As an engineer I enjoy working environments in which I am allowed to solve problems, so I
really looked forward to the challenge of proving my point. I enjoy science and have always
been intrigued by our Universe and the complexity and diversity of life on Earth.
As I gathered more and more information in my research over the years, I found it so amazing,
that this process has cleared my perspective on various issues. It has also strengthened my
resolve in matters where I did not really hold a definite or solid opinion before. Where
previously I had doubts, there was now a bold assured confidence, bas ed on tangible facts. I
no longer rely on hearsay or personal feelings or unsubstantiated viewpoints.
I will attempt to take you on this journey with me to arrive at a place where you can decide for
yourself - where you can, with absolute certainty, say that you know that what you believe is
true, based on verifiable facts. I hope this will help you too!
According to Menton, there are two general worldviews that one could hold on the origin of life
today.1 A popular view, also considered acceptable science in most scientific circles today,
holds the view that life originated by chance on Earth. This is said to have happened more than
4 billion years ago and that the diversity of creations and life forms that we now see around us
on Earth, were produced through the process of evolution. This process did not require the
involvement of a designer or a creator, it occurred spontaneously, by chance, billions of years
ago.
The other viewpoint, previously held by scientists, but now being pushed aside by m ainstream
thinking, says that the Creator God designed and created everything and that the Universe may
not be as old as scientists calculate it to be. Both these views are seemingly difficult to prove
unequivocally and both can be labelled as belief systems, but how does one prove which is true
and which is false? Can both be true at the same time? Surely not, the two systems are vastly
different and have distinctly different mechanisms at work. Your worldview will affect who you
are as a person and how you fit into society. Have you ever considered these two possibilities in
detail? Do you know with certainty, which option you would side with and have good reasons
for doing so?
In the next chapters we will explore these views in a little more detail. I will attempt to provide
more information and clarity on matters, which are often stated as facts, but for which no
evidence exists, or even where evidence to the contrary exists. The information, as it is
presented is in no way exhaustive, but serves as an introduction into the subject of faith founded
and based upon provable facts and where you, as the reader, can further explore the topics
which will be addressed.
I was born in Pretoria, South Africa, in 1973 and raised as a Christian, by Christian parents. My
parents belonged to the Dutch Reformed Church and taught my three sisters and me to the best
of their ability, with their knowledge and experience, according to Christian principles. It
involved a personal relationship with our Creator, to whom you could go at any time with
anything you had on your heart - be this in the form of a request, a discussion or giving thanks.
It also included activities such as going to church on Sundays, and being in fellowship with like-
minded people - living according to what the Bible prescribes. Studying the Bible increased our
knowledge of our Creator and the way in which he relates to us and the way in which we should
relate to him.
The church that we attended did not put so much emphasis on a personal relationship with God.
It focused more on the traditions that were carried over from previous generations. The Dutch
Reformed Church has had a very traditional past to which the more conventional members of
the congregation would cling, as if for dear life. I clearly remember church services on Sundays
during the 70‟s and 80‟s. Al the women would be wearing hats, men would be dressed in suits
and ties and when the preacher prayed, men would have to stand up, while women would
remain seated. Each Sunday the congregation would, on cue, recite the creed, used in the
Dutch Reformed Church. The entire service would have a predictable sequence and although
the preacher‟s message changed from Sunday to Sunday, the routine of the service became
very evident, even monotonous.
The Dutch Reformed Church did not emphasise spirituality or the supernatural during the 70‟s
and 80‟s or even the 90‟s. Come to think of it, even today, they are still lacking the emphasis on
the spiritual aspects of life. I remember walking out of church one day when one lady said to
another: “Now we have done our duty for the week”. This opened my eyes to the fact that some
people were not there because they wanted to be there. They were there, because they
believed that if they were not there, they might have lost some points on their journey through
life. Changing any aspect of the way in which things were done in the Dutch Reformed Church,
would normally lead to some of the church members leaving that specific congregation or
denomination and moving to another. They would then find one, which still held to the traditions
that they were familiar with, until there too signs of change started to appear and the pattern
would be repeated. Most of the inspirational information that we had on issues of a spiritual
nature came from other sources outside our church at that stage.
