science and Christianity, how did Christianity affect the development of science?

Christianity and science

Has the Christian faith been an obstacle to science or has it promoted it? Read the evidence!

The topic of this article is Christian faith and science. How has the Christian faith influenced science and its development? Has it been an obstacle to the development of science or has it promoted it? If this issue is examined only through the secular media and the writings of atheist scientists, they often present a popular view of the conflict between faith and science. It is thought that faith in God and science are opposites of each other and that the Christian faith has been an obstacle to the development of science. In this idea, science is supposed to have been powerful in Greece and only progressed again when, during the Enlightenment, it broke away from the religion of revelation and began to rely on reason and observation. The importance of Darwin in particular is considered important for the final victory of the scientific worldview.

But what is the truth of the matter? The core of the Christian faith has never been science and doing science, but faith in the existence of God and Jesus Christ, through whom everyone can be forgiven of their sins. However, this does not mean that the Christian faith has not influenced science and the development of society. On the contrary, the importance of Jesus and the Christian faith has been decisive for the birth and progress of science. This view is based on several points, which we will go through in the following. We start with language and literacy.

Literacy: dictionaries, grammars, alphabets. First, 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 Germany, Martti Luther did the same thing. He translated the Bible into German with his own dialect. Hundreds of editions were made of his translation and the dialect used by Luther became established as a literary language among Germans.

What about England? William Tyndale, who translated the Bible into English, played an important role in that. Tyndale's translation influenced the birth of the modern English language. Based on Tyndale's translation, the King James translation was later created, which is the most famous English translation of the Bible.

One example is the letters of the Slavic peoples, called the Cyrillic alphabet. They were named after St. Cyril, who was a missionary among the Slavs and noticed that they had no alphabet. Cyril developed the alphabet for them so that they could read the Gospel about Jesus.

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. Missionaries may have done years of work in linguistic research. They created the first grammars, dictionaries and alphabets.

One such person was Methodist missionary Frank Laubach, who started a global literacy campaign. He influenced the development of ABC-books in 313 languages. He has been appointed as the apostle of the illiterate.

The following examples refer to the same thing, the development of languages. It is significant that even such languages as Hindi, the main language of India, Urdu of Pakistan, and Bengali of Bangladesh have their grammar and linguistic basis on the basis of Christian missions. 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. (1)

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. (2)

Literacy projects and literature. As stated, most languages have received their grammar and literary basis from the influence of the Christian faith. Atheists and states were not the initiators of this development, but representatives of the Christian faith. The development of societies could have been delayed for centuries without faith in God and Jesus.

This area includes literacy projects in Europe and other parts of the world. Through them, people learn to read the Bible and other literature and learn new things. If you are not literate, it is difficult to learn new things that others have written about.

When the Christian faith has conquered the field through missionary work, it has also improved the social situation and status of numerous nations. Such things are a better health situation, a better economy, a more stable social situation, lower corruption and child mortality and, of course, better literacy. If there was no missionary work and Christian faith, there would be much more suffering and poverty in the world and people would not know how to read. Among others, Robert Woodberry, an assistant professor at the University of Texas, has observed the connection between missionary work and democracy, people's improved status and literacy:

Scientist: Missionary work set off democracy

According to Robert Woodberry, the assistant professor at Texas University, the impact of Protestants’ missionary work in the 1800s and in the beginning of 1900s on the development of democracy has been more significant than originally thought. Rather than having a minor role in the development of democracy, missionaries had a substantial part in it in many African and Asian countries. Christianity Today magazine tells about the matter.

Robert Woodberry has studied the relationship between missionary work and the factors affecting democracy almost for 15 years. According to him, there where Protestant missionaries have had a central influence. There the economy is nowadays more developed and the health situation is relatively much better than in the areas, where missionaries’ influence has been smaller or nonexistent. In the areas with prevalent missionary history, child mortality rate is currently lower, there is less corruption, literacy is more common and getting into education is easier, especially for women.

