This article discusses scientism and science believers. The idea for this article arose from recent discussions and after reading literature on the subject. The subject is also familiar from the point of view that I myself used to be a science believer and an atheist. I was sure of my ideas and thought that science would show belief in God to be absurd. My views were similar to those of the famous atheist Richard Dawkins.

    Today, however, I don't think the same way, but I consider my former views to be unfounded, even absurd. I turned to Jesus Christ a long time ago and I believe that Christian theism is the most reasonable worldview. It best explains the beginning of the universe, why we are here and how to connect with God. Of course, believers in science and atheists do not share this view, but they should think about the basis of their beliefs. In the coming lines, we will delve into this topic.

1. How is scientism manifested?

- (1 Peter 5:5) …for God resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble.

When I myself was a science believer and an atheist, I was characterized by a certain kind of self-confidence and imagination of my own wisdom. I thought I was a wise, reasonable and scientific person with a worldview, which only sticks to the facts and not to any religious fancies.

    This is typical behavior and thinking of a believer in science. He thinks that he is intellectually independent, that he acts purely on the basis of scientific facts and observations, and that he is a critical thinker who dares to question the ridiculous beliefs of society. In addition, such a person is often self-confident and proud, as I was myself.

    One of the most important characteristics of a science believer is also the comparison and confrontation between the scientific and religious worldviews. This was characteristic of myself and is repeated by freethinkers and most believers in science. Almost every one of them wants to distinguish between science and religious faith. They think that they represent science and stick to reason as opposed to blind faith. This way of thinking is well expressed in the writing of the freethinker V.T. Aaltonen:

Our scientists - at least natural scientists, to whom I belong - do not seem to be interested in religious matters. Most of them consider, for example, the dogmas of Christianity to be so absurd that it is usually not worth going to the trouble to overturn them. Such, should I say an attitude of benevolent indifference, is unfortunate in my opinion, especially because religion is the breeder and maintainer of an irrational way of thinking that is against the scientific spirit… Let us also think about the unnatural state of affairs in which our school is trying to instil in children and young people two diametrically opposed worldviews and conceptions of life, religious and scientific.

I wish briefly that people would think scientifically.

   Generally, it looks like most people try to manage by thinking as little as possible. (…) The most important part of a scientific way of thinking is freedom from prejudices, predilections and devotions. The target of a scientist is always the truth, regardless of how unpleasant it may be or how much confusion it may cause to people whose beliefs it shows wrong. (1)

How science believers violate their own principles – that is, the blind faith of science believers. As stated, a science believer thinks that he is scientific and rational, and that he is not overwhelmed by blind faith. This attitude was illustrated by the aforementioned statement by the freethinker V.T. Aaltonen, in which he stated: "Let us also think about the unnatural state of affairs that in our school we are trying to instill in children and young people two completely opposite worldviews and conceptions of life, religious and scientific."  Well-known for his denial of God, Richard Dawkins has also separated his supposed scientific worldview from blind faith, which he associates with religions:

Faith, by which is meant belief without a basis in evidence, is the chief vice of all religions. (2)

Are science believers then consistent in their thinking? Was I myself, as a science believer and an atheist, consistent in that I myself had a completely scientific worldview, and no "blind faith" at all? The direct answer is that I wasn't consistent, and neither are Dawkins, nor anyone else atheist. For when science believers and atheists accuse others of unfounded faith, they themselves are guilty of the same. They are guilty of unfounded faith in precisely one area: the early stages of the universe and life.

   E.g. there is not a single proof of the birth of life by itself, yet science believers and atheists believe it happened. It has been established that only life produces life, and no exception has been found to this rule (a thing that refers to the Creator and is evidence in favor of theism, not atheism.) However, science believers and atheists believe that life was born by itself, that is, they have a blind and unfounded faith. V.T. Aaltonen, a freethinker, has described his own faith as follows. He admits that life on Earth has a beginning, but says its genesis is a problem. Such faith is not based on facts, but is blind faith. I used to be the same kind of blind faith person as V.T. Aaltonen:

It is a fact that life started on Earth at a specific point in time, but the way how it came into being is – at least for the time being – an unsolved mystery. There is no other possibility, however, than life starting on its own, i.e. the birth of life being an event that is part of the natural order anywhere with similar conditions as on the Earth when life came into being. (3)

The birth of the universe by itself out of nothing (a thing that is completely against the known laws of physics), the birth of galaxies by itself, and the birth of the earth by itself are similar unproven things as the birth of life by itself. They have never been observed, but these theories are blindly believed. Atheists are forced to do this because in rejecting God's creation work, they have to look for alternative explanations.

