faith and science, many scientists do not believe in evolution theory

Faith and science

What is science and what is faith?

Next there are some writings published in Letters to the Editor or sent to it. They handle science and faith, and indicate how the outlook on life can lead research and how faith in the area of science is as possible as in spiritual life.

Nowadays many researchers deny this and do not admit that preconceptions would lead their research, but especially the origin and history of life is an area where it happens like this. For example the idea of millions of years and of strata of the same age is adapted generally without criticism just therefore, because people believe in the theory. Millions of years are not questioned although many facts speak against them and that the strata had been formed slowly during millions of years (from a Precambrian stratum “from across 600 millions of years” has been found 4,000 years old pollen, from the strata of the Cambrian period has been found representatives of almost all forms of life that live also nowadays although it is believed that there was life only in the seas, the trunk fossils that penetrate several strata indicate how the strata have been formed quickly and not over a period of millions of years, the fossils themselves are an indication of fast forming of strata because they can been formed only by being buried quickly into state of free from oxygen…).

The first writing was published in Etelä-Suomen Sanomat 12.5.2008:

FAITH AND COMMON SENSE

27.4. there was in ESS a writing, in which it was handled creation and expressed how it is unscientific to believe in it, such as “wise people” usually do.

But what is scientific and what is faith? Paul says straight out in Hebrews that “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Hebr 11:3), in other words he admitted the impact of faith in understanding matters. He said that only by faith can we understand how everything was created out of nothing.

However, he who believes in a random beginning and evolution also relies fully on faith. This is the fact that cannot be denied. We cannot prove the foundation of the evolution theory, the big bang and spontaneous generation, in a laboratory: they are based on faith in the minds of people. Attempts to generate the latter in a laboratory have been made, but with no success whatsoever. No scientist has been able to get even near to solving the origin of life, i.e. people believe in it even though practical observations do not support it. The belief in the matter is only inside the people. As a matter of fact, many so-called scientific issues are based on faith like is the spiritual life and faith in the supernatural God. The question is which of the alternatives we deem more realistic – the belief in the haphazard origin or creation – because neither of them cannot be properly proven afterwards.

In this issue one should use his common sense because in that way it is possible to proceed at least a little. So, when you ask an ordinary plain man how possible he considers that a new universe like the present one with dozens of billions galaxies, hundreds of billions stars, a sun like the present one, the planets, sea and water, the rocks, man, the birds, elephants, mosquitoes and so on could be born from, for example, an ordinary chip of a stone (in the big bang theory it is supposed that everything came into being from a pin-sized space), what would he say? How reasonable would he deem the whole issue when holding a chip of stone in his hand? Is it not likely that his answer would be something to the effect:

- Don’t be crazy, that’s just an impossible idea! Such cannot be born from a small stone. How could anyone believe in such foolishness?

Jari Iivanainen

Jukka Liipola wrote an interesting reply to the previous writing. It was published 4.6.2008:

FAITH, COMMON SENSE OR SCIENCE

Jari Iivanainen put against faith and common sense in his writing recently, as if the use of intelligence endangered the position of God in some way. God certainly has not forbidden to debate structures of the universe with sense, so it is not so much a question of defending God, but defending of own narrow standpoint.

If Paul has indeed said that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear, so we are nearly on the same tracks with the scientists, as the origin of the universe is from a extremely small state also according to the theory. If empties are compressed from the universe, so that there is nothing between a nucleus and electrons, we face indeed quite a small ball. If it is reduced time and speed away from E=MC2, there is neither actually any mass left.

“Only through faith we understand that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” said Paul too. In his time Pasteur proved that illnesses, cockroaches and rats are not born from dirt and rags by spontaneous generation, but the invisible small microbes are a reason behind illnesses. Microscope brought out the invisible into sight but Paul could not divine it in his time.

The greatest part of the living beings in biosphere have family cells of which size is almost invisible small, so that is that.

