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.
When the Soviet Union was going strong, Marxism-Leninism, coined with atheism and Darwinism, was the dominant societal trends. This trend was considered scientific and it affected the contents of school books and all parts of education. Children were from a young age taught to accept the atheistic Marxism-Leninism ideology and it was not to be questioned. Maintaining this ideology also led to the spreading of any kind of religious teaching to be prohibited and the Bible was classified as one of the banned books. A programme proposal for a communist party read the following:
The party utilizes means of ideological education to raise people in an atmosphere of science-materialistic worldview, and to win over religious preconceptions… For this task we need to seek assistance from modern science and its achievements, which better illustrate our worldview, give people a greater power over nature, and don’t leave any room for imaginary stories about supernatural powers. (1)
These days many Western universities have the same kind of atmosphere, as used to be in the Soviet Union. Many scientists claim to be scientific and unbiased, but in reality, they have adopted a naturalistic worldview, where the universe is assumed to be closed. It means that God is being excluded from the beginning of the universe and from everything else. It is not always referred to or said directly, but it’s there behind ideas and speculations. The word God is not that common in the university circles. In this regard, current universities in the Western world resemble the former Soviet system.
Their idea of a war between science and belief is a sign of naturalism. This view tries strongly to reject the idea of God having created the universe and life. The idea of a young world is especially scrutinized. Similarly, the idea of intelligent design is put under fire. If someone were to speak about these ideas, the result would be something similar to what happened, when Paul preached in Ephesus. People didn’t want to hear the message, nor did they wish to find out what it was about:
- (Acts 19:23-30) 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.
In the book Evoluution ihmemaassa [In the wondrous world of Evolution] Matti Leisola describes, what kind of reactions one might get in the scientific circles and elsewhere if they question the naturalistic view in terms of the initial stages of the universe and life. The book deals with such topics under headings like: “professors become interested, principles become frightened, publishers become dubious, Yle is beware and warns, skeptics are unnerved, Darwinists intimidate”. Very few are willing to investigate the grounds of their beliefs:
However, I have not always thought like this; as a young student, I used to laugh at Christians and their attempt at filling the gaps of science with God. I refused to listen to their reasoning and just filled the gaps with materialistic explanations. Usually this so-called “god of gaps” argument is used against theists, but it goes both ways, because our knowledge is always incomplete. A much better way to handle it, would be to assess, whether the evidence fits better the naturalistic or the theistic view. My own journey away from naturalistic evolution belief was long and difficult.
In this book I describe the development of my own thought processes for over 40 years. I also address blocking mechanisms, hatred, prejudices, mockery, fears, power games and persecutions, which anyone rising against the dominant evolution paradigm – and the naturalistic worldview behind it – will have to face. There have been many times I have met people representing faithless religious bigotry not willing to let go of their views, when evidence so demands. In fact, they are not interested in evidence and open discussion.
The crisis over the rationality of evolution becomes apparent in that, at the same time as critical researchers conduct rigorously argumentative research to find out the capacity and limitations of evolutionary mechanisms, avid supporters of evolution rely more and more on emotional conceptions, arrogant quips, censorship and on outright mockery. One aim of my book is to show how strongly naturalistic evolution paradigm guides biological observations, as well as, the interpretations of world history. (2)
A CLOSER LOOK AT NATURALISM. As noted earlier, naturalistic worldview is the dominant view in university circles. It is not always directly referred to or openly said, but it’s there behind the ideas and speculations. This view shuts away God in every respect. God’s influence on anything is denied. Instead, it is believed that the universe exerted itself into existence, as well as, life and all current plant and animal species. This kind of thinking is considered scientific, critical and progressive. And believing in creation is seen as the opposite of that, because people think it is an outdated, preconceived, religious and a biased view. However, there are some fundamental issues in relating naturalisms with science. We will look at those issues below.
Is naturalism science? As stated, naturalistic scientists believe that they represent science, when they accept the naturalistic account to what the beginning of our world looked like.
That’s where they’re wrong, however. They have chosen to adopt a certain worldview from a group of many, and it has nothing to do with science. It is wrong to associate naturalistic worldview with science. Why can I say this?
There’s a simple reason: No one has witnessed the beginning of the universe and the birth of life, because these events are out the reach of making straightforward observations. Hence, naturalist scientists are in the wrong, when they determine their stance as scientific and the opposing one as religious. They also possess a stance founded on belief and their worldview is also premised on that belief. They believe that matter formed itself into celestial bodies and birthed life, whereas theism presumes God to be behind everything. These two views can be summarized in the following confessions. The first one is taken from the Epistle to 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 universe came out of nothing, that matter itself formed celestial bodies and that life birthed itself.
When scientists and other people have adopted this naturalistic view through faith, it is rare that they have familiarized themselves with the premises of their belief (I can say something about this due to my own experiences. I used to be an atheist.). Their views might be based on some school books, or nature documentaries, but usually they have not attempted to find out, how reliable the concepts in their views are. They have adopted naturalistic views, because they were born into a culture that teaches it. Matti Leisola tells his own experience in, how this has happened in the science world. Naturalism and evolution theory have been accepted without a proper familiarization with the premise of evolution:
I was surprised that an internationally known biochemist approved of the evolution theory without ever having given more thought towards it. Our conversation about the topic continued the same year in Switzerland and later in Finland. I have discussed the same issue with hundreds of scientist colleagues from all over the world, and I have yet to find a person, who would have properly familiarized themself with the basics of evolutionary theory. I often come across the following claim: “The whole science community believes that the evolution theory undoubtedly holds true.” The truth of the matter is completely different; only a small section of the science community has seriously thought about it. They have adopted evolution as part of the Western science education. (3)
Naturalism and its connection to pantheism. The world has many philosophical views and pantheism is one of them. Pantheism presumes that nature and god are one and the same, and that there is nothing beyond that. The world is assumed to have originated from the same impersonal divinity. Among other views, Hinduism also contains this same notion, where nature and god are equated with each other. Natural peoples’ animism, where spirits are seen in all kinds of objects, is also quite a similar view.