    V.T. Aaltonen again gives a description of blind faith, in which state I myself was before. He admits that there are several theories and they are just assumptions, but he still believes that everything was born by himself:

There are many different views and theories about the birth of our planet, Solar System, and the galaxies, but all of them are, more or less, assuming. In any case, the earth was formed of blazing gas in the beginning, like our Sun, and then it gradually cooled and condensed, until the planet evolved to a state, where emergence of life was possible. (4)

2. Naturalism isn’t science

- (Rom 1:18-23) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.

When I was a science believer and an atheist, I thought my opinions represented science, reason, and critical thinking. Instead, I now think that my opinions at that time represented blind faith, absurdity, and that I did not want to find out, that is, to investigate the validity of my beliefs. The lack of thinking and that I was confident in my views prevented me from gaining more information. For if a person is self-assured in his views, as I myself was, and several believers in science are, it is difficult to turn their heads, because they do not even want to think about opposing views. The purpose of science should be to find the truth, but biases can be an obstacle to it.

   Matti Leisola, who used to be an evolutionist himself, tells an illustrative example. He has talked with hundreds of scientists and has noticed how poorly the scientists have familiarized themselves with the basics of the theory of evolution. They have embraced evolution as part of Western science education, but are unaware of the weaknesses of this theory:

I was surprised that an internationally known biochemist approved of the evolution theory without ever having given more thought towards it. Our conversation about the topic continued the same year in Switzerland and later in Finland. I have discussed the same issue with hundreds of scientist colleagues from all over the world, and I have yet to find a person, who would have properly familiarized themself with the basics of evolutionary theory. I often come across the following claim: “The whole science community believes that the evolution theory undoubtedly holds true.” The truth of the matter is completely different; only a small section of the science community has seriously thought about it. They have adopted evolution as part of the Western science education. (5)

How should a science believer proceed? As he generally denies God's creation work, it would be worthwhile for him to consider whether naturalistic genesis theories might be true. Good starting points for the study include the following points:

• Can anything be born out of nothing, as required by the Big Bang theory? Not all scientists believe in this theory, but consider it a fable and a lie. Here are some comments:

New data differs enough from the theory’s prediction to destroy the Big Bang-cosmology (Fred Hoyle, The Big Bang in Astronomy, 92 New Scientist 521, 522-23 / 1981)

As an old cosmologist, I see the current observational data repealing theories about the beginning of the universe, and also the many theories about the beginning of the Solar System. (H. Bondi, Letter, 87 New Scientist 611 / 1980)

There has been remarkably little discussion of whether or not the big bang hypothesis is correct... many of the observations that conflict it are explained through numerous unfounded assumptions or they are simply ignored. (nobelist H. Alfven, Cosmic Plasma 125 / 1981)

Physicist Eric Lerner: ”Big Bang is merely an interesting tale, which is maintained for a certain reason” (Eric Lerner: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe, The Big Bang Never Happened, NY: Times Books, 1991).

David Berlinski: ”It is pointless to argue that something comes into existence out of nothing, when any given mathematician understands this to be complete nonsense” (Ron Rosenbaum: ”Is the Big Bang Just a Big Hoax? David Berlinski Challenges Everyone.” New York Observer 7.7.1998)

Philosopher Roland Nash: …one does not need to be a theist (one that believes in God) to see the problem in understanding or accepting the belief that the universe came into existence without any reason and out of nowhere. (6)

• Can life arise from an inanimate substance like a rock? Practice has shown that life can only be born from life, and not a single exception to this rule has been found. So, if life has a beginning, and life cannot arise by itself, isn't the most logical option the living God, or the Creator, who made the first animals and plants?

• If the theory of evolution is true, why is there no evidence of gradual development in the fossils, as many leading paleontologists have admitted? Fossils are the only evidence of the past, and if they do not show gradual development, the theory of evolution cannot be true. Even Richard Dawkins admits that there is no evidence of gradual development in fossils, but he still believes that evolution happened. Isn't this exactly the blind and unfounded faith that science believers and atheists accuse others of? I personally consider it like that and I myself was in the same state before.

