Conclusion of the Chapter on Science and Faith

There remains a broad spectrum of fascinating topics we could explore. It might be quite interesting to investigate questions such as, "What happened to the dinosaurs?" and point out intriguing discoveries suggesting they did not live millions of years ago but rather coexisted with humans not so long ago. It is likely that one is even described in the Bible. Many ancient texts depict creatures that closely resemble dinosaurs, and we have numerous findings of drawings or carvings where dinosaurs are depicted alongside humans (e.g., the Ica stones, illustrations at Angkor Temple, Bishop Bell's tomb, etc.). Notably, there are also scientific discoveries of soft dinosaur tissues, which would hardly endure for millions of years in such a preserved state. These findings are so radical and incompatible with the evolutionary model that they are automatically dismissed, their proponents ridiculed, and the discoveries themselves claimed to be fraudulent. (To be fair, there have indeed been attempts at fraud in this area.) At other times, it would be very interesting to delve into the question of the age of our planet and the universe—how does it align with the biblical description of 6,000 years? However, this is a vast subject, and it is not within my capacity to fully address it now, as it would require us to bring together many matters more closely than elsewhere.

The truth is that various opinions exist even among Christians, and in Christian circles, it is often a peripheral issue. Nevertheless, I will briefly share several intriguing insights—according to some creationist scientists, there is no scientific method that reliably supports the evolutionary age of the universe and Earth [77]. All are based on various assumptions about the past that cannot be verified. This entire age involving billions and millions of years was artificially inflated historically to fit the long ages necessary for the evolutionary model of the development of life, not based on reliable scientific evidence [78]. Additionally, some creationists highlight the fact that there are dozens of different dating methods that indicate the Earth and universe are only a few thousand years old (thus in harmony with the Bible) [77]. These, understandably, are rejected, and only those methods providing high ages are accepted (of which there are indeed some). In essence, dating methods used by evolutionary scientists are often speculative and unreliable. For example, there are many measurements of living creatures or newly formed rocks today (for which we know their exact age—e.g., due to volcanic activity), which these measurements erroneously assign millions or hundreds of thousands of years. It is not uncommon to receive a form in a laboratory where you have to fill in what age you expect for the item. However, to conclude this—there are many dating methods supporting the evolutionary view of Earth's history, just as there are many methods supporting the opposite. It is up to each individual to choose what suits them…

This issue was nicely summarized by the already quoted scientist from the Geophysical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dr. Petr Vajda:

"The issue with scientific knowledge of ancient history and origin is that empirically we can examine only the results of long-past processes, not the processes themselves. This is extremely limiting. Paleo-scientific knowledge needs to solve an inverse problem, which is ambiguous (polysemous). Tools include modeling, extrapolation back in time, reconstruction, and deduction. The problem with modeling is the unknown initial conditions and the ambiguity of the problem. The issue with extrapolation is creating assumptions that are not guaranteed. Either way, it is about speculative reconstruction, in which the worldview of the scientist, accepted by faith, plays a significant role. For these reasons, modern paleo-scientific knowledge does not represent for me a credible source of understanding of the true history of the planet and the universe, and a university diploma is not a source of knowledge on the origin of life and the universe." [76]

The Actual Conclusion

A keen eye could not miss that when reading these questions, we are only touching on different topics superficially, and it is not possible to break all the prejudices systematically instilled in us throughout decades of schooling all at once. Nevertheless, I believe I have managed to at least partially highlight the absurdity of some common prejudices against the Christian faith. Again, I dare claim that true science is in harmony with belief in God and only helps unveil His perfection and wonderful work. The other "science," which indeed conflicts with Christianity, is rather a belief and a highly speculative hypothesis. Its proponents have managed to deceive themselves and the broader public by claiming there is nothing left to prove. They no longer focus on whether evolution is true; they simply assume it. They often mock believers but fail to realize that their own theory requires copious amounts of blind faith, something any "religious fanatic" might quietly envy. I encourage you, therefore, to engage in critical thinking and continued exploration even in the field of scientific inquiry. Though the amount of material in your native language may not be as plentiful as in English or other languages, there is enough for one to form their own opinion. Be prepared, however, that even just hinting at disagreement with the evolutionary model can make you the target of ridicule and disapproval. It is true that proponents of creation do not have answers to all questions and face significant challenges in "reconciling" current knowledge with the biblical narrative. Therefore, they must accept many things by faith. However, if one were to presume that an atheist stands differently in this respect, they would be greatly mistaken.