Rabi Maharaj, a former Hindu guru, talks more about the topic. It was difficult for him to internalize the idea that the creator and the world could be one and the same:
During my third year of school I felt my inner conflict grow. I realized that God is the Creator; He is separate from the world, which He created. This realization that had been a part of me since my childhood, was clearly opposing the Hinduism account, where Creator and the world are one and the same… The real conflict was between two opposing concepts of god: is He being a part of everything, or could He be able to create mountains and humans without them being a part of Him? (4)
What about atheistic naturalism? Interestingly enough, it doesn’t differ that much from pantheism. Scientists, who claim to represent science, often give matter supernatural and miraculous qualities, as is in pantheism. They, e.g., explain how matter generated life, although no one has any empirical knowledge of the sort. Similarly, they might provide people with numerous similar explanations, where nature creates new and births complex structures. Some examples are provided underneath. These kinds of explanations and stories are constantly presented in nature programs and in evolutionary literature. These media give matter such qualities that have traditionally been associated with an almighty God:
• The universe exerted itself into existence
• Stars and galaxies were formed by matter itself
• Nature came up with a way to produce amino acids and the building tools for life.
• Nature caused the existence of the first cell, which began its process to develop into a human
• Nature came up with a way to make unicellular organisms into multicellulars
• Nature built the complex eyes of trilobites
• Nature invented how asexual reproduction could change into sexual reproduction
• Nature developed dogs’ precise sense of smell, birds’ ability to navigate, and bats’ echolocation system
• Nature made cheetahs fast
• Nature built wings that enable flying in the air
By granting matter these supernatural abilities, naturalist scientists have also admitted the possibility of miracles. However, they don’t mean the supernatural almighty God by this, because they believe that it all happened on its own. They will be driven into similar understanding with pantheism, which is giving nature and matter godly qualities. Richard Dawkins brings up this kind of view in his book The Blind Watchmaker (p. 156,172). He explains the birth of life and the advancement of human mind:
It is evident that such slight chances wouldn’t grant us any hope for achieving the miracle of life being born in our laboratories. If we assume that life was only once born in the universe, our theory allows for major strokes of luck, because the universe has so many planets, where life could have been born. This kind of assumption is justifiable, because evidently life exists…
I will pose a claim that is contradictory, but for that reason all the more interesting. I claim that as natural scientists we should be more concerned than we are today if it didn’t seem like the development of humans’ awareness wasn’t connected to a miracle. Looking from the perspective of our everyday life that part of the theory, which we seek for in our efforts to explain the birth of life, is the apparent miracle.
There is one essential difference between naturalistic worldview and theism: naturalism assumes that the only thing existing is the world, meaning that there is only matter. Theism, however, assumes the existence of God as well along with the world. That is the summarized difference between naturalism and theism.
The same pattern comes up in relation to opinions towards intelligent design. When naturalists don’t recognize that an almighty God could have influenced anything, they also possess a critical stance towards the idea of intelligent design. They downright reject the idea, which could be seen as the result of their materialistic view of the world. However, one should take into consideration the following aspects:
• It is in itself an irrational thought already, when naturalism assumes that arguments for intelligent design are not science, but arguments against it are. What makes acknowledging the intelligence a religious view, and denying it a wise and scientific view? Probably nothing. We are merely dealing with views based on bias, which people want to hold on to. That has nothing to do with science.
On the other hand, in everyday life and work many scientists act against their naturalistic perception. They acknowledge the existence of intelligence and look for signs of it:
- SETI –project is based on searching similar intelligent life that is found on earth from space. The supposition is that there is intelligent life elsewhere as well.
- An archeologist searches for signs of life, when he digs the ground. He is not interested in ordinary rocks, but rocks that have writings on them or alternatively he looks for artifacts that display signs of design.
- With the help of technology intelligent ideas can be searcher from the nature. E.g., the wings of birds have generated ideas for designing wings for airplanes. Another example is the front parts of the Japanese high speed trains, which design has been inspired by the beak of the Common Kingfisher. This has led the trains to be quieter, faster, and they consume less electricity.
The new Finnish science magazine (Tiede 3/2014) gives more examples on how nature has inspired technological designs. One article describes, how Canadian scientists were able to make sheet glass 200 times more shockproof than it normally is by copying the nacre of seashells. Another article describes how mimicking the structure of a pomegranate can make batteries more durable. These kinds of examples suggest intelligent design in the nature and how it can be used to benefit.
• Naturalistic view presumes that the initial state was impersonal and mindless. This perception is being viewed as rational and scientific, although it is conflicting, for example, with the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian explosion, which according to the evolutionary timeline took place ca. 530 million years ago, proves that life has been complex and intelligent from the beginning. These observations are thus contradictory with the notion of initial state lacking intelligence and personality.
What if everything did begin from a mindless state, as in Big Bang? Or what if humans did develop from ape like creatures, as claimed by evolution theory? In such a case a fundamental problem arises in our ability to trust our reasoning and observations. No matter how rational and scientific we considered ourselves – as is the case with naturalist scientists and with almost everyone else – it is rather questionable to trust such knowledge. Brains and thoughts that have developed from a Big Bang –like state cannot be that reliable. This problem arises in naturalistic understanding, in which everything is assumed to have come from a mindless state.
Another issue is that, where did information and intelligence come from if they weren’t here from the beginning? For example, DNA code is so complicated that it is impossible to account for it by saying that it originated from a Big Bang –like lifeless state. Modern computers are simple in comparison. Bill Gates the founder of Microsoft has stated that “DNA is like a computer program, but much more advanced than any program we have ever developed.” (5)
Where did all that information come from? It is difficult to explain in any other way if we don’t accept intelligence having been there from the beginning due to God’s creation. This issue is still relevant and no one has found a solution to it yet. Matti Leisola talks about the issue:
I don’t believe that evolution theory gives the right kind of a picture about nature’s history. I have followed the literature of this line of study since 1970. Before attending the 2009 Savonlinna seminar, which I will discuss further in chapter 9, I read Jerry Coyne’s book Why evolution is true, Petteri Portini and Timo Vuorisalo’s edited work Evoluutio nyt [Evolution now], as well as, Ilkka Hanski, Ilkka Niiniluoto and Ilari Hetemäki’s edited book Kaikki evoluutiosta [Everything about evolution]. None of these books answered the essential evolution related question: How does new information come about, as entailed by evolution? The examples in these books addressed natural variation and apparent evidence, which can be interpreted in many ways. (6)
• Those possessing a naturalistic view of the world, often admit reluctantly that animals, humans and plants carry signs of intelligent design. It is difficult for them to admit it, because they are so committed to their naturalistic worldview. However, from time to time this pops up in their comments and books. They have to make great efforts and lie to themselves, in order to hide the obvious truth of natural structures being complicated. Paul, for example, wrote aptly about these kinds of people in the Epistle to the Romans (Rom 1:19-22): Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them. 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: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
Below you can find some comments from distinguished evolutionists. They acknowledge that structures look like they have been designed, but deny that it would have had anything to do with a designer, which could be God.