According to Robert Woodberry, it was specifically the Protestant revival Christians who had a positive effect. In contrast, state-employed clergy or Catholic missionaries before the 1960s did not have a similar impact. (3)

One good example of how the Christian faith has influenced literacy and literature is that it was not until around 1900 that secular literature overtook spiritual literature in sales. The Bible and its teachings were in an important position for centuries, until in the last century it lost its importance more and more in Western countries. Is it a coincidence that in the same 20th century, when the Christian faith was abandoned, the biggest wars in history were fought?

Another example is England, which was the most developed country in the world in the 18th and 19th centuries. But what was behind England's good development? Certainly one factor was spiritual revivals where people turned to God. Many good things came as a result, such as literacy, the abolition of slavery, and the improvement of the status of the poor and workers.

John Wesley, who is known as the most important preacher of the Methodist movement and through whom the great revivals came to England in the 18th century, greatly influenced this development. It has been said that through his work England was spared a similar revolution which took place in France. However, Wesley and his colleagues also contributed to the fact that literature became accessible to English people. The Encyclopedia Britannica states of Wesley in this regard that "no one else in the 18th century did so much to promote the reading of good books, and brought so many books within the reach of the people at so cheap a price"...

In England, as a result of revivals, Sunday school work was also born in the 18th century. Around 1830, about a quarter of England's 1.25 million children attended Sunday school, where they learned to read and write. England was becoming a literate society taught by the Word of God; the state did not influence it.

What about the United States? The following quote refers to this. It was uttered by John Dewey (1859-1952), who himself strongly influenced the secularization of education in the United States. However, he explained how the Christian faith has had a positive effect on e.g. for popular education and the abolition of slavery in his country:

These persons (evangelical Christians) are the backbone of social philanthropy, political activity aimed at social reforms, pacifism and public education. They embody and manifest benevolence towards those in economic distress and other peoples, especially when they show even the slightest interest in a republican form of government - - This part of the population has responded positively to demands for fair treatment and a more equal distribution of equal opportunities in the light of their own conception of equality. It followed in the footsteps of Lincoln in the abolition of slavery and agreed with Roosevelt's ideas when he condemned the "evil" corporations and the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few. (4)

Universities. Earlier, it was stated how the Christian faith has influenced the creation of written languages and literacy in past centuries and in the present. For example, in African countries, the basis of the school system in terms of basic and vocational education has mainly been born from the influence of Christian missions, as has health care. Without the influence of the Christian faith, the development of societies could have been delayed for centuries.

One area is universities and schools. Along with literacy, they are important for the development of science, research, the birth of inventions and the spread of information. Through them, knowledge and research advance to a new level.

How has the Christian faith influenced this area? Secularist and atheist circles are often unaware that the Bible and the Christian faith have played a major role in this area. Hundreds of universities and tens of thousands of schools have been started by pious Christians or through missionary work. They were not born on an atheist basis, because there were no secular and state-run universities. For example, the following universities are well-known in England and America:

- Oxford and Cambridge. Both cities have plenty of churches and chapels. These universities were originally founded to teach the Bible.

- Harvard. This university is named after Reverend John Harvard. Its motto from 1692 is Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae (truth for Christ and the Church)

- Yale University was founded by former Harvard student, Puritan priest Cotton Mather.

- The first president of Princeton University (originally the College of New Jersey) was Jonathan Edwards, who is known for the great revival in America in the 18th century. He was the most famous preacher of this revival, along with George Whitefield.

- University of Pennsylvania. George Whitefield, another leader of the Great Awakening, founded the school that later developed into the University of Pennsylvania. Whitefield was the son of a pub-keeper and a colleague of the aforementioned John Wesley when he was in England. He had an unusually beautiful, sonorous and powerful voice, so that he could speak audibly to tens of thousands of people in outdoor meetings. He could also preach with tears in his eyes because of the compassion that God had given him for people

What about India? India is not known for its Christianity. However, in this country, as in Africa, there are thousands of schools that have been born on the basis of the Christian faith. The first universities in India were also born on the same basis. Such universities as the university of Calcutta, Madras, Bombay and Serampore are well known. In addition, the University of Allahabad, established in 1887, is well-known. Five of India's first seven Prime Ministers hailed from this city, and many of India's administration have studied at the University of Allahabad.

