also created everything else?
This theory that all existence is the product of some random or chaotic
event is surely a difficult thing to explain.
Nobel prize-winning biochemist George Wald (1906–1997) considered the
possibility that intelligence was involved in our universe’s emergence from the
How is it so that, among all the alternatives,
we are in the universe which has exactly the particular properties that
It has occurred to me lately that – I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific
sensibilities – both questions might be in connection with each other.
This happens if we assume that intelligence, rather
than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always
as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality. According to this
hypothesis physical reality is made by intelligence. It is intelligence
that has composed a physical universe that breeds life and so eventually
evolves creatures that know and create: science-, art- and technology. (13)
Fossils prove that animals and plants were complete and complex from the very
beginning. The explosion of life that took place during the Cambrian period is
reflected in the complex fossils we find from this era. People have not found half-developed wings,
hands, senses or intermediate forms, as Darwin’s theory suggests would be
necessary. The facts that there exist no intermediate forms, and that no
explanation has been found for life’s presence, strongly suggest that everything
was completely formed from the very beginning, exactly as described in the
- (Rom 2:14,15) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature
the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law to
15 Which show the work of the
law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their
thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
Morality – the idea of right and wrong
– is an indirect reflection of God and shows that we were made to be in His
image. It does not prove that God exists, but it does prove that humans are
different from animals. If we came from pure matter, surely we wouldn’t
differentiate one act from another or have any feelings. An inanimate object
cannot produce something having morals and emotions. It is hard to imagine that
rocks, soil or gas could cause someone to feel guilty about something he has
done (such as an alcoholic father who has neglected his children and wants
to make amends), or could cause someone to become resentful of another’s
actions (“He stole from me. He lied about me. He hurt me.”), or that
they could produce somebody capable of differentiating other’s actions. There
must be a better explanation for these behaviours besides mere matter.
What can we deduce about the existence of morality? Surely the
Bible’s teachings are the best starting point. The Bible says that the idea of
morality and ethics is based on God’s good nature. He is holy and perfect (1 Joh 1:5: … that
God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.), and we were
made in His image (Gen 1:27: So God created man in his own image...); therefore, we have morals and standards. The
presence of these characteristics is hard to explain if one relies on a
materialistic worldview. When considering the existence of morality,
personality, sense and emotions, we find our best starting point in theism and
naturalists admit that morals are something strange in the naturalistic
universe. J.L. Mackie writes,
If (...) there are (...) moral values, God’s existence is more likely
than it would be without them. Thus there is (...) a defendable argument on
morals for the existence of God. (15)
Draper agrees with Mackie (16): “The moral world (...) is very likely, if
theism is true.” (17)
Other topics that suggest the special status of humans. People are different from animals in other ways, in addition
to having morals. Wwe have intellect, feelings and language, and we are the
only beings that possess a religious sense. Many people are of the opinion that
the theory of evolution is scientific, but these features suggest that people
are more than animals and they have a special status in the eyes of God. These
suggest that we are meant to be with God:
Intellect and emotions. People
are different from animals based on our intellect. We can build things, fly
planes, design things, grow plants, use fire and other forms of energy, and do
numerous other things that animals cannot do. We also have different emotions
than animals. Our scale of emotions (joy, sorrow, hope, fear, anger,
infatuation, etc.) is much broader than that of animals. These differences
suggest that we are not the same as animals, and that we were created in the
image of God.
Language is unique to humans. Animals do not
speak, write or have any grammar. Spoken language is an inherent ability of
humans. There is no culture where people do not use language and grammar.
Furthermore, we can communicate even without actually speaking. Deaf children
provide one illustration of this point. Such examples suggest that we are meant
to be with each other, and that we are meant to be with God. Why would humans
otherwise be the only species to have the ability to use language?? This is a
difficult thing to explain with the theory of evolution but it can be explained
by the fact that we were meant to be with God and received these skills at birth
because of it.
children grow up in an environment of deafness, the inner compulsion to
communicate can be seen more clearly, because it can be done even without
spoken words. If the child is deaf, and the parents use sign language, the
child quickly learns to express himself in sign language too. If the parents
are deaf, the child will learn just the same; and if his own hearing is intact,
he will also learn to speak fluently and naturally through his contact with
other people. In effect he becomes bilingual, because sign language is a true
language with recognizable grammatical and syntactic structure, only using hand
gestures and facial expressions instead of sounds. So the desire and ability to
communicate via language is there, with or without actual speech ability.