Darwin: Another premise to believe in God that relates to reason and not to feelings, seems more cogent. You see, it is extremely difficult or rather impossible to imagine that this enormous and wondrous universe, including humans, who can look far back into the past and far into the future, had come into existence by pure accident or without any intermediation. While wondering this, I feel as if I must look for a First Reason, which had an intelligent mind, somehow comparable to human mind, and thus I can be called a theist. (7)
Jerry Coyne: If there generally are verities about nature, the fact that plants and animals seem to be complexly and almost perfectly designed to live their lives must be considered as one of these verities. - - Where does this all lead up to? To a master mechanic of course. - - The more we learn about animals and plants the more we are wondering, how well their physical structure is fitted to their life style. What would be a more natural conclusion than to think all this compatibility is the result of intelligent design? Darwin, however, looked the other way from the obvious and suggested – and supported it with detailed evidence – two ideas, which made thoughts about intelligent design vanish forever. These ideas were evolution and natural selection. (8)
Francis Crick: Biologists must constantly keep in mind that, what they are seeing is not designed, but the result of evolution. (9)
Richard Dawkins: Leaf eating giraffe, soaring albatross, swooping sparrow, circling hawk, leafy seadragon invisible in the midst of seaweed, cheetah speeding up to its maximum speed after a turn, hopping gazelle – the illusion of design is intuitively so strong that one must truly strive to think critically and to overcome the temptations of naive intuition. (10)
How do scientists with naturalistic worldviews try to deny intelligent design? They usually attempt drawing attention to such structures that they believe don’t fit into the idea of intelligent design. The following example shows criticism towards the human brain, although in reality they are they the most complicated known matter in the whole universe. Many computers are simple in comparison. The critics may not have realized that in judging the structure of our brains, they simultaneously question their own thoughts and opinions. How could they trust in their own conclusions if our brains were so poorly structured?
Brains are not a product of highly intelligent and omniscient engineer’s work, but nothing else than – as all evolutionary products – an exquisite system constructed from already existing building materials, which are the products of evolution. The human brain is a result of a shortsighted evolutionary process, which has solved problems of that time without considering the evolutionary potential of the selected structures. This is why we might find significant developmental constraints in the brains. (11)
If we look at animals, for example, with an open mind, we might come across signs of intelligent design in them. They would not be able to eat, move and reproduce if they didn’t have such functional digestion, blood circulation, reproduction mechanism and functioning limbs. They would not even be alive if they didn’t already possess these finished complex and intelligent structures.
What about humans? It is difficult to imagine, how our current structures could work any better. For example, we can write, draw, throw a ball, hang from trees or carry objects with our hands. Another example is our head, which contains complex organs, like eyes, brains (for thinking), nose, mouth and ears. Through our mouths we can also speak, sing, eat, breathe and feel the taste of food. The third example is reproduction. It is associated with interest towards the other gender, compatibility of sex organs, compatibility of gametes in order for conception to take place, growth of the fertile egg inside the mother’s womb into a ca. three kilo baby, and nutrition consumption from the mother’s breasts after birth. It is difficult to imagine, how these systems could have been better designed.
The following quotation refers to the same subject matter. It is not easy to see, how humans could have designed, for example, better wings for birds and bats. It is much more logical to assume these structures, as well as, reason, emotions, personality and senses, came readily through creation. It is arrogant to completely reject the idea of the existence of intelligence from the beginning. No one can or has not been able to prove, how a lifeless pieces of rock could generate living creatures with feelings, reason and be structurally complicated. Believing in these things coming about by themselves is not very wise.
In section 18 of the Britannica encyclopedia of 1988 there is i.a. the following specialist’s statement in the chapter containing the evolutionary theory: “From a practical viewpoint it is inexplicable that a tortoise can swim, a horse run, a human write and a bird or a bat fly with structures that are based on similar bone structures. An engineer could design better fitting limbs for each of their purpose. However, if we accept that all these bones are inherited from a shared ancestor and transformed only through different developmental stages, we can find a rational premise for similar structures.” This utterance made Paul Nelson criticize this evolutionary view as follows: “Ha! Introduce me to an engineer that can design a better structure than is the wing of a bat or a bird! Show me an engineer that can design a better leg for a cockroach! The thought of this is absurd. Where do the people come from, who present these ideas? We are far away from the knowledge that was required to construct animals – we are on the other side of the universe, millions of light years away, millions. We don’t even understand the compelling nature of the question.
Think about it: the leg of a cockroach will fix itself, sense its environment better than any robot, it is equipped with tactile hair and other sensors throughout, from which we cannot evaluate more than a fraction. A cockroach doesn’t need fuel, electric current or compressed air. Only a little bit of waste, where the general structure of the leg will be formed by growing, which can make the strength of titanium feel like playdough. If a cockroach was the size of a human, it would easily move forward ca. 300 km per hour. This comparison could go on forever… The writer of the encyclopedia clearly doesn’t know, what they are talking about – to say something like this in a reference book is really silly… As an engineer I have noticed the highest possible intellectual arrogance in the writer”. (,) (12)
The study of History. As already mentioned, the media and naturalist scientist circles often put forth the idea of a conflict between belief and science. It is thought that believing in God and science are the opposites of each other. This way of thinking assumes that science flourished in Greece and only advanced again, when during the years of Enlightenment it separated from the revealed religion and began to rely on reason and observations. Darwin’s significance is especially considered important in the final takeover of the scientific worldview.
What did it used to be like in Europe? When many naturalist scientists think that Christian revealed religion has been an obstacle for the development of science, they haven’t taken into account the preceding state of Europe. It bore a close resemblance to a Hindu society or what African societies used to be decades ago. There were idols, imps, pantheism, and animism. We don’t need to go that far back in time in Northern Europe either, when the situation there was the same.
Chapter 17 of the Acts gives us a good understanding of what Europe was like before the arrival of Christianity. The chapter tells about the situation in Athens, when Paul went there:
- (Acts 17:16,22-30) Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.