Stephen Jay Gould: The extreme rareness of intermediate forms in fossil material continues to be the trade secret of palaeontologists. The evolution trees appearing in our textbooks include facts only at the heads and folding points of the branches. The rest is reasoning, no matter how reasonable it is, not evidence of fossils –- I do not want in any way to belittle the potential competence of the gradual evolution view. I want only to remark that it has never 'been observed' in rocks. (...) (7)

Niles Eldredge:  We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [a story about changes that promote gradual adapting], even though we know all the while that it does not. (8)

Richard Dawkins: Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have known that fossils arranged in chronological order are not a series of small, barely noticeable changes. - - For example, the Cambrian deposits from 600 million years ago are the oldest, with fossils from most of the main periods of vertebrates. Moreover, many of them are already quite advanced. Since there are no earlier fossils, they seem to have appeared in these strata out of nowhere... Regardless of school of thought, all supporters of evolution are of the opinion that at this point there is a gaping hole in fossil discoveries. (9)

• If millions of years are true, then why have human objects, and human remains, been discovered from “300 million-year-old” coal layers (Glashouver, W.J.J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, pp. 115-6; Bowden, M., Ape-men-Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, 1981; Barnes, F.A., The Case of the Bones in Stone, Desert/February, 1975, p. 36-39). In his book Time Upside Down (1981) Erich A. von Frange has listed more objects and human remains found from coal layers).

   Coal also contains radiocarbon, of which official half-life is only 5730 years. That is, there shouldn’t be any remaining in million-year-old layers. However, it does occur. Why has DNA (its half-life is even shorter than that of radiocarbon) and radiocarbon also been found in dinosaurs? This should not be possible if we are talking about animals from 65 million years ago.

Fossils that are assumed to be very old are not usually carbon-14 dated because they should not have any radiocarbon left. The half-life of radioactive carbon is so short that it has practically all decayed in less than 100,000 years.

   In August 2012, a group of German researchers reported at a meeting of geophysicists the results of carbon-14 measurements that had been made on many fossilized dinosaur bone samples. According to the results, the bone samples were 22,000-39,000 years old! At least at the time of writing, the presentation is available on YouTube. (19)

   How was the result received? Two of the chairmen, who could not accept the measurements, deleted the abstract of the presentation from the conference website without mentioning it to the scientists. The results are available at http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html. The case shows how the naturalistic paradigm affects. It is almost impossible to get results that contradict it published in the scientific community dominated by naturalism. It is more likely that the raisins fly. (11)

Fossils older than 100,000 years should no longer contain measurable amounts of radiocarbon, but dating laboratories routinely find levels of 14C well above background levels in fossils assumed to be many millions of years old. For example, coal that lacks 14C has not been found at all, but still this fossil fuel is estimated to be hundreds of millions of years old. Using radioisotope methods suitable for long periods, for fossils found in rocks dated to be 1-500 million years old, an average radiocarbon "age" of about 50,000 years was obtained, which is far below the measurement limit of modern carbon dating. Furthermore, there was no younger-to-older pattern in the carbon dating that correlated with evolutionist/uniformitarian "ages". (12)

• If there is fine-tuning, precise laws of nature and emotions, personality, life and senses, isn't the most likely option behind these things a living God who has created everything? Such things do not arise by themselves from inanimate matter like stone. Or has anyone noticed that a stone suddenly becomes alive, begins to reproduce, begins to eat, begins to feel sadness, love and joy, begins to think, begins to move and begins to build houses or airplanes?

Why, then, do science believers and atheists not accept God as Creator? The main reason is the naturalistic worldview. Although scientists admit that they have no evidence of birth of life by itself or intermediate forms, and that they see fine-tuning, precise laws of nature, and signs of intelligent design in nature, they still hold to on to naturalism. (Even Richard Dawkins has referenced in his book The God Delusion, how nature looks designed, p. 153: The reality based on observations is that every species and every organ inside a species that so far has been examined is good at what it does. The wings on birds, bees and bats are good for flying. Eyes are good at seeing. Leaves are good at photosynthesis. We live on a planet, where we are surrounded by perhaps ten million species, which all independently indicate a strong illusion of apparent design. Every species fits well into its special lifestyle.”). They stick to this worldview, despite practical observations pointing to another direction. A biology professor gave out a simple statement about this kind of view in the Nature science magazine, which is one of the most well-known science publications:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic (Nature, Sept. 30, 1999, p.423.)

It is also characteristic of scientists that they combine a naturalistic worldview with science. However, naturalism/atheism is not science, nor is theism, but they are views based on faith. They take a stand on God. Naturalism/atheism does not believe in the existence of God; in theism, the opposite is believed.

    However, conclusions can be drawn based on the evidence. I personally think that my own atheistic faith was "blind faith" because it was on a weak and poorly reasoned basis. Now I consider Christian theism to be the most reasonable and truth-based worldview.

3. Rewriting history in the field of science

It was stated above how things made by people, even human remains, have been found in strata that have been considered to be hundreds of millions of years old. Likewise, radiocarbon has been found in coal deposits, which shows the age of these deposits to be thousands of years at most. These types of discoveries show that human history, like the entire history of the Earth, is about the same age and that it is only a matter of thousands, not millions of years. Millions of years are true only on paper, but many practical observations are against them.

