|
|
Scientific view of the world
Atheists often claim to have a scientific worldview. However, this worldview is based on faith and contradicts the evidence
1. Science or faith and philosophy?
In this writing, we will study a scientific view of the world. Usually, this refers to a conception of the world based on reason, observations and sure evidence. It is thought to be an objective way of studying reality, based on concrete information alone. Many people like to stress in particular the idea that this ideology is the opposite of religious thinking. They state that the religious view of the world is based on "blind faith" but the scientific way of thinking is not. Instead, their ideology is based on reason and facts, by which they very often mean Darwin’s theory of evolution and origin of life by itself. The following quote shows very well what this type of ideology, in which people consider themselves to be scientific, is all about. It stresses the difference between “scientific” and “religious” views of the world.
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. (...) One should think that there is no need to point out the conflict between the scientific and the religious ideology. (1)
Is there such a thing as a scientific view of the world? As stated above, people who stress the scientific ideology usually say that their world view is different from the religious world view. They consider their own, atheism and naturalism based ideology to be reasonable while others’ religious ideology is based on blind faith in matters that one cannot prove. This is the way some people think. Is atheism, then, any more scientific than the notion that God is behind everything? If we study this in light of the topics mentioned below, we will find that it is not. The supporters of this ideology are no more scientific in forming their beliefs than people who consider God to be the starting point for everything. They turn out to be similar to other people, although they boast of their scientificity. Paul wrote in his day:
- (2 Cor 11:12) But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
Next, we will further study the basics of the so-called scientific worldview. When many claim to have a scientific worldview, their perception can be questioned. When discussing this matter, one should consider the following aspects:
• Prerequisites for a scientific worldview • Scientific worldview or blind faith? • Scientific worldview and having confidence in one’s own reasoning • Is naturalism science? • Being led by preconceptions • Which theory is suitable for the facts?
PREREQUISITES FOR A SCIENTIFIC WORLDVIEW. As for the scientific worldview, it basically requires two things:
• Complete knowledge • No observation should contradict the scientific worldview
A scientific worldview requires complete knowledge. First of all, if people assume that they have a scientific worldview, it requires one thing: they must have complete knowledge of everything that is now and has happened in the past. However, we are on weak ground in this matter. It is of course true that some people know more than others and may be more right, but no one has perfect knowledge. Especially the past, such as questions about the origin of the universe, life and man, are an area in which our knowledge is incomplete. We have not been there to verify what actually happened, and on that basis it is impossible to be completely scientific about the past. No one can claim to be scientific in the full sense of the word. Only an omniscient being like God can be that. The following picture shows the deficiency of our knowledge. It shows how incomplete human knowledge is. We only know a fraction of all information, and based on that it is impossible to have a completely scientific world view. Anyone who claims otherwise is not standing in the truth.
No observation should contradict the scientific world view. Second, if we assume that a worldview is scientific, it also requires the following: no observation must contradict the worldview. All things seen in nature must be in harmony with the human worldview or else there is something wrong with it. Is such a person, who claims to have a scientific worldview, ready to stand behind all the beliefs related to his worldview? What if his perceptions are false? The following quotation shows how some practical observations are in clear contradiction with the world view. The writing is from a publication called Science News Letter from 1938. It shows how traces resembling clearly human footprints have been found in several places (at least four places), whose age has been determined to be about 250 million years. However, when the general understanding in evolutionary theory has been that humans and primates only appeared a few hundreds of thousands of years ago, there is an obvious contradiction in the observations. If the observations are taken as they are and if we believe the timeline of the theory of evolution, man should have appeared on Earth approx. 150 million years before the dinosaurs. Such examples show how the scientific worldview of many can actually be based on false and unproven views:
The human-like footprints in the rock are a puzzle to scientists. They can't be human because they're far too old - but what strange, bipedal, amphibious animal could have made them? What is it that lived 250 million years ago and walked on its hind legs with human-like feet? ... (...) This is a mystery of science to which the answer is yet to be found (...) Not that science would stop trying. (...) But for now, all that has been seen are 12 footprints that peculiarly resemble those left by human feet, each 9 ½ " long and 6" wide at the widest point, where the toes spread. The prints were found in a sandstone formation about 12 miles from Berea that is known to date back to the Carboniferous period. These foot prints were found by Dr. G. Wilbur, a professor of geology in the University of Berea, and Mr. William Finnell. Recently prof. Burroughs was visited by some Kentucky mountain men who took him to their hills and showed him another place where there were many footprints. This mountain seems to have been an "old Kentucky home" for an entire family of mysterious animals, since Professor Burroughs tells that the prints varied in size from small 4½" long ones to the previously described footprints that were almost 10" long. (...) The footprints are extremely strange. They are just the right size to be human - nine or ten inches tall - and almost the right shape. Almost everyone who sees them first thinks that they are made by a human foot and it is almost impossible to convince someone that they are not human... But even the boldest estimates of human presence on earth are only a million years - and these traces are 250 times that old... Such is the riddle. A quarter of a billion years ago, this human-like animal left footprints in a wide spread of sand, which time hardened into rock. Then he disappeared. And now scientists are scratching their heads. (Science News Letter 34, 278, 1938)
The second quote continues on the same topic. It also tells how traces similar to human footprints have been found in several ancient deposits in the United States and elsewhere (Mexico, Arizona, Illinois, New Mexico, Kentucky, and other states). These types of discoveries show how some observations are in clear conflict with the worldview:
SCIENTIFIC WORLDVIEW OR BLIND FAITH? As already stated, many atheists and God denying people want to separate scientific and religious worldviews from each other. Those kinds of people believe they have a scientific way of thinking that only has room for facts and not faith. However, if we start from the idea that someone's worldview is scientific and not based on faith at all, does such a person exist? How many people act only on facts in the field of science and in ordinary life, but do not use their faith? Is it possible to find such a person? To be honest, no one practically works without faith. In the field of science, it is manifested in the fact of trusting in the credibility and knowledge of others. Their perceptions are considered reliable because they are thought to be knowledgeable. In the area of ordinary life is the same. Here, too, we trust the word of others and consider it true. We personally only check a small percentage of the things we embrace as true. So everyone believes, and no one is on neutral ground. Every person believes in something; even the one who believes that he bases everything on facts. A completely scientific person does not exist, because it is impossible. The following examples highlight the importance of faith and its presence in everyday life:
• A girl trusts her mother's word that she will get a new dress. It is faith. • People believe that such a place as Antarctica exists, even though very few have been there. • When there are store advertisements in newspapers, we believe them and go shopping based on them. • History is an area where we know everything based on the word of others. For example, the existence of Napoleon and Caesar can no longer be proven scientifically, but we have to rely on the word of others. It is a faith that everyone has to lean on.
Questions about the origin of the universe, life and man also belong to the area of faith. It is difficult for many to understand that questions about the origin of the universe, life and man also belong to the area of faith. However, the reason for this is simple: None of us witnessed the birth of these things. There are only different theories about how they started, but scientifically it is impossible to prove their origin. We cannot go back to the past and look at things from there. In this sense, everyone is in the same position and in the same boat. The conclusion is that an atheist, like each of us, has to resort to blind faith in questions about the origin of the universe and life, even if we claim otherwise. It's just a question of which worldview the facts fit better. Ken Ham shows how both creationism and evolution are both such past-based beliefs. They cannot be proven true afterwards because we cannot go back to the past. Evolutionists are just as faith-based in this area as someone who believes in creation. They are in the same boat and in the same position trying to understand what has happened in the past. They have the same evidence in the present with which they interpret the past.