22 Then Paul stood in the middle of Mars' hill, and said, You men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore you ignorantly worship, him declare I to you.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwells not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he gives to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 For as much then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like to gold, or silver, or stone, graven by are and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commands all men every where to repent:
Christianity, thus, shifted Europe into a more positive direction. For example, we can mainly thank devoted Christians for literacy and written standard language. For example, In Finland Mikael Agricola, who was a reformer in Finland and the father of literature, pressed the first ABC book and the New Testament and segments of other Books in the Bible. People learned how to read through them. Development has gone through similar processes in many other nations in the Western world:
Christianity created the Western sophistication. If the followers of Jesus would have stayed as a faint Jewish sect, many of you would have never learned how to read and the rest would have read from hand copied scrolls. Without theology coined with progression and moral equality, the whole world would currently be at a state, where non-European societies were roughly in the 1800s: A world with countless astrologists and alchemists, but without scientists. A despotic world without universities, banks, factories, spectacles, chimneys and pianos. A world, where most children die before the age of five and where many women would die of childbirth – a world that would truly live in the “Dark Ages”. A modern world only arose from Christian societies. Not in the Islamic realm. Not in Asia. Not in a ”secular” society – as such a thing did not exists. (13)
Greece and science. Above we mentioned how idolatry was a common practice in Athens during Paul’s lifetime. The Acts addressed it.
However, it is noteworthy that during the prime of Greek city states, many Greek scientists and intellects believed in an intelligent Creator who made humans and the whole world. Many naturalists of today think highly of this period, but don’t take into consideration that many of the time’s leading intellectuals were believers of God. Some of these intellectuals include, e.g., Socrates, Plato’s student Aristotle, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras and Empedocles. They supported God belief in the ancient Greece. Their ideologies were closer to theistic ones, and not so much to the naturalistic view of the world, although current supporters of the naturalistic view might claim otherwise.
A good example of believing in a creator is provided to us in a statement about humans by Socrates, the father of logic. He was clearly a supporter of intelligent design. In the Memorabilia by Xenophon, Socrates refers to human details, which cannot be considered as mere accidents:
Does it not strike you then that He, who made man from the beginning, gave him some useful senses – eyes to behold the visible world, and ears to catch the intonations of sound? (...) And besides all this, do you not think this looks like a matter of foresight that the eyes are closed by eyelids like doors, which, when there is need to use them, can open? They close in sleep and even the winds of heaven may not visit them too roughly, because the eyelashes are as a protecting screen. The eyebrows are like an eave so that sweat falling from the head won’t injure eyes. Besides, the ear catches all sounds but never becomes filled. (...) I ask you, when you see all these things constructed with such show of foresight can you doubt whether they are products of chance or intelligence? (14)
Scientific revolution in Europe. As pointed out earlier, the media and books by naturalist scientists keep presenting the idea that Christianity was an obstacle to the advancement of science. Science and believing in God have been regarded as opposites.
However, this notion is not supported by historical research. In the modern sense science has only sprung once in the 16th-18th century Europe, when Christian theism was predominant. Science didn’t arise in secular societies, but namely in societies, which were inspired by Christianity. Nearly all leading scientists believed in creation. Some of them included Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, John Ray, Louis Pasteur etc. These people didn’t represent Enlightenment, but theism:
These are the slogans used by one of the most long-standing and most efficient campaigns based on polemic articles in the history of Western countries. Although, this campaign generally has had a very significant impact on intellectual world, it does not seem to have made an impact on the scientists per se. The executors of the scientific revolution were famous for their belief in God and this tradition they represented has continued in science. For example, during the whole of the 19th century scientific development was as much of a religious mission as it was a secular mission – aspiration to understand Gods creations continued. (15)
Some comments refer to how believing in God used to be common in the lives of these notable scientists. This becomes apparent from their memoirs and writings:
Johannes Kepler: I think that the reason for many universal attributes can be led back to God’s love for humans. Surely no one wishes to deny that when building the universe for habitation, God thought about its habitats over and over again. Since humans are the objective of the cosmos and the universe. (16)
Isaac Newton, the most famous scientist of the 17th century: When I wrote my research on our System, I directed my focus on those principles, which made humans believe in God. Nothing can make me happier than seeing my research being useful in that respect. (17)
Robert Boyle, the founder of modern chemistry: The great and wise Creator of the nature, whose piercing gaze reaches the whole universe and sees all of its parts in one instant, in the beginning created material objects as systems and set the laws of motion to control them according to His purpose and so created the world - - similarly to a well made clock. (18)
John Ray, the father of English natural science: For a free human there is not a more valuable or pleasant job than to ponder the beautiful works of nature and to honor God’s boundless wisdom and goodness. (19)
How about the centuries before the 16th-18th centuries? The general understanding has been that these centuries, meaning the Middle Ages, were times of unknowing, which halted the development of culture and science. Science began advancing again, after when the culture was slowly getting free of the suffocating grip of God belief during Renaissance and the Enlightenment. This is probably what has been taught in many books that discuss the topic.
According to researchers, who have familiarized themselves with the topic, the truth is quite different. In reality science took major advancements from the ancient times. The beginning of the “Dark Ages” marked the beginning of “one of the most inventive periods of mankind” (Jean Gimbel: The Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution in the Middle Ages, New York: Penguin Books, 1976 / see also Lynn Whyte Jr., Medieval Technology and Social Change, Oxford University Press). It signified great and continuing progress in respect to the Roman Empire. Change took place in the fields of architecture, mechanical engineering, agronomy, and in utilizing new energy sources. Some inventions include a plough with wheels, millwheel, windmill and its improvements, development of fine pottery and glaze, inventing the mechanical watch and developing it further, developing lenses into eyeglasses, magnetic compass, water pumping methods in mining technology, etc.
