Questions for the doubter and naysayer
Questions for those who doubt or oppose the Christian faith
Where did the
universe come from? Nothing can come from nothing and arise
by itself. It is a mathematical impossibility
Where did life come
from? Only life can give rise to life, and no exceptions
have been found to this rule. This clearly points to God in
the case of the first forms of life.
Where are the
semi-finished organs and intermediate forms? It is important
to distinguish between evolution and evolution. Changes and
adaptations are true, but gradual development and
semi-finished organs and intermediate forms have never been
observed in fossils. There are no examples of this in
natural history museums, and several prominent
paleontologists deny gradual development.
Many people who
reject God believe in millions of years. They think it
proves that God did not create and that the theory of
evolution is true, even though millions of years in
themselves are not at all proof for this theory.
Radioactive measurements of rocks
have often been used as evidence of millions of years, but
these measurements are questionable. There is a simple
reason for this: these methods have been tested on materials
that are known to have crystallized very recently, i.e.
within the current generation. However, the measurements
have been able to give results of millions or tens of
millions of years, which proves that these measurements
should not be trusted.
Millions of years are also refuted by radiocarbon dating.
When radiocarbon is found consistently in fossils of all
ages (on the evolutionary scale): Cambrian fossils,
dinosaurs, and other organisms that have been considered
ancient, it cannot be a question of millions of years. Nor
has any coal been found that lacks radiocarbon (Lowe,
DC, Problems associated with use of coal as a source of 14 C
free background material, Radiocarbon 31(2):117-120,1989). These
findings prove millions of years to be a lie.
One
reason why people reject God and the Christian faith is the
idea that the Bible is not a historical book. This is where
they are wrong. There are hundreds of pieces of evidence for
the historicity of the Bible: dozens
of Old and New Testament characters mentioned in other
sources ,
excavated cities, and accurate archaeological and
geographical information.
Furthermore, the flood is an easily substantiated fact
because there are hundreds of flood descriptions around the
world in addition to the Bible, and because remains of
marine life are found on all high mountains – including
Mount Everest in the Himalayas.
One
reason why people reject God is that they consider their own
morals to be better than the morals that Jesus and the
apostles represented. This is especially evident in the
issues of sex and gender or abortion, which have been the
subject of controversy in recent decades. People think that
they are loving and progressive when they have a positive
attitude towards these issues. However, Jesus and the
apostles were certainly more loving than people today. They
also loved their enemies. This is evident in their speeches,
lives and writings, where, for example, the apostles urged
people to avoid all wrongdoing and to love others.
So
the question is not about the amount of love, but that the
line between right and wrong has shifted in modern times in
moral matters. Things that were previously considered
clearly wrong are now accepted. Because of this attitude,
many reject God, Jesus, and eternal life.
I have thought many times about why people reject God and
Jesus. Why do they despise eternal life; the thing that is
the most important and valuable to me? Why are they not at
all interested in it? This has puzzled my mind and I have
often wondered about it.
Of course, Paul wrote in his time”But the natural man
receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are
foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they
are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14). This verse
seems to be very true. Because how common it is that
spiritual things and turning to God are completely strange
to most people, and they don't even want to think about
these things. They have a prejudice where they have locked
the door of their heart, to inside which God and Jesus have
no business. This lock is almost impossible to open because
people are so bound by their preconceived notions. I
personally consider these attitudes and thoughts to be
satan's lies with which he tries to prevent people from
being saved.
In any case, the following there are some questions for
doubters and naysayers, that is, those who doubt the
validity of the Christian faith or who directly reject Jesus
and God. If you are such a person, the following lines are
for you. Are you ready to think about the validity of the
Christian faith, or do you reject this matter roundly?
1. Do you
deny the existence of God because you believe that the
universe and life arose spontaneously, and that the gradual developmen of
the theory of evolution from a primordial cell is true?
The first question is related to the existence of God. When
I myself lived as an atheist, I denied the existence of God.
I acted like atheists act and considered myself very
intelligent when I didn't believe in God. However, there are
many proofs for the existence of God, if you look for them.
