|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OF THE OBJECT OF CONFIDENCE |
In order to reach a scientific fact we use experiment. An experiment can be repeated and it can be checked by it whether the facts are provable.
On the basis of scientific facts we construct scientific theories. We test whether they are correct by its logicality.
On the basis of the same scientific facts and on the basis of logic we can construct many scientific theories which are correct logically, but exclude each others. Therefore, on the basis of logical consideration alone of a theory we can not decide whether it is a correct one.
What is than the purpose of testing a logical correctness of a theory?
We can not check whether it is true, but we do can check whether its correctness is possible. If a theory is not correct logically, then it certainly can not be true either.
HOW FURTHER ON?
By an experiment we come to scientific facts, and by an assumption and logical examination to scientific theories. Which of all those theory is a true one cannot be answered by the science alone.
This question is tried to be answered by philosophy, and religion claims that it has already an answer on the basis of divine revelation.
Philosophy tries to come to the verity of a theory by analyzing it and to build a confidence of man in its very verity in such a way. Thence philosophy always answers an asked question by asking new questions over and over again.
On the other hand, religion claims that there exists an authority of truth worth of becoming a valid object of our confidence. It starts from a standpoint that there exists an authority above science, competent to give us an answer where science and philosophy cannot. Such answers are called dogmas.
We can not check by logic whether certain dogma is true, but only whether its verity is possible. But, we can check by logic whether the authority of its revelation is worth of confidence. Is it wisely to believe it, is a question posed to every man, whether he believes in God or not.
AN EXAMPLE OF A THROWN STONE
Let us pose a question: "Why a stone falls down when thrown in air?"
A laymen will try to answer this question by referring to science and will say: "The stone falls down because it is under influence of the law of gravitation."
However, by his referring to the law the man has just confirmed that the stone falls down every time, but has not answered the question of why the stone falls down at all. In other words, he answered the question "Why the stone falls down when thrown" by "Because it falls down every time".
Science does not deal with answering the question "Why a stone falls down?" Science just defines when and under which conditions a stone falls. To call the force attracting the stone a law of gravitation does not mean to explain the phenomenon too. The very name we have called a phenomenon does not mean an explanation of the phenomenon too.
If we want to get a literal answer to the question why the stone falls, we have to ask for help from philosophy and religion.
Philosophy will give us many assumptions and even more question, proportionally to the number of the assumptions. It will interpret a simple scientific fact in countless possible ways.
Theology will give an answer on the basis of a divine revelation. The stone falls down because God has determined it. He has created physical laws according to which the stone falls down. Why has He created such laws? Since God's creation is moved by love, God has created the laws to be such as they are. If once it would not be good with them being such, He will make an exception in accordance with His mercy and righteousness, and the stone will behave against the previous law and a miracle will happen.
Is the stone falling down whenever we throw it a miracle?
It is not any miracle for man for he is accustomed to it, but for philosophy of science it is a greater miracle then if the stone flied arbitrarily to left or right, up and down.
What is probability that the stone will fall down every time we throw it?
It is infinitely little!
In other words, the existence of every single natural law is a miracle contradicting the law of probability.
The existence of a law means that certain phenomenon happens every time in the same way, and there is an infinitely little probability for that to happen for itself every time.
Only a rational willing intervention can act continually against chance. An ordered system for itself tends always to a decomposition of the order. If we start from a cognition that the physical laws have been created by God and maintained by Him, then their existence is not any miracle. On the contrary, an evolutionist is always before a miracle he is not able to explain.
IS AN EVOLUTIONIST A BELIEVER?
When someone says for himself "I am an evolutionist!", then he ceases to be a scientist and becomes a believer, that is he becomes religious in his specific way.
Were he just a scientist, he would be reserved, for how can he know which is correct, true theory in a multitude of the theories having passed the exam of science and logic. Thus, standing for certain theory, he shows that he has a confidence, consciously or not, in certain authority considered by him to be giving him the answer to the questions science cannot - what is the truth.
An what is that authority of his confidence?
When an evolutionist says "I believe..." or "I claim...". then he, by referring to himself, shows consciously or not his finding of an authority of the truth in himself. In that way he shows, because of his need for certain authority he will believe to, that he is a believer.
COMMON SENSE AND FAITH
We can not check by common sense whether a theory is true, but we do can check by common sense whether our chosen authority of the truth, as an object of our confidence, is worth of our confidence.
Has an evolutionist a valid object of confidence?
When on the basis of many theories, based on checked scientific facts and all being correct logically, we wish to know which is a true one, then we are confronted, looking for the answer in the authority of a man himself, with serious problems:
We have not sincere motives or abilities in ourselves on the basis of which we could know with certainty what the truth is. For example, we believe today that the truth is - this, and tomorrow - that. Certainly the truth could not change. Our judgment about the truth has changed and thus showed it is prone to misconception.
THE FIRST PROBLEM OF COGNITION - THE MOTIVES OF COMING TO THE TRUTH
In recognizing and choice of a true theory our first problem is our motives.
What if a true theory makes us responsible morally and demands from our conscience that we change the principles of our lives? What if a theory that is not true flatters much to our life irresponsibility and approves our weaknesses? What of the two possibilities we will choose? We do not love ourselves so much to be really interested in putting the truth above any misconception or above our own indifference.