    What is the issue in this case?  It’s about rewriting history. This is also the issue in the assumption that everything arose by itself from nothing, that life arose by itself and that all species originate from the same primordial cell. All these views are basically a rewriting of history, changing the description of the history of the earth and man.

    What about the history of science? History has also been rewritten in that area. A popular view, especially in naturalistically-minded circles, is that the Christian faith has been an obstacle to the development of science, but how is it? We will try to familiarize ourselves with this in the coming lines.

• Firstly, the birth of book languages and literacy. Everyone understands that if a nation does not have its own literary language and people cannot read, it is an obstacle to the development of science, research, the birth of inventions and the spread of knowledge. Then there are no books, you can't read them, and knowledge doesn't spread. Society remains in a stagnant state.

    How, then, has the Christian faith influenced the creation of literary languages and literacy? This is where many researchers have a blind spot. They do not know that almost all literary languages were created by pious Christians. For example, here in Finland, Mikael Agricola, Finnish religious reformer and father of literature, printed the first ABC book and the New Testament and parts of other books of the Bible. The people learned to read through them. In numerous other nations in the Western world, development has taken place through a similar process. If the Christian faith had not existed, the development of Western societies might have been delayed by centuries:

Christianity created the Western civilization. If the followers of Jesus would have stayed as a faint Jewish sect, many of you would have never learned how to read and the rest would have read from hand copied scrolls. Without theology coined with progression and moral equality, the whole world would currently be at a state, where non-European societies were roughly in the 1800s: A world with countless astrologists and alchemists, but without scientists. A despotic world without universities, banks, factories, spectacles, chimneys and pianos. A world, where most children die before the age of five and where many women would die of childbirth – a world that would truly live in the “Dark Ages”. A modern world only arose from Christian societies. Not in the Islamic realm. Not in Asia. Not in a ”secular” society – as such a thing did not exists. (13)

Before the ability to read is born, the written language must therefore exist. In this sense, Christian missionaries have played a key role, not only centuries ago in Western countries, but also in Africa and Asia later. The following examples refer to this. It is significant that even such languages as Hindi, the main language of India, Urdu of Pakistan, and Bengali of Bangladesh have got their grammar and linguistic basis on the basis of Christian missionary work. Hundreds of millions of people speak and use these languages.

Vishal Mangalwadi: I grew up in the heart of Hindu language in Allahabad, nearly 80 kilometers from Kashi, where Tulsidas wrote Ramcharitmanasin, the most significant religious epic of Northern India. I was constantly told that Hindi originated from this great epic. But when I read it, I got confused, because I could not understand a single phrase from it. The writer’s “Hindi” was completely different from mine and I started to question, where my mother tongue – the official national language of India – originated from.

… Hindu scholars also did not develop India's national language, Hindi. It is thanks to Bible translators such as John Borthwick Gilchrist and missionary linguists such as Rev. S.H.Kellogg that the current Hindi literary language emerged from the language used by the poet Tulsidas (c. 1532-1623).

... Bible translators and missionaries gave more than my mother tongue Hindi. All the living literary languages ​​of India testify to their work. In 2005, Dr. Babu Verghese, a researcher from Mumbai but a native speaker of Malayalam, submitted a 700-page doctoral dissertation to Nagpur University for review. He showed that Bible translators created the 73 present-day literary languages ​​from dialects spoken by mostly illiterate Indians. These included the official national languages ​​of India (Hindi), Pakistan (Urdu) and Bangladesh (Bengali). Five Bramine scholars studied Verghes' doctoral dissertation and awarded him the title of Doctor of Philosophy in 2008. At the same time, they unanimously recommended that, after publication, the dissertation be adopted as a mandatory textbook for Indian language studies. (14)

Christian missionary work has always been of a wide-ranging nature of helping people, so that it has reached out to help the sick, disabled, hungry, homeless and discriminated. In numerous African countries, Christian missions have built the foundation of the entire school system in terms of basic and vocational education. Similarly, the mission has contributed in a significant way to the formation of the health care network... Well-known African researcher, Yale University professor Lamin Sanneh has claimed that in Africa, the missionaries have done the greatest service to the local cultures by creating the basis of the written language. (15)

• Secondly, it is good to bring up the so-called scientific revolution. It is often held in secularist and atheist circles that this upheaval had nothing to do with the Christian faith, but this view can be questioned. For in the modern sense, science has only started once, that is, in the Europe of the 16^th-18^th centuries, where Christian theism prevailed. It did not start in a secularist society, but specifically in a society inspired by the Christian faith. Almost all leading scientists believed in creation. Among them were Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, James Clerck Maxwell, John Ray, Louis Pasteur, etc. They were not representatives of the Enlightenment but of Christian theism:

These are the slogans used by one of the most long-standing and most efficient campaigns, based on polemic articles, in the history of Western countries. But while this campaign has had a very significant effect on the intellectual world in general, it seems to have had no effect on the scientists themselves. The implementers of the scientific revolution were known for their faith in God, and the tradition they represented has continued in science. For example, throughout almost the entire 19th century, doing science remained as much a religious as a secular vocation – the efforts to understand the work of God's hands continued. (16)

• If a scientific revolution took place in 16^th-18^th century Europe, what made it possible? One reason was the universities, of which there were about sixty in Europe by the year 1500. These universities were not universities maintained by secularists and the state, but arose with the active support of the medieval church, and natural science research and astronomy played a prominent role in them. In them there was considerable freedom of research and discussion, which was favored. These universities had hundreds of thousands of students, and they helped prepare the ground for the scientific revolution to be possible in Europe in the 16^th-18^th centuries. This revolution did not suddenly arise out of nowhere, but was preceded by favorable developments. Other continents did not have the same extensive education and similar universities as in Europe, because the Christian faith had not gained the same place in them.

The Middle Ages created a basis for the greatest accomplishment of Western society: modern science. Claim that says science did not exists before “Renaissance” is simply untrue. After familiarizing themselves with classical Greek research, scholars of the Middle Ages developed ideology systems, which led science much further compared to the antique times. Universities, where academic freedom was protected from the leaders’ power, were founded in the 1100s. These institutions have always provided a safe haven for scientific research. Even Christian theology proved to be uniquely fitted to encourage researching the nature, which was believed to be God’s creation. (17)

Vishal Mangalwadi: In my home country, science was not taught in Hindu ashrams and Buddhist monasteries. Why, then, did Christian universities in Europe - religious institutions as well - start to develop and teach them? It became clear to Bible scholars that reading the "nature book" is more important than reading books in Greek and Latin. The latter were written by men, but the author of the former was God. Paracelcus wrote that before getting to know Galen, Avicenna and Aristotle, one should read the book of nature, get to know the library "written, made and bound by God himself". (18)

• If the Christian faith has been a positive factor in the development of science due to, among other things, the development of literacy, where did the idea of the confrontation between science and the Christian faith originate? One of the reasons for this was certainly Charles Darwin with his theories of evolution in the 1800s. This theory, compatible with naturalism, is the main culprit in this image. Richard Dawkins, too, has stated that before Darwin's time, it would have been difficult for him to be an atheist: "While atheism may have seemed logically valid before Darwin, it was not until Darwin laid the foundation for intellectually justified atheism" ⁽¹⁹⁾.

    But as stated, Darwin's theory (namely in the form that all current species originated from the same primordial cell) is not real science because it contradicts the fossil record. No gradual development can be seen in the fossils. In addition, it should be noted that in his book On the Origin of Species, Darwin did not present examples of species changes, but only of variation and adaptation. They are two different things. Variation, such as the size of the bird's beak, the size of the wings, or the better resistance of some bacteria, in no way proves that all current species originated from the same original stem cell. The following comments tell more about the topic. Darwin himself had to admit that he had no examples of real species changes. In this sense, it can be said that Darwin misled science:

Darwin: I am actually tired of telling people that I do not claim to have any direct evidence of a species having changed into another species and that I believe this view correct mainly because so many phenomena can be grouped and explained based on it. (20)

Encyclopedia Britannica: It must be emphasized that Darwin never claimed to have been able to prove evolution or the origin of species. He claimed that if evolution has taken place, many inexplicable facts can be explained. The evidence supporting evolution is thus indirect.

• As stated, the Christian faith greatly influenced the birth of the scientific revolution. One reason for this was the universities founded by the church. The claim that atheists like to cultivate, namely that the Christian faith would have been an obstacle to the development of science, is therefore a great myth. This is also shown by the fact that the countries where the Christian faith has had the longest influence have been pioneers in the field of science and research.

    What about the notion that the church persecuted scientists? Atheist circles want to maintain this concept, but many historical researchers consider it a distortion of history. (Few atheists in the West know that the greatest persecution of science in history was in the atheist Soviet Union. Several scientists, such as geneticists, were imprisoned and some were killed because of their scientific ideas.) This notion of the opposition between faith and science only dates back to the end of the 19^th century, when writers who supported Darwin's theory, e.g. Andrew Dickson White and John William Draper, brought it up in their books. However, e.g. medieval researcher James Hannam has stated:

Contrary to the common belief, church never supported the idea of a flat earth, never disapproved of autopsies, and for sure never burned anyone at the stake for their scientific ideologies. (21)