Universities can be regarded as another example of development, because there were about 60 of them in Europe by the year 1500. They were founded thanks to the medieval church’s active support, and those universities held natural science and astronomy studies in a significant position. The atmosphere was predominated by a notable freedom of research and discussion, which was favored all around. These universities welcomed hundreds of thousands of students, and they played a part in enabling the scientific revolution to take place in the 16th-18th century Europe. The revolution didn’t appear for no reason, because it was preceded by a favorable development:
The Middle Ages created a basis for the greatest accomplishment of Western society: modern science. Claim that says science did not exists before “Renaissance” is simply untrue. After familiarizing themselves with classical Greek research, scholars of the Middle Ages developed ideology systems, which led science much further compared to the antique times. Universities, where academic freedom was protected from the leaders’ power, were founded in the 1100s. These institutions have always provided a safe haven for scientific research. Even Christian theology proved to be uniquely fitted to encourage researching the nature, which was believed to be God’s creation. (20)
The vague idea of the Middle Ages being a century stagnated by Christianity is largely gone from the minds of the researchers, who know the era well, but it remains strong among those, who popularize the history of science – perhaps, because current people, who popularize it, have uncritically trusted their predecessors, instead of familiarizing themselves with the research. (21)
One of the most common motives, to why naturalist scientists reject God belief, is given by the case of Galileo Galilei and solar centrality. They see this case as an example of how an undoubting scientist rose from superstitions to oppose the world of religion. However, these people don’t take into account the following aspects:
• Geocentric worldview is not by any means Christian heritage, but heritage from the ancient times. The man behind it was a Greek scientists Ptolemy. His work on astronomy affected astronomers for centuries to come:
The world view of Ptolemy created a basis for the commonly accepted assumption that the Earth is the center of the Universe and stays put… Ptolemy finalized his geocentric model in 150 BC. in his treatise Hẻ megalẻ syntaxis (Great Treatise) It became one of the most influential works in astronomy for centuries. In fact, every European astronomer was influenced by it and none of them questioned the geocentric model of the universe in earnest. (Simon Sing: Big Bang, p. 36,38)
• The flat earth myth is a similar case, as the dispute around Galileo Galilei. Many think that this idea was common during the Middle Ages and that it was replaced only when the years of Enlightenment began, but that is a false conception. Instead, the flat earth myth didn’t begin to arise until the 19th century, when an atheist writer Washington Irving wrote about it in his book The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. In the late 19th century this idea spread, as well as the assumption that belief and science go against each other, when people, who spread Darwinist propaganda, used it in their writings. Distinguished paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould describes in his book Dinosaur in a Haystack p. 57-60, how he too found out about this false conception:
I also once learned that most other ecclesiastical scholars of the benighted Dark Ages had refuted Aristotle’s notion of a spherical earth, and had depicted our home as a flat, or at most a gently curved, plate... I write this essay to point out that the most prominent of all scientific stories in this mode—the supposed Dark and Medieval consensus for a flat earth—is entirely mythological. Moreover, when we trace the invention of this fable in the nineteenth century, we receive a double lesson in the dangers of false taxonomies... while the nineteenth-century invention of the flat earth, as we shall see, occurred to support another dubious and harmful separation wedded to another legend of historical progress—the supposed warfare between science and religion... There never was a period of “flat earth darkness” among scholars... Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology.
• When people put forth the idea that Galileo Galilei’s case was about warfare between belief and science, they don’t take into account the fact that Galileo was a devoted Catholic, who respected God in his writings. He saw humans as beings created in God’s image, and that is why humans were given the ability to gain reliable information about the universe.
What about Copernicus, who invented the heliocentric concept even before Galileo Galilei? He was a Catholic priest, who got support for his studies from a young Lutheran researcher named Georg Joachim von Lauchen. This Lutheran researcher travelled to meet Copernicus, and his influence helped Copernicus’ De revolutionibus orbium coelestium piece of writing, which discussed the heliocentric worldview, to be published in 1543.
Johannes Kepler also played a key role in bringing forth the heliocentric understanding of the world. He was a Lutheran and wrote letters back and forth with Galileo Galilei. Kepler’s calculations proved that the planets orbit in elliptical trajectories instead of completely round ones.
• When suggested that Galieo Galilei’s case was about a conflict between belief and science, it is often forgotten that both advocates for science and religion were split in their stance towards Galileo’s theory. Some clerics supported him, some were against him. Similarly, there were some scientists, who opposed his ideas. This is always the case, when new theories show up.
Understanding the heliocentric model may have, and still might, feel like going against what we see. For example, calendars and news papers, even to this day, talk about the times of Sunrise and Sundown, not the times of Earth’s rise or Earth’s down. For us it seems like the Sun is moving and that we’re the ones being stationary. We don’t feel a constant breeze from the Earth’s rotation or a sensation of the ground being swept away from under our feet. In this respect, it is understandable that opinions on the heliocentric concept were divided all those centuries ago. Another reason, why Galileo Galilei was in a more convincing position, is his telescope, which was the best of its time, and not all possessed such an advanced telescope. It was a new invention, which affected the emergence of the heliocentric model.
• Claims that the church would have persecuted researchers during the so-called Dark Ages, are not in accordance with the facts. Australian skeptic Tim O’Neil has addressed these claims: ”It is not difficult to take nonsense into part, especially when the people producing it don’t really know anything about history. They have merely adopted these peculiar ideas from websites and from popular books. These claims fall short immediately, when met with indisputable evidence. I find it amusing crushing these people, who spread these speeches, completely by asking them to name one – and only one – scientist, who was burned at the stake or who was persecuted or pressured due to their research during the Middle Ages. They can never give me one name… When I start listing scientists of the Middle Ages - Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, John Peckham, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme, Jean Buridan and Nicolaus – and when I ask, why these men were able to develop science in the Middle Ages in peace without the church harassing them, my opponents usually scratch their heads in awe and wonder, what went wrong.” (22)
Earlier we noted how the media and naturalist scientist circles often present the idea that science and believing in God are the opposites. This idea surmises that science advanced only after parting ways with revealed religion and when it began to rely on reason and observations. Darwin’s influence, especially, is considered pivotal in scientific worldview taking over. It is said that he was the one, who finally turned the long-lasting fight between belief and science in favor of science. However, when discussing this matter, you should take into consideration the following aspects:
• When naturalist scientists keep going on about, how science should be founded on reason and observations and how Darwin symbolized this standpoint, they’re partly right and partly wrong. They’re right about Darwin being a thorough nature researcher, who made precise observations about the nature, familiarized himself with the subject matters and knew how to write about his research. Anyone who has read his main work On the Origin of Species can’t deny that.
However, they are wrong in accepting Darwin’s assumption about species transformations. The reason for that is simple: Darwin was not able to show us any examples of species transforming into another in his book – something that has been admitted by many evolutionists, who have read On the Origin of Species. He had no direct evidence for species transformation, in the same way how we don’t know today how life could have began by itself. His exquisite examples of beak size variation in birds only constitute to normal variation within created-kinds. They in no way prove the molecule-to-man theory.
Had Darwin taught that there are hundreds of family trees and that all those trees have splitting branches, instead of saying that there’s only one tree (the evolutionary notion of all life-forms descending from a shared original cell), he would have been closer to the truth. Variation does occur, as Darwin showed us, but only within the created-kinds. The observations support more the creation model, than the idea of all current life-forms stemming from the same original cell and the same ancestor:
We can only present presumptions on the motives that lead scientists to assume that the notion of a common ancestor is without criticism. The triumph of Darwinism undoubtedly increased scientists’ authority, and the idea of an automated process fit so well with the spirit of the time that the theory also gained a lot of support from religious leaders. In any case, scientists accepted the theory before it was rigidly tested and after that they used their authority to assure wide audiences that natural processes are enough to produce human bacteria and the chemical compounds of the bacteria. Evolution theory began to search for evidence to support itself and started to fabricate explanations to annihilate any contradictory evidence. (23)
• We must note that Darwin’s influence was only limited to a narrow sector, meaning all the glory around his theory is something that people assume about the past. It has nothing to do with other sectors of science and technological advancement. People had made progress in these areas before and after Darwin. For example, England, Darwin’s home country, was technologically the most advanced country even before Darwin, which is why these two things have nothing to do with each other.