A revolution in science. The article started from the view favored by atheists that the Christian faith has been an obstacle to the development of science. However, this view is easy to question, because literary languages, literacy and universities have largely been born from the influence of the Christian faith.

What about 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. Because in the modern sense, science has only started once, that is, in the Europe of the 16th-18th 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.

Generations of historians and sociologists have noted that Christians, Christian faith, and Christian institutions contributed in many different ways to the development of the doctrines, methods, and systems that eventually gave birth to modern natural science(...) Although there are different opinions of its influence almost all historians today admit that Christianity (Catholicism and Protestantism alike) encouraged many thinkers of the pre-modern period to engage in the systematic study of nature. Historians have also observed that concepts borrowed from Christianity found their way into scientific discussion with good results. Some scientists even claim that the idea of nature operating according to certain laws originates from Christian theology. (5)

What was behind the scientific revolution? One reason was, as stated above, the universities. By 1500, there were about sixty of them in Europe. 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 16th-18th 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. (6)

Medicine and hospitals. One area that the Christian faith has influenced is medicine and the birth of hospitals. An important part was especially the monks, who preserved, copied and translated ancient medical manuscripts and other ancient classical and scientific works. In addition, they further developed medicine. Without their activities, medicine would not have progressed to the same extent, and the old texts of antiquity would not have been preserved for modern generations to read.

Healthcare, social work and numerous charitable organizations (Red Cross, Save the Children...) have also been started by professing Christians, because the Christian faith has always included compassion for one's neighbor. This is based on the teaching and example of Jesus. Instead, atheists and humanists have often been bystanders in this area. The English journalist Malcolm Muggeridge (1903-1990), himself a secular humanist, but nevertheless honest, noticed this. He paid attention to how the worldview affects culture: "I have spent years in India and Africa, and in both I have encountered a lot of righteous activities maintained by Christians belonging to different denominations; but not once have I come across a hospital or an orphanage maintained by a socialist organization or a leper sanatorium operating on the basis of humanism." (7)

The following quotes further show how the Christian faith has influenced nursing and other areas through missionary work. Most hospitals in Africa and India were born through Christian missions and the desire to help. A large part of Europe's first hospitals also originated under the influence of the Christian faith. God can heal a person directly, but many have received help through medicine and hospitals. The Christian faith has played an important part in that.

During the Middle Ages the people, who belonge to the Order of Saint Benedict, maintained over two thousand hospitals in the Western Europe alone. The 12^th century was remarkably signigicant in this respect, especially there, where the Order of Saint John operated. For example, the large Hospital of the Holy Ghost was founded in 1145 at Montpellier, which quickly became the center of medical education and the medical centerl of Montpellier during the year 1221. In addition to medical care, these hospitals provided food for the hungry and took care of widows and orphans, and gave out alms to those who needed them. (8)

Even though the Christian church has been criticized a lot throughout its history, it has still been the forerunner in medical care for the poor, helping captives, homeless or the dying ones and improving working environments. In India the best hospitals and educational institutions connected to it are the result of Christian missionary work, even to that extent that many Hindus use these hospitals more than the hospitals maintained by the government, because they know that they are going to receive better care over there. It is estimated that when the Second World War began, 90% of nurses in India were Christians, and that 80% of them received their education in missionary hospitals. (9)

In church the affairs of this life were as much taken care of as were the affairs of the future life; it seemed that everything that the Africans accomplished, originated from the missionary work of the church. (Nelson Mandela in his autobiography Long Walk to Freedom)

Did the church persecute scientists? 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. This notion of the confrontation between faith and science only dates back to the end of the 19th 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. (10)

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." (11)

What about Galileo Galilei, who overturned the Greek Ptolemy's earth-centered model of the sun revolving around the earth? It is true that the Pope acted wrongly towards him, but the issue is a distortion of the use of power, not opposition to science. (Yes, the popes and the Catholic Church have been guilty of many other things, such as the Crusades and the Inquisition. However, it is a matter of completely abandoning the Christian faith or not following the teachings of Jesus. Many do not understand this difference.) It is also important to note that both representatives of science and faith were divided in their attitude to Galileo's theory. Some scientists were on his side, others against. Similarly, some churchmen opposed his ideas, others defended. This is always the case when new theories appear.