Australian skeptic Tim O’Neill has taken a stance on this claim and shows how little people actually know about history: "It's not hard to kick this bullshit to pieces, especially when the people talking about it know next to nothing about history. They've just picked up these weird ideas from websites and popular books. These claims fall apart when they're hit with incontrovertible evidence. I find it fun to poke fun at the propagandists perfectly by asking them to name one - only one - scientist who was burned at the stake or persecuted or oppressed for his research in the Middle Ages. They can never name a single one... At the point when I list the scientists of the Middle Ages - Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, John Peckham, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme, Jean Buridan, and Nicolaus Cusanus—and I ask why these men in all peace advanced the science of the Middle Ages without the church disturbing them, my opponents usually  scratched their heads in amazement, wondering what really went wrong." (22)

    What about Galileo Galilei, who debunked the idea that the sun revolves around the earth? Many do not know that this concept is not at all a Christian heritage, but was inherited from antiquity. Behind it was the Greek scientist Ptolemy and his works on astronomy. It influenced astronomers for centuries:

The world view of Ptolemy created a basis for the commonly accepted assumption that the Earth is the center of the Universe and stays put… Ptolemy finalized his geocentric model in 150 BC. in his treatise Hẻ megalẻ syntaxis (Great Treatise). It became one of the most influential works in astronomy for centuries. In fact, every European astronomer was influenced by it and none of them questioned the geocentric model of the universe in earnest. (Simon Sing: Big Bang, p. 36,38)

It is also important to note that representatives of both science and faith were divided in their attitude towards Galileo's theory. Some churchmen were on his side, others against. Likewise, some scientists opposed his ideas. This is always the case when new theories appear.

    Understanding the heliocentric model may have felt, and may still feel, counter to observations. For example, almanacs and newspapers do not talk about the rising and setting times of the earth, but of the sun. It seems to us that the sun is moving, but the earth is standing still. We don't feel the constant wind due to the movement or the ground slipping away from under our feet. In this regard, it is understandable that opinions on heliocentrism were divided centuries ago. One of the reasons why Galileo Galilei was in a better position than others was also the telescope, which was the most powerful of his time and which not everyone had. It was a new invention that contributed to the emergence of the sun-centered model.

    Why did Galileo fall out of favor with the Pope and put under house arrest in his villa? One reason was Galileo's own behavior. The Pope used to be a great admirer of Galileo, but Galileo's tactless writing contributed to the escalation of the situation. Ari Turunen has written about the background of the matter:

Although Galileo Galilei is considered one of the great martyrs of science, it must be remembered that he was not very pleasant as a person. He was arrogant and easily irritated, whined a lot and he lacked discretion and talent to handle people.Thanks to his sharp tongue and humor, he also had no shortage of enemies. Galileo's astronomical work uses a dialogue format. The book introduces a less intelligent character named Simplicius, who presents Galileo with the most idiotic counterarguments.  Galileo's enemies managed to convince the Pope that Galileo had meant the Pope with his figure of Simplicus. Only after this did the vain and sensitive Urban VIII take action against Galileo...

    ...Urbanus considered himself a reformer and he agreed to talk with Galileo, but Galileo's style was too much for the Pope. Whether Galilei meant the Pope with his Simplicus figure or not, the choice of name was unfathomably bad. Galilei didn’t care for the basics of successful writing, which includes respecting the reader. (23)

4. Scientism belief and moral

One of the features of a science believer is a high degree of confidence in science and its ability to solve the problems of mankind. There is a lot of truth in that. Science can help and has helped solve many problems. For example, advanced medicine can help those suffering from diseases. Cars, trains and planes make it easier to get around. Crop breeding has improved yields. Solar cells and other technical inventions have made life easier. In addition, there are hundreds of examples of how science has been useful in terms of ordinary everyday life.

    However, the worst things and inventions of humanity have also been born through science: nuclear weapons, conventional weapons, tanks, nerve gases, guillotines, concentration camp gas chambers, etc. These things have also been born through science, so science in itself is not a positive thing. It can be used for both good and bad purposes. It is a similar thing to politics, where there are both good and bad examples of rulers' actions. Politicians can do a lot of good but also a lot of bad.

    So what determines the behavior of scientists and politicians? It's morals and what they believe. If they believe that there is no right and wrong, and that they are not accountable to anyone for their actions, that opens the door to injustice. For example, Christianity is bound by ethical guidance (Mark 10:19: You know the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor your father and mother.) and belief in judgment after this life, whereas naturalism and atheism has neither.

