Our scientists - at least natural scientists, to whom I
belong - do not seem to be interested in religious matters.
Most of them consider, for example, the dogmas of
Christianity to be so absurd that it is usually not worth
going to the trouble to overturn them. Such, should I say an
attitude of benevolent indifference, is unfortunate in my
opinion, especially because religion is the breeder and
maintainer of an irrational way of thinking that is against
the scientific spirit… Let us also think about the unnatural
state of affairs in which our school is trying to instil in
children and young people two diametrically opposed
worldviews and conceptions of life, religious and
scientific.
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. (1)
How science believers violate their own principles
– that is, the blind faith of science believers. As stated,
a science believer thinks that he is scientific and
rational, and that he is not overwhelmed by blind faith.
This attitude was illustrated by the aforementioned
statement by the freethinker V.T. Aaltonen, in which he
stated: "Let us also think about the unnatural state of
affairs that in our school we are trying to instill in
children and young people two completely opposite worldviews
and conceptions of life, religious and scientific."
Well-known for his denial of God, Richard Dawkins has also
separated his supposed scientific worldview from blind
faith, which he associates with religions:
Faith, by which is meant belief without a basis in evidence,
is the chief vice of all religions. (2)
Are science believers then consistent in their thinking? Was
I myself, as a science believer and an atheist, consistent
in that I myself had a completely scientific worldview, and
no "blind faith" at all? The direct answer is that I wasn't
consistent, and neither are Dawkins, nor anyone else
atheist. For when science believers and atheists accuse
others of unfounded faith, they themselves are guilty of the
same. They are guilty of unfounded faith in precisely one
area: the early stages of the universe and life.
E.g. there is not a single proof of the birth of life by
itself, yet science believers and atheists believe it
happened. It has been established that only life produces
life, and no exception has been found to this rule (a thing
that refers to the Creator and is evidence in favor of
theism, not atheism.) However, science believers and
atheists believe that life was born by itself, that is, they
have a blind and unfounded faith. V.T. Aaltonen, a
freethinker, has described his own faith as follows. He
admits that life on Earth has a beginning, but says its
genesis is a problem. Such faith is not based on facts, but
is blind faith. I used to be the same kind of blind faith
person as V.T. Aaltonen:
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. (3)
The birth of the universe by itself out of nothing (a thing
that is completely against the known laws of physics), the
birth of galaxies by itself, and the birth of the earth by
itself are similar unproven things as the birth of life by
itself. They have never been observed, but these theories
are blindly believed. Atheists are forced to do this because
in rejecting God's creation work, they have to look for
alternative explanations.
V.T. Aaltonen again gives a description of blind faith,
in which state I myself was before. He admits that there are
several theories and they are just assumptions, but he still
believes that everything was born by himself:
There are many different views and theories about the birth
of our planet, Solar System, and the galaxies, but all of
them are, more or less, assuming. In any case, the earth was
formed of blazing gas in the beginning, like our Sun, and
then it gradually cooled and condensed, until the planet
evolved to a state, where emergence of life was possible.
(4)
2. Naturalism isn’t science
- (Rom 1:18-23) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold
the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in
them; for God has showed it to them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation
of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so
that they are without excuse:
21 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.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an
image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four
footed beasts, and creeping things.
When I was a science believer and an atheist, I thought my
opinions represented science, reason, and critical thinking.
Instead, I now think that my opinions at that time
represented blind faith, absurdity, and that I did not want
to find out, that is, to investigate the validity of my
beliefs. The lack of thinking and that I was confident in my
views prevented me from gaining more information. For if a
person is self-assured in his views, as I myself was, and
several believers in science are, it is difficult to turn
their heads, because they do not even want to think about
opposing views. The purpose of science should be to find the
truth, but biases can be an obstacle to it.
Matti Leisola, who used to be an evolutionist himself,
tells an illustrative example. He has talked with hundreds
of scientists and has noticed how poorly the scientists have
familiarized themselves with the basics of the theory of
evolution. They have embraced evolution as part of Western
science education, but are unaware of the weaknesses of this
theory:
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.