Furthermore, development was most notable namely in those societies, where Christianity was common and strong. England was one of those societies. Darwin himself studied theology before he became a full time researcher.
How about Darwin’s influence on biological breakthroughs and biological research? These two things don’t seem to have much to do with each other. Instead, Darwin’s evolution theory has become our time’s creation myth, which has replaced our belief in God:
Penn State University professor Philip S. Skell studied major breakthroughs in biology during the 20th century and interviewed over 70 notable biologists in his attempt to uncover the significance of Darwinist theory as the leading factor in research. He came to a conclusion that Darwinism doesn’t have a leading significance in biology research. Darwin’s theory is being referred to, only when the research breakthrough has already been made, and it is mainly used as a fascinating explanatory tale…
According to David Berlinski Darwinism’s scientific significance is inconsequential. Its actual purpose is to act as the creation myth of our time. “If Darwin’s evolution theory has only little to give for science, it has much to give for their ideologies. It acts as the creation myth of our time, granting nature with properties, which used to be classified as belonging to God…” (24)
• If Darwin didn’t cause a scientific revolution, then what was he significant for?
The most straightforward answer is that Darwin swept aside God and intelligent design from people’s minds. Until then, it was commonly believed that God is behind everything, but Darwin led people to believe otherwise through his theory. It was about an ideological revolution, where God was cast aside from being the Creator.
It may be that Darwin himself anticipated the revolutionary nature of his theory and delayed its publication for years. He foresaw that the materialistic theory posed by him, would wipe away people’s thoughts about God. Darwin only published his book, when Alfred Wallace was about to publish his work on the same idea.
When Darwin’s theory removed God from people’s minds, it also erased judgment. It was no longer believed that actions have consequences after this life, because it was thought that everything would end in the physical death and that there would not be any reckoning. People also believed that there is no shared moral, which would be placed on us by God. People lost their belief in both of these things.
The last century shows us, what the kind of ideology can do, where God’s judgment is rejected. It didn’t lead people into a better life, but into barbarism and treating others with cruelty. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and many other communist leaders serve as examples of this. They believed in Darwin’s theory, which removed the idea of reckoning in the afterlife from their minds. If they and million others would have believed that every person will be judged according to their action, they certainly would have acted differently. What we think about our origin and the afterlife, affects our behavior:
If it is difficult for you to believe that evolution is connected to the issues mentioned above, you will see the connection clearly after studying a couple of historical examples. In fact, I have yet to meet a single well-educated evolutionist who disagrees with me about the connection of these moral issues and evolution. They are not necessarily of the opinion that this is what should have happened but they do agree that people have applied evolution in this way. It is important for you not to misunderstand what I’m about to say. Of course, there were bad philosophies that go against God already before Darwinist evolution. People did abortions long before Darwin announced his popular view on evolution. However, people’s beliefs about their origins influence the way they view the world. When people reject God -- the Creator -- their attitude towards themselves, other people and our world changes. (25)
Previously we brought up how numerous scientists have adopted the naturalistic worldview and evolution theory through faith, but have rarely familiarized themselves with the premise of their belief. Their views might be based on some school books or nature documentaries, but usually these people fall short in making an effort to find out, how reliable these views and concepts are.
Another common concept in the science world is time having the ability to make anything possible. Even though, these scientists don’t believe in a personal God, they still give time the same properties that God possesses. They explain that “when given enough time, anything can happen”. For example:
• The universe can appear out of nowhere (the Big Bang), although none of today’s practical observations support that idea. If the universe did, in fact, appear from nothingness by itself, as presumed by the naturalist theory, then why don’t we see similar things occurring now? No one has seen cars, birds, elephants, cliffs or lions materialize out of nothing. Yet, some people assume that the universe, which is far larger than anything, has gone through that process. It is the great naturalistic magic trick and a miracle.
• Life can begin by itself, even though this idea is not supported by any practical observations either. Experience of over a hundred years has shown how difficult this problem is. Rocks and other objects just don’t come to life, even if given hundred billion years. It is merely a naturalistic assumption, which has no practical evidence to back it up.
• Species can transform into other species, although, e.g. Darwin, who popularized this idea, could not present any examples of it in his best known work On the Origin of Species. The examples in his book, and in other evolutionary literature, are shown as relating to regular variation that occurs within created-kinds. Evidence from today and from fossil records suggests that organisms and plants have been fully developed from the start. They’re not semi-developed, despite Darwin’s theory supposing so. Well known fossil researchers Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge thought Darwin’s suggested gradual development was so opposing to the evidence material, that they proposed their own evolutionary model called the punctuated equilibrium (Species transformations have occurred so fast and in such narrow areas that there were no fossils left behind). They attempted to go around the issue of there not being any fossils of transitional forms.
Stephen Jay Gould: The extreme rareness of intermediate forms in fossil material continues to be the trade secret of palaeontologists. The evolution trees appearing in our textbooks include facts only at the heads and folding points of the branches. The rest is reasoning, no matter how reasonable it is, not evidence of fossils –- I do not want in any way to belittle the potential competence of the gradual evolution view. I want only to remark that it has never 'been observed' in rocks. (...) (26)
Niles Eldredge: We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [a story about changes that promote gradual adapting], even though we know all the while that it does not. (27)
• Evolution theory presumes that all current species descend from the same ancestor. People have compiled many evolutionary family trees showcasing that, and the first ones date back to the 19th century. However, the problem is, as we’ve already established, that there is no observed gradual development in current species or in fossils. The evidence clearly supports the creation model, where species have always been separate and fully developed. We should interpret the evidence as it is and not try to force it to fit the evolution theory.