The horrors of the last century are a good example of the actions of politicians, scientists and ordinary people. It is often thought that people were different back then, but that is certainly not true. Instead, a better explanation is that Europe became secularized and the leaders no longer had an attachment to the Christian faith (E.g. Stalin's biography tells how Stalin became an atheist one day. Similarly, Joseph Goebbels's diary entries on December 29, 1939 contain the following mention of Hitler's attitudes: "The Führer is deeply religious , but completely opposed to Christianity. He sees Christianity as a symptom of decadence. And so it is. It is a branch of the Jewish race. You can see it in the similarities of the rituals." (24) They did not respect God and did not believe that they were responsible for their actions. They did not believe that God sees and watches their actions, and it led to known consequences. David Berlinski gives us an illustrative example of the last century and what secular society means. When people begin to think there is no God who can see what they’re doing and to whom they are accountable for their actions, the possible consequence are the horrendous acts of the 20^th century:

Somewhere in Eastern Europe, an SS officer with a submachine gun in his lap watched impassively as an aged and bearded Hasidic Jew painstakingly dug a hole that he knew was his own grave. Straightening up, he addressed his executioners: "God sees what you do." And then he was shot dead.

    What Hitler didn't believe, what Stalin didn't believe, and what Mao didn't believe, and what the SS didn't believe, and what the Gestapo didn't believe, and what the Soviet secret police didn't believe, and what the commissars, functionaries, rampaging executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party theoreticians, intellectuals, what the brown shirts, black shirts, regional leaders and thousands of political workers didn't believe was that God was watching what they did.

    And as far as we know, very few of those who carried out the horrors of the 20th century cared much that God was watching what they were doing.

    After all, this is what a secular society means. (25)

Trust in science is therefore unfounded. Science itself will not solve worldly problems if politicians and scientists are guided by selfish morality. The horrors of the last century can be repeated again and even worse, because today's weapons of destruction are many degrees more sophisticated and powerful than those of the last century. For example, Hitler and other leaders of that time would certainly have used today's weapons if they had been available to them. The end of humanity might have been much closer if they had had access to weapons like the ones we have today. Development work to improve the effectiveness of weapons was already done back then, but luckily the development was not as advanced as it is today.

    In which direction is development going? One worrying feature of the Western countries is that they are similar to the 1920-1930s, when people didn’t want God to be a part of society anymore. The "scientists" of that time strongly attacked the belief in God, denying his existence. They explained that modern science – mainly Darwin's theory – makes belief in God impossible. It was also characteristic of the time that people separated from the churches to a large extent.

    The following quote from a book published in 1934, i.e. just five years before the Second World War, shows the development in Europe at that time and how ungodly ideas won the field in people's minds. This is like a description of today's Western countries, where atheistic ideas and thoughts are heavily featured in the media:

From time to time, there have been mass movements of abandoning the church in several countries after the war. Thus, in Germany in 1920, 305,000 people left the evangelical churches. This escape from the church has continued. In 1930, in Berlin alone, 59,225 persons renounced the Lutheran Church, not to mention those Catholics and Jews who abandoned the faith of their fathers... We need not say much about the spread of blasphemous ideas in the 20th century. Suffice it to say that the number of those who publicly confess or tacitly accept the absolute non-existence of God has increased immeasurably. Some men who are considered scholars claim that modern science makes belief in God impossible. They either completely stop believing in God or present that "science requires a new understanding of God". This denial of God begins among children at school. In some cities, thousands of 6-14 year old children, starting from elementary school, have walked the streets carrying the following posters: "“God out of schools”, “Take down God-superstitions”, " Religion is an anesthetic” etc. (26)

TAKE A STEP CLOSER TO GOD!

- (1 Tim 6:20,21) O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.

- (2 Tim 4:3,4) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned to fables.

Above, we have discussed the belief in science in the lives of science believers and atheists. It manifests itself especially in an attitude where scientific knowledge is contrasted with a faith-based worldview.

    But as stated, the science believers themselves are in the grip of blind faith in one area: the beginning of the universe and life. They believe in theories of the origin of the universe and life, for which no proper evidence can be found. It is a question of naturalistic imagination stories and fairy tales, because practical observations are strongly against these assumptions. The evidence points in the opposite direction, i.e. God's work of creation. Neither of these views - naturalistic and theistic - can be proven after the fact, just like other historical events, but theism is a much more logical alternative to the existence of the universe, life, emotions and intelligence. Naturalism is a bad option in this area.

    Here is the paradox. Many believers in science may be intelligent and reasonable in other areas of their lives, but when it comes to God's creation work and relationship with God and the forgiveness of sins, they are ignorant and blind. They don't always even want to find out, and that can prevent them from finding the truth. For only “he that seeks finds; and to him that knocks it shall be opened.” (Matt 7:8), but if a person rejects everything in advance, as the science believers tend to do, he will certainly not find out the truth.