A particularly striking example of this is
to be seen in the experience of some deaf children in Nicaragua, reported by
Peter Radetsky (18). Around 500 such children came together for the first time
in schools for the deaf, established in 1980. Until that time they had had no
established form of sign language. They had been living in scattered parts of
the country, communicating with hearing relatives by gestures. Yet each child’s
set of gestures had little in common with another’s.
But when they came together in the schools,
they quickly developed a form of sign language between themselves. At first it
was rudimentary but before long it became a regular language with
characteristic rules of grammar and syntax. Judy Kegl, a behavioural
neuroscientist at Rutgers university [in New Jersey], described it as ’the
first documented case of the birth of a language’. She continued, ‘Little kids
about the age of three or four got exposed to each other’s makeshift language
and absorbed it. And then, by virtue of their own language-generation
capability, they came out with a full-fledged language.’ This sign language had
no precedent. In our own culture, sign language has been handed down from one
generation to another, but these children had no such background. Their
language was entirely of their own making. ‘There is nothing that they could
have used as a model’, says Kegl. ‘It’s clear evidence of an innate language
Religion separates people from animals. Animals do not understand
religion, do not dream about eternal life, and do notpray. Only humans do these
things. This suggests, yet again, that humans were created to be with God and
to live forever. This is something that was evident already in the beginning of
the human race when the name of the Lord was called (Gen 4:26: And to Seth, to him also there was
born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call on the name of
the LORD.). If we evolved from lower beings (animals), why is it
that they do not have anything resembling religion?
no place on earth where the impact of religion is not known,” says Dr Waitz in
his important book Antropologie der Natur
Völker. Dr Taylor, in his turn, says the following in Primitive Culture: “As far as I can deduce based on the several
pieces of obvious evidence, we must admit that even the lowest of races we have
studied believe in spiritual beings.”
(...) Professor Tiele assures in his book Outline of Religion, “The claim that
there are people or tribes without religion is based either on unsound
observations or mixed concepts. Not a single peoples or tribe without belief in
higher beings has been observed as of yet. (...) Thus, calling religion a
universal phenomenon within the human race is justified.” Professor Müller says
the same, “Surely we can say that despite all of our attempts we have not found
any human beings who did not have anything that they considered religion or, to
put it a little more generally, who did not believe in something apart from what
they can see with their own eyes.” (20)
The Fall and original sin. People often ask why there is evil and
suffering in the world. The answer is found in Genesis: The Fall. (Cf. Rom 5:12: Why, as
by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on
all men, for that all have sinned.)
What is interesting is that the same event is also described in stories
told by different peoples; and a couple of ancient seals found in the Middle
East that show images of the Fall. This proves that it is not a description
found in the Bible alone but is part of traditional knowledge shared by all
Practical observations prove the same. The world is not a perfect place
but one in which there exists sin, illness, evil and death. One cannot deny the
fact that the world is an imperfect place. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones says:
Or what do we have to say when
thinking about the situation in the world now? When forced to think about the
fact that there have been two world wars during this century, we – if we are
sentient human beings – must strive to find an explanation. I claim that what
the Bible teaches about sin is the only satisfactory explanation. All other
explanations are lacking. In other words, the only exhaustive explanation of
the current situation in the world is offered by the Bible and its idea of
people, the Fall and sin. Only with the light of these truths can we understand
history. It is very interesting and truly noteworthy that critics themselves
are starting to admit this. They used to deny it. They denied the Biblical idea
of humans and the ideas of the Fall and sin. They hated the mere idea of sin.
People developed and progressed, became better and better. But now these people
have been forced to admit that the Bible is right and they are returning to it
or something closely resembling it. (21)
The Flood is another
subject that is often mentioned in the traditional knowledge of different
peoples. There are at least 150 descriptions of such an event. The universality
of these stories suggests that the Flood actually took place.
anthropologist Sir James Frazer has collected traditional lore on the Flood
from a variety of remote locations, such as the Leeward Islands, Bengali, China
and Malaysia. This terrifying event has been retained in the memory of peoples
all around the world, including very primitive tribes. The stories agree on one
issue: the Flood was a punishment for severe sins and only a few devout people
Titus Flavius Josephus is generally considered to be the most reliable
historian of the classical period. He writes in his book Antiquities of the
Jews: “The Armenian called the place (where Noah and his family exited the
ark) the Apobaterion, the landing place.” (22)
A book called The Earth mentions these stories:
If the world-wide Flood was not
real, some nations would have explained that frightening volcanic eruptions,
large snow storms, droughts (...) have destroyed their evil ancestors. The
universality of the story of the Flood is therefore one of the best pieces of
evidence of its truthfulness. We could dismiss any of these individual legends
and think it was only imagination, but together, from a global perspective,
they are almost indisputable.
