Main page | Jari's writings

Scientific view of the world



Atheists often claim to have a scientific worldview. However, this worldview is based on faith and contradicts the evidence


1. Science or faith and philosophy?
2. Scientific worldview and having confidence in one’s own reasoning
3. Is naturalism science?
4. Preconceptions guide scientists
5. To which worldview the facts fit; naturalism or theism?


1. Science or faith and philosophy?


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.


I wish 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, atheism and naturalism based 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.

    Are atheists any more scientific in their approach to forming their belief systems than believers who claim God is behind it all? If we study this in light of the topics mentioned below, we will find that they are not. The supporters of this ideology are no more scientific in forming their beliefs than people who consider God to be the starting point for everything. They are proven the same as other people, despite the fact that they pride themselves in being scientific. Paul wrote:


- (2 Cor 11:12) But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.


Next, we’ll be looking more into arguments supporting the scientific worldview. When people claim their worldview to be scientific, we can dispute their reasoning. When discussing this matter, one should consider the following aspects:


• Prerequisites for a scientific worldview

• Scientific worldview or blind faith?

• Scientific worldview and having confidence in one’s own reasoning

• Is naturalism science?

• Being led by preconceptions

• Which theory is suitable for the facts?


PREREQUISITES FOR A SCIENTIFIC WORLDVIEW. When it comes to a scientific view of the world, to have it basically requires two things:


• Knowing absolutely everything

• Not even a single observation can be contradicting to the scientific worldview


Scientific worldview requires knowing absolutely everything. Firstly, if we assume our worldview to be scientific, then we should possess this one thing: we should know absolutely everything about what exists right now and everything that has occurred in the past.

However, that isn’t exactly our strong suit. It is of course true that some people obtain more knowledge than others and they might be more correct, but nobody possesses all the right information about everything. Especially, about the past, that is questions dealing with the origin of universe, life and humans, belong to an area where we find ourselves not knowing everything. We were not there to witness what really happened, and because of that it is impossible to be completely scientific about the past. No one can claim to be completely scientific with the word’s literal meaning. Only an omniscient being, such as God, can be that.

The following image shows how lacking our understanding is. We can see by looking at it, how incomplete our knowledge really is. We know only a fraction of all information, and that is why it’s not possible to have a completely scientific worldview. Anyone claiming otherwise is not sticking to the truth.







Not even a single observation can be contradicting to the scientific worldview. Secondly, to assume that a worldview is scientific, also necessitates the following: no observation can contradict the scientific worldview. All the things that we can see in the nature must be in concordance with our worldview, or else there must be something wrong in our view. Yet, is the kind of person claiming to have a scientific view of the world, willing to stand behind all beliefs related to his or her worldview? What if his or her understanding is wrong?

The following quotation shows how some practical observations clearly contradict this worldview. The quote is taken from a publication called Science News Letter from 1938. It points out how human foot -like prints have been discovered from different places (at least four), and their age has been determined as ca. 250 million years old. However, there arises an imminent conflict from the findings, as the common perception in the evolutionary theory has been that people and primates appeared only some hundred thousand years ago. If we interpret the findings as they are and believe in the evolutionary time frame, humans should have existed on the planet ca. 150 million years before the dinosaurs. These kinds of examples show, how many people’s the scientific worldviews might actually be based on unproved false conceptions:


Human-like prints on rock are a mystery to scientists. They cannot belong to a man, since they are too old – but what kind of an odd, two-footed, amphibious animal could have made them?

   What is this animal that lived 250 million years ago and walked on its hind legs that had human-like feet?

   (...) This is a mystery of science to which the answer is yet to be found. Not that science would stop trying. (...) But for now, all that has been seen are 12 footprints that peculiarly resemble those left by human feet, each 9 ½ " long and 6" wide at the widest point, where the toes spread. The prints were found in a sandstone formation about 12 miles from Berea that is known to date back to the Carboniferous period. These prints were uncovered by Dr. G. Wilbur, a professor of geology in the University of Berea, and Mr. William Finnell.

   A few men from the Kentucky mountains recently visited Professor Burroughs. They took him into their hills and showed him another place where there were many footprints. This mountain seems to have been an "old Kentucky home" for an entire family of mysterious animals, since Professor Burroughs tells that the prints varied in size from small 4½" long ones to the previously described footprints that were almost 10" long. (...)