Why then 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. (12)

And have atheists persecuted scientists? At least this happened in the atheist Soviet Union, where several scientists, such as geneticists, were imprisoned and some were killed because of their scientific ideas.

Likewise, several scientists were killed in the French Revolution: chemist Antoine Lavoisier, astronomer Jean Sylvain Bally, mineralogist Philippe-Frédéric de Dietrich, astronomer Jean Baptiste Gaspard Bochart de Saron, botanist Chrétien Guillaume de Lamoignon de Malesherbes. However, they were not killed for their scientific ideas, but for their political opinions. Here, too, it was a case of abuse of power, which had completely different consequences than how Galileo was treated.

The misguided path of science: Darwin led science astray. This article started from the claim favored by atheists that the Christian faith has been an obstacle to the development of science. It was stated that there is no basis in this claim, but the importance of the Christian faith has been decisive for the birth and progress of science. This view is based on several factors such as the birth of literary languages, literacy, schools and universities, the development of medicine and hospitals, and the fact that the scientific revolution took place in 16th-18th century Europe, where Christian theism prevailed. This change did not start in a secularist society, but specifically in a society inspired by the Christian faith.

If the Christian faith has been a positive factor for the development of science, where did the idea of opposing science and Christian faith originate? One reason for this was certainly Charles Darwin with his theories of evolution in the 19th century. This theory, which is compatible with naturalism, is the main culprit of this image. The well-known atheist Richard Dawkins has also stated that before Darwin's time it would have been difficult for him to be an atheist: "Although atheism may have seemed logically valid before Darwin, it was only Darwin who laid the foundation for intellectually justified atheism" (13).

But but. When naturalistic scientists respect Darwin's work and efforts, they are partly right, partly wrong. They are right that Darwin was a thorough naturalist who made accurate observations of nature, learned about his subject and knew how to write about his research. No one who has read his magnum opus On the Origin of Species can deny that.

However, they are wrong in accepting Darwin's assumption that all species are inherited from a single primordial cell (the primordial cell-to-man theory). The reason is simple: Darwin was not able to show any examples of changes in species in his book On the Origin of Species, but only examples 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 cell. The following comments tell more about the topic. Darwin himself had to admit that he had no examples of real changes in species. 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. (14)

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.

"It is quite ironic that a book that has become famous for explaining the origin of species does not explain it in any way." (Christopher Booker, Times columnist referring to Darwin's magnum opus, On the Origin of Species) (15)

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

We can only speculate about the motives that led scientists to adopt the concept of a common progenitor so uncritically. The triumph of Darwinism undoubtedly increased the prestige of the scientists, and the idea of an automatic process fit so well with the spirit of the times that the theory even received a surprising amount of support from religious leaders. In any case, scientists accepted the theory before it had been rigorously tested, and then used their authority to convince the general public that natural processes were sufficient to produce a human from a bacterium and a bacterium from chemical mixture. Evolutionary science began to look for supporting evidence and began to come up with explanations that would nullify the negative evidence. (16)

The fossil record also disproves Darwin's theory. It has been known for a long time that no gradual development can be seen in fossils, even though evolutionary theory requires the emergence of senses, organs and new species through this. For example, Steven M. Stanley has stated: "There is not a single example in the known fossil material where an important new structural feature is developing for the species (17)

The lack of gradual development has been acknowledged by several leading paleontologists. Neither fossils nor modern species show examples of the gradual development that Darwin's theory requires. Below are some comments from representatives of natural history museums. Natural history museums should have the best evidence for evolution, but they don't. First, a comment by Stephen Jay Gould, perhaps the most famous paleontologist of our time (American Museum). He denied gradual development in fossils:

Stephen Jay Gould: I do not want in any way to belittle the potential competence of the gradual evolution view. I want only to remark that it has never 'been observed' in rocks. (The Panda’s Thumb, 1988, p. 182,183).