(5)
How should a science believer proceed? As he generally
denies God's creation work, it would be worthwhile for him
to consider whether naturalistic genesis theories might be
true. Good starting points for the study include the
following points:
• Can anything be born out of nothing, as required by the
Big Bang theory? Not all scientists believe in this theory,
but consider it a fable and a lie. Here are some comments:
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 remarkably little discussion of whether or
not the big bang hypothesis is correct... 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)
Philosopher Roland Nash: …one does not need to be a theist
(one that believes in God) to see the problem in
understanding or accepting the belief that the universe came
into existence without any reason and out of nowhere.
(6)
• Can life arise from an inanimate substance like a rock?
Practice has shown that life can only be born from life, and
not a single exception to this rule has been found. So, if
life has a beginning, and life cannot arise by itself, isn't
the most logical option the living God, or the Creator, who
made the first animals and plants?
• If the theory of evolution is true, why is there no
evidence of gradual development in the fossils, as many
leading paleontologists have admitted? Fossils are the only
evidence of the past, and if they do not show gradual
development, the theory of evolution cannot be true. Even
Richard Dawkins admits that there is no evidence of gradual
development in fossils, but he still believes that evolution
happened. Isn't this exactly the blind and unfounded faith
that science believers and atheists accuse others of? I
personally consider it like that and I myself was in the
same state before.
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. (...) (7)
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.
(8)
Richard Dawkins: Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have known
that fossils arranged in chronological order are not a
series of small, barely noticeable changes. - - For example,
the Cambrian deposits from 600 million years ago are the
oldest, with fossils from most of the main periods of
vertebrates. Moreover, many of them are already quite
advanced. Since there are no earlier fossils, they seem to
have appeared in these strata out of nowhere... Regardless
of school of thought, all supporters of evolution are of the
opinion that at this point there is a gaping hole in fossil
discoveries. (9)
• If millions of years are true, then why have human
objects, and human remains, been discovered from “300
million-year-old” coal layers (Glashouver, W.J.J., So
entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, pp. 115-6; Bowden, M.,
Ape-men-Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, 1981;
Barnes, F.A., The Case of the Bones in Stone,
Desert/February, 1975, p. 36-39). In his book Time
Upside Down (1981) Erich A. von Frange has listed more
objects and human remains found from coal layers).
Coal also contains radiocarbon, of which official
half-life is only 5730 years. That is, there shouldn’t be
any remaining in million-year-old layers. However, it does
occur. Why has DNA (its half-life is even shorter than
that of radiocarbon) and radiocarbon also been found in
dinosaurs? This should not be possible if we are talking
about animals from 65 million years ago.
Fossils that are assumed to be very old are not usually
carbon-14 dated because they should not have any radiocarbon
left. The half-life of radioactive carbon is so short that
it has practically all decayed in less than 100,000 years.
In August 2012, a group of German researchers reported at
a meeting of geophysicists the results of carbon-14
measurements that had been made on many fossilized dinosaur
bone samples. According to the results, the bone samples
were 22,000-39,000 years old! At least at the time of
writing, the presentation is available on YouTube. (19)
How was the result 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 results are available
at https://newgeology.us/presentation48.html. The case shows
how the naturalistic paradigm affects. It is almost
impossible to get results that contradict it published in
the scientific community dominated by naturalism. It is more
likely that the raisins fly. (11)
Fossils older than 100,000 years should no longer contain
measurable amounts of radiocarbon, but dating laboratories
routinely find levels of 14C well above background levels in
fossils assumed to be many millions of years old. For
example, coal that lacks 14C has not been found at all, but
still this fossil fuel is estimated to be hundreds of
millions of years old. Using radioisotope methods suitable
for long periods, for fossils found in rocks dated to be
1-500 million years old, an average radiocarbon "age" of
about 50,000 years was obtained, which is far below the
measurement limit of modern carbon dating. Furthermore,
there was no younger-to-older pattern in the carbon dating
that correlated with evolutionist/uniformitarian "ages".
(12)
•
If there is fine-tuning, precise laws of nature and
emotions, personality, life and senses, isn't the most
likely option behind these things a living God who has
created everything? Such things do not arise by themselves
from inanimate matter like stone. Or has anyone noticed that
a stone suddenly becomes alive, begins to reproduce, begins
to eat, begins to feel sadness, love and joy, begins to
think, begins to move and begins to build houses or
airplanes?
Why, then, do science believers and atheists not accept God
as Creator? The main reason is the naturalistic worldview.
