The world of science in review

When looking for evidence for the creation of celestial bodies, the creation of life, or the current abundance of species, it has been explained that time makes everything possible. Atheist scientists have given time the properties that were previously classified as belonging to God.

However, time itself does not create or give birth to anything. Even if we were to allocate an eternity of time, inanimate matter would not automatically become alive. That is an impossibility. This is again a question of the naturalistic worldview of atheist scientists. When the existence of God is denied, the same properties are given to time. Time does what would normally not be possible. These scientists need understanding from God so that they can see their error in this area.

1. Naturalism in review

When the Soviet Union was in power, the dominant trend in society was Marxism-Leninism together with atheism and Darwinism. This trend was considered scientific and influenced the content of textbooks and all education. Children were taught from an early age to accept atheistic and Marxist-Leninist ideology and were not allowed to question it. The maintenance of the ideology also led to the fact that the dissemination of any kind of spiritual teaching was forbidden, and the Bible was among the forbidden books. One of the program proposals of the Communist Party said:

The party uses the means of ideological upbringing to raise people in the spirit of a scientific-materialistic worldview and to overcome religious prejudices... In this task, it is necessary to seek support in the achievements of modern science, which better illustrate our worldview, give man more and more power over nature and leave no room for imaginary stories about supernatural forces. (1)

Nowadays, many western universities have a similar atmosphere to that of the former Soviet Union. Many scientists claim to be unbiased and scientific, but in reality they have adopted a naturalistic worldview in which the universe is closed. It means that God is not taken into account in the early stages of the universe or at any other time. It is not always directly referred to or said openly, but it is in the background in thinking and conclusions. The word God is not very common in university circles. In this sense, the current university in Western countries resembles the former Soviet system.

    One indication of naturalism is the notion of a battle between science and faith. In this view, an attempt is made to strongly reject the view that God created the universe and life. Especially the idea of a young universe is being attacked. Likewise, the idea of an intelligent plan is being attacked. If you talk about these things, the result is somewhat similar to when Paul proclaimed in Ephesus. People did not accept the word and did not want to find out about things:

- (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.

Matti Leisola has described in his interesting book Evoluution ihmemaassa what kind of attitude there can be in scientific circles and elsewhere if the naturalistic conception of the universe and the beginnings of life is called into question. The book's titles include topics such as "professors are interested, principals are scared, publishers are hesitant, Yle is careful and warns, skeptics are nervous, Darwinists are scared". Very few are willing to examine the basis of their beliefs:

However, I haven't always thought this way; as a young student I laughed at Christians and their attempts to put God in the gaps of science. I refused to listen to their arguments and placed my own materialistic explanations in these gaps. Usually this so-called “god of the gaps” argument is used against theists, but it goes both ways because our knowledge is always lacking. A better option is to assess whether the evidence is better suited to a naturalistic or theistic view. My own path away from naturalistic evolutionary belief was arduous and long.

    In this book, I describe the development of my own thinking over the course of more than 40 years. I also discuss the coping mechanisms, anger, prejudice, contempt, fears, power play and persecution that anyone who rises up against the prevailing evolutionary paradigm – and the naturalistic worldview that underlies it – must experience. I have often encountered non-religious religious fanaticism, whose representatives are not ready to give up their own views when the evidence demands it. In fact, they are not even interested in evidence and open discussion.

    The intellectual crisis of evolution is shown by the fact that, at the same time that critical researchers conduct precisely reasoned studies of the performance of the evolutionary mechanism and their limitations, the ardent supporters of evolution resort more and more often to emotional imagery, arrogant slurs, censorship and outright mockery. One goal of my book is to show how strongly the naturalistic evolution paradigm guides the interpretation of both biological observations and the history of the Earth. (2)

As stated, a naturalistic worldview is the dominant view in university circles. It is not always directly referred to or said openly, but it is in the background in thinking and conclusions. In this view, God as an explanation is excluded from everything. God's influence is not accepted at any point. Instead, it is believed that the universe began by itself, as well as life and all current species of plants and animals. This way of thinking is considered scientific, critical and progressive. In contrast to that is creationism, which these people consider to be an old-fashioned, prejudiced, religious and biased view. However, there are a few fundamental problems with connecting naturalism to science. We will look at them next.

Is naturalism science? As noted, naturalistic scientists believe they represent science when they accept a naturalistic explanation of the early stages of the universe.

    However, this is where they are wrong. They have adopted one worldview among others, and it has nothing to do with science. It is wrong to associate a naturalistic worldview with science. What is causing this?