I only bring up creation, that is, the existence of the
universe and life. For example, Paul referred to it as
clearly showing the existence of God:
- (Rom 1:18-20) 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:
Why then can the existence of God be deduced from the
creation? The answer is simple: no atheist scientist has a
scientific explanation for why the universe and life exist.
They are deadlocked on three issues:
1. Where did the universe come from?
The first problem is the existence of the universe? Where
did galaxies, stars, planets and moons come from if there
was no Creator? Even atheist scientists admit that these
heavenly bodies have not always existed, but have a
beginning. Thus, they have suggested that they originated
from empty when "nothing" exploded in the so-called Big Bang.
However, this is an absolutely impossible idea, because it
is impossible to take anything from nothing. Then we go
against the laws of science. Among others, David Berlinski
has stated on the subject:
”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)
2. Where did life come from?
Another problem is the existence of life. If you believe
that life arose by itself, how do you prove this? Attempts
have been made to solve this issue for decades, but atheist
scientists are at an impasse. The reason is simple: only
life can create life, and it cannot be created in any other
way. No exceptions to this rule have been found. This
clearly refers to God for the first life forms. Or if you
don't believe in God's creation, why don't you present
evidence to the contrary? Don't try to make up imaginary
stories about how life arose by itself, when there is not a
single piece of evidence to support this. Even several
atheist scientists have been honest enough to admit that
life cannot arise by itself. Only God could have created
life on earth.
3. Where are the semi-finished organs?
The third problem is related to the theory of evolution,
which atheist scientists believe in. They think that all
plants and animals today, including humans, came from the
same primordial cell. (E.g. Darwin and the atheist
scientists who follow him are indeed right that species
change within the framework of their heredity, and selection
made by man (breeding) can influence the appearance of
organisms. However, such change has nothing to do with the
actual theory of evolution, in which all modern species are
believed to have inherited from the same primordial cell.
Modification has clear limits that cannot be crossed.
Decades of mutation experiments and selection made by man,
i.e. breeding, have brought these limits to the fore, and no
evidence of the birth of new information, which the theory
of evolution requires, has just been observed.)
What is the practical evidence? If the theory of
evolution is true, we should see millions of semi-finished
organs and intermediate forms. Instead, if God created
everything, the current species as well as the fossil
species should be fully developed and ready.
Which of these views is true? There is no ambiguity
about this. All current and fossil species have always been
found ready and developed. This clearly refers to God's work
of creation and how everything was made complete right away.
Even Richard Dawkins, a noted atheist, admits that every
species and every organism in every species that has been
studied so far is good at what it does. Such an observation
fits poorly with the theory of evolution, but well with the
creation model:
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.
(1)
When modern species are fully finished and perfect, the same
is true for fossils. They have always been found ready, not
half-finished. The fossils found in the soil show no signs
of the gradual development required by the theory of
evolution. This is remarkable because at least one hundred
million fossils have been excavated from the earth. Stephen
Jay Gould, perhaps the most famous paleontologist (atheist)
of our time, has admitted: ”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. (...)” (The
Panda’s Thumb, 1988, p. 182,183).
If the theory of evolution is true, why is there no
evidence of intermediate forms in natural history museums
either? These museums should have the evidence for the
existence of intermediate forms that the theory of evolution
requires, but they do not, as the following quotes show:
Dr. Etheridge, world-famous curator of the British Museum: In
this whole museum, there is not even the smallest thing that
would prove the origin of species from intermediate forms.