   These footprints are extremely peculiar. They are just the right size to be human – being nine or ten inches in length – and almost the right shape. Almost anyone seeing them will at first think that they have been made by human feet and it is almost impossible to try to convince anyone to the contrary. (...)

   But even the boldest estimations regarding the appearance of man on the Earth refer to a million years – and these prints are 250 times as old. (...)

   Such is the mystery. A quarter of a billion years ago this animal, walking like a man, left footprints on the widespread sand that hardened into rock over time. Then he disappeared. And now the scientists are scratching their heads." (Science News Letter 34, 278, 1938)


Here is another quote addressing the same issue. It also tells how human foot -like prints have been found from numerous very old layers in the United States and elsewhere (Mexico, Arizona, Illinois, New Mexico, Kentucky, and other places). These kinds of discoveries show how some observations clearly contradict the so-called scientific worldview:


If man (...) existed in any form as early on as in the carboniferous period, geological science is so completely wrong that all geologists should give up their jobs and take up truck driving. So, at least for the present, science rejects the tempting alternative of a man having left those footprints. (The Carboniferous Mystery, Scientific Monthly, vol. 162, Jan 1940, p.14)


SCIENTIFIC worldview or blind faith? As already stated, many atheists and God denying people want to separate scientific and religious worldviews from each other. Those kinds of people believe they have a scientific way of thinking that only has room for facts and not faith.

However, if we begin to assume that someone has a scientific worldview that is not based on faith at all, could there really be anyone like that? 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.


Also understanding the origins of the universe, life and humans requires faith. For many it is difficult to comprehend that also understanding the origins of the universe, life and humans requires faith. However, the reason for this is simple: None of us were present to witness our beginnings. There are only theories about what happened; it is impossible to prove our origins in any scientific way. We cannot go back in the past to see what happened; thus, we are all in the same position.

   The conclusion is that atheists, like all of us, must rely on blind faith in matters pertaining to the beginning of life and the universe – even if they say otherwise. It is only a question of which ideology best fits the facts.

   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.


Most 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 past. (...)

   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 everything. (...)

   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)


HOW IS THE ATHEISTIC BELIEF MANIFESTED? As previously mentioned, having faith in creation and believing in evolution, are both beliefs that concern the past. Neither can be proved afterwards. The only question is, which one is more likely and seem like the more probable option.

However, we should investigate the atheistic and naturalistic belief through a couple of examples. The first one is atheist Richard Dawkins’ example of time. He, of course, doesn’t believe in creation, but he does believe that when things are given enough time, anything is possible, even the most unlikely of events. Yet, he is unable to prove this view in any way, because it’s not the extended time frames that create things. There are no real life examples to support it, because it’s really about atheistic and naturalistic wishful thinking.


There are 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. (3)


Another area, where the faithful side of atheism is easily visible, is the area concerning questions about the beginning of life, to which the following quotation will refer.

 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. (4)


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 writer.)


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)





2. Scientific worldview and having confidence in one’s own reasoning


It was mentioned above, how atheists and freethinkers think their worldview is scientific. They might consider of themselves to be critical and intelligent people, who have confidence in their own reasoning, and who value that reasoning highly.

However, here’s the question; where does the intelligence for their reasoning come from? Naturalistic and atheistic theories see rationale and intelligence as something that appeared in our world for no reason. People believe that these two things could derive from primitive life-forms and the Big Bang. This view assumes intelligence to be a product of accidental processes. A non-intelligent and impersonal matter is presumed to have generated intelligent creatures. In other words, the atheistic view presumes that thinking beings could have an impersonal and mindless origin. Atheists don’t believe a human was originally created in the image of God (1 Gen. 1:27), which would explain our intelligence.

However, there is a major issue in the naturalistic way of thinking: How can we trust the conclusions of humans if our intellectual abilities are descendant from primitive forms of life – as assumed by Darwin's theory of evolution – or even a product of the Big Bang? Is it wise to trust our own knowledge and wisdom? This is because random evolution cannot give a solid foundation for the ideas of people, even if people consider themselves to be wise. If everything was started randomly, by accident, then there is no foundation for rational deduction. Then we must doubt all our ideas and their sensibility. We cannot assume the intellectual ability of anyone to be reasonable. The information provided could just as well be false as true.

Anyone, who highly values their own reasoning and ability to be scientific, should take this into consideration! It is rather impossible to trust one’s own conclusions and logic if everything came from something impersonal and senseless.