    The reason is simple: no one has seen the beginning of the universe or the birth of life, because these events are beyond direct observation. Thus, when naturalistic scientists define their own position as scientific and the opposite view as religious, they are wrong. They also have a religious position and a religious worldview. They believe that matter itself developed into heavenly bodies and gave birth to life, while in theism God is assumed to be behind everything. These two views can be summarized in the following creeds. The first of these is from Hebrews and a theistic view:

Theism:

- (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 was born from nothing, that matter itself formed the heavenly bodies, and that life arose from itself.

When scientists and others have adopted a naturalistic worldview by faith, they have rarely, however, become familiar with the foundations of their faith (The author can say something about this based on his own experience. I used to be an atheist.). Their view may be based on some information from school books or nature programs, but usually they have not tried to find out how reliable these perceptions are. They have adopted a naturalistic understanding because they were born into a culture that teaches it. Matti Leisola tells his own experience of how this has happened in the scientific world. Naturalism and the theory of evolution have been accepted without proper familiarization with the basics of evolutionary 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. (3)

Naturalism and the connection to pantheism. There are different philosophical views in the world, pantheism being one of them. In this worldview, it is assumed that nature and god are one and that there can be nothing outside of them. Creation is supposed to have originated from the same impersonal deity. Among other things, this view occurs in Hinduism, where nature and god are identified with each other. The animism of natural peoples, where spirits are seen in all objects, is almost a similar view.

    Rabi Maharaj, a former Hindu guru, tells more about the subject. It was difficult for him to internalize the Hindu concept that the creator and creation are 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 whether He can create a rock or a man without them being a part of Him? (4)

What about atheistic naturalism? Interestingly, it does not differ much from pantheism. Scientists who claim to represent science often endow matter with supernatural and miraculous properties, just as in pantheism. They eg. explain how matter brought about life, even though no one has any experiential knowledge of it. Likewise, they can give numerous similar explanations, where nature creates something new and gives rise to complex structures. Here are some examples. This kind of language and storytelling occurs repeatedly in nature programs and evolutionary literature. In them, matter is endowed with properties that have traditionally belonged only to Almighty God:

• The universe brought about its own existence

• Stars and planets formed from matter by themselves

• Nature invented a way to make amino acids and the building blocks of life

• Nature created the first cell that began its evolution towards man

• Nature invented a way for unicellular organisms to become multicellular

• Nature created the trilobite's complex eyes

• Nature figured out how asexual reproduction could turn into sexual reproduction

• Nature developed the dog's precise sense of smell, the orientation ability of birds and the echo sounding system of bats

• Nature made the cheetah fast

• Nature created wings that enable movement in the air

When scientists with a naturalistic worldview have given matter supernatural properties, they have also admitted the possibility of miracles. In this context, however, they do not speak of a supernatural almighty God, but assume that everything happened by itself. They drift into almost the same concept as that found in pantheism, i.e. they give nature and matter divine features. Richard Dawkins puts forward such a view in his book The Blind Watchmaker. He explains the origin of life and the development of human's consciousness:

It is obvious that such a small probability gives us almost no hope that the miracle of the birth of life will happen in our laboratory. However, if we assume that life has arisen in the universe only once, our theory allows for very large strokes of luck, because there are very many planets in the universe where life could have arisen. Such an assumption is justified because life demonstrably exists…

    I'm making an argument that is contradictory, but that's why it's the most interesting. I argue that as natural scientists we should be more concerned than we are now if the development of human consciousness does not seem to involve a miracle. From the point of view of our everyday life, an obvious miracle is exactly the part of the theory that we look for when explaining the origin of life.

2. Prohibiting intelligent design is unintelligent

There is one essential difference between the naturalistic worldview and theism: in naturalism, it is assumed that only the cosmos, or matter, exists. In theism, on the other hand, it is assumed that there is a God in addition to the cosmos. That summarizes the difference between naturalism and theism.

    The same setup emerges in the attitude towards intelligent design. When naturalists do not admit the influence of a supernatural God at any point, they are also critical of the idea of intelligent design. They outright reject what can be considered a logical consequence of their materialistic worldview. In this matter, however, it is worth paying attention to the following points:

• When in naturalism it is assumed that arguments for an intelligent plan are not science, but arguments against it are science, it is in itself an absurd idea. What makes granting intelligence a religious view and denying it a wise and scientific view? Certainly nothing. It is only a preconceived view that one wants to hold on to. It has nothing to do with science.

    On the other hand, in everyday life and practical work, many scientists act contrary to the naturalistic concept. They admit the existence of intelligence or look for signs of it:

- The SETI project is based on searching for intelligence in space just like it is on earth. The assumption is that intelligent life exists elsewhere as well.

- An archaeologist looks for signs of intelligence when digging in the ground. He is not interested in ordinary stones, but those with inscriptions or he is looking for objects that show signs of design.

- In the area of ​​technology, you can look for smart ideas from nature. For example, ideas for the design of airplane wings have been obtained from the wings of birds. Another example is the bows of Japanese high-speed trains, which are designed using the beak of a kingfisher as a model. This is how the trains have been made quieter, faster and they consume less electricity.