Most people have the wrong idea of the issues connected with the question of creation versus evolution. Instead of seeing the real nature of this question, people have been deceived into believing that evolution is science. It is not science at all: it is all about beliefs about the past. We cannot visit the past. (...) It is important to see that Creation is also by definition a belief about the past. The difference is that the ideas of those who believe in Creation are based on a book that claims it is the word of God. God, who was there at the time, who knows everything and who tells what happened. Evolution is based on stories of people who were not personally present and who do not even claim to know everything. (...) All the evidence available to scientists only exist in the present. All fossils, living animals and plants, the globe, the universe – everything – exist in the present. Ordinary people (also most of students) are not taught that scientists can only rely on the present and they cannot interact with the past. Evolution is a belief system about the past based on what people say – people who were not there personally but who try to explain how all the pieces of evidence we can now see (such as fossils, animals and plants) came into being. (2)
2. Scientific worldview and having confidence in one’s own reasoning Above, it was brought up how atheists, god-deniers and free thinkers believe they represent the scientific worldview. They may consider themselves to be critical and intelligent individuals who trust and value their own reason. However, the question is; where does intelligence come from? In naturalistic and atheistic theory, it is thought that reason and intelligence have come into the world by themselves. They are thought to have originated from primitive life forms and even from a space the size of a pinhead in the Big Bang. In this conception, random processes are assumed to have produced intelligence in the world. Non-intelligent and impersonal matter has produced intelligent beings. In other words, in the atheistic view, thinking beings are thought to originate from an impersonal and irrational origin. Atheists and god-deniers do not believe in the view that man was originally created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and this explains his intelligence However, there is a big problem with the naturalistic way of thinking: how can you trust human judgments if our intellectual abilities come from primitive life forms, as Darwin's theory of evolution supposes, or even from the Big Bang? Is it meaningful to trust such knowledge and wisdom? Random evolution cannot provide a solid basis for a person's conceptions, even if he himself may consider them wise. If the beginning of everything is impersonal and irrational, rational reasoning loses its basis. Then there is reason to doubt all our thoughts and their reasonableness. We cannot assume that anyone's intellectual abilities are reliable. They can produce false as well as true information. You, who value your own reason and scientific knowledge, take this into account! If the origin of everything is impersonal and nonsensical, then it is quite impossible to trust one's own conclusions and scientific knowledge. Darwin also had to admit the same thing. He stated that if man has evolved from lower life forms, his beliefs may not be reliable:
An interesting remark is that people, who claim to have a scientific worldview, usually identify their view with naturalism. That is, they believe the universe to be a closed system, meaning naturalism doesn’t recognize the supernatural world or God. Matter is all that there is. Miracles are also impossible; thus, naturalists do not believe in the Bible’s descriptions of healing, walking on water, or prophecies coming true. Naturalists consider such things impossible because they do not fit within their view of the world. Or if a person says that he or she was healed through prayer, such people tend to be derisive of it. They do not accept it as such, but always come up with a natural explanation for everything. The same thing occurs in relation to the beginning of the universe and life. As noted, atheists and naturalistically minded 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 opinion 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.
4. Being led by preconceptions
In the previous paragraphs, the influence of faith in our lives and people's different views of the universe have been brought up. Some view the universe as a closed system, while others think that in addition to matter there is God and a supernatural world. In addition, it is important to note that every person is guided by prejudices and preconceptions. When some people think they have a neutral and unbiased way of thinking and world view, such a person hardly exists. On the contrary, everyone has some kind of presuppositions by which we act. It means that we usually reject material that contradicts our worldview. If someone believes in creation, he looks for material that supports it and rejects other kinds of concepts. Correspondingly, the one who believes in the birth of life by itself and evolution of life seeks to find material that supports it and rejects other types of material. He rejects opposing views and considers those who understand the matter differently to be ignorant. The same prejudices also manifest themselves in the academic world. We may have unlimited confidence in anything called scientific, but it's good to know that scientists are incomplete like any of us. They eat the same food, go to the same schools as children and teenagers, drive the same cars, read the same magazines and have the same prejudices, preconceived notions, even false information. It is a mistake to think of them as infallible and neutral, because they certainly are not. They too have their own biases and worldviews through which they look at things. Their bias may be correct in some respects, but it is also possible that they are mistaken. This must always be taken into account when it comes to imperfect people. In this matter, you should pay attention to the following points:
How is science done? When science is done, preconceived notions can have a great influence on how it is done. This is not so much about experimental and sure knowledge such as mathematical calculations (2 + 3 = 5, etc.), experiments in physics and chemistry in a laboratory, or direct measurements and observations in nature. Instead, preconceptions can play a role in areas such as questions about the origin of the universe, life, and man—things that have already been mentioned. In practice, this means that we are usually looking for material that reinforces our worldview. If someone believes in creation and the biblical story, they are looking for material that reinforces it. Correspondingly, the one who believes in the birth of life by itself and in Darwin's theory is trying to find material that supports his worldview. E.g. In the life of atheist scientists, it can manifest itself in the following ways:
• A person is seeking the missing link and the ancestors of the human race from the wilderness of Africa. If this person didn’t have his faith and his world view, he would surely not bother searching. He does research because he believes in the theory. • A scientist believes that the birth of life by itself is possible anywhere if the conditions are right. He believes this even though no one has proven how life began, even in a laboratory. • Evolutionists try to find intermediate forms between the main groups because they believe that all species are related and originate from the same original forms. • A person who believes that the Earth is very old usually rejects any evidence suggesting the opposite. He does not accept this evidence or wish to ponder any other alternatives.