   Darwin had to admit this, as well. He stated that if humans evolved from lower life forms, then human comprehension may not be reliable:


I have awful doubts of whether or not the convictions of the human mind are of any value, whether they are at all reliable taking into account the fact that the human mind was evolved from the minds of less developed animals. Would anybody trust convictions generated in the mind of an ape, if there are any such convictions in the minds of apes? (5)




3. Is naturalism science?


An interesting remark is that people, who claim to have a scientific worldview, usually identify their view with naturalism. That is, they believe the universe to be a closed system, meaning naturalism doesn’t recognize the supernatural world or God. Matter is all that there is. Miracles are also impossible; thus, naturalists do not believe in the Bible’s descriptions of healing, walking on water, or prophecies coming true. Naturalists consider such things impossible because they do not fit within their view of the world. If a person says that he or she was healed through prayer, naturalists’ usually respond very cynically. They do not accept the idea; instead, they always find a natural explanation for everything.

We can see the same thing in relation to the beginning of the universe and life. As already noted, atheists and scientists with naturalistic views believe that, what they’re representing is science, when they accept naturalistic explanations to account for the early stages of the universe.

They are, however, wrong. They have chosen one worldview from a group of many, and that has nothing to do with science. It is wrong to associate naturalistic worldview with science. Why do people do this anyway?

The reason is simple: no one has witnessed the beginning of the universe and the emergence of life, because these events go beyond making straightforward observations. Therefore, when naturalist scientists determine their own opinion as scientific and the opposing view as religious, they are in the wrong. Their view and ideology are also based on faith. They have faith that matter developed by itself into celestial bodies and that it created life, where as in theism people believe God to be behind everything. These two views can be summarized in the following confessions. The first one comes from the Hebrews and represents the theistic view:



- (Hebr 11:3) 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.


Naturalism and atheism:

Through faith we understand that the worlds were born from nothing, so that matter itself formed celestial bodies and life began by itself.




4. Preconceptions guide scientists


In the previous chapters we discussed the impact of faith on our lives and people having different opinions about the universe. Some consider the universe to be a closed system, whereas others believe that there is also a God and a supernatural world besides matter.

Furthermore, it is important to realize that every person is led by biases and preconceptions. There hardly is anyone, who would possess a neutral and unbiased way of thinking and a similar view of the world. On the contrary, everyone has some kind of preconceptions, which affect the way we behave. Meaning, we often reject information, which contradict our worldview. Someone, who believes in creation, will look for information to supports their view and they’ll reject other perceptions. Similarly, a person, who believes in the accidental birth and development of life, will try to search for supporting evidence and reject other views. People will reject the opposing views and consider those clueless, who understand things differently.

The same biases can be seen in the science world. We might have an absolute trust in all that is called science, but it is worth realizing that scientists are just as imperfect as anyone else. They eat the same food, attended the same schools when younger, drive the same cars, read the same magazines, and they also have similar biases and preconceptions, and even false information. It is wrong from our part if we consider them infallible and neutral, because I’m sure that they’re not. They also have their own preconceptions and worldviews, through which they look at life. Their preconceptions might be right in some areas, but it is possible that they are mistaken about some things. This should always be kept in mind, when dealing with imperfect humans.

When discussing this matter, one should pay attention to the following aspects:


How do people do science? Preconceptions can have a heavy impact, when people do science. We are not really talking about experimental and certain information here, such as mathematical calculations (2 + 3 = 5 etc.), physics and chemistry experiments in laboratories or direct measurements and observations from the nature.

Instead, preconceptions can affect in such areas that concern the questions about the origin of our universe, life and humans – all the things that have already been mentioned. Basically, it means that we usually look for such information that would reinforce our worldview. Someone believing in creation and the Bible will look for evidence supporting their belief. Similarly, people who believe in accidental beginning and in Darwin’s theory will try to find evidence for those concepts. For example, this might come apparent in atheist scientists’ lives in the following ways:


- A 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 forms.

- A 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 other alternatives.


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.


Another “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 their data.

   (...) 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. (6)


When we said that every one of us has biases and preconceptions, it also applies to atheist scientists. Therefore, scientists who are atheists do not usually even want to discuss the flaws in, and details of, atheism and the theory of evolution. They do not want to study the weaknesses in these ideas. Instead, they try to label anyone having different beliefs as ignorant and a representative of American fundamentalism (which is completely wrong because the idea of Creation comes from the Middle East and it is more than 2,000 years old: Jesus taught it). Atheists do this even though they are themselves prisoners of blind faith.