THE SECOND PROBLEM OF COGNITION - THE ABILITY OF COMING TO THE TRUTH
We are not witnesses of Creation and we do not know which theory of creation of the world is a correct one.
Of course, the best answer about Creation can be given by Who is not only a witness of creation but its participant, too.
ARE WE ALL BELIEVERS?
Certainly man is not worth of his own confidence. That is shown by life praxis too. Does it mean that one should not believe to anybody and take a completely reserved scientific attitude toward everything?
Life demands from us not to be satisfied with just certain scientific assumptions, but also to accept certain theories as true ones or, at least, as the most acceptable assumptions. Were not it so, we would stop and do nothing. Who guarantees to us that the water we are just drinking is not polluted by a lethal poison intentionally? Who guarantees to us that all this is not perhaps just a dream? Etc. Therefore, we show if not by words, then by deeds that we yet accept certain dogmas.
As we see, whether we wish it or not, we all must have certain authority of the truth, that authority satisfying our need for certain dogmas, but what we can do is to choose rationally an authority worth of our confidence. Our temptation is in our trying, because of our arrogance, to find that authority in ourselves, at any cost.
AN AUTHORITY ABOVE ALL AUTHORITIES
Man alone can never be sure that the method of measuring he has applied is really valid. He can never be sure that his hypothesis is without a logical error. And finally, in the multitude of theories that have fulfilled these two conditions, he can never be sure which is a right one. Because of his intellectual and spiritual weaknesses man is prone to make mistakes at any level of scientific research and at the level of proclaiming a scientific theory to be a dogma. But, if God exists, then an Authority of confidence exists Who elevates us above any kind of error and sin.
Are we willing to check the existence and validity of such an authority?
Then we turn to our Creator in a prayer and ask from Him to reveal Himself, His character. He will answer to our intellect and common sense through His revelations, His word - the Holy Scriptures and His deed - the nature and its laws. Our decision to acquaint Him will help us to recognize and accept the revelation of His friendship and we will have an opportunity to see the worthiness of God as an object of our confidence.
WHY A CREATIONIST DEALS WITH SCIENCE?
Science is unable to speak about religion, but religion can speak about science. Physical laws have not created God, but God has created physical laws. Creator is revealed through His deed:
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)
WHY AN EVOLUTIONIST SHOULD DEAL WITH SCIENCE?
Because he, studying the creation of the greatest Creator, has an opportunity to acquaint the character and power of the Creator Himself. Also because he has a chance to see how his concept is unscientific and, consequently, untrue.
EXACTNESS OF SCIENTIFIC COGNITIONS
The first problem in coming to the truth is the exactness of scientific facts. Evolutionism is based on an ocean of obsolete, imprecise and wrong scientific cognitions. For instance, wrong data taken at measuring phase shift of light related to moving away of galaxies (Dr. Robert Gentry), a wrong proportion of decomposed and newly formed C 14, pig's tooth proclaimed to be a tooth of a man's ancestor ("Nebraska man"), on basis of which a jaw and, later on, complete body, together with fur, was construed, ... etc.
LOGICALITY OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIES
The second problem is logicality of the scientific theory itself. Evolutionism is characterized by a multitude of non- logical constructions. For instance, by an Explosion (Big Bang) the harmony and ordered physical laws can not originate. A system non maintained from outside tends to decomposition. An explosion destroys and does not order. If there is a possibility for a "positive" mutation of an individual to originate, the probability of its immediate destruction by a negative mutation is much bigger than the probability of the first mutation. The assumed transitional species of living beings in an evolution process are less capable of existence than their starting forms, and natural selection would have not maintain them living. A great logical inconsistency of evolutionists is in their inability to harmonize their theory with a multitude of evidence showing that the Earth is a very planet, etc.
IF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS SCIENTIFIC ONE - IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE THEORY IS TRUE TOO
The third problem is the object of confidence. Even if the theory of evolution were based on facts, and passed the exam of logic, it still does not mean that it is true, too. An evolutionist, should he stay really at the level of science alone, would never be able to claim to be an evolutionist, but he would have to be at least reserved. How can he believe that just the theory of evolution is true when he can not asses it on the basis of the very facts and very logic? Such his faith is not a faith in a Biblical sense, but is a faith at a level of assumption. And to believe in something which is an assumption means nothing else but to gamble, to play with the truth and with himself. It is a very bold and irresponsible undertaking. A probability that an evolutionist is right is equal to the probability of accidental origin of the life.
Probability of a mistake taking place in ascertaining the results of any evolutionist research is much bigger than the probability of forming a new animal species by mutation. For instance, if an evolutionist would come to experimental evidence that the life has originated on the Earth by chance, and prove it successfully repeating the experiment 1000 thousand times, the probability that he made the same mistake 1000 times in the procedure of measuring is still bigger than the possibility that a formation of even simplest genetic material takes place by an accidental combination of molecules. The evolution theory starts from so arbitrary assumptions in its most basic premises that they themselves, if accepted as a principles, dispute its any further attempt to come to its own check and to the truth by scientific cognition.
Jewish wisdoms, recorded in the fourth century BC, show that accepting of creationist concept of creation is not a problem of man's intellectual abilities but of his spiritual choice (that is of his motives):