Furthermore, remnants of the Flood
have been found on all continents and on all tall mountain ranges. For example,
Darwin found a skeleton of a whale in the mountains of Peru. Due to their view
of the world and their prejudices, scientists have not been able, or have been
unwilling to, connect this evidence to the Flood. The following descriptions of
findings in the Himalayas and the Alps refer to such remnants:
Harutaka Sakai from the Japanese University in Kyushu
has for many years researched these marine fossils in the Himalayan Mountains.
He and his group have listed a whole aquarium from the Mesozoic period. Tender
sea lilies, relatives to the current sea urchins and starfishes, were found on
cliffs over three kilometres above sea level. Ammonites, belemnites, corals,
and plankton fossils are found in the rocks of the mountains. (…)
At an altitude of two kilometres above sea level, the geologists found
markings the sea had made. There was a wavelike rock surface, similar to that
which is formed by waves on sand in low water. Yellow stripes of limestone have
been found even on the peak of Mount Everest, formed from innumerable remains
of marine creatures under water. ("Maapallo ihmeiden planeetta", p. 55)
There is reason to look closely at
the original nature of the rocks in the mountain ranges. It is best seen in the
Alps, in the lime Alps of the northern so-called Helvetian zone. Limestone is
the main rock material. If we were to scale the steep slopes of some mountain
or peak – if we had the energy to climb up there – we would find fossilized
remains of marine creatures. They are often badly damaged, but it is possible
to find recognizable pieces. All those fossils are lime shells or skeletons of
sea creatures. Among them are spiral twisted ammonites and many bivalves. (…)
The reader might wonder at this point what it means that mountain ranges hold
so many sediments, which can also be found stratified in the bottom of the sea.
Pentti Eskola, Muuttuva maa)
The mixing of
languages and the tower of Babel are also
described in the stories of different peoples. One special reference to the
ancient tower of Babel was made by Nabopolassar, who was the founder of the
New-Babylonian kingdom (626–605 B.C.) and the father of famous Nebuchadnezzar.
In his statement about the tower of Babel and about building it, he says:
time Marduk commanded me to build the tower of Babel, which had been destroyed
in the old days, to lay down a firm foundation when the top of the tower
The multitude of languages can be
seen in that we do not have a single common language or even a single language
family in common; instead, we have dozens or hundreds of them. This is difficult
to explain if one believes in evolution because it would require the
simultaneous and independent development of dozens of languages in different
parts of the world. This is what the ape-man theory is all about. A much more
likely scenario is that one described in Genesis.
An interesting analogy to the confusion of language can be found in the
events on Pentecost. People spoke in many languages because they were given the
gift of languages. Those present understood what was being said, in their own
- (Acts 2:1-13) And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all
with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven
as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were
3 And there appeared to them cloven tongues
like as of fire, and it sat on each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy
Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout
men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the
multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them
speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marveled,
saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue,
wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the
dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the
parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak
in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt,
saying one to another, What means this?
13 Others mocking said, These men are full of
PREJUDICES. This writing
dealt with the scientific view of the world. We saw that observations of nature
and history closely fit the Bible’s description but do not support the
naturalistic philosophy, including Darwin’s theory of evolution. They
It is true, of course that the events described in the Bible cannot be
proven true now. This is as impossible as trying to prove that atheism is right
or that God truly exists. All of these subjects are ultimately founded in
faith, as stated above. People who consider themselves to be scientific and
intelligent are equally forced to rely on faith: we all believe in something.
So why do people reject historical depictions in the Bible while
believing in something for which there exists no solid evidence?