I could never understand why people would choose to leave a church or be upset about small
changes to the way in which things were done during the church service - I saw it as very self-
centred and thought that these people were there for the wrong reasons anyway. Surely, no
church tradition could ever have an influence on where and how you would spend your afterlife -
to me it just did not make any sense. Why would people prefer to abandon their church and
even some of their friends, because of a small change in routine or tradition, or the introduction
of a new musical instrument, just to find another church? This in my mind had nothing to do
with the reason we were members of the church in the first place.
My knowledge of the Bible started at a very young age and I can still vividly remember days
when I was only about three years old, sitting on my parents bed, while they read to me from the
Bible. I can still see in my mind‟s eye, pictures of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden or
Daniel in the lion‟s den drawn in a Renaissance styled drawing. I grew up accumulating a lot of
knowledge about the Bible and doctrines held by different denominations of Christianity, b ut that
was all it was: knowledge. I never had to question my beliefs.
As I matured and interacted with friends at university and later with my colleagues, who came
from different backgrounds, different walks of life and even different countries, I realised that
some of their views were totally different from mine. This stirred questions in me around my
belief system. When I enquired from them the reason for their view and how they substantiated
their views, none of them could give me any concise or convincing answer. They would say
something like: “That is just the way in which I see things”, “my parents were Catholic and so
am I” or “I don‟t know, but it‟s the option that makes the most sense to me.” I could tel that
none of them had any defined conviction about their beliefs and I realised then, how important it
is to know why I believed in something, especially if it had to do with where I will spend eternity.
At this point it dawned on me that there may be a lot of people out there with the sam e
questions or uncertainties about their beliefs. This observation created in me a need to seek
the truth, so that when someone should ask me, I could provide solid and supporting evidence
for my viewpoints. The reason for writing this book is to convey the information that I found very
valuable as I journeyed through life and discovered the truth.
Chapter 3: How Does One Prove Something to be True and
Factual?
The first aspect one needs to consider when researching the truthfulness or factual status of
any subject would be to have a good understanding of how truth can be verified. When
someone, with some credentials behind his name, makes a statement, many people would
accept it as true. Just because he has studied a specific field or discipline, it does not
necessarily mean that he would understand every aspect of that discipline. Unfortunately
credentials alone do not provide a trustworthy basis for proving any statement factual and true.
Neither do they provide added legitimacy to any findings. Regrettably our society today has
become accustomed to accepting any information, divulged by “experts” in specific fields of
study, as the absolute truth. This tendency is not new and has happened throughout history.
In the recent past, with the introduction of relativism, the need for people to question and
discover for themselves has been attacked and muted.1 Since “truth” is no longer deemed an
absolute, it removes the need for questioning statements. It allows situations in which any
information is delivered in a way that would assume acceptance by the receiver, without
question. Should you question the information, based on evident facts that do not match the
information, you would be singled out as a bigot or termed old-fashioned. The fear of voicing
your own opinion places you in a dangerous position, since it has a numbing effect on your mind
and forces you to accept information without questioning it. Determining whether the
information is actually true or false, is no longer that important.
People today have much less trouble automatically accepting information, provided by the
media and “expert channels” like National Geographic, as true. People assume that the
information has been screened and filtered by an expert on the subject matter. It can therefore
be trusted and all the information would be considered as properly researched, accurate and
truthful. Let us go back a few centuries and look at how “truth” was established in the past –
how some of the difficulties people encountered then, are still present in our process of
understanding today.
A few hundred years ago, the majority of people believed that the Earth was flat.2 Technology,
a few centuries ago, was limited and scientists were restricted in their ability to conduct
experiments. This limitation affected the way in which their understanding of a specific subject
was developed. Their view of the Earth was limited to what they observed around them at that
time. The technology to send objects into orbit or even to get a good view of the Earth from a
distance did not exist. With their limited perspective, it would appear to people living in the
distant past that the Earth was indeed flat. There are still some individuals, i.e. members of the
Flat Earth Society, who today hold this out-dated view, in spite of the fact that new evidence has
been collected that provide