This means that our prejudices clearly influence the way in which we do science and study the evidence. All scientists and regular people have prejudices based on which they interpret information and take actions. It is unlikely that there is a person who does not act based on some kind of prejudice. The following quote is about this same subject. It shows that we first accept a theory and then start to seek evidence to support this theory. The order of acceptance is not facts first, but theory first. Based on the theory we start our research. This is the way people usually act.
Another "mistake" would probably be my claim that the evolutionist evaluates the facts according to his own theory or philosophy. He believes it's the other way around: the facts have given birth to his theory. That's where the evolutionist is wrong. However, I dare not criticize him for this, lest I judge everyone. The old adage that theory always arises from facts is widely believed, even though it is a completely inaccurate generalization. Already in 1935, the Austrian philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper (later of the University of London) showed in his remarkable work The Logic of Scientific Discovery that scientists do not work according to the so-called scientific method. They couldn't work accordingly even if they wanted to. The claim that you can start research with observation without theory is absurd. Scientists don't simply go around collecting observations and results indiscriminately and then try to apply them to theories. They start with some theory or vision. This gives them a direction to collect test results. ...Theory affects facts in a very significant way, from physics to anthropology. This is how science works because this is how people work. Evolutionists, creationists and everything in between. No one will ever say this. Why on earth? Because it sounds so wrong. It sounds so wrong we don't even want to think about it. But it's not wrong. We humans just act that way. It's the only way we can operate. The only deception is self-deception when we try to tell ourselves that we wouldn't act like this, that we, unlike everyone else, are objective and free from prejudice. In theory the facts determine the theory, but in reality the theory determines the facts. In the end, everything is philosophy – or theology. (6)
When we said that every one of us has biases and preconceptions, it also applies to atheist scientists. Therefore, scientists who are atheists do not usually even want to discuss the flaws in, and details of, atheism and the theory of evolution. They do not want to study the weaknesses in these ideas. Instead, they try to label anyone having different beliefs as ignorant and a representative of American fundamentalism (which is completely wrong because the idea of Creation comes from the Middle East and it is more than 2,000 years old: Jesus taught it). Atheists do this even though they are themselves prisoners of blind faith. When one tries to talk with atheists about the weaknesses of their beliefs and the theory of evolution, one is often met with a solid brick wall of resistance. Such people do not want to study the weaknesses of their ideology. Instead, they mechanically repeat their mantra: “Atheism and the theory of evolution are true, atheism and the theory of evolution are true...” Their way of action is not much different from the Ephesians, who at the time rejected the gospel message proclaimed by Paul. It didn't go through when the Ephesians shouted, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians.
- (Acts 19:23-32) 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. 31 And certain of the chief of Asia, which were his friends, sent to him, desiring him that he would not adventure himself into the theatre. 32 Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused: and the more part knew not why they were come together.
When people have a view based on evolution and millions of years, or a traditional biblical view (creation happened only some thousands of years ago and it took only a few days), they also interpret signs in nature differently. If they see, for example, a fossil of a marine animal in a high mountain (they are actually found in all high mountains: the Himalayas, the Andes, the Alps, the Altai, etc.), they can explain it in the following ways. One group takes the Bible's description as it is, the other group tries to find a different explanation for the matter:
• A person who takes the early chapters of the Bible as they are sees a sea animal fossil in the mountains as evidence of the Flood, because according to the Bible water covered all the high mountains.