   In a recent Finnish science journal (Tiede 3/2014), more examples of how from nature has been sought as a model in technological design are reported. One article tells how Canadian researchers made a glass plate 200 times more impact-resistant than usual by taking a model from the mother-of-pearl of a seashell. The second article tells how batteries can be made even more durable by imitating the structure of a pomegranate. Such examples all point to intelligent design in nature, and how it can be put to good use.

• In the naturalistic conception, it is assumed that the initial state was impersonal and senseless. This concept is considered reasonable and scientific, even though it contradicts e.g. the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian explosion, which is supposed to have happened about 530 million years ago according to the evolutionary scale, shows that life was complex and intelligent from the beginning. These findings are thus inconsistent with the notion that the initial state was devoid of intelligence and impersonal.

    What then, if everything really started from a state devoid of intelligence, like in the Big Bang? Or if man has evolved from ape-like creatures, as the theory of evolution assumes? The fundamental problem then is how we can trust our reason and our perceptions. However rational and scientific we may consider ourselves to be—as naturalistic scientists and almost every human being does—it is rather dubious to trust such information. Brains and thoughts that evolved from a Big Bang-like state cannot be very reliable. This problem arises in the naturalistic view, where everything is supposed to have started from a state devoid of intelligence.

    Another problem is, where did the information and intelligence come from if it didn't exist in the beginning? For example, the DNA code is so complex that it is impossible to explain how it was created from a lifeless state like the Big Bang. Today's computer programs are simple compared to the DNA code. Microsoft founder Bill Gates has stated that "DNA is like a computer program, but far more advanced than any program we have ever developed." (5)

    Where did this information come from? If we do not accept intelligence from the very beginning through God's work of creation, it is difficult to explain its emergence in any other way. This problem is still current and a solution has not been found. Matti Leisola talks about the topic:

I do not believe that the theory of evolution gives a true picture of natural history. I have followed the literature in the field since 1970. Before the discussion event organized in Savonlinna in 2009, which I will talk about in more detail in chapter 9, I read Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution is true, the book Evoluutio nyt edited by Petter Portin and Timo Vuorisalo, and the book Kaikki evoluutiosta edited by Ilkka Hanski, Ilkka Niiniluoto and Ilari Hetemäki. None of these three books gave an answer to the only essential evolutionary question: How is the new information necessary for evolution created? The examples in the books dealt with natural variation and pseudo evidence, which can be interpreted in many different ways. (6)

• Those with a naturalistic worldview tend to begrudgingly admit that intelligent design is evident in animals, humans, and plants. It is difficult for them to admit it because they are committed to a naturalistic worldview. However, in their books and commentaries this thing may occasionally come up. They have to make an effort and lie to themselves to hide the obvious truth that the structures of nature are not simple. For example, Paul wrote aptly about such people in the letter 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: A leaf-eating giraffe, a flying albatross, a plunging tar swallow, a curving hawk, a leafy sea dragon invisible among seaweed, a cheetah accelerating to full speed after a turn, a gazelle leaping - 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 a naturalistic worldview try to disprove intelligent design? The usual way is for them to try to draw attention to structures that they don't think lend themselves to intelligent design. For example, the following quote criticizes the human brain, even though it is actually the most complex known substance in the universe. Many computers are simple compared to the human brain. The authors may not have thought that when they criticize the structure of the brain, they are at the same time calling their own thoughts and opinions into question. How can they trust their conclusions if if our brains were so bad structure?

The brain is not the product of a super-intelligent and omniscient engineer, but – like all products of evolution – anything but a sophisticated structure assembled from the existing building materials produced by development. The human brain is the result of a short-sighted evolutionary process that has solved the current problems without considering the future evolutionary potential of selected structures. Because of this, significant developmental limitations may be found in the brain. (11)

If we look at e.g. animals with an open mind, we can certainly notice intelligent design in them. They would not be able to eat, move and reproduce if they did not have a functioning digestion, blood circulation, reproductive mechanism and functioning limbs. They wouldn't even be alive if these complex and intelligent structures weren't ready.

    What about a human? It is hard to imagine how the current structures could work better. For example, you can write, draw, throw a ball, push a ball, hang from a tree or carry things with your hand. Another example is the head, which has complex organs such as eyes, brain (thinking), nose, mouth and ears. Through the mouth we can also speak, sing, eat and breathe and feel the taste of food. A third example is reproduction. It involves the awakening of interest in the other sex, the compatibility of the genitals, the compatibility of the gametes so that fertilization can take place, the growth of the fertilized egg in the mother's womb into a baby of about three kilos, and the postpartum intake of nutrition from the mother's breasts. It is hard to imagine how such things could be planned better.