Dr. Etheridge, world-famous curator of the British Museum: In this whole museum, there is not even the smallest thing that would prove the origin of species from intermediate forms. The theory of evolution is not based on observations and facts. As comes to speaking about the age of the human race, the situation is the same. This museum is full of evidence showing how mindless these theories are. (18)

None of the officials in five large paleontological museums can present even one simple example of an organism that could be regarded as a piece of evidence of gradual evolution from one species to another. (Dr. Luther Sunderland’s summary in his book Darwin's enigma. He interviewed many representatives of natural history museums for this book and wrote to them aiming at finding out what sort of evidence they had to prove evolution. [19])

The following statement continues on the same subject. The late Dr Colin Patterson was a senior paleontologist and fossil expert at the British Museum (Natural History). He wrote a book about evolution - but when someone asked him why his book didn’t have any pictures of intermediate forms (organisms in transition), he wrote the following answer. In his reply, he refers to Stephen J. Gould, perhaps the most famous paleontologist in the world (bold added):

I agree completely with your opinion concerning the lack of illustrations in my book about organisms which are evolutionarily in the transitional stage. If I were conscious of any such, of a fossil or of living, I would have willingly included them in my book. You propose that I should use an artist to illustrate such intermediate forms but from where would he get information for his drawings? Honestly saying, I could not offer him this information, and if I should leave the matter for an artist, would it not lead the reader astray?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago [in the book he tells that he believes in some intermediate forms]. If I were to write it now, I think that the book would be rather different. Gradualism (changing gradually) is a concept in which I do believe. Not just because of the prestige of Darwin but because my comprehension of the genetics seems to require it. However, it is difficult to claim against [famous fossil expert Stephen J.] Gould and other people of the American museum when they say that there are no intermediate forms. As a palaeontologist, I work much with philosophical problems when recognizing ancient forms of organisms from the fossil material. You say that I should also at least 'present a photo of a fossil, from which the certain organism group evolved.' I speak directly – there is no fossil that would be a watertight piece of evidence. (20)

What can be concluded from the above? We can respect Darwin as a good naturalist, but we should not accept his assumption about the inheritance of species from a single primordial cell. The evidence is clearly more suitable for creation so that God immediately made everything ready. Variation does occur, and species can be modified to some extent through breeding, but all this has limits that will soon be reached.

The conclusion is that Darwin led science astray, and atheist scientists followed him. It is much more reasonable to rely on the historical view that God created everything so that it did not arise by itself. This view is also supported by the fact that scientists do not know the solution to how life could arise by itself. This is understandable because it is an impossibility. Only life can create life, and no exception to this rule has been found. For the first life forms, this clearly refers to God:

- (Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

- (Rom 1:19,20) 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:

- (Rev 4:11) You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were created.

References:

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

2. Usko, toivo ja terveys, p. 143, Article by Risto A. Ahonen

3. Matti Korhonen, Uusi tie 6.2.2014, p. 5.

4. John Dewey: ”The American Intellectual Frontier” New Republic, 10.5.1922, vol. 30, p. 303. Republic Publishing 1922

5. Noah J. Efron: Myytti 9: Kristinusko synnytti modernin luonnontieteen, p. 82,83 in book Galileo tyrmässä ja muita myyttejä tieteestä ja uskonnosta (Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion)

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

7. Malcolm Muggeridge: Jesus Rediscovered. Pyramid 1969.

8. David Bentley Hart: Ateismin harhat (Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and its Fashionable Enemies), p. 65

9. Lennart Saari: Haavoittunut planeetta, p. 104

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

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

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

13. Richard Dawkins: Sokea kelloseppä, p. 20

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

15. Christopher Booker: “The Evolution of a Theory”, The Star, Johannesburg, 20.4.1982, p. 19

16. Philip E. Johnson: Darwin on Trial, p. 152

17. Steven M. Stanley: Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W.M. Freeman and Co. 1979, p. 39

18. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, p. 94

19. Sit. kirjasta "Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan", Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä, p. 19.

20. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 15,16