The theory of evolution is not based on observations and
facts. As comes to speaking about the age of the human race,
the situation is the same. This museum is full of evidence
showing how mindless these theories are. (2)
None of the officials in five large paleontological museums
can present even one simple example of an organism that
could be regarded as a piece of evidence of gradual
evolution from one species to another. (Dr. Luther
Sunderland’s summary in his book Darwin's enigma. He
interviewed many representatives of natural history museums
for this book and wrote to them aiming at finding out what
sort of evidence they had to prove evolution. [3])
The following statement continues on the same subject. The
late Dr Colin Patterson was a senior paleontologist and
fossil expert at the British Museum (Natural History). He
wrote a book about evolution - but when someone asked him
why his book didn’t have any pictures of intermediate forms
(organisms in transition), he wrote the following answer. In
his reply, he refers to Stephen J. Gould, perhaps the most
famous paleontologist in the world (bold added):
I agree completely with your opinion concerning the lack of
illustrations in my book about organisms which are
evolutionarily in the transitional stage. If I were
conscious of any such, of a fossil or of living, I would
have willingly included them in my book.
You propose that I should use an artist to illustrate such
intermediate forms but from where would he get information
for his drawings? Honestly saying, I could not offer him
this information, and if I should leave the matter for an
artist, would it not lead the reader astray?
I wrote the text of my book four years ago [in the book
he tells that he believes in some intermediate forms]. If I
were to write it now, I think that the book would be rather
different. Gradualism (changing gradually) is a concept in
which I do believe. Not just because of the prestige of
Darwin but because my comprehension of the genetics seems to
require it. However, it is difficult to claim against
[famous fossil expert Stephen J.] Gould and other people of
the American museum when they say that there are no
intermediate forms. As a palaeontologist, I work much
with philosophical problems when recognizing ancient forms
of organisms from the fossil material. You say that I
should also at least 'present a photo of a fossil, from
which the certain organism group evolved.' I speak directly
– there is no fossil that would be a watertight piece of
evidence. (4)
2. Do you believe in millions of years?
Many people who reject God believe in millions of years.
They think it proves the theory of evolution correct, even
though millions of years in itself is no evidence for this
theory at all. It was already stated above that the evidence
from fossils and modern species does not fit the theory of
evolution but creation. Furthermore, the birth of life is
only possible through God.
Can
millions of years be proven right? Can not. They are most
commonly based on radioactive measurements of rocks, but it
is questionable to trust these measurements. What is causing
this? The reason is simple: these methods have been tested
in practice on substances known to have crystallized very
recently, but the results of the measurements have not
supported this (recent crystallization).
One example is the lava fields of the Mt Ngaurruhoe
volcano in New Zealand, which were created by eruptions in
the 20th century. They are therefore supported by eyewitness
observations.
What did the measurements show? Samples of these rocks
were sent for dating to one of the most respected commercial
dating laboratories (Geochron Laboratories, Cambridge,
Massachusetts). What were the results? Here is a summary of
them:
• In the potassium-argon method, the age of eleven samples
varied between 270,000 and 3.5 million years
• The rubidium-strontium isochron gave an age of 133 million
years
• The samarium-neodymium isochron gave an age of 197 million
years
• The lead-lead isochron gave an age of 3.9 billion years,
even though the age of the samples was less than a hundred
years. The error is therefore several billion years. This
last method is so significant that the age of the earth was
calculated at 4.5 billion years with the same method.
This age was obtained by Claire Patterson in 1956 from
meteorites, on the basis of which the age of the Earth was
deduced.
What can be concluded from the above? The examples show that
if radioactivity measurements are not reliable when the time
of crystallization is known, how can they be reliable when
it is not known? It is not wise to trust methods if they
have been tested to be completely unreliable in practice.
What about radiocarbon measurements? This method differs
from other methods in that the measurements are not made of
rocks but of organic samples (remains of plants and animals).
Also, the official half-life of radiocarbon is only 5730
years, so there shouldn't be any left after 100,000 years.
What do the measurements show? Measurements have been
made for decades and show an important fact: radiocarbon
(14C) is found in fossils from all eras (according to the
evolutionary scale): Cambrian fossils, dinosaurs and other
organisms that have been considered ancient. Also, no coal
has been found that lacks radiocarbon (Lowe, D.C.,
Problems associated with use of coal as a source of 14C free
background material, Radiocarbon 31(2):117-120,1989).
The measurements give approximately the same ages for all
the samples, so it is reasonable to believe that all
organisms have been on earth at the same time, and it is by
no means millions of years ago.