    The following quote refers to the same topic. It is hard to imagine how a person would have been able to design, for example, the wing of a bird or a bat to be better than what they are now. It is much more logical to believe that these structures as well as reason, emotions, personality and senses have been ready through creation. It is an arrogant idea to dismiss the idea of intelligence from the very beginning. No one can or has been able to show how inanimate matter like a chip of rock can become living beings with feelings, reason, and complex structures. It is not wise to believe that such things have arisen on their own.

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.

3. The scientific revolution did not begin by secularists

As stated earlier, the media and naturalistic scientific circles often present a view of the conflict between faith and science. It is thought that faith in God and science are opposites of each other. In this idea, science is supposed to have been powerful in Greece and only progressed again when, during the Enlightenment, it broke away from the religion of revelation and began to rely on reason and observation. The importance of Darwin in particular is considered important for the final victory of the scientific worldview.

What was Europe like before? When many naturalistic scientists think that Christian faith has been an obstacle to the development of science, they do not take into account what Europe was like before. It very much resembled Hindu society or African societies decades ago. It included idolatry, paganism, pantheism and animism. Even in the Nordic countries, you don't have to go back many centuries when the situation was like that.

    A good starting point for understanding what Europe was like before the appearance of the Christian faith is Acts chapter 17. It tells about the situation in Athens when Paul arrived 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:

The Christian faith therefore changed Europe in a positive direction. For example, the ability to read and the written language have been created mainly 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:

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)

Greece and science. It was stated above how idolatry was common in Athens during Paul's time. The Acts shows this.

    However, it is noteworthy that during the heyday of the Greek city-states, many of the Greek scientists and thinkers believed in a rational Creator who made man and creation. Many naturalists today exalt this period, but fail to consider that many of the leading thinkers had a belief in God. Among them were e.g. Socrates, Plato, Plato's student Aristotle, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras and Empedocles. They were defenders of the faith in God in ancient Greece. Their thinking was close to a theistic, not a naturalistic worldview, although those who support a modern naturalistic view may argue otherwise.

    A good example of creationism is the statement of Socrates, the father of logic, about man. He was clearly a proponent of intelligent design. In Xenophon's memoirs, he refers to details in human that cannot be considered mere coincidence:

Do you think that he, who in the beginning of time made men, gave them senses for their benefit, eyes to see what there is to see, ears to hear what to hear. - - Don't you think it also shows consideration that the eyes are closed with lids like doors that open when the eyes are needed. They close in sleep, and so that the winds don't damage them, lashes were put on them like sieves. 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. (...)  - - When everything is planned like this, I ask again, is it the result of chance or consideration? (14)

Scientific revolution in Europe. As stated, the notion that the Christian faith was an obstacle to the development of science constantly appears in the media and in the books of naturalistic scientists. Belief in God and science have been considered opposites of each other.

    However, this perception cannot be supported by historical research. In the modern sense, science has started only once, i.e. in the Europe of the 16th-18th centuries, where Christian theism prevailed. It did not start in a secular 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. (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 the reasons for many features of the universe can be traced to God's love for man. Surely no one wants to deny that when God built the universe as a dwelling place, he thought of its future inhabitant again and again. For man is the goal of all creation and the universe. (16)

Isaac Newton, the most famous scientist of the 17th century: When I wrote my treatise on our System, I focused my attention on the principles that would make people believe in God. Nothing could please me more than to find my treatise useful for that purpose. (17)

Robert Boyle, the founder of modern chemistry: Nature's wise and mighty Creator, whose penetrating eye Reaches the whole universe and examines all its parts in one moment, in the beginning created the material bodies into a system, and set them to govern the laws of motion according to the ends he set, and made the world - - like a well-made clock.  (18)

John Ray, the father of English natural science: There is no nobler and more pleasant task for a free man than to contemplate the beautiful works of nature and to revere the infinite wisdom and goodness of God. (19)

What about the centuries before the 1500s-1700s? The general perception has been that these centuries, or the Middle Ages, were through ignorance, which stopped the development of science and culture. Science began to develop again only when culture gradually freed itself from the stifling influence of belief in God during the Renaissance and Enlightenment. This may have been taught in many books on the subject.

    According to researchers familiar with the matter, the reality is the opposite. In reality, science developed considerably since ancient times. From the early stages of the "Dark Ages" began "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 meant great and continuous progress over the Roman Empire. The change took place e.g. in architecture, mechanical engineering, agronomy and exploitation of new energy sources. Inventions included the wheeled plow, water wheel, windmill and its development, the development of fine ceramics and glazing, the birth and development of the mechanical clock, the development of lenses for eyeglasses, the magnetic compass, water pumping methods in mining technology, etc.