- (Gen 7:19) And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
- (2 Peter 3:6) Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
• Evolutionists and also proponents of theistic evolution can explain the fossils of marine animals in the mountains by the uplift of the earth and processes lasting millions of years. The following description from an evolutionist's book (Jerry A. Coyne: Why evolution is true) is related to the topic. The description tells how Darwin found fossilized seashells high in the Andes. The author admits that the mountain was under water, but does not believe in the Flood:
While travelling on the Beagle Darwin himself found fossilized seashells from high up on the Andean Mountains. It shows that, what is now a mountain was once under water.
In another science book (Kalle Taipale: Levoton maapallo, p. 78) the topic is flood narratives. Even this writer does not consider the Flood likely, although accounts of the Flood are abundant and the remains of marine animals can be found high up in great mountains. It shows how people, based on their own worldview, interpret signs in nature and history in different ways. Preconceptions influence all our interpretations.
The following quote is very related to the topic, i.e. the Flood and the interpretation of the signs in nature. It shows how, influenced by their worldview, atheists reject all evidence related to the Flood. They reject them outright. Even if Noah's ark was found on top of Mount Ararat, it would have no effect on them. Or even if there were thousands of Flood accounts - about 500 have been found around the world - this would have no effect on them either.
Many people do not understand what prejudice is, thinking that some people are prejudiced and others are not. Consider, for example, an atheist. Such a person believes that there is no God. Can an atheist investigate the question: "Did God create?" The answer is: “No.” If he even allows such a question, he is not an atheist. So, to an atheist scientist studying fossils and our world, it doesn't matter what evidence he finds. They can have nothing to do with biblical events like the flood. Even if he found the great ark on top of Mount Ararat, he would not allow the evidence to support the Bible's claims about Noah's ark. If he did, he would have abandoned the way of thinking of his atheistic religion. Atheists have a hundred percent bias. This should be kept in mind when reading a book written by an atheist or watching a television program produced by an atheist. (7)
5. To which worldview the facts fit; to naturalism or theism?
Above, we addressed the fact that our view of the world influences the way in which we interpret the world. Everyone has biases and preconceptions, which affect the way we act. This applies to scientists, as well as, to other people. Next, we will study facts that one can observe in nature and elsewhere. Are these best suited to the naturalistic and materialistic view of the world, or are they best suited to the Bible’s description of the universe as having been created by God? Let’s start with the naturalistic view of the world, which needs to explain in some way that the following issues, for example, take place by themselves – or at least these issues must be taken into account. Many scientists acknowledge the lack of evidence for the respective things:
The beginning of the universe is something that must be explained in a naturalistic worldview. Currently, the most common theory is the Big Bang theory, in which everything – galaxies, stars, sun, planets, sea and water, rocks, man, birds, elephants, mosquitoes, flowers – is assumed to have arisen from nothingness by itself. However, no practical observation suggests that things can appear from nothing. This theory is contrary to the laws of nature. In addition, a number of scientists dispute the validity of this theory:
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)
The birth of galaxies has never been proven. The belief in their birth stands on shaky ground:
I do not want to claim that we really understand the process that created the galaxies. The theory on the birth of the galaxies is one of the major unsolved problems in astrophysics and we still seem to be far from the actual solution even today. (Steven Weinberg, Kolme ensimmäistä minuuttia / The First Three Minutes, p. 88)
There are several theories for how the solar system came into being but none are proven:
Even nowadays, when astrophysics has progressed enormously, many theories concerning the origin of the solar system are unsatisfactory. Scientists still disagree about the details. There is no commonly accepted theory in sight. (Jim Brooks, Näin alkoi elämä, p. 57 / Origins of Life)
All presented hypotheses about the origin of the solar system have serious inconsistencies. The conclusion, at the moment, seems to be that the solar system cannot exist. (H. Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History and Physical Constitution, 6th edition, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 387)
The beginning of life has not been proven, even in a laboratory. There is a huge gap between living and inanimate materials:
Andy Knoll, professor of biology at Harvard University: In trying to bring together what we know about the deep history of life on planet Earth, the origins of life, and the stages of its formation that led to the biology that appears around us, we have to admit that it is shrouded in obscurity. We do not know how life began on this planet. We don't know exactly when it started, and we don't know under what circumstances. (8)
How did eukaryotic cells, which are much more complex and almost a thousand times larger in volume than prokaryotes cells, arise?