Although scientists admit that they have no evidence of
birth of life by itself or intermediate forms, and that they
see fine-tuning, precise laws of nature, and signs of
intelligent design in nature, they still hold to on to
naturalism. (Even Richard Dawkins has referenced in his book
The God Delusion, how nature looks designed, p. 153: The
reality based on observations is that every species and
every organ inside a species that so far has been examined
is good at what it does. The wings on birds, bees and bats
are good for flying. Eyes are good at seeing. Leaves are
good at photosynthesis. We live on a planet, where we are
surrounded by perhaps ten million species, which all
independently indicate a strong illusion of apparent design.
Every species fits well into its special lifestyle.”).
They stick to this worldview, despite practical observations
pointing to another direction. A biology professor gave out
a simple statement about this kind of view in the Nature
science magazine, which is one of the most well-known
science publications:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such
a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not
naturalistic (Nature, Sept. 30, 1999, p.423.)
It
is also characteristic of scientists that they combine a
naturalistic worldview with science. However,
naturalism/atheism is not science, nor is theism, but they
are views based on faith. They take a stand on God.
Naturalism/atheism does not believe in the existence of God;
in theism, the opposite is believed.
However, conclusions can be drawn based on the evidence. I
personally think that my own atheistic faith was "blind
faith" because it was on a weak and poorly reasoned basis.
Now I consider Christian theism to be the most reasonable
and truth-based worldview.
3. Rewriting history in the field of science
It
was stated above how things made by people, even human
remains, have been found in strata that have been considered
to be hundreds of millions of years old. Likewise,
radiocarbon has been found in coal deposits, which shows the
age of these deposits to be thousands of years at most.
These types of discoveries show that human history, like the
entire history of the Earth, is about the same age and that
it is only a matter of thousands, not millions of years.
Millions of years are true only on paper, but many practical
observations are against them.
What is the issue in this case? It’s about rewriting
history. This is also the issue in the assumption that
everything arose by itself from nothing, that life arose by
itself and that all species originate from the same
primordial cell. All these views are basically a rewriting
of history, changing the description of the history of the
earth and man.
What about the history of science? History has also been
rewritten in that area. A popular view, especially in
naturalistically-minded circles, is that the Christian faith
has been an obstacle to the development of science, but how
is it? We will try to familiarize ourselves with this in the
coming lines.
• Firstly, the birth of book languages and literacy.
Everyone understands that if a nation does not have its own
literary language and people cannot read, it is an obstacle
to the development of science, research, the birth of
inventions and the spread of knowledge. Then there are no
books, you can't read them, and knowledge doesn't spread.
Society remains in a stagnant state.
How, then, has the Christian faith influenced the
creation of literary languages and literacy? This is where
many researchers have a blind spot. They do not know that
almost all literary languages were created by pious
Christians. For example, here in Finland, Mikael Agricola,
Finnish religious reformer and father of literature, printed
the first ABC book and the New Testament and parts of other
books of the Bible. The people learned to read through them.
In numerous other nations in the Western world, development
has taken place through a similar process. If the Christian
faith had not existed, the development of Western societies
might have been delayed by centuries:
Christianity created the Western civilization.
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)
Before the ability to read is born, the written language
must therefore exist. In this sense, Christian missionaries
have played a key role, not only centuries ago in Western
countries, but also in Africa and Asia later. The following
examples refer to this. It is significant that even such
languages as Hindi, the main language of India, Urdu of
Pakistan, and Bengali of Bangladesh have got their grammar
and linguistic basis on the basis of Christian missionary
work. Hundreds of millions of people speak and use these
languages.
Vishal Mangalwadi: I grew up in the heart of Hindu language
in Allahabad, nearly 80 kilometers from Kashi, where
Tulsidas wrote Ramcharitmanasin, the most significant
religious epic of Northern India. I was constantly told that
Hindi originated from this great epic. But when I read it, I
got confused, because I could not understand a single phrase
from it. The writer’s “Hindi” was completely different from
mine and I started to question, where my mother tongue – the
official national language of India – originated from.
… Hindu scholars also did not develop India's national
language, Hindi. It is thanks to Bible translators such as
John Borthwick Gilchrist and missionary linguists such as
Rev. S.H.Kellogg that the current Hindi literary language
emerged from the language used by the poet Tulsidas (c.
1532-1623).