    One indication of the development are the universities, of which there were about sixty in Europe by the year 1500. They were born 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. It did not suddenly appear out of nowhere, but 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 rough idea of the Middle Ages as a millennium of stagnation brought about by Christianity has largely disappeared among scholars familiar with the period, but it remains alive among popularizers of the history of science — perhaps because recent popularizers have uncritically relied on their predecessors rather than familiarizing themselves with research on the subject. (21)

4. Galileo Galilei and heliocentrism

One of the most common reasons naturalistic scientists reject theism is the case of Galileo Galilei and heliocentrism. They see it as an example of how an open-minded scientist rises up against the superstitious world of religion. However, these people do not take into account the following points:

• The earth-centered world view is by no means a Christian heritage, but it 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)

• The myth of the flat earth is similar to the controversy surrounding Galileo. Many think that this idea was common in the Middle Ages and that it would have been replaced only with the advent of the Enlightenment, but that is a completely wrong idea. Instead, the myth of the flat earth only gained ground in the 19th century, when the atheist writer Washington Irving wrote about it in his book The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. In the late 19th century, this idea, like the assumption of a battle between faith and science, spread as Darwinist propagandists used it in their writings. The well-known atheist paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould describes in his book Dinosaur in a Haystack, how he himself came across this false idea:

I, too, once learned that most of the ecclesiastical scholars of the Dark Ages had refuted Aristotle's idea of a sphere-shaped earth and described our country as a flat or, at most, slightly curved plate... I am writing this essay to show that the most significant such story about science — the notion that in the early and late Middle Ages the Earth would simply have been considered flat — is utterly mythical. In addition, when we trace the origins of this fairy tale back to the 1800s, we get a double lesson about the dangers of false taxonomies... In turn, the idea of the flat Earth in the 1800s was born to support another dubious and harmful distinction which associates with another legend of historical progress — the supposed war between science and religion... There was never a "dark time of the flat Earth" among the scholars... Greek knowledge of spherical nature never disappeared, and all the greatest scholars of the Middle Ages accepted the roundness of the Earth as a cosmological fact.

• When it has been suggested that Galileo Galilei's case was a battle between faith and science, it is not taken into account that Galileo himself was a devout Catholic who respected God in his writings. He considered man to be created in the image of God, and therefore man has the ability to obtain reliable information about the universe.

    What about Copernicus, who invented the sun-centered universe even before Galileo Galilei? He was a Catholic priest by background, who received help in his research from a young Lutheran researcher named Georg Joachim von Lauchen. This traveled to meet Copernicus and contributed to the publication in 1543 of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, a work on Copernicus' heliocentric worldview.

    Johannes Kepler also played a decisive role in the emergence of the sun-centered world view. He had a Lutheran background and corresponded with Galileo Galilei. Kepler's calculations showed that the planets moved in elliptical orbits instead of circular orbits.

• When it has been suggested that Galileo Galilei's case was a conflict between faith and science, it is not taken into account that the representatives of both science and faith were divided in their attitude to 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 falling times of the country, but about the times of sunrise and sunset. 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.

• 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'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)

5. What were the accomplishments of Darwin?

Earlier, it was noted how the media and naturalistic scientist circles often present the view that faith in God and science are opposites of each other. In this idea, science is supposed to have progressed only when it broke away from the religion of revelation and began to rely on reason and observations. The importance of Darwin in particular is considered important for the victory of the scientific worldview. It is claimed that he turned the long-standing struggle between science and religion once and for all in favor of science. In this matter, however, it is worth paying attention to the following points:

• When naturalistic scientists keep explaining that science should be based on reason and observation, and that Darwin represented such a point of view, they are partly right, partly wrong. They are right that Darwin was a thorough naturalist who made accurate observations of nature, learned about his subject and knew how to write about his research. No one who has read his magnum opus On the Origin of Species can deny that.

    However, they are wrong to accept Darwin's assumption of species changes. The reason is simple: Darwin failed to show a single example of species change in his On the Origin of Species - a fact acknowledged by several evolutionists who have read Darwin's book. He had no direct evidence for species change, just as in modern times it is not known how life could have arisen by itself. His excellent examples, such as the variations in the size of the birds' beaks, are just ordinary variation within the basic species. They do not in any way prove the primordial cell-to-human theory to be true.