How did multicellular organisms originate?
The assumption that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all related to each other. It has not been proven.
The changing of species into other species has not been proven. Naturalistic philosophy is based on the belief that it has happened, even though it has been impossible to detect. No one has been able to present a single proof of that. Darwin's finches, variation in bacteria, peppered moths and other species is always variation within basic groups. (Almost always, when evolutionists talk about evidence of evolution, they refer to adaptations, where, for example, bacteria adapt better to their environment. Therefore, an important question is to find out what is meant by evolution; macroevolution, i.e. the birth of new species, or just adaptations and changes? Everyone admits the latter, and there is no uncertainty about it, but the dispute concerns the first area. If this question is not addressed first, the matter cannot be moved forward.). They have not changed into other species. In addition, the fossil record speaks for the permanence of species. Fossils have always been found perfect, developed and have the characteristic features of their own species. No clear intermediate forms have been observed in this material. One example of missing fossils is the punctualism theory of perhaps the world's most famous fossil researcher, Stephen Jay Gould. According to it, intermediate fossils do not exist, because at some times the development has been so fast that no material has remained of them. Development has been thought to have happened in leaps and bounds. However, this shifts the problem elsewhere. If there are no direct observations of the intermediate forms, then has the whole development occurred? If it cannot be proven with fossils from the past or examples from the present, then the whole theory should be questioned. Then it is not true but a lie. It is the most reasonable conclusion based on the observational data. The same problem of the lack of intermediate forms emerges in the following quotations. When there are no intermediate forms, it means that the species must have been ready and separate from the beginning. It clearly refers to creation.
When talking about actual macroevolution changes, there is practically no evidence available. Regardless of opposing claims, the mechanism of macroevolution is unknown. (...) Scientific literature of the field does not even try to seriously explain the mechanisms with which complex biological molecules, mechanisms and structures came into being. A fictive story of a possible path of evolution is usually considered sufficient proof. (9)
After observing mutations in banana flies for several years, Goldschmidt gave up hope. He complained that the changes were so hopelessly small that even if a thousand mutations combined in one individual, a new species would still not have been born. (10)
Austin H. Clark: Since its first appearance, the animal kingdom has been essentially the same as we know it today...Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, those who believe in creation are on the better side of the dispute. There is not the slightest proof that any of the large groups [of the animal kingdom] originated from another. (11)
Ever since Darwin’s times, people have argued whether macroevolution is only an uninterrupted continuum of microevolution – as claimed by Darwin and his followers – or whether they are separate from each other, in which case separate theories would be necessary to explain macroevolution – as claimed by Darwin's opponents. According to this view, there is a clear gap between a species and the corresponding higher groups of species. There is no solution to this argument to this day, because there seems to be an astounding contradiction between the theory and the observations made. According to the Darwinist theory, evolution is a phenomenon of populations and thus it should be gradual and continuous. This does not refer only to microevolution but also to macroevolution and the transition stage between the two. Unfortunately, this principle contradicts the observations made. Gaps seem to be very common when studying higher groups of species or when studying individual species. Even today, we do not see the missing link between whales and land mammals, reptiles and birds, or reptiles and mammals. All the main groups are separated from each other by a gaping gap. There seems to be a gap also between flowers and their closest relatives. These gaps are even clearer in fossils. New species appear in the fossil layers all of a sudden without any evidence of intermediate stages in between a new species and its basic form. Actually, there are only a few examples of species having evolved stage by stage (Ernst Mayer in his book Evoluutio [What Evolution Is], p. 288).