... Bible translators and missionaries gave more than my
mother tongue Hindi. All the living literary languages of
India testify to their work. In 2005, Dr. Babu Verghese, a
researcher from Mumbai but a native speaker of Malayalam,
submitted a 700-page doctoral dissertation to Nagpur
University for review. He showed that Bible translators
created the 73 present-day literary languages from
dialects spoken by mostly illiterate Indians. These included
the official national languages of India (Hindi), Pakistan
(Urdu) and Bangladesh (Bengali). Five Bramine scholars
studied Verghes' doctoral dissertation and awarded him the
title of Doctor of Philosophy in 2008. At the same time,
they unanimously recommended that, after publication, the
dissertation be adopted as a mandatory textbook for Indian
language studies. (14)
Christian missionary work has always been of a wide-ranging
nature of helping people, so that it has reached out to help
the sick, disabled, hungry, homeless and discriminated. In
numerous African countries, Christian missions have built
the foundation of the entire school system in terms of basic
and vocational education. Similarly, the mission has
contributed in a significant way to the formation of the
health care network... Well-known African researcher, Yale
University professor Lamin Sanneh has claimed that in
Africa, the missionaries have done the greatest service to
the local cultures by creating the basis of the written
language.
(15)
• Secondly, it is good to bring up the so-called scientific
revolution. It is often held in secularist and atheist
circles that this upheaval had nothing to do with the
Christian faith, but this view can be questioned. For in the
modern sense, science has only started once, that is, in the
Europe of the 16th-18th centuries,
where Christian theism prevailed. It did not start in a
secularist society, but specifically in a society inspired
by the Christian faith. Almost all leading scientists
believed in creation. Among them were Francis Bacon, Robert
Boyle, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo
Galilei, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, James Clerck
Maxwell, John Ray, Louis Pasteur, etc. They were not
representatives of the Enlightenment but of Christian
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. But while this campaign
has had a very significant effect on the intellectual world
in general, it seems to have had no effect on the scientists
themselves. The implementers of the scientific revolution
were known for their faith in God, and the tradition they
represented has continued in science. For example,
throughout almost the entire 19th century, doing science
remained as much a religious as a secular vocation – the
efforts to understand the work of God's hands continued.
(16)
• If a scientific revolution took place in 16th-18th
century Europe, what made it possible? One reason was the
universities, of which there were about sixty in Europe by
the year 1500. These universities were not universities
maintained by secularists and the state, but arose with the
active support of the medieval church, and natural science
research and astronomy played a prominent role in them. In
them there was considerable freedom of research and
discussion, which was favored. These universities had
hundreds of thousands of students, and they helped prepare
the ground for the scientific revolution to be possible in
Europe in the 16th-18th centuries.
This revolution did not suddenly arise out of nowhere, but
was preceded by favorable developments. Other continents did
not have the same extensive education and similar
universities as in Europe, because the Christian faith had
not gained the same place in them.
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.
(17)
Vishal Mangalwadi: In my home country, science was not
taught in Hindu ashrams and Buddhist monasteries. Why, then,
did Christian universities in Europe - religious
institutions as well - start to develop and teach them? It
became clear to Bible scholars that reading the "nature
book" is more important than reading books in Greek and
Latin. The latter were written by men, but the author of the
former was God. Paracelcus wrote that before getting to know
Galen, Avicenna and Aristotle, one should read the book of
nature, get to know the library "written, made and bound by
God himself".
(18)
• If the Christian faith has been a positive factor in the
development of science due to, among other things, the
development of literacy, where did the idea of the
confrontation between science and the Christian faith
originate? One of the reasons for this was certainly Charles
Darwin with his theories of evolution in the 1800s. This
theory, compatible with naturalism, is the main culprit in
this image. Richard Dawkins, too, has stated that before
Darwin's time, it would have been difficult for him to be an
atheist: "While atheism may have seemed logically valid
before Darwin, it was not until Darwin laid the foundation
for intellectually justified atheism" (19).
But as stated, Darwin's theory (namely in the form that
all current species originated from the same primordial
cell) is not real science because it contradicts the fossil
record. No gradual development can be seen in the fossils.
In addition, it should be noted that in his book On the
Origin of Species, Darwin did not present examples of
species changes, but only of variation and adaptation. They
are two different things. Variation, such as the size of the
bird's beak, the size of the wings, or the better resistance
of some bacteria, in no way proves that all current species
originated from the same original stem cell. The following
comments tell more about the topic. Darwin himself had to
admit that he had no examples of real species changes. In
this sense, it can be said that Darwin misled science:
Darwin:
I
am actually tired of telling people that I do not claim to
have any direct evidence of a species having changed into
another species and that I believe this view correct mainly
because so many phenomena can be grouped and explained based
on it.