    If Darwin had taught in such a way that instead of one family tree (the view of evolution, which assumes that the current life forms developed from the same primordial cell), there would have been hundreds of family trees, and that each tree has branches, he would have been closer to the truth. Variation does occur, as Darwin proved, but only within the basic species. The observations are more suited to the creation model than to the notion that current life forms originate from a single stem cell:

We can only speculate about the motives that led scientists to adopt the concept of a common progenitor so uncritically. The triumph of Darwinism undoubtedly increased the prestige of the scientists, and the idea of an automatic process fit so well with the spirit of the times that the theory even received a surprising amount of support from religious leaders. In any case, scientists accepted the theory before it had been rigorously tested, and then used their authority to convince the general public that natural processes were sufficient to produce a human from a bacterium and a bacterium from chemical mixture. Evolutionary science began to look for supporting evidence and began to come up with explanations that would nullify the negative evidence. (23)

• It should be noted that Darwin's influence was limited to only a narrow sector, i.e. it is a belief related to the past. It has nothing to do with other developments in science or technology. There was progress in these matters before Darwin and after Darwin. For example, Darwin's own homeland, England, was the most technologically advanced country in the world even before Darwin, so these two things have no connection with each other.

    In addition, progress was greatest specifically in societies where the Christian faith was common and strong. England was one such country. Darwin himself studied theology before becoming a full-time researcher.

    What about Darwin's influence on biological breakthroughs and biological research? These things don't seem to have anything to do with each other. Instead, Darwin's theory of evolution has become the creation myth of our time, replacing belief in God:

Penn State University professor Philip S. Skell researched major breakthroughs in biology in the 20th century and interviewed more than seventy prominent biologists in an effort to find out the importance of Darwinian theory as a guiding factor in research. He came to the view that Darwinism has no guiding significance in the study of biology. The theory is only referred to when a research breakthrough has already been made, and it is mainly used as an interesting explanatory narrative...

    According to David Berlinski, the scientific importance of Darwinism is insignificant. Its real meaning is to act as a creation myth of our time. "If Darwin's theory of evolution has little to contribute to the content of the sciences, it has a lot to contribute to their ideology. It functions as a creation myth of our time, which gives nature properties that were previously attributed to God..." (24)

• If Darwin did not cause a scientific revolution, what was his sphere of influence?

    The simplest explanation is that Darwin pushed God and intelligent design out of people's minds. Until then, it was generally believed that God is behind everything, but Darwin, through his theory, led people to think that it was the other way around. It was a question of a revolution in thinking, in which God was displaced from the position of Creator.

    Apparently, Darwin himself foresaw the revolutionary nature of his theory and delayed its publication for years. He knew how to expect that the materialistic theory he presented would erase the idea of God from people's minds. Darwin published his book only when Alfred Wallace was about to publish his own work on the same idea.

    When Darwin's theory removed God from people's minds, it also removed judgment. It was no longer believed that actions have consequences after this life, but it was thought that everything ends in physical death without accounting of our acts. Nor was it believed that there is any morality that binds everyone, originating from God. Faith in both was lost.

    The last century gives evidence of what is produced by thinking that rejects the teaching of God's judgment. It did not lead people to a better life, but to brutality and cruel treatment of their neighbors. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and numerous communist leaders are examples of this. They believed in Darwin's theory, which removed from their minds the concept of judgment after this life. If they and millions of others had faith that each person will be judged according to their deeds, they would certainly 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)

6. Can time make everything possible?

Earlier, it was brought up how numerous scientists have adopted a naturalistic worldview and the theory of evolution through faith, but have rarely become familiar with the foundations of their faith. Their view may be based on some information from school books or nature programs, but usually they have not tried to find out how reliable these perceptions are.

    One common notion in the scientific world is also that time makes everything possible. Although these scientists do not believe in a personal God, they give time the same characteristics as to God. They may explain that "when there is enough time, anything can happen." E.g.:

• The universe can be born out of nothing (the Big Bang), although not a single practical observation in modern times suggests such a thing. If the universe really appeared out of nothing by itself, as the naturalistic theory assumes, why do we not observe the same now? No one has seen cars, birds, elephants, rocks or lions appear out of nowhere. However, the universe, which is many times bigger than them, is supposed to have experienced that. It is a great naturalistic magic trick and miracle.

• Life can arise by itself, although this too is not supported by any practical observation. The experience of more than a hundred years has shown how difficult the problem is. Rocks or other materials do not become alive on their own, even if you allow a hundred billion years of time. It is a naturalistic assumption for which no practical evidence can be found.

• Species can change into others, even though, for example, Darwin, who made this view known, could not present any examples in his most famous work, On the Origin of Species. The examples presented in Darwin's book as well as in other literature in the field are related to ordinary variation within basic species. Evidence from modern times and fossils points to how organisms and plants have been ready since the beginning. They are not half-finished, even though Darwin's theory requires it to be. Well-known fossil researchers Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge considered the evidence so clearly against the gradual development presented by Darwin that they presented their own evolutionary model called punctualism (Species changes have occurred so quickly and in narrow areas that no fossils have survived). In this way they tried to get around the fact that there are no intermediate forms in the fossils.