The conclusion from the radiocarbon measurements is
simple. When this substance is found in organisms of all
eras, including dinosaurs, as well as carbon deposits, life
could have existed on Earth for only a few millennia. This
is the most reasonable conclusion based on the measurements.
Another brief reference to dinosaurs, which are said to
have lived millions of years ago.
However, if millions of years are true, why are from
dinosaurs, which are considered the best representatives of
millions of years, found materials that should not have
survived for millions of years. Radiocarbon, whose official
half-life is only 5730 years, has been found in dinosaur
fossils
(https://newgeology.us/presentation48.html).
DNA, whose half-life has been calculated as only 521 years
(yle.fi > Uutiset > Tiede, 13.10.2012, DNA:n säilyvyyden
takaraja selvisi – haaveet dinosaurusten kloonaamisesta
raukesivat), has been found on them [Sarfati, J. DNA
and bone cells found in dinosaur bone, J. Creation(1):10-12,
2013; creation.com/dino-dna, 11 december 2012].
Similarly, blood cells [Morell, V., Dino DNA: The Hunt
and the Hype, Science 261 (5118): 160-162, 1993], soft
tissues and proteins have been found in dinosaurs [Schweitzer,
M. and 6 others, Biomolecular characterization and protein
sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis, Science
324 (5927): 626-631, 2009]. They should not survive for
more than 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, [1379]).
Why do People's old folk tales also repeatedly talk about
dinosaur-like Dragons as normal animals? (the name
dinosaur was invented only in 1841 by Richard Owen) The
World Book Encyclopedia has referred to these accounts:
”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.”
What can be concluded from the above? It's pointless to
talk about millions of years, because dozens of dinosaur
fossils point to a short age, like the references to dragons
in human tradition. Dinosaur fossils don't have age labels,
but at least they can't be more than 65 million years old.
Several of them are at least as well preserved as the
mammoths, so there is reason to believe that the millions of
years are a lie. They can't be true.
3. Do you doubt the historicity of the Bible?
One reason people reject God and the Christian faith is the
perception that the Bible is not a historical book. Here,
too, the background is very much the theory of evolution and
millions of years. It is thought to invalidate the history
of the Bible, especially its first chapters.
But but. As stated, the theory of evolution with it's
millions of years is a lie. That is not true, because life
cannot arise by itself and because all species have always
been found completely ready and developed, as is to be
expected if God created everything. He did not create
half-finished organisms, but completely finished ones. And
half-finished organisms could not even survive or reproduce.
They would immediately become extinct if their structures
were not functional.
However, there are hundreds of proofs for the historicity
of the Bible. For example, the Flood is an easy thing to
justify. The reason is that around the world, in the
folklore of peoples, almost 500 Flood stories have been
found. Taken together, these accounts from around the world,
although they vary somewhat, are compelling evidence.
Another similar evidence is the remains of marine life found
in all the high mountains. They are found in the Himalayas,
Alps, Andes and other high mountain ranges. Below are a
couple of quotes from the scientists' own books. If this
evidence of the remains of marine life in the high mountains
is not sufficient evidence for the Flood, what is?
While travelling on the Beagle Darwin himself found
fossilized seashells from high up on the Andean Mountains.
It shows that, what is now a mountain was once under water. (Jerry
A. Coyne: Miksi evoluutio on totta [Why evolution is true],
p. 127)
There is a reason to look closely at the original nature of
the rocks in mountain ranges. It is best seen in the Alps,
in the lime Alps of the northern, so-called Helvetian zone.
Limestone is the main rock material. When we look at the
rock here on the steep slopes or at the top of a mountain -
if we had the energy to climb up there - we will eventually
find fossilized animal remains, animal fossils, in it. They
are often badly damaged but it is possible to find
recognizable pieces. All those fossils are lime shells or
skeletons of sea creatures. Among them there are
spiral-threaded ammonites, and especially a lot of
double-shelled clams. (…) The reader might wonder at this
point what it means that mountain ranges hold so many
sediments, which can also be found stratified in the bottom
of the sea. (p.