(20)
Encyclopedia Britannica:
It must be emphasized that Darwin never claimed to have been
able to prove evolution or the origin of species. He claimed
that if evolution has taken place, many inexplicable facts
can be explained. The evidence supporting evolution is thus
indirect.
• As stated, the Christian faith greatly influenced the
birth of the scientific revolution. One reason for this was
the universities founded by the church. The claim that
atheists like to cultivate, namely that the Christian faith
would have been an obstacle to the development of science,
is therefore a great myth. This is also shown by the fact
that the countries where the Christian faith has had the
longest influence have been pioneers in the field of science
and research.
What about the notion that the church persecuted
scientists? Atheist circles want to maintain this concept,
but many historical researchers consider it a distortion of
history. (Few atheists in the West know that the greatest
persecution of science in history was in the atheist Soviet
Union. Several scientists, such as geneticists, were
imprisoned and some were killed because of their scientific
ideas.) This notion of the opposition between faith and
science only dates back to the end of the 19th
century, when writers who supported Darwin's theory, e.g.
Andrew Dickson White and John William Draper, brought it up
in their books. However, e.g. medieval researcher James
Hannam has stated:
Contrary to the common belief, church never supported the
idea of a flat earth, never disapproved of autopsies, and
for sure never burned anyone at the stake for their
scientific ideologies. (21)
Australian skeptic Tim O’Neill has taken a stance on this
claim and shows how little people actually know about
history: "It's not hard to kick this bullshit to pieces,
especially when the people talking about it know next to
nothing about history. They've just picked up these weird
ideas from websites and popular books. These claims fall
apart when they're hit with incontrovertible evidence. I
find it fun to poke fun at the propagandists perfectly by
asking them to name one - only one - scientist who was
burned at the stake or persecuted or oppressed for his
research in the Middle Ages. They can never name a single
one... At the point when I list the 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 Cusanus—and I ask why these men in all
peace advanced the science of the Middle Ages without the
church disturbing them, my opponents usually scratched
their heads in amazement, wondering what really went wrong."
(22)
What about Galileo Galilei, who debunked the idea that
the sun revolves around the earth? Many do not know that
this concept is not at all a Christian heritage, but was
inherited from antiquity. Behind it was the Greek scientist
Ptolemy and his works on astronomy. It influenced
astronomers for centuries:
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)
It is also important to note that representatives of both
science and faith were divided in their attitude towards
Galileo's theory. Some churchmen were on his side, others
against. Likewise, some scientists opposed his ideas. This
is always the case when new theories appear.
Understanding the heliocentric model may have felt, and
may still feel, counter to observations. For example,
almanacs and newspapers do not talk about the rising and
setting times of the earth, but of the sun. It seems to us
that the sun is moving, but the earth is standing still. We
don't feel the constant wind due to the movement or the
ground slipping away from under our feet. In this regard, it
is understandable that opinions on heliocentrism were
divided centuries ago. One of the reasons why Galileo
Galilei was in a better position than others was also the
telescope, which was the most powerful of his time and which
not everyone had. It was a new invention that contributed to
the emergence of the sun-centered model.
Why did Galileo fall out of favor with the Pope and put
under house arrest in his villa? One reason was Galileo's
own behavior. The Pope used to be a great admirer of
Galileo, but Galileo's tactless writing contributed to the
escalation of the situation. Ari Turunen has written about
the background of the matter:
Although Galileo Galilei is considered one of the great
martyrs of science, it must be remembered that he was not
very pleasant as a person. He was arrogant and easily
irritated, whined a lot and he lacked discretion and talent
to handle people.Thanks to his sharp tongue and humor, he
also had no shortage of enemies. Galileo's astronomical work
uses a dialogue format. The book introduces a less
intelligent character named Simplicius, who presents Galileo
with the most idiotic counterarguments. Galileo's enemies
managed to convince the Pope that Galileo had meant the Pope
with his figure of Simplicus. Only after this did the vain
and sensitive Urban VIII take action against Galileo...