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)

• In the theory of evolution, it is assumed that all current species have descended from the same stem cell. Different evolutionary trees have been drawn up from it, the first of which already in the 19th century. However, the problem is, as stated, that no gradual evolution can be observed from fossils and current species. The evidentiary material is clearly better suited to the creation model, where the species have always been separate from each other and ready-made. This evidence should be taken as it is and not tried to forcefully make it fit the theory of evolution.

    Second, when evolutionary trees are drawn up, they are purely based on imagination. The problem of the origin of life is unsolved. Similarly, it is impossible to know afterwards which fossils have been related to each other by kinship or descent. Fossils and organisms are placed in such an order that they fit the evolutionary model, but which cannot actually be proven to be correct. Henry Gee, the editor of the world's most famous science journal (Nature), admitted this. We are on weak  ice if we try to figure out the development chains of organisms after the fact:

None of the fossils were buried with a birth certificate. The periods of time that separate the fossils are so vast that we cannot say anything certain about their connection to each other in the sense of kinship or descent. Each fossil is a solitary dot with no known connection to any other fossil, all floating in an endless sea of gaps... To take a group of fossils and claim that they form a chain of evolution is not a testable scientific hypothesis but a statement with the weight of a fairy tale - entertaining, perhaps instructive, but not scientific. (28)

• Experiments with bacteria and banana flies show how permanent species boundaries are. They have not changed into other species, but have remained the same all along, even though experiments have been carried out for 150 years. An example of this is the experiments carried out by Richard Lensky's working group over 20 years with E. Coli bacteria, in which 44,000 generations were born. In these experiments, the biggest change was that the E.coli bacterium was able to use citric acid as its food. Evolutionists considered it to be proof of evolution (New Scientist newspaper reported: "A significant evolutionary innovation has just been born before the eyes of scientists. For the first time, evolution has been caught in the act of producing such a complex new feature" , (29) but in reality it was only a small microevolutionary change. E. coli bacteria were still the same species and did not change into other bacteria, let alone other species. Thus, the examples in the scientific literature are evolution and variation within certain limits. True species changes, or macroevolution, have not been proven to be true.

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've asked people to explain macroevolution to me, and I still don't understand it. I understand better than most people how molecules relate to each other, and what they can and cannot do. I do not understand how macroevolution occurs. I know how small changes occur. But I don’t understand how new kind of organs could develop like that. (Jim Tour. He is among the ten most cited and published chemists in the world) (30)

More about time. When the idea that time makes everything possible is presented, it is based on the view that time has been available for millions or even billions of years. It is assumed that long time periods automatically make possible what would otherwise be impossible or improbable. Time is made into a god, capable of creating life and changing species into others.

    Long time periods are also the basis of the geological time chart. In this chart, it is assumed that there have been periods of different lengths on Earth, when only certain types of life have appeared. For example, Cambrian organisms such as trilobites, whose residence was in the sea, are believed to have appeared approx. 500 million years ago, while dinosaurs are believed to have appeared on Earth approx. 250-65 million years ago. It is not considered possible that they appeared at the same time as humans.

    However, long periods can be questioned. If one holds to the view that Cambrian organisms and dinosaurs lived at a different time than humans, then there should not be a single discovery that contradicts this view. A single discovery is enough to prove the geological table wrong.

    A good starting point is to study human-related discoveries. If you find man-made objects or traces of strata that are defined as ancient, it suggests that man lived tens to hundreds of millions of years ago, or that the strata and fossils are actually only thousands of years old. However, the latter option is more likely, because almost no one believes that man lived e.g. a hundred million years ago. Among other things, the following discoveries have been made. They contradict the geological table:

• Footprints clearly resembling human footprints have been found in several different areas and strata whose age has been determined to be several hundred million years. Such discoveries should not occur at all if the geological time chart is correct. Even one discovery in the wrong place is enough to prove the table wrong.

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 man having left those footprints. (The Carboniferous Mystery, Scientific Monthly, vol. 162, Jan 1940, p.14)

• There are discoveries that show that humans and trilobites were on earth at the same time, even though trilobites had to live approx. 600-250 million years ago in the Cambrian period. In general, trilobites, seabed animals, and human-related discoveries are not made in the same stratification. What is causing this?

    Evolutionists explain that it is because trilobites and humans lived on Earth at different times, but there is also a simpler explanation: ecological compartments. For just as today Sea animals are far from humans living on earth, so it was in the past. It doesn't have to be a question of that they lived at a different time, but only in different areas, maybe tens or hundreds of kilometers away from each other. Therefore, they are usually not found in the same strata. However, a few discoveries show that they lived at the same time:

William Meister made an amazing discovery on June 1, 1968 in Utah. He found several trilobite fossils in a fossilized human sandal print! But according to evolutionary periods, arranged on the basis of geological strata, trilobites became extinct about 230 million years before man appeared!