That, how God has not created species, can be concluded from the remarkable complicated internal fine-structure of organisms and plants, to say nothing of the structure of the molecules and atoms. A creation would probably have a much simpler fine-structure, for complexity in creation cannot provide any need, if realization takes place by snapping fingers. The thigh of a creation could be well bologna and the trees pulp internally. Instead, the evolution in which the more and more complicated species have evolved from simple organisms, demands complexity, that has been possible to prove in science. It, that more primitive forefathers and relatives of the present species have been found as fossils in plenty and their history of evolution has been possible to clear up carefully, indicates that at least any of the present species is not outcome of the creation.

God has not been removed, of course, but science has driven Him to a very narrow corner. Science tries to get as close as possible the truth that can been seen and also the origin of the universe, but realizes well that there shall we face truly the great questions: from where and why came everything into existence and what was before that?

It can be said, of course, that everything could not be born from a small chip of a stone but it would be stranger to say that everything was born from empty. Besides that a chip of a stone is also one part of the outcome, not the initial stage.

Would it then be more realistic to believe in a chance happened once in the eternity or in supernatural Creator? I wonder what was the position and location of the Creator when there were not any universe?

Was the Creator able to build an atom in which the electrons revolve the nucleus with the speed of light without running away from their tracks or bumping each others. What about the high-power that prevents electrons running away and how the power stands without becoming weaker for ever? From where the electrons get their speed?

Would the DNA, that moves the genes to the offspring, be necessary for a created being?

Why the earth’s crust has a complicated inner structure, if it was meant only as treaded? Why generally the whole system is so complicated that clearing up of it is almost impossible? In creation complexity cannot be well adapted in any way…

Science adds our comprehension and understanding off the structures and effects of the matters and pushes God farther at the same time. However, an every clarified question opens several new questions. Among them there are many that are almost impossible to understand. So, there is not yet time to put God on the list of displaced, even though we have not seen Him in everyday life for centuries. However, man has already been able to make decisions independently through the knowledge that he can get and also to be responsible for them, so that kind of distant God suits modern man very well.

Jukka Liipola

In the next writing is also handled the same issue:

SCIENCE AND FAITH

Thanks to Jukka Liipola for the interesting writing concerning faith and science.

As far as the origin of the universe is concerned, it is really true that our understanding of it is based on faith; we believe either on creation or an haphazard origin. Neither of them we cannot properly prove afterwards, because past conditions cannot be repeated. However, if we suppose that everything began from a pin-sized space as it has been thought, it requires for example following things: water that we drink and lakes in which we swim were born from this small space. The sun that warms us and that we look at with our eyes, was born from it. From it were born, according to the theory, stars, planets, senses. In the same way, from it were born apple and banana that we eat and that taste good and so on. I think that if one regards this everything as true, it requires quite a great faith.

What about other proofs for the theory of evolution. It is quite understandable that he who believes in this theory, defends it powerfully and regards it as scientific. However, the opinion of evolutionist G.A. Kerkut symbolizes the whole area. He presents that the origin of multicellular organisms is based on faith. Elsewhere in his book he states that the main hypotheses of the evolution theory are such that can not be proved experimentally: “What conclusions can be drawn from the possible relationship between monocellulars (Protozoa) and multicellular (Metazoa) organisms? The only fact is that we are not familiar with the relationship... If we please, we may believe that one of these theories is more correct than the others, but we do not have any real evidence.” (Implications of Evolution, p. 49)

What about if we believe in supernatural God? Without interfering the thought about creation any more, it is at least interesting to note that such issues like the Fall, the Flood and the confusing of the languages appear in the tradition of peoples. For example stories about the Flood there are at least 150 in the world, which points to the conclusion that it has really happened. Another interesting and an observation of practice is that the remains of marine creatures have been found on the highest mountains (the Himalayas, Andes, Alps, Ural, Altai, Rocky Mountains…) and far away on dry lands. Mentions of observations like these appear in many books of earthly authors. One of them is in the book Maapallo Ihmeiden Planeetta (p. 55). It describes the remains of marine creatures in the Himalayas in the following way:

Harutaka Sakai from the Japanese University in Kyushu has for many years researched these marine fossils in the Himalayan Mountains. He and his group have listed a whole aquarium from the Mesozoic period. Tender sea lilies, relatives to the current sea urchins and starfishes, were found on cliffs over three kilometres above sea level. Ammonites, belemnites, corals, and plankton fossils are found in the rocks of the mountains. (…)

At an altitude of two kilometres above sea level, the geologists found markings the sea had made. There was a wavelike rock surface, similar to that which is formed by waves on sand in low water. Yellow stripes of limestone have been found even on the peak of Mount Everest, formed from innumerable remains of marine creatures under water.

Jari Iivanainen

The last interesting writing has been written by Matti Leisola. There he brings out the same issue, or how the outlook on life can lead examination:

DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

I have followed with interesting the discussion about evolution and creation in the pages of ESS. The origin of life is an historical event. Answers to questions concerning it are always percolated through interpretations and outlooks on life. We can ask with reason, is the extreme complexity of biology caused by characters of matter or do we need intelligent reasons.

In fact, the great majority of mankind has always believed that some kind of divinity is behind life. The thought is naturally strange to the materialistic outlook on life. According to it, some kind of process of Darwinism must have created us because there is no other alternative. So this materialistic outlook on life rejects the ideal of science about searching of truth, repeats old myths about chaffinches of Darwin and foetus pictures of Haeckel and confines science in a straitjacket, which it does not need.

In an esteemed science magazine Cell it was deliberated some years ago what has been the most important scientific achievement in the course of history. The conclusion was surprising: “The greatest scientific step forward in the course of last thousand years has been to find proofs for that men are independent actors whose life on earth are not guided by heavenly powers.” According to the evolution biologist of the Harvard University, Richard Lewont, “science has engaged beforehand to materialism”. It is paradoxical that these opinions are actually religious. Because materialism is religious, we should not mix up it in science and stuff to pupils and students in the disguise of science.

There are many problems in materialistic Darwinian creation story. As the answers given by science are never absolute truths, we should talk about these problems openly. How can we regard Darwinian creation story as sure, even though our understanding about present biology changes all the time? The opinion of one of the most famous atheists in the world, the professor of philosophy Anthony Flew, changed just because of the complexity of the biological world. He told how he rejected atheism and assured oneself that “super brains is only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity in nature”. Flew states that he had to simply “go there where the proofs lead”.

The complexity of biological world needs good explanation. Darwinism cannot give it: it has failed in its forecasts repeatedly and underestimated the complexity of nature all the time. The tendency of Darwinian fundamentalism to prevent open discussion about the problems of evolution has irritated many researchers that are fully uncommitted to religion. Over 700 natural scientists who have doctorate have written the following statement in different sides of the world: “We take up a sceptical attitude towards claims, according to which haphazard mutations and natural selection explain the complexity of life. Careful estimation of the proofs of Darwin’s theory should be encouraged.” The list of undersigned appears in address http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/.

Nobel Prize winner, physicist Robert B. Laugh determined Darwinism antitheory recently: “The central expression of ideological thinking is an explanation--- that cannot be tested. I call such logical dead ends antitheories. --- Darwin’s evolution through natural selection--- has [however] begun to act as an antitheory recently. --- Your protein does not obey the law of mass influence? Evolution did it! A complicated mess chemical reactions will change into an hen? Evolution! The human brains act in logical principles, which cannot be imitated by any computer. Evolution is the explanation!” (A Different Universe, New York: Basic Books, 2005, pp. 168-169)

It is strange if in a Christian school could not teach that God created the world and life. The Bible is not needed to teach in a lesson of biology, but in deliberating the complexity of life and DNA, it is fully in accordance with natural history to state that the information always and without any exception refers to intelligent origin. The Bible’s “In the beginning was the Word” is in this respect a much more logical starting point than “In the beginning was an hydrogen atom”, presented by the materialists. Besides, open discussion about the problems of Darwinism helps pupils to critical thinking.

Matti Leisola

Professor