Secondly, the compiled evolutionary trees are founded on pure imagination. The origin of life –dilemma is still unsolved. Similarly, it is impossible to know afterwards, which fossils could be related to each other. Fossils and organisms have been arranged in an order that fits the evolution model, but this arrangement cannot be proved. The editor of the world’s best known science magazine (Nature) Henry Gee also admitted this fact. We have a weak premise for trying to figure out organisms’ chain of development afterwards:
None of the fossils were buried with a birth certificate. Time periods separating these fossils are so long that we cannot say anything with certainty about their relation to each other in the sense of their lineage. Each fossil is a singular dot with no known relation to any other fossil, which all float in a massive sea of gaps… To take a group of fossils and claim they form a chain of development, is not a scientifically testable hypothesis, but merely a statement carrying as much value as a bedtime story – entertaining, maybe educational, but not scientific. (28)
• Experiments conducted on bacteria and fruit flies serve as proof of how fixed species’ boundaries are. They have not transformed into other species, but stayed the same the whole time, although these experiments have lasted for 150 years already. Richard Lensky’s team’s experiments of 20 years on E. coli bacteria, which generated 44 000 generations, serve as an example of this. The biggest change in these experiments was that the E. coli bacteria were able to use citric acid as their nutrition. Evolutionists considered it as evidence for evolution (New Scientists -science magazine reported: “Remarkable evolution innovation has just emerged under scientists’ eyes. It’s the first time evolution has been caught in the act of generating this complicated new feature”, (29), when in reality it was merely a slight micro evolutionary change. E. coli bacteria were still the same species and they did not transform into another type of bacteria, not to mention a whole other species. Actual species transformations, meaning macro evolution, have not been able to prove.
I have been assured that there are evolutionists, who have described, how the necessary changes could have happened. When I ask, what are the books, where these descriptions can be found, I either get no response or I get referred to books that don’t have these descriptions. Everyone seems to know about the descriptions existence, but I have not yet found anyone, who would know where to find them (David Griffin, 2000, Religion And Scientific Naturalism, State University of New York Press)
I have asked people to explain macro evolution to me, and I still don’t understand it. I understand most people better on how molecules are connected to each other and what they can and cannot do. But I don’t understand how macro evolution is supposed to happen. I know how small changes occur. But I don’t understand how new kind of organs could develop like that. (Jim Tour. He belongs in the group of the ten most cited and published Chemists) (30)
More about time. When people posed the idea of time enabling everything, it is based on the view which assumes there has been millions or even billions of years. It is assumed that extended time periods automatically enable the things that would otherwise be impossible or unlikely. Time is made into this god that can at the same time live and transform species into other species.
Long time periods also serve the basis for the table of geologic time. This table presumes that the earth has had unevenly lasting periods, and each of these periods have had their specific kind of lives. For example, Cambrian creatures, such as the trilobites, which lived in the sea, are believed to have lived ca. 500 million years ago, whereas dinosaurs are believed to have existed ca. 250-65 million years ago. It is not considered possible that they would have coexisted with humans.
However, we can dispute these overly extended time periods. If we hold on to our belief that the Cambrian animals and the dinosaurs lived at a different time to humans, in that case we shouldn’t be able to find any discovery that could contradict this view. Even a single discovery is enough to disprove the table of geologic time.
A good place to start would be looking at discoveries relating to humans. If we find human made objects or traces in strata, which have been determined as age old, it would suggest that humans have lived tens and hundreds of years ago or otherwise the strata and fossils are only some thousands of years old. The latter option is more likely, because barely anyone believes that humans would have lived, for example, hundred million years ago. The following are some discoveries that have been made. They contradict the table of geologic time:
• Traces that clearly resemble human footprints have been found from many different locations and strata, whose age have been determined as hundred million years. These kinds of discoveries shouldn’t exist, if the table of geologic time is right. It takes only one discovery in the wrong place to prove the table to be incorrect.
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)
• There are discoveries indicating humans’ and trilobites’ coexistence on the planet, although trilobites are said to have lived ca. 600-250 million years ago during the Cambrian period. It is unusual to find trilobites, creatures of the seabed, and human related discoveries in the same strata. Why could that be?
Evolutionists explain it is due to trilobites and humans having different time periods here on earth, but there can also be a simpler explanation: ecological niches. That is, as it is today that sea animals are far away from humans, who live on land, this was also the case in the past. It doesn’t have to mean that they lived at different time periods, but simply that they lived in different areas, maybe tens or even hundreds of kilometers apart. That is why you rarely find their remains in the same strata. However, there are a few discoveries that suggest to their coexistence:
William Meister made a surprising finding on 1 June 1968 in Utah. He found several trilobite fossils inside a fossilized sandal print! However, based on the geological stratigraphic sequence, arranged according to the evolutionary periods, the trilobites became extinct approximately 230 million years before the appearance of man!
(…) Geologist, Doctor Clifford Burdick found evidence to support the idea about humans and the trilobites living at the same time. He found barefooted footprints of a child, one of which contained a flattened trilobite. (31)
• Discoveries of items belonging to humans and even human skeletons that have been found from coal layers are rather interesting. The common understanding has been that these layers were formed during a special Carboniferous period ca. 300 million years ago, and yet people have found human related discoveries from these layers. Dinosaur fossils have also been found from these same layers. The fact that there’s even one such discovery is enough to discredit the table of geologic time.
A bronze bell (hand bell), which was about 15 cm long, was found inside mineral coal. The coal from a coal mine operating in West Virginia was also commonly used for the local residents’ heating systems. The pieces of coal that were too big for the oven were broken apart at home with a hammer. It was a huge surprise, when a bronze bell appeared from inside a block of coal. The coal layer, which the mined coal was retrieved from, has been determined to have been formed during the Carboniferous period around 300 million years ago. (32)
How about discoveries of dinosaurs? Many naturalist scientists want to believe that dinosaurs lived tens of millions of years ago, which is a different time to humans. However, numerous heritage stories talk about large dragons and lizards, which seem to resemble dinosaurs. Some claim it is a coincidence, but it is more likely that early humans lived at the same time with these creatures.
Descriptions, which might be based on old oral history, can be found among many different nations, and dragons are mentioned, for example, in English, Irish, Danish, Norwegian, German, Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Babylonian literature. The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 5, 1973, p. 265) reports these stories.
The dragons in legends are, strangely enough, just like real animals that lived in the past. They resemble large reptiles (dinosaurs) that ruled the land long before man is supposed to have appeared. Dragons were generally regarded as bad and destructive. Each nation referred to them in their mythology.