    … Geologist Dr. Clifford Burdick found further evidence to support the hypothesis of human and trilobite coexistence. He found the footprints of a barefoot child, one of which contained a flattened trilobite. (31)

• Interesting are the discoveries where human belongings or even skeletons have been found in coal deposits. The usual belief is that these deposits were formed in a special Carboniferous period approx. 300 million years ago, but still human-related discoveries have been made from them. Likewise, dinosaur fossils have been found in coal deposits. The fact that even one such find occurs is enough to prove the geological table wrong.

A bronze, approximately 15 cm tall bell (stem bell) was found inside the coal. Coal from a coal mine operating in West Virginia was also commonly used for the heating needs of local residents. Coal pieces that were too big for the furnace were broken into a suitable size at home with a hammer. It was a big surprise when a bronze bell appeared from inside the coal mine. The coal deposit from which the mined coals were retrieved has been determined to have been formed during the Carboniferous period, approximately 300 million years ago. (32)

What about dinosaur discoveries? Many naturalistic scientists want to believe that dinosaurs lived tens of millions of years ago and at a different time to humans. However, numerous folktales tell of large dragons and lizards that resemble dinosaurs. Some argue this is a coincidence, but a more likely explanation is that early humans lived at the same time as these animals.

    Descriptions, which may be based on old memory information, can be found among many different peoples, so that dragons are mentioned e.g. in English, Irish, Danish, Norwegian, German, Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Babylonian literature. The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 5, 1973, p. 265) tells about 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.

One interesting comment comes from the late respected fossil scientist Stephen Jay Gould, who was a Marxist atheist. He stated that when the book of Job speaks of Behemoth, the only animal that fits this description is a dinosaur (Pandans Tumme, p. 221, Ordfrontsförlag, 1987). As an evolutionist, he believed that the author of the book of Job must have obtained his knowledge from fossils found. However, this one of the oldest books 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)

• It was already stated earlier how human footprints have been found in layers that have been considered to be hundreds of millions of years old. A similar problem is that human footprints have been found in dinosaur deposits in several areas such as Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky, Illinois, Texas and other parts of the United States. Such discoveries should not occur at all if the geological time chart with millions of years is correct. The findings point to the simultaneous presence of humans and dinosaurs on Earth.

Many known scientific facts cast serious doubts on the geological sequence and geological eras. One such example would be the discovery of simultaneous human tracks and dinosaur tracks in Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky, Illinois and elsewhere in the United States. These tracks occur over a wide area and are usually only exposed by floods or earthmoving machines. They have been carefully examined and authenticated by reliable paleontologists and cannot be passed off as frauds. In addition, in Arizona and the former Rhodesia, human-drawn pictures of dinosaurs have been found on the walls of caves and canyons. (32)

• Well-preserved dinosaur fossils are a great puzzle if they are 65-200 million years old. The reason is that they contain substances that should not survive in nature for hundreds of thousands of years, let alone millions of years. E.g. Tyrannosaurus Rex leg bone containing red blood cells has been found. Similarly blood vessels and proteins such as collagen, albumin, osteocalcin and DNA have been found. DNA has been isolated from e.g. About Tyrannosaurus Rex bone material (Helsingin Sanomat 26.9.1994) and dinosaur eggs in China (Helsingin Sanomat 17.3.1995). What makes DNA discoveries difficult for the theory of evolution is that it is supposed to last in nature for only thousands or at most tens of thousands of years, depending on the temperature. This has been achieved by studying e.g. Egyptian mummies where the DNA has already changed. However, the fact that DNA, proteins and other poorly preserved substances are present indicates their young age. It is impossible for these substances to have survived for tens of millions of years:

On the other hand, it is known that biomolecules cannot be preserved 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 ]). This is the research result of empirical science. Collagen, which is a biomolecule of animal tissue, i.e. a typical structural protein, can often be isolated from fossils. It is known about the protein in question that it breaks down quickly in the bones, and only its remains can be seen  after 30,000 years, except in very dry special conditions. The Hell Creek area is sure to get some rain from time to time. Therefore, collagen should not be found in "68 million" year old bone that has been buried in the soil. (34)

If the observations about proteins isolated from dinosaur bones, such as albumin, collagen and osteocalcin, as well as DNA are correct, and we have no reason to doubt the researchers' carefullness, based on these studies, the bones must be re-dated to no more than 40,000-50,000 years old, because the maximum possible preservation time of the substances in question in nature cannot be exceeded. (35)

A similar problem to the presence of DNA and proteins in dinosaur remains is the radiocarbon in them. Its half-life is about 5700 years, so there shouldn't be any left after 100,000-200,000 years. However, the fact that radiocarbon is found in dinosaur fossils, as it has been found in Cambrian organisms, points to their young age. None of them can be millions of years old:

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. ⁽³⁶⁾

   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. (37)

Questions for those who doubt or oppose the Christian faith