   When one tries to talk with atheists about the weaknesses of their beliefs and the theory of evolution, one is often met with a solid brick wall of resistance. Such people do not want to study the weaknesses of their ideology. Instead, they mechanically repeat their mantra: “Atheism and the theory of evolution are true, atheism and the theory of evolution are true...” This is similar to the way Ephesians reacted the Gospel preached by Paul. In their rejection, Ephesians shouted: "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!"


- (Acts 19:23-32) And the same time there arose no small stir about that way.

24 For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain to the craftsmen;

25 Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, you know that by this craft we have our wealth.

26 Moreover you see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:

27 So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nothing; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worships.

28 And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.

29 And the whole city was filled with confusion: and having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul's companions in travel, they rushed with one accord into the theatre.

30 And when Paul would have entered in to the people, the disciples suffered him not.

31 And certain of the chief of Asia, which were his friends, sent to him, desiring him that he would not adventure himself into the theatre.

32 Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused: and the more part knew not why they were come together.


When people have a view that is based on evolution and millions of years, or a traditional view based on the Bible (creation happened only some thousands of years ago and it took only a few days), they also tend to interpret nature’s signs in a different way. If, for example, crustacean fossils are discovered high in the mountains (they have actually been found in all high mountain ranges: the Himalayas, Andes, Alps, Altai, etc.), people might explain it in the following ways. One group will accept the Bible’s description of events as is, and the other group will try to find another kind of explanation:


• People, who adopt the Bible’s first chapters as they are, will see the crustacean fossil in the mountain as evidence for the Flood, because according to the Bible high mountains were completely covered by water.


- (Gen 7:19) And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.


- (2 Peter 3:6) Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:


• Evolutionists, as well as, supporters of theistic evolution might explain the existence of sea creature fossils in the mountains to result from upthrust and other processes that have taken billions of years. The following description from an evolutionist’s book (Jerry A. Coyne: Why Evolution Is True, p. 127) is relevant to the subject. His description tells us how Darwin found fossilized sea shells from high in the Andes. The writer admits that the mountain has been under water, but doesn’t believe in the Flood:


While travelling on the Beagle Darwin himself found fossilized seashells from high up on the Andean Mountains. It shows that, what is now a mountain was once under water.


Another book (Kalle Taipale: Levoton maapallo [Restless Earth], p. 78) revolves around the Flood stories. This writer doesn’t think either that the Flood would have been a likely event, even though, there are plenty of stories about it, and there have been marine animals’ remains found high in the mountains. It shows how people interpret signs from the nature and history differently based on their views of the world. Our preconceptions affect all our interpretations.


Around 500 cultures – including indigenous peoples of Greece, China, Peru and North America – are known in the world where the legends and myths describe a compelling story of a large flood that changed the history of the tribe. In many stories, only a few people survived the flood, just like in the case of Noah. Many of the peoples considered the flood to have been caused by gods who, for one reason or another, got bored with the human kind. Perhaps the people were corrupt, like in Noah’s times and in a legend by the Native American Hopi tribe of North America, or perhaps there were too many and too noisy people, like in the Gilgamesh epic.


The following quote relates well to the subject matter at hand, which is the Flood and interpretations of signs in the nature. It shows how atheists reject all evidence relating to the Flood, because they are influenced by their worldview. They will unhesitantly reject all such evidence. Even if someone found Noah’s Ark from the Ararat mountain, it wouldn’t probably affect them. Or even if there were thousands of Flood stories – there have been 500 reported cases around the world – it still wouldn’t make a difference to their opinion.


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. (7)



5. To which worldview the facts fit; naturalism or theism?


Above, we addressed the fact that our view of the world influences the way in which we interpret the world. Everyone has biases and  preconceptions, which affect the way we behave. This applies to scientists, as well as, to other people.

