Magic word
A fundamentalist is a magic word that many use to reject God. They think they are scientific, even though their view is based on faith
Summary
The article analyzes unproven assumptions and the definition of scientific validity through the following core points:
1. The role of faith in origins: Both the atheistic theory of evolution and creation involve elements of faith, as the origin of the universe and life cannot be observed after the fact in a laboratory.
2. Scientific validity and perceptions: The atheistic model is often erroneously considered the only scientific option, even though the evidence does not support spontaneous origin.
3. The use of the word 'fundamentalist': The word is often used as a labeling magic word to silence creation believers and divert attention away from the atheistic model's own assumptions.
4. Direction of the evidence: Real empirical evidence points strongly toward creation, not toward the atheistic model where everything is assumed to have originated and developed by itself without an external agent.
Contents:
Next, there are some writings published in the opinion column of Finnish newspapers. They deal with science and faith, and indicate how a worldview can guide research and how faith is possible in the field of science just as as in spiritual life.
The next article was published in the newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat on March 31, 2009:
Magic word
Mister X s spoke about evolution and creationism, and was frustrated by that some do not believe in evolution.
I myself can tell that I have collided with the same wall, when I have acted from an opposite viewpoint, i.e. from the belief in creation, and when I have tried to prove it sensible among other things on my website. Formerly I thought that if you try to bring out the facts as logically and convincingly as possible, then people are winnable, but now I understand that it is not that simple. It just won't work. Instead, the conversation usually ends at the latest when the evolutionist brings up an arrogant smile and utters the magic word: "fundamentalist", and so the believer in creation leaves the situation discouraged. This usually happens.
I think that both viewpoints are based on faith, i.e., we believe in either creation or evolution. Neither of them cannot be properly proven, simply because we cannot bring back the past conditions. It is impossible because we cannot go to the past to check how it actually went. We can only draw conclusions on grounds of the information we have, and I myself think that the information much better fits the creation model.
Jari Iivanainen
The next article was published in the newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat on May 12, 2008:
Faith and common sense
On April 27, there was an article in ESS that dealt with the position of creation in schools and considered believing in it to be unscientific, as "wise people" usually do.
But what is scientific and what is faith? Paul directly said in Hebrews that “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Hebr 11:3), that is, he recognized the role of faith in understanding things. He said that only by faith can we understand how everything was created out of nothing.
However, those who believe in random beginnings and evolution are also 100% dependent on faith. This is a fact that cannot be denied. For when it comes to the foundation of the theory of evolution, that is, the Big Bang and the birth of life by itself, neither can be proven in the laboratory, but they are based on faith in people's minds. Attempts have been made to achieve the latter in laboratories, but it has been a complete failure. No scientist has been able to get even near to solving the origin of life, i.e., people believe in it even though practical observations do not support it. The belief is only in the people’s minds. As a matter of fact, many so-called scientific issues are based on faith like the spiritual life and faith in the supernatural God. The question is: which of the alternatives do we deem more realistic – the belief in birth of life by itself or God's creation work – because neither of them cannot be properly proven afterwards.
In this matter, it is good to use common sense, because that way you can get at least a little forward. So when you ask an ordinary citizen, how possible does he deem the notion that a new universe like the present one - with dozens of billions galaxies, hundreds of billions stars, a sun like the present one, the planets, sea and water, the rocks, humans, the birds, elephants, mosquitoes and so on - could be born, for example, from an ordinary chip of a stone (in the big bang theory, it is assumed that everything came from a space the size of a pinhead), so what would he answer? How sane would he consider the whole thing when he had a stone chip in his hand? Wouldn't he probably respond like this:
- Don't talk crazy, that's an absolutely impossible idea. Such cannot be born from a small stone. How could anyone believe in such foolishness?”
Jari Iivanainen
Questions of origins are not merely a matter of empirical science; they always involve a significant element of faith. Since no one was present to witness the beginning of the universe or life, the atheistic evolutionary model is also fundamentally a faith-based system. Both sides interpret the evidence visible in the present through their own starting assumptions and faith.
The atheistic model is often mistakenly equated with scientific validity, even though it rests on unproven assumptions. The notion that matter, the universe, and complex life arose and developed entirely by themselves without an intelligent Creator contradicts known laws of nature. It is rather a materialistic philosophy than pure empirical science.
The word 'fundamentalist' is often used as a kind of magic word and label intended to dismiss the creation model without real arguments. This concept aims to create an impression of unscientific fanaticism so that the public does not notice the serious scientific shortcomings of the atheistic model. It serves as a means to divert attention away from the substance of the arguments.
Actual observations from nature and empirical evidence point strongly toward creation rather than the atheistic model. The vast amount of digital information contained within cells, the mathematical precision of the universe, and the complex structures of life require a source of information and design. No known natural process shows that such information or order could arise by itself out of nothing.
This perception is widely maintained across society, educational institutions, and the media, leading people to take it for granted. When alternative viewpoints are silenced through magic words and labeling, people are left with false impressions. This prevents many from seeing how much more logical and consistent with observations a creation-based worldview actually is.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is the role of faith in questions regarding the origin of the universe and life?
Is the atheistic model of everything originating spontaneously truly scientific?
How and why is the word 'fundamentalist' used in the debate?
Which direction does the actual evidence point: toward creation or the atheistic model?
Why is the perception of the superiority of the atheistic model so prevalent?
I used to be a science believer. Scholars think their positions represent science, reason, and critical thinking. However, they resort to faith in explaining the origin of everything