There’s an interesting comment by the late fossil researcher Stephen Jay Gould, who was a Marxist atheist. He stated that the only animal that fits the description of Behemoth from the Book of Job is the dinosaur (Pandans Tumme, p. 221, Ordfrontsförlag, 1987). As an evolutionist he believed that the writer of Job must have gained their knowledge from found fossils. However, this book that is one of the oldest in the Bible clearly refers to a living animal: Behold now behemoth, which I made with you; he eats grass as an ox... (Job 40:15)
• We already established how human footprints have been found from strata, which have been considered hundreds of millions of years old. Similar issues are caused by human footprints also being found from the dinosaur layers in multiple areas, such as Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky, Illinois, Texas and from other places in the United Sates. These kinds of discoveries shouldn’t exist at all, if the table of geologic time and its millions of years hold true. The findings suggest that humans and dinosaurs coexisted on the planet.
Many known scientific facts evoke serious doubts towards geological deformational history of rock units and towards geological periods. One such example could be the discovery of coeval traces of humans and dinosaurs in Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky, Illinois and in other areas of United States. These traces appear in a wide area and they are usually revealed after floods or after earthmoving constructions have taken place. Trustworthy paleontologists have carefully examined them and confirmed their authenticity, and they cannot be passed as fraud. Furthermore, images of dinosaurs drawn by humans have been found on the walls of caves and canyons in Arizona and the in former region of Rhodesia. (32)
• Well preserved dinosaur fossils pose a great mystery, provided they are 65-200 million years old. That is because they contain substances, which shouldn’t preserve for hundreds of thousands of years in the nature, not to mention millions of years. People have found, for example, a blood cells containing leg bone that belonged to a Tyrannosaurus rex; blood vessels and proteins, such as collagen, albumin, osteocalcin and DNA have also been extracted, e.g., from a Tyrannosaurus rex bone (Helsingin Sanomat 26/9/1994), and from dinosaur eggs in China (Helsingin sanomat 17/3/1995). What makes these DNA discoveries so difficult for evolution is that DNA is supposed to remain in natural conditions only for thousands of years or tens of thousands at most, depending on temperatures. This has been concluded based on studies, for example, on Egyptian mummies, which already have a changed DNA. The fact that DNA, protein and other poorly lasting substances do appear, suggest to their relatively young age. It is impossible that these substances would have been preserved for tens of millions of years:
On the other hand, it is known that biomolecules cannot be preserved over 100,000 years (Bada, J et al. 1999. Preservation of key biomolecules in the fossil record: current knowledge and future challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 354, ).This is the finding of empirical science. The biomolecule of animal tissue is collagen, which is a typical structural protein, and it can usually be segregated from fossils. It is known that this protein in question decays quickly from bones, and you can detect its remains only after 30,000 years, excluding very dry special circumstances. It undoubtedly rains occasionally in the Hell Creek region. Thus, collagen should not be found from a “68 million” year-old bone, which has been laying around in the soil. (34)
If the observations regarding proteins, such as albumin, collagen, osteocalcin, and DNA, that have been separated from dinosaur bones are true – and we have no reason to doubt the researchers' carefulness – the bones must (based on these results) date back to 40,000- to 50,000 years at most, as this is the highest possible preserving time in nature for such materials. (35)
A similar problem, to the issue with dinosaur remains containing DNA and protein, is their containment of radiocarbon as well. Its half-life is around 5700 years, so there shouldn’t be any left after 100 000-200 000 years. The fact that it does appear in dinosaur fossils, and in Cambrian animals, indicates them being young. None of them can be millions of years old:
It is not common for fossils that are thought to be very old to get a carbon-14 dating, because they should not have any radiocarbon left. The half-life of radioactive carbon is so short that all of it has practically decayed in under 100,000 years.
In 2012 during August a group of German scientists in the convention for geophysicists reported carbon-14 dating measurements, which were made from many fossilized dinosaur bone samples. According to the measurements, the bone samples were 22,000-39,000 years old! The presentation can be seen in written form on YouTube. (19)
How were the measurements received? Two of the chairmen, who could not accept the measurements, deleted the abstract of the presentation from the conference website without mentioning it to the scientists. The measurements can be found here: . This incident tells us, the impact of naturalistic paradigm. It is nearly impossible to be able to publish measurements conflicting it in the science community dictated by naturalism. It is more likely that pigs fly. (37)
1. Ostprobleme nro 20/1961 s. 647
2. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p. 11,12
3. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p. 187
4. Rabindranath R. Maharaj: Gurun kuolema (Death of a Guru), p. 96,97
5. Bill Gates: The Road Ahead. Boulder (1996), CO: Blue Penguin, p. 228
6. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p. 11
7. Charles Darwin: Elämäni, p. 55,56
8. Jerry A. Coyne: Why Evolution is True
9. Francis Crick: What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery (1988), p. 138
10. Richard Dawkins: Maailman hienoin esitys, evolution todisteet (The Greatest Show on Earth, The Evidence for Evolution), p. 342
11. Ylikoski Petri & Kokkonen Tomi: Evoluutio ja ihmisluonto, p. 194
12. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 41,42
13. Rodney Stark: The victory of reason. How Christianity led to freedom, capitalism and Western Succesp. New York, Random House (2005), p. 233
14. Ksenofon: Sokrates (1985, Helsinki, Otava), p. 30
15. Rodney Stark, (2004), p. 172
16. Mysterium Cosmographicum
17. The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, toim. H.W. urnbull & J.F.Scott & A.R.Hall & L. Tilling. 7 volp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3:233
18. Tapio Puolimatka: Viisauden ja tiedon aarteet Kristuksessa, p. 364
19. The Wisdom of God manifested in the Works of Creation, 1691
20. James Hannam: The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution
21. Michael H. Shank: “That the Medieval Christian Church Suppressed the Growth of Science, teoksessa Numbers (toim.) 19-27
22. O'Neill, T., The Dark Age Myth: An atheist reviews God's Philosophers, strangenotionp.com, 17 October 2009
23. Philip E. Johnson: Darwin on Trial, p. 152
24. Tapio Puolimatka: Usko, tiede ja evoluutio, p. 629
25. Ken Ham: Valhe, evoluutio, The Lie: Evolution, p. 112,113
26. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), p. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
27. Niles Eldredge (1985): “Evolutionary Tempos and Modes: A Paleontological Perspective” teoksessa Godrey (toim.) What Darwin Began: Modern Darwinian and non-Darwinian Perspectives on Evolution
28. Henry Gee (1999) In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, Free Press, p. 272
30. Eric Berger: (2010) The Laws of Science, Houston Chronicle 3.1.2010
31. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 25
32. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 3, Alusta viimeiseen aikaan, p. 23
33. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 24
34. Pekka Reinikainen: Darwin vai älykäs suunnitelma?, p. 88
35. Pekka Reinikainen: Dinosaurusten arvoitus ja Raamattu, p. 111
37. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p. 146
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!