Ridley claims that fossil material has never been part of the evidence for evolution and that, according to Darwin, fossil evidence cannot be the basis for deciding between creation and evolution because the fossil material is full of gaps. Darwin, on the other hand, says that the number of fossilized intermediate fossils must be infinite. He goes on to say that they have not been found, and that their absence is the most serious argument against his theory. According to Darwin, they have not been found simply because the fossil record is incomplete. To Darwin, the fossil evidence was so important and the lack of intermediate forms such a threat to his theory that he devoted an entire chapter of his On the Origin of Species to the inadequacies of geological history. Ridley has forgotten his Darwin. For 150 years, evolutionists have presented the fossils they have found as evidence of evolution. They have promised more and better fossils in the future, hoping that luck and the tooth fairy would grant their wishes. In the early 1970s, it became clear that there was enough fossil material. Then the harsh reality was revealed: there were no intermediate fossils to be found. A new punctual evolution model was invented to explain why they were not found. However, it is essential to stress that the punctual model does not eliminate the need for intermediate fossils. It just explains why no intermediate fossils have been found. Punctualism is a unique theory presented in the history of science. It is claimed to be scientific, but then it is explained why no evidence can be found for it. (12)
What about the destruction of the dinosaurs? Above we went through some of the most common naturalistic beliefs such as the birth of the universe, the birth of galaxies and stars, the birth of the solar system and the self-birth of life and the lack of intermediate fossils. It was stated how the evidence is completely against naturalistic and atheistic thought patterns. Instead, they refer much more clearly to the creation work of God. Because if the naturalistic model favored by atheists about the early stages of the universe and life is not true, there is ultimately no other alternative than God's creation work. This should be taken as a historical fact and not clinging pertinaciously to naturalistic theories for which there is no practical support. Earlier it was also stated how the evidence in nature is the same for everyone. The evidence exists in the present, but it can be interpreted in different ways. Atheists interpret all their observations through evolutionary glasses and millions of years, and on the other hand, a person who believes in the historicity of the Bible sees the same things in the light of the texts of the Bible. One good example is the extinction of the dinosaurs. Their destruction can also be studied from two points of view: Was their cause caused by the Flood (although there were still dinosaurs after the flood. They did not all die in this destruction) or some other reason, as naturalistically thinking scientists believe? The evidence in nature is the same for everyone, but which way does this evidence point? How are they interpreted? First, the lifespan of dinosaurs on Earth. Evolutionists believe that these huge animals became extinct 65 million years ago. What they don't take into account is that dinosaur fossils have numerous internal markers and clocks—the presence of soft tissues, proteins, radiocarbon, and DNA—that don't fit millions of years at all. Rather, it must be a matter of millennia, because these substances do not last longer in nature.In addition, human traditions refer to dragons, which greatly resemble dinosaurs. These are proof that the naturalistic model of millions of years cannot be true. In any case, the following is one demonstration and quote on how to study signs in nature. Atheists also believe in mass destructions, but with the difference that they link millions of years to them and believe that there were several destructions:
Around 30 million years before the dinosaurs, life on the Earth had almost died out. The facts and numbers of the mass destruction that took place at the end of the Permic period are simply astounding. The extent of destruction makes the catastrophe that eradicated the dinosaurs 185 millions later seem like a tiny ripple in the pond. A total of 95% of all life on Earth was destroyed. Ecosystems were destroyed, and complete species, such as giant frogs and predatory reptiles, disappeared. Insects also became rare. The devastation was even worse in the sea. Ancient sea lily and coral communities were wiped away, and the trilobites – which had flourished in the oceans of the world for millions of years – were destroyed. The problem faced by scientists trying to interpret this event is find out what could have destroyed such a huge number of plants and animals both on land and in the sea. (13)