...Urbanus considered himself a reformer and he agreed
to talk with Galileo, but Galileo's style was too much for
the Pope. Whether Galilei meant the Pope with his Simplicus
figure or not, the choice of name was unfathomably bad.
Galilei didn’t care for the basics of successful writing,
which includes respecting the reader. (23)
4. Scientism belief and moral
One of the features of a science believer is a high degree
of confidence in science and its ability to solve the
problems of mankind. There is a lot of truth in that.
Science can help and has helped solve many problems. For
example, advanced medicine can help those suffering from
diseases. Cars, trains and planes make it easier to get
around. Crop breeding has improved yields. Solar cells and
other technical inventions have made life easier. In
addition, there are hundreds of examples of how science has
been useful in terms of ordinary everyday life.
However, the worst things and inventions of humanity
have also been born through science: nuclear weapons,
conventional weapons, tanks, nerve gases, guillotines,
concentration camp gas chambers, etc. These things have also
been born through science, so science in itself is not a
positive thing. It can be used for both good and bad
purposes. It is a similar thing to politics, where there are
both good and bad examples of rulers' actions. Politicians
can do a lot of good but also a lot of bad.
So what determines the behavior of scientists and
politicians? It's morals and what they believe. If they
believe that there is no right and wrong, and that they are
not accountable to anyone for their actions, that opens the
door to injustice. For example, Christianity is bound by
ethical guidance (Mark 10:19: You know the commandments,
Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not
bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor your father and
mother.) and belief in judgment after this life, whereas
naturalism and atheism has neither.
The horrors of the last century are a good example of the
actions of politicians, scientists and ordinary people. It
is often thought that people were different back then, but
that is certainly not true. Instead, a better explanation is
that Europe became secularized and the leaders no longer had
an attachment to the Christian faith (E.g. Stalin's
biography tells how Stalin became an atheist one day.
Similarly, Joseph Goebbels's diary entries on December 29,
1939 contain the following mention of Hitler's attitudes:
"The Führer is deeply religious , but completely opposed to
Christianity. He sees Christianity as a symptom of
decadence. And so it is. It is a branch of the Jewish race.
You can see it in the similarities of the rituals." (24)
They did not respect God and did not believe that they were
responsible for their actions. They did not believe that God
sees and watches their actions, and it led to known
consequences. David Berlinski gives us an illustrative
example of the last century and what secular society means.
When people begin to think there is no God who can see what
they’re doing and to whom they are accountable for their
actions, the possible consequence are the horrendous acts of
the 20th century:
Somewhere in Eastern Europe, an SS officer with a submachine
gun in his lap watched impassively as an aged and bearded
Hasidic Jew painstakingly dug a hole that he knew was his
own grave. Straightening up, he addressed his executioners:
"God sees what you do." And then he was shot dead.
What Hitler didn't believe, what Stalin didn't believe,
and what Mao didn't believe, and what the SS didn't believe,
and what the Gestapo didn't believe, and what the Soviet
secret police didn't believe, and what the commissars,
functionaries, rampaging executioners, Nazi doctors,
Communist Party theoreticians, intellectuals, what the brown
shirts, black shirts, regional leaders and thousands of
political workers didn't believe was that God was watching
what they did.
And as far as we know, very few of those who carried out
the horrors of the 20th century cared much that God was
watching what they were doing.
After all, this is what a secular society means. (25)
Trust in science is therefore unfounded. Science itself will
not solve worldly problems if politicians and scientists are
guided by selfish morality. The horrors of the last century
can be repeated again and even worse, because today's
weapons of destruction are many degrees more sophisticated
and powerful than those of the last century. For example,
Hitler and other leaders of that time would certainly have
used today's weapons if they had been available to them. The
end of humanity might have been much closer if they had had
access to weapons like the ones we have today. Development
work to improve the effectiveness of weapons was already
done back then, but luckily the development was not as
advanced as it is today.
In which direction is development going? One worrying
feature of the Western countries is that they are similar to
the 1920-1930s, when people didn’t want God to be a part of
society anymore. The "scientists" of that time strongly
attacked the belief in God, denying his existence. They
explained that modern science – mainly Darwin's theory –
makes belief in God impossible. It was also characteristic
of the time that people separated from the churches to a
large extent.
The following quote from a book published in 1934, i.e.
just five years before the Second World War, shows the
development in Europe at that time and how ungodly ideas won
the field in people's minds. This is like a description of
today's Western countries, where atheistic ideas and
thoughts are heavily featured in the media:
From time to time, there have been mass movements of
abandoning the church in several countries after the war.