236,237 "Muuttuva maa", Pentti Eskola)
Harutaka Sakai from the Japanese University in Kyushu has
for many years researched these marine fossils in the
Himalayan Mountains. He and his group have listed a whole
aquarium from the Mesozoic period. Fragile sea lilies,
relatives to the current sea urchins and starfishes, are
found in rock walls more than three kilometers above sea
level. Ammonites, belemnites, corals and plankton are found
as fossils in the rocks of the mountains (…)
At an altitude of two kilometers, geologists found a
trace left by the sea itself. Its wave-like rock surface
corresponds to the forms that remain in the sand from
low-water waves. Even from the top of Everest, yellow strips
of limestone are found, which arose under water from the
remains of countless marine animals. ("Maapallo
ihmeiden planeetta", p. 55)
There is plenty of other evidence for the Bible's
historicity. It manifests itself in the fact that dozens of
figures from the Old and New Testaments - kings, prophets,
apostles, not to mention Jesus - are mentioned in other
sources and archaeological finds. It is pointless to claim
that it is not about historical events and persons, because
other sources refer to the same things.
A.N. Sherwin-White, a researcher of the classical era who
has been regarded as the pre-eminent expert of Roman law,
wrote about the reliability of the Acts of the Apostles (Roman
Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1963, p. 173). He states that
attempts to deny its reliability are absurd. Luke, who wrote
the Acts of the Apostles, also wrote one of the Gospels:
The historical accuracy of the Acts has proven to be
amazing. (…) All attempts to deny the fundamental
historicity of Acts, even in small details, now seem
necessarily preposterous. Scholars of Roman history have
long taken it for granted.
The well-known archaeologist Nelson Glueck has also written
(Rivers of the desert, 1959, p. 31) about archeology related
to the Bible.
He shows how archaeological discoveries confirm the
historical reliability of the Bible:
Absolutely and certainly speaking, not a single
archaeological finding has ever questioned any passage of
the Bible. Tens of archaeological findings that confirm the
historical statements of the Bible either in broad outline
or in detail have been made.
(5)
4. Don't like Christian morality?
One reason people reject God and the Christian faith is the
perception that the Bible is not a historical book. Here,
too, the background is very much the theory of evolution and
millions of years. It is thought to invalidate the history
of the Bible, especially its first chapters.
But but. As stated, the theory of evolution with it's
millions of years is a lie. That is not true, because life
cannot arise by itself and because all species have always
been found completely ready and developed, as is to be
expected if God created everything. He did not create
half-finished organisms, but completely finished ones. And
half-finished organisms could not even survive or reproduce.
They would immediately become extinct if their structures
were not functional.
However, there are hundreds of proofs for the historicity
of the Bible. For example, the Flood is an easy thing to
justify. The reason is that around the world, in the
folklore of peoples, almost 500 Flood stories have been
found. Taken together, these accounts from around the world,
although they vary somewhat, are compelling evidence.
Another similar evidence is the remains of marine life found
in all the high mountains. They are found in the Himalayas,
Alps, Andes and other high mountain ranges. Below are a
couple of quotes from the scientists' own books. If this
evidence of the remains of marine life in the high mountains
is not sufficient evidence for the Flood, what is?
While travelling on the Beagle Darwin himself found
fossilized seashells from high up on the Andean Mountains.
It shows that, what is now a mountain was once under water. (Jerry
A. Coyne: Miksi evoluutio on totta [Why evolution is true],
p. 127)
There is a reason to look closely at the original nature of
the rocks in mountain ranges. It is best seen in the Alps,
in the lime Alps of the northern, so-called Helvetian zone.
Limestone is the main rock material. When we look at the
rock here on the steep slopes or at the top of a mountain -
if we had the energy to climb up there - we will eventually
find fossilized animal remains, animal fossils, in it. They
are often badly damaged but it is possible to find
recognizable pieces. All those fossils are lime shells or
skeletons of sea creatures. Among them there are
spiral-threaded ammonites, and especially a lot of
double-shelled clams. (…) The reader might wonder at this
point what it means that mountain ranges hold so many
sediments, which can also be found stratified in the bottom
of the sea. (p.