However, there is a historical explanation for these mass extinctions that Darwin and Lyell rejected and atheist scientists ignore: it is the Flood. When you take into account the numerous accounts of the flood but also other signs in nature such as the remains of sea creatures on high mountains, these observations fit well with the Flood. Even Darwin found the remains of a whale in the mountains of Peru. Similarly, many nature programs have told the same thing: water has covered large areas of the earth. The following quotes are related to the topic. The first quote is from a secular science book (Tim Haines: Matkalla dinosaurusten kanssa, Walking with dinosaurs). The text tells how the area was dry (!), but then a sudden flood covered these big animals. It was probably the Flood. Another of the texts is even more interesting. It proves that dinosaurs have been found inside hard rocks, indicating that they must have been covered by soft mud. The mud has then hardened around them in the same way as cement. Only in a flood, but not in the normal cycle of nature, we could expect something like that to happen (the latter quote also refers to how swirling water could have gathered the bones of dinosaurs in heaps). Bolds have been added to the text afterwards to make it clearer:
The area of Ghost Ranch is so well preserved that scientists even got to see a glimpse of the world of the Triassic period, the time when the dinosaurs appeared. Coelophysis skeletons were found in the sandstone and claystone of the old river bed. In addition to bones, remains of fish, clams, small crocodile-like phytosaurs and crabs have also been preserved there. All of them could have been prey animals of Coelophysis. These get us to the greatest question about the Ghost Ranch: why did all these dinosaurs die at the same time? The skeletons may have drifted into the area over the years, but Edwin Colbert is convinced that it was a mass death and that the phenomenon that caused it has left marks in the area. The rocks show signs of cracked mud and crab passages (such only occur in very dry conditions), and the necks of some of the skeletons have been twisted like that of animals which have dried up in the sun. Colbert believes that the Coelophysis gathered together to utilise the remaining water before they died. Then, a sudden flood covered them with mud before any carrion-eaters could get to them, and there they remained for millions of years. (14)
He went to the deserts of South Dakota, where there are brightly colored red, yellow and orange rock walls and boulders. Within a few days he found some bones in the rock wall, which he estimated to be the kind he had set out to find. When he dug rock around the bones, he found that the bones were in the order of the structure of the animal. They weren't in a heap like dinosaur bones often are. Many such heaps were as if made by a powerful whirl of water. Now these bones were in the blue sandstone, which is very hard. The sandstone had to be removed with a grader and removed by blasting. Brown and his sidekicks made a pit almost seven and a half meters deep to get the bones out. Removing one large skeleton took them two summers. They by no means removed the bones from the stone. They transported the boulders by rail to the museum, where the scientists were able to chip the stone material away and set up the skeleton. This tyrant lizard now stands in the exhibition hall of the museum. (p. 72, Dinosaurs / Ruth Wheeler and Harold G. Coffin)
References:
1. V.T. Aaltonen: Miksi en ole kristitty, p. 199, 200, 203 2. Ken Ham: Valhe, evoluutio, The Lie: Evolution, p. 24,27,35 3. Richard Dawkins: Sokea kelloseppä, p. 151 4. V.T. Aaltonen: Miksi en ole kristitty?, p. 22 5. Charles Darwin: The Life and Letter of Charles Darwin Including an Autobiographical Chapter. (1887, 1: 315-316), Toim. Fancis Darwin. London: John Murray. 6. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 96,97 7. Ken Ham: Valhe, evoluutio (The Lie: Evolution) p. 27 8. Andy Knoll (2004) PBS Nova interview, 3. toukokuuta 2004, sit. Antony Flew & Roy Varghese (2007) There is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: HarperOne 9. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 10,11 10. Norman Macbeth: Darwin Retried, 1971, p. 33 11. Austin H. Clark: Quarterly Review of Biology, joulukuu 1928, p. 539 12. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 287 13. Tim Haines: Matkalla dinosaurusten kanssa (Walking with dinosaurs), p. 28 14. Tim Haines: Matkalla dinosaurusten kanssa (Walking with dinosaurs), p. 47
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. I used to be a science believer. Scholars think their positions represent science, reason, and critical thinking. However, they resort to faith in explaining the origin of everything Worldviews in comparison: naturalism / atheism, pantheism, polytheism and theism. Read why Christian theism is a sensible worldview 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
|
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!
|
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. I used to be a science believer. Scholars think their positions represent science, reason, and critical thinking. However, they resort to faith in explaining the origin of everything Worldviews in comparison: naturalism / atheism, pantheism, polytheism and theism. Read why Christian theism is a sensible worldview 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
|