  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. Many scientists acknowledge the lack of evidence for the respective things:


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 nothingness by itself. However, there’s not any practical evidence to even suggest the possibility of things having the ability to appear from nothing. This theory goes against the laws of the nature. Moreover, many scientists disclaim the accuracy of this theory:


New data differs enough from the theory’s prediction to destroy the Big Bang-cosmology (Fred Hoyle, The Big Bang in Astronomy, 92 New Scientist 521, 522-23 / 1981)


As an old cosmologist, I see the current observational data repealing theories about the beginning of the universe, and also the many theories about the beginning of the Solar System. (H. Bondi, Letter, 87 New Scientist 611 / 1980)


There has been considerably little discussion about the possibility of the Big Bang theory… many of the observations that conflict it are explained through numerous unfounded assumptions or they are simply ignored. ([nobelist] H. Alfven, Cosmic Plasma 125 / 1981)


Physicist Eric Lerner: ”Big Bang is merely an interesting tale, which is maintained for a certain reason” (Eric Lerner: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe, The Big Bang Never Happened, NY: Times Books, 1991).


David Berlinski: ”It is pointless to argue that something comes into existence out of nothing, when any given mathematician understands this to be complete nonsense” (Ron Rosenbaum: ”Is the Big Bang Just a Big Hoax? David Berlinski Challenges Everyone.” New York Observer 7.7.1998)


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. (Steven 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:


Even nowadays, 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 Life)


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. 387)


The beginning of life has not been proven, even in a laboratory. There is a huge gap between living and inanimate materials:


Andy 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.” (8)


How were autosomal cells born, which happen to be far more complicated and almost a thousand times larger in volume than prokaryotes?


How were multicellular cells born?


The assumption that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all related to each other; people have been unable to prove it.


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. (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.) They have not become another species. Additionally, the existing fossil records support the belief according to which species have always been the same. Discovered fossils have always been fully developed and they have carried features distinctive to their species. Clear examples of transitional forms have not been found.

One example of the missing fossils is the punctuated equilibrium theory by Stephen Jay Gould, who is perhaps the world’s most known fossil researcher. According to his theory the reason why there are no fossils of any transitional forms, is because development has been so rapid at some points in our history that those phases did not leave any material behind. It is thought that development has occurred in leaps.

However, this only shifts our problem elsewhere. If there are no clear observations of transitional forms, did the whole evolution take place at all then? If we cannot prove it with fossils or examples from the current nature, we have a good reason to question the whole theory. In that case it doesn’t seem to be true, but appears to be false, instead. This is the most reasonable conclusion we can make based on our observational data. The same issue with missing transitional forms comes apparent from the following quotations. When there are no transitional forms, it means that the species must have been fully developed and separate from each other from the beginning. This clearly supports creation.


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. (9)


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. (10)


Austin H. 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. (11)


Ever since Darwin’s times, people have argued whether macroevolution is only an uninterrupted continuum of microevolution – as claimed by Darwin and his followers – or whether they are separate from each other, in which case separate theories would be necessary to explain macroevolution – as claimed by Darwin's opponents. According to this view, there is a clear gap between a species and the corresponding higher groups of species.

   There is no solution to this argument to this day, because there seems to be an astounding contradiction between the theory and the observations made. According to the Darwinist theory, evolution is a phenomenon of populations and thus it should be gradual and continuous. This does not refer only to microevolution but also to macroevolution and the transition stage between the two. Unfortunately, this principle contradicts the observations made. Gaps seem to be very common when studying higher groups of species or when studying individual species. Even today, we do not see the missing link between whales and land mammals, reptiles and birds, or reptiles and mammals. All the phyla are separated by a gaping gap. There seems to be a gap also between flowers and their closest relatives. These gaps are even clearer in fossils. New species appear in the fossil layers all of a sudden without any evidence of intermediate stages in between a new species and its basic form. Actually, there are only a few examples of species having evolved stage by stage (Ernst Mayer in his book Evoluutio [What Evolution Is], p. 288).


Ridley claims that fossil materials have never been any evidence of evolution and that Darwin has stated that fossil evidence cannot be used as a basis when determining whether there was a Creation or whether evolution took place because there are so many gaps in the fossil materials. However, Darwin has stated that there must be an enormous quantity of petrified intermediate form fossils out there. He has further stated that they have not been found and the fact that there are no such fossils is the most serious evidence against his theory. Darwin stated that these fossils have not been found merely because the fossil material is defective. Darwin considered the fossil evidence so important and the fact that no intermediate forms were available so huge a threat for his theory that he dedicated an entire chapter in The Origin of Species to the defects in geological history. Ridley has not read his Darwin in sufficient detail.