Thus, in Germany in 1920, 305,000 people left the
evangelical churches. This escape from the church has
continued. In 1930, in Berlin alone, 59,225 persons
renounced the Lutheran Church, not to mention those
Catholics and Jews who abandoned the faith of their
fathers... We need not say much about the spread of
blasphemous ideas in the 20th century. Suffice it to say
that the number of those who publicly confess or tacitly
accept the absolute non-existence of God has increased
immeasurably. Some men who are considered scholars claim
that modern science makes belief in God impossible. They
either completely stop believing in God or present that
"science requires a new understanding of God". This denial
of God begins among children at school. In some cities,
thousands of 6-14 year old children, starting from
elementary school, have walked the streets carrying the
following posters: "“God out of schools”, “Take down
God-superstitions”, " Religion is an anesthetic” etc.
(26)
|
Where does the human ability to do science come from?
As stated, a science believer holds science in high esteem. He can point
to great inventions and technological advances made by humans, and he's
certainly right about that. But where does the ability of humans to make
inventions and progress in the field of technology come from? There are
only two options for this.
• The first is a naturalistic explanation, meaning that human intellectual
abilities have developed on the basis of chance and natural selection.
They originate from the most primitive animals or even from the Big Bang,
i.e. a state where there was guaranteedly no life, emotions or reason. It
had none of these typical human qualities.
• Another option is that God, who is living, sentient and has reason,
created the first human pair. Man was made in God's image and therefore
man has reason and other qualities that enable inventions and science.
- (Gen 1:27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
So which is the more likely option? Does man's reason come from an
irrational state or has God given man this quality?
This is easy to answer. Reason must come from God's creation work,
because inanimate matter cannot become alive by itself - this is a result
confirmed by science. An inanimate substance like a rock can change into
solid, liquid and gas through temperature changes, but nothing else
happens. It does not give rise to life, which is the lifeblood of reason.
Therefore, the only alternative to human characteristics is God's creation
work. Human reason exists because a thinking God existed before man and
created everything.
The difference between man and animals is also an indication that man
is different from the rest of creation, i.e. he was created in the image
of God. Animals do not make similar technical inventions: build moon
rockets, fly airplanes, design super-fast cars, watch videos on a
smartphone, or build skyscrapers hundreds of meters high. Only humans have
the ability for these inventions. Therefore, the greater the difference
between man and animals, the better it proves true the Bible's teaching
that man was created in the image of God. |
TAKE A STEP CLOSER TO GOD!
- (1 Tim 6:20,21) O Timothy, keep that which is committed to
your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and
oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.
Grace be with you. Amen.
- (2 Tim 4:3,4) For the time will come when they will
not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts
shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth,
and shall be turned to fables.
Above, we have discussed the belief in science in the lives
of science believers and atheists. It manifests itself
especially in an attitude where scientific knowledge is
contrasted with a faith-based worldview.
But as stated, the science believers themselves are in
the grip of blind faith in one area: the beginning of the
universe and life. They believe in theories of the origin of
the universe and life, for which no proper evidence can be
found. It is a question of naturalistic imagination stories
and fairy tales, because practical observations are strongly
against these assumptions. The evidence points in the
opposite direction, i.e. God's work of creation. Neither of
these views - naturalistic and theistic - can be proven
after the fact, just like other historical events, but
theism is a much more logical alternative to the existence
of the universe, life, emotions and intelligence. Naturalism
is a bad option in this area.
Here is the paradox. Many believers in science may be
intelligent and reasonable in other areas of their lives,
but when it comes to God's creation work and relationship
with God and the forgiveness of sins, they are ignorant and
blind. They don't always even want to find out, and that can
prevent them from finding the truth. For only “he that
seeks finds; and to him that knocks it shall be opened.”
(Matt 7:8), but if a person rejects everything in advance,
as the science believers tend to do, he will certainly not
find out the truth.
Dear reader! Therefore, don't fall under the power of
lies, but turn to a loving God! Confess your sins to him and
tell him that you want to surrender your whole life to him!
Do like the prodigal son in Jesus' parable! When he turned
to his father, he received him with a gentle kiss:
-
(Luke 15:17-20) And when he came to himself, he said, How
many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to
spare, and I perish with hunger!
18
I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him,
Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before you,
19
And am no more worthy to be called your son: make me as one
of your hired servants.
20
And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was
yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion,
and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
-
(1 John 1:9) If we confess our sins, he is faithful
and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us
from all unrighteousness.
Above all, understand that you also need a mediator and a
savior because of your sins! Jesus is this mediator and the
only way to God. When you turn to Him and welcome Him as the
Lord of your life, you will receive the gift of forgiveness
of sins and eternal life:
- (John 5:39,40) Search the scriptures; for in them you
think you have eternal life: and they are they
which testify of me.
40 And you will not come to me, that you might have
life.
- (Acts 13:38) Be it known to you therefore, men and
brothers, that through this man is preached to you the
forgiveness of sins
So,
if you have turned to Jesus Christ and received Him in your
life, you are a child of God and have eternal life. You have
the eternal life regardless of what you feel right now. Do
not base your assurance of salvation on your ever-changing
emotions, but rest in the word of the Bible and on Jesus
Christ, just like the anchor of a ship is never thrown
inside the ship but always outside.
- (John 1:12) But as many as received him, to them
gave he power to become the sons of God, even to
them that believe on his name
- (1 John 5:11-13) And this is the record, that God has
given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that has the Son has life; and he that
has not the Son of God has not life.
13 These things have I written to you that believe on the
name of the Son of God; that you may know that you have
eternal life, and that you may believe on the name of the
Son of God.
The prayer of salvation:
Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned
against You and have not lived according to Your will.
However, I want to turn away from my sins and follow You
with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been
forgiven through Your atonement and I have received eternal
life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You
have given me. Amen.
References:
1.
V.T. Aaltonen: Miksi en ole kristitty, p. 6,199,200
2. Richard Dawkins: Is Science a Religion?, The
humanist.
January/February 1997
3.
V.T. Aaltonen: Miksi en ole kristitty, p. 22
4.
V.T. Aaltonen: Miksi en ole kristitty, p. 22
5.
Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p. 187
6. Ronald Nash: ”Miracles and Conceptual Systems”,
Douglas Geivettin & Gary Habermasin (toim.)
in book
In
Defence of Miracles
(Grand Rapids, IVP, 1997),
p. 122
7. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988),
p.
182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
8. Niles Eldredge (1985): “Evolutionary Tempos and
Modes: A Paleontological Perspective” teoksessa Godrey (toim.) What Darwin
Began: Modern Darwinian and non-Darwinian Perspectives on Evolution
9. Richard Dawkins: Sokea kelloseppä,
p. 240,241
10.
Creation.com
11.
Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p.146
12. Kysymyksiä ja vastauksia luomisesta (The Creation Answers
Book, Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland),
p. 85
13.
Rodney Stark: The victory of reason. How Christianity led to freedom,
capitalism and Western Success. New York, Random House (2005),
p. 233
14. Vishal Mangalwadi: Kirja, joka muutti maailmasi (The
Book that Made Your World),
p. 181,182,186
15.
Usko, toivo ja terveys, p. 143, article of Risto A. Ahonen
16. Rodney Stark, (2004),
p. 172
17.
James Hannam: The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages
Launched the Scientific Revolution
18. Vishal Mangalwadi: Kirja, joka muutti maailmasi (The
Book that Made Your World),
p. 265
19. Richard Dawkins: Sokea kelloseppä,
p. 20
20. Darwin, F & Seward A. C.
edited,
(1903, 1: 184): More letters of Charles Darwin. 2 vols. London: John Murray.
21.
James Hannam: The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages
Launched the Scientific Revolution
22. O'Neill, T., The Dark Age Myth: An atheist reviews
God's Philosophers, strangenotions.com, 17 October 2009
23.
Ari Turunen: Ei onnistu, p. 201,202
24.
Goebbelsin päiväkirja 29.121939, citation in F. Taylor (edited)
The Goebbels Diaries, 1939-1941, Lontoo, Hamish Hamilton,
p. 77
25. David Berlinski: The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and
its Scientific Pretensions (2008),
p. 26,27
26.
L.H. Christian: Kylvöä ja satoa, p. 114,115
More on this topic:
Questions for those who
doubt or oppose the Christian faith
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
Scientific view of the world. Atheist often claim to have a
scientific worldview. However, this worldview is based on
faith and contradicts the evidence
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