    Dear reader! Therefore, don't fall under the power of lies, but turn to a loving God! Confess your sins to him and tell him that you want to surrender your whole life to him! Do like the prodigal son in Jesus' parable! When he turned to his father, he received him with a gentle kiss:

- (Luke 15:17-20) And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!

18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before you,

19 And am no more worthy to be called your son: make me as one of your hired servants.

20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

- (1 John 1:9) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Above all, understand that you also need a mediator and a savior because of your sins! Jesus is this mediator and the only way to God. When you turn to Him and welcome Him as the Lord of your life, you will receive the gift of forgiveness of sins and eternal life:

- (John 5:39,40) Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And you will not come to me, that you might have life.

- (Acts 13:38) Be it known to you therefore, men and brothers, that through this man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins

So, if you have turned to Jesus Christ and received Him in your life, you are a child of God and have eternal life. You have the eternal life regardless of what you feel right now. Do not base your assurance of salvation on your ever-changing emotions, but rest in the word of the Bible and on Jesus Christ, just like the anchor of a ship is never thrown inside the ship but always outside.

- (John 1:12) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

 - (1 John 5:11-13) And this is the record, that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12 He that has the Son has life; and he that has not the Son of God has not life.

13 These things have I written to you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may believe on the name of the Son of God.

The prayer of salvation: Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn away from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven through Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.

References:

1. V.T. Aaltonen: Miksi en ole kristitty, p. 6,199,200

2. Richard Dawkins: Is Science a Religion?, The humanist. January/February 1997

3. V.T. Aaltonen: Miksi en ole kristitty, p. 22

4. V.T. Aaltonen: Miksi en ole kristitty, p. 22

5. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p. 187

6. Ronald Nash: ”Miracles and Conceptual Systems”, Douglas Geivettin & Gary Habermasin (toim.) in book In Defence of Miracles (Grand Rapids, IVP, 1997), p. 122

7. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), p. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

8. Niles Eldredge (1985): “Evolutionary Tempos and Modes: A Paleontological Perspective” teoksessa Godrey (toim.) What Darwin Began: Modern Darwinian and non-Darwinian Perspectives on Evolution

9. Richard Dawkins: Sokea kelloseppä, p. 240,241

10. Http://creation.com/redirect.php?http://

www. Youtube.com/watch?v=qbdh3l1ujpq

11. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p.146

12. Kysymyksiä ja vastauksia luomisesta (The Creation Answers Book, Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland), p. 85

13. Rodney Stark: The victory of reason. How Christianity led to freedom, capitalism and Western Success. New York, Random House (2005), p. 233

14. Vishal Mangalwadi: Kirja, joka muutti maailmasi (The Book that Made Your World), p. 181,182,186

15. Usko, toivo ja terveys, p. 143, article of Risto A. Ahonen

16. Rodney Stark, (2004), p. 172

17. James Hannam: The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution

18. Vishal Mangalwadi: Kirja, joka muutti maailmasi (The Book that Made Your World), p. 265

19. Richard Dawkins: Sokea kelloseppä, p. 20

20. Darwin, F & Seward A. C. edited, (1903, 1: 184): More letters of Charles Darwin. 2 vols. London: John Murray.

21. James Hannam: The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution

22. O'Neill, T., The Dark Age Myth: An atheist reviews God's Philosophers, strangenotions.com, 17 October 2009

23. Ari Turunen: Ei onnistu, p. 201,202

24. Goebbelsin päiväkirja 29.121939, citation in F. Taylor (edited) The Goebbels Diaries, 1939-1941, Lontoo, Hamish Hamilton, p. 77

25. David Berlinski: The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions (2008), p. 26,27

26. L.H. Christian: Kylvöä ja satoa, p. 114,115

More on this topic:

Questions for those who doubt or oppose the Christian faith

The world of science under microscope. Although the evidence refutes the theory of evolution and refers to intelligent design, scientists do not admit this because of their naturalistic worldview.

Scientific view of the world. Atheists often claim to have a scientific worldview. However, this worldview is based on faith and contradicts the evidence

Worldviews in comparison: naturalism / atheism, pantheism, polytheism and theism. Read why Christian theism is a sensible worldview

Why has there not been an evolution of man? Did man evolve from ape-like primitives or was he created? Learn how evolutionists ’own discoveries refute the notion of human evolution

Imaginary perceptions. People have the impression that science has proved the birth of the universe and life by itself, as well as the doctrine of evolution. However, these images are based on a lie

Magic word. A fundamentalist is a magic word that many use to reject God. They think they are scientific, even if based on faith

Questions for those who doubt or oppose the Christian faith

Scientific view of the world. Atheists often claim to have a scientific worldview. However, this worldview is based on faith and contradicts the evidence