This must be because of their preconceptions and the false teachings
they have received from the media, which have influenced them so strongly that
they reject anything that contradicts their views. If you tell such a person
that the Flood actually took place, they refuse to accept this information even
though it is a known fact that the remnants of marine animals and plants have
been foundon all the tall mountain ranges, and that the story of the Flood is
told by at least 150 people groups. The evidence clearly exists but they reject
this information because of their own prejudices. If they do not accept the
signs that can be found in nature and the words of other people –the best
pieces of evidence currently available – then it is almost impossible to make
them change their mind. This is difficult because their prejudices are so
Many people fail to see what
prejudices actually are. They believe that some people are prejudiced and
others are not. Let’s think about an atheist as an example. Atheists believe
that there is no God. Is it possible for an atheist to study the question “Did
God create?” The answer is no. If an atheist even allows such a question, the
atheist is not an atheist. Therefore, the evidence found is of no significance
to an atheistic scientist studying fossils and our world. The evidence can have
nothing to do with Biblical events, such as the Flood. Even if the scientist
were to find a huge ship from the top of Mount Ararat, the atheist would not
allow the evidence to support the claims of the Bible about Noah's Arc because
in doing so the atheist would reject the atheistic way of thinking. Atheists
have full prejudice. This should be kept in mind when reading a book written by
an atheist or watching a TV show produced by an atheist. (23)
SCIENCE OR FABLE? Nowadays, many
people consider themselves to be wise and sane for rejecting the idea of Creation
and the existence of God. They prefer to believe that the emergence of life was
random, that Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct, and that neither God nor
any other supernatural force has
influenced this world. They are of the opinion that believing in God is
unrealistic and consider themselves to be scientific. Many atheists are such
says otherwise, however. When we reject belief in God we turn toward accepting
lies and fables. Many people refuse to admit this. but the apostle Paul, among
others, said that, in the future, false information would be called the truth,
and that many people would reject instruction based on reason and turn instead
to fables. Is the theory of evolution one such a fable? Paul was intimately familiar
with God (2 Tim 1:12: For the which cause I also suffer these things:
nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am
persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him against
that day.). He was able to
foresee how many would turn away from God:
- (1 Tim 6:20,21) O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and
oppositions of science falsely so called:
Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with
- (2 Tim 4:3.4) For the time will come when they will not
endure sound doctrine; but after their
own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their
ears from the truth, and shall be turned to fables.
How can we be freed from such
lies? The best way is to turn to the source of truth: Jesus Christ. New
Testament writers plainly state that truth came through Him. Also, Jesus
Himself plainly stated that His words are true, that His Truth will set us
free, and that He is the way, the truth and the life. So turn to Jesus Christ!
Confess your sins and your pride, and understand that the only scientific view
of the world is one based on truth. Only through Jesus can you reach a realistic view of the world that is based on
the truth. Furthermore, Jesus can offer us the most valuable of all things:
eternal life. This is why we should all turn to Jesus Christ.
- (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.
- (John 8:44-46) You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your
father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and stayed not in the
truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his
own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
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 1:14,17) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelled among us, (and we
beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of
grace and truth.
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
- (John 8:31,32) Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If you
continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed;
you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
- (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.
(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.
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
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. V.T. Aaltonen:
Miksi en ole kristitty, p. 199, 200, 203
2. Ken Ham: Valhe, evoluutio,
The Lie: Evolution, p. 24,27,35
3. V.T. Aaltonen: Miksi en ole
kristitty?, p. 22
4. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti
apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 96,97
5. Andy Knoll (2004) PBS Nova
interview, 3. May 2004, in Antony Flew & Roy Varghese (2007) There is A
God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: HarperOne
6. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2,
Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 10.11
7. Norman Macbeth: Darwin
Retried, 1971, p. 33
8. Austin H. Clark: Quarterly
Review of Biology, December 1928, p. 539
Charles Darwin: Lajien synty (The
Origin of Species), p. 220-221
Darwin, F & Seward A. C. toim.
(1903, 1: 184): More letters of Charles Darwin. 2 vols. London: John Murray.
11. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti
apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 286
Richard Dawkins: Sokea kelloseppä
(The Blind Watchmaker), p. 151
13. George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe, in Henry
Margenau & Roy Abraham Varghese (toim.) Cosmos,
Bios, Theos. La Salle,IL: Open Court
Puolimatka: Usko, tieto ja myytit, p. 172
J.L.Mackie: The Miracle of Theism. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1982.
Puolimatka: Usko, tieto ja myytit, p. 172
Paul Copan: “The Moral Argument” in
Paul Copan & Paul K. Moser (eds.) The Rationality of Theism. London:
Peter Radetsky: Silence, signs and
wonder, Discover Magazine, 15 (8):60-68, August 1994
Kevin May: Syntynyt kommunikoimaan
(Born to Communicate), Luominen (Creation), p. 13
20. Arno C. Gaebelein:
Kristillisyys vaiko uskonto? (Christentum oder Religion?), p. 6,7
21. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: Jeesuksen,
Raamatun ja Pyhän Hengen arvovalta (Authority), p. 45,46
22. Richard Wurmmbrand: Miksi
uskon? (The Answer to Moscow’s Bible), p. 52
23. Ken Ham: Valhe, evoluutio
(The Lie: Evolution) p. 27