   Evolutionists have provided the fossils they have found as evidence of evolution for the past 150 years. They have promised to find more and better fossils, hoping that the tooth fairy and luck would comply with their wishes. It became clear in the early 1970s that there was enough fossil material available. This is when the bleak truth was revealed: there were no intermediate form fossils to be found. A new model of evolution, the punctualistic theory of evolution, was coined to explain why not. It is of utmost importance to stress the fact that the punctualistic theory does not eradicate the need of intermediate form fossils. It only explains why such intermediate form fossils have not been found. Punctualism is a unique theory for the history of science: it is said to be scientific but it then proceeds to explain why no evidence to prove it can be found. (12)


What about the destruction of dinosaurs? Above, we discussed some of the most common naturalistic beliefs relating to topics, such as the origin of the universe, galaxies, stars the Solar System and the beginning of life without any external interference and the missing transitional forms in fossils. We noticed that the evidence goes completely against naturalistic and atheistic ideologies. Instead, it is as clear as day that the evidence points towards creation. That is, if the model favored by naturalists and atheists about the initial stages of the universe and life isn’t true, there really is only one option left, which is that God is the creator. This should be considered a historical fact, and we should not let naturalistic theories cloud our judgment, because there really is no evidence for their views.

We also mentioned previously, how evidence from the nature is the same for everyone. We have the evidence in our current environment, but people might still interpret them differently. Atheist scientists interpret everything through the perspective of evolution and millions of years, whereas a person, who believes in the historical accuracy of the Bible, sees everything in light of the Bible.

One great example is the destruction of dinosaurs. It is also something that can be inspected from two different points of views: was the destruction caused by the Flood (although, there were dinosaurs also after the Flood. They didn’t all die in this catastrophe) or was the cause something else, as scientists with naturalistic views seem to think? The evidence we see in the nature is the same for everyone, but where does the evidence lead us? How do we interpret it?

Firstly, the age of dinosaurs on our planet. Evolutionists believe these massive creatures went extinct 65 million years ago. They don’t take into consideration the numerous signs – the appearance of soft tissues, proteins, radiocarbon and DNA – that don’t fit at all in their assumptions about millions of years. On the contrary, we must be dealing with thousands of years, as these substances don’t stay preserved in the nature any longer than that. Furthermore, there are instances of heritage stories that refer to dragons, which highly resemble dinosaurs. These are all signs pointing to the fact that the naturalistic model with millions of years cannot be accurate.

The following quotation shows us, how signs from the nature are analyzed.

Atheist scientists also believe in mass destruction, but with the exception that there are millions of years involved and that there have been many occasions of destruction:


Around 30 million years before the dinosaurs, life on the Earth had almost died out. The facts and numbers of the mass destruction that took place at the end of the Permic period are simply astounding. The extent of destruction makes the catastrophe that eradicated the dinosaurs 185 millions later seem like a tiny ripple in the pond. A total of 95% of all life on Earth was destroyed. Ecosystems were destroyed, and complete species, such as giant frogs and predatory reptiles, disappeared. There were even fewer insects. The devastation was even worse in the sea. Ancient sea lily and coral communities were wiped away, and the trilobites – which had flourished in the oceans of the world for millions of years – were destroyed.

   The problem faced by scientists trying to interpret this event is finding out what could have destroyed such a huge quantity of flora and fauna, both on land and in the water. (13)


However, we can find a historical explanation to these mass destructions rejected by Darwin and Lyell and disregarded by atheist scientists: the Flood. When we take into account numerous stories that exist about the Flood and also other signs in the nature, such as remains of sea creatures high in the mountains, we can see how well these fit into the Flood narrative. Even Darwin himself found remains of a whale from a Peruvian mountain range. Similarly, many nature documentaries have told the same story: water has covered vast areas of the earth.

The following quotations address the same issue. The first quote is taken from a secular book (Tim Haines: Walking with dinosaurs). The book describes how the land area was dry (!), but that a sudden flood had come over these large animals. It was probably the Flood.

   The other quote is even more interesting. It proves that dinosaurs have been found inside hard rock, which proves that they must have been covered by soft mud. The mud then hardened around them like cement. We could expect something like this to happen during the Flood but not during the normal course of nature (the latter quote also refers to how swirling water could have gathered the bones of dinosaurs in heaps). The bold font face was added to the texts by the author to make the point clear.


The Ghost Ranch area is so well preserved that scientists have even got a glimpse of the world during the Triassic period when the dinosaurs appeared. The Coelophysis skeletons were found in the sandstone and claystone of a dried up riverbed. In addition to bones, there were the remains of fish, bivalves, small Phytosaurus that are similar to crocodiles and crayfish. All of these could have been prey to the Coelophysis. These get us to the greatest question about the Ghost Ranch: why did all these dinosaurs die at the same time? The skeletons may have ended up in the area over the course of several years but Edwin Colbert is convinced that it was a mass death and that the phenomenon that caused it has left marks in the area. There are signs of cracked mud and passages dug by crayfish on the rock (such are created only when it is very dry), and the necks of some of the skeletons have been twisted like that of animals which have dried up in the sun. Colbert believes that the Coelophysis gathered together to utilise the remaining water before they died. Then, a sudden flood covered them with mud before any carrion-eaters could get to them, and there they remained for millions of years. (14)


He went to the deserts of South Dakota, where there are bright-colored red, yellow, and orange cliffs and rocks. Already in a few days, he found from the cliff some bones he assumed to be what he had gone to search for. When he dug the rock around the bones, he noted that the bones were the skeleton of an animal. They were not together, as the bones of dinosaurs often are. Many of these piles seemed as if created by a powerful whirl of water.

   These bones were now in blue sandstone that is very hard. The sandstone had to be removed by a road scraper and loosened by explosives. Brown and his assistants made a hole of almost seven and a half meters deep to get the bones out. Getting one large skeleton out took them two summers. By no means did they remove the bones from stone. They transported these blocks of stone by train into the museum where the scientists were able to chip the stone material away and set up the skeleton. This tyrant lizard now stands in the exhibition hall of the museum. (p. 72, Dinosaurs / Ruth Wheeler and Harold G. Coffin)





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. Richard Dawkins: Sokea kelloseppä, p. 151

4. V.T. Aaltonen: Miksi en ole kristitty?, p. 22

5. Charles Darwin: The Life and Letter of Charles Darwin Including an Autobiographical Chapter. (1887, 1: 315-316), Toim. Fancis Darwin. London: John Murray.

6. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 96,97

7. Ken Ham: Valhe, evoluutio (The Lie: Evolution) p. 27

8. Andy Knoll (2004) PBS Nova interview, 3. toukokuuta 2004,  sit. Antony Flew & Roy Varghese (2007) There is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: HarperOne

9. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 10,11

10. Norman Macbeth: Darwin Retried, 1971, p. 33

11. Austin H. Clark: Quarterly Review of Biology, joulukuu 1928, p. 539

12. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 287

13. Tim Haines: Matkalla dinosaurusten kanssa (Walking with dinosaurs), p. 28

14. Tim Haines: Matkalla dinosaurusten kanssa (Walking with dinosaurs), p. 47



More on this topic:

The world of science under microscope. Although the evidence refutes the theory of evolution and refers to intelligent design, scientists do not admit this because of their naturalistic worldview.

I used to be a science believer. Scholars think their positions represent science, reason, and critical thinking. However, they resort to faith in explaining the origin of everything

Worldviews in comparison: naturalism / atheism, pantheism, polytheism and theism. Read why Christian theism is a sensible worldview

Why has there not been an evolution of man? Did man evolve from ape-like primitives or was he created? Learn how evolutionists ’own discoveries refute the notion of human evolution

Imaginary perceptions. People have the impression that science has proved the birth of the universe and life by itself, as well as the doctrine of evolution. However, these images are based on a lie

Magic word. A fundamentalist is a magic word that many use to reject God. They think they are scientific, even if based on faith










Jesus is the way, the truth and the life





Grap to eternal life!


More on this topic:

The world of science under microscope. Although the evidence refutes the theory of evolution and refers to intelligent design, scientists do not admit this because of their naturalistic worldview.

I used to be a science believer. Scholars think their positions represent science, reason, and critical thinking. However, they resort to faith in explaining the origin of everything

Worldviews in comparison: naturalism / atheism, pantheism, polytheism and theism. Read why Christian theism is a sensible worldview

Why has there not been an evolution of man? Did man evolve from ape-like primitives or was he created? Learn how evolutionists ’own discoveries refute the notion of human evolution

Imaginary perceptions. People have the impression that science has proved the birth of the universe and life by itself, as well as the doctrine of evolution. However, these images are based on a lie

Magic word. A fundamentalist is a magic word that many use to reject God. They think they are scientific, even if based on faith