236,237 "Muuttuva maa", Pentti Eskola)
Harutaka Sakai from the Japanese University in Kyushu has
for many years researched these marine fossils in the
Himalayan Mountains. He and his group have listed a whole
aquarium from the Mesozoic period. Fragile sea lilies,
relatives to the current sea urchins and starfishes, are
found in rock walls more than three kilometers above sea
level. Ammonites, belemnites, corals and plankton are found
as fossils in the rocks of the mountains (…)
At an altitude of two kilometers, geologists found a
trace left by the sea itself. Its wave-like rock surface
corresponds to the forms that remain in the sand from
low-water waves. Even from the top of Everest, yellow strips
of limestone are found, which arose under water from the
remains of countless marine animals. ("Maapallo
ihmeiden planeetta", p. 55)
There is plenty of other evidence for the Bible's
historicity. It manifests itself in the fact that dozens of
figures from the Old and New Testaments - kings, prophets,
apostles, not to mention Jesus - are mentioned in other
sources and archaeological finds. It is pointless to claim
that it is not about historical events and persons, because
other sources refer to the same things.
A.N. Sherwin-White, a researcher of the classical era who
has been regarded as the pre-eminent expert of Roman law,
wrote about the reliability of the Acts of the Apostles (Roman
Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1963, p. 173). He states that
attempts to deny its reliability are absurd. Luke, who wrote
the Acts of the Apostles, also wrote one of the Gospels:
The historical accuracy of the Acts has proven to be
amazing. (…) All attempts to deny the fundamental
historicity of Acts, even in small details, now seem
necessarily preposterous. Scholars of Roman history have
long taken it for granted.
The well-known archaeologist Nelson Glueck has also written
(Rivers of the desert, 1959, p. 31) about archeology related
to the Bible.
He shows how archaeological discoveries confirm the
historical reliability of the Bible:
Absolutely and certainly speaking, not a single
archaeological finding has ever questioned any passage of
the Bible. Tens of archaeological findings that confirm the
historical statements of the Bible either in broad outline
or in detail have been made.
(5)
References:
1. Richard Dawkins: Jumalharha (The God Delusion), p.
153
2. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, p. 94
3. Cit. from "Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan", Kimmo
Pälikkö and Markku Särelä, p. 19.
4. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones),
p. 15,16
5. Nelson Glueck: Rivers of the desert, 1959,
p. 31
6. James W. Sire: Missä maailmassa?
Maailmankatsomusten perusteet puntarissa (The Universe Next
Door.
A Basic World View Catalog), p. 36,37
More on this topic:
Is atheism a sensible worldview or not? Read why it is
difficult to explain the existence of rationality and morality
on the basis of atheism
Scientific view of the world. Atheists often claim to have a scientific worldview. However,
this worldview is based on faith and contradicts the evidence
The world of science under microscope. Although the evidence refutes the theory of evolution and
refers to intelligent design, scientists do not admit this
because of their naturalistic worldview.
I used to be a science believer. Scholars think their positions represent science, reason, and
critical thinking. However, they resort to faith in explaining
the origin of everything
Worldviews in comparison: naturalism / atheism, pantheism, polytheism and theism. Read
why Christian theism is a sensible worldview
|
Jesus is the way,
the truth and the life
Grap to eternal
life! |
More on this topic:
Is atheism a sensible worldview or not? Read why it is
difficult to explain the existence of rationality and morality
on the basis of atheism
Scientific view of the world. Atheists often claim to have a scientific worldview. However,
this worldview is based on faith and contradicts the evidence
The world of science under microscope. Although the evidence refutes the theory of evolution and
refers to intelligent design, scientists do not admit this
because of their naturalistic worldview.
I used to be a science believer. Scholars think their positions represent science, reason, and
critical thinking. However, they resort to faith in explaining
the origin of everything
Worldviews in comparison: naturalism / atheism, pantheism, polytheism and theism. Read
why Christian theism is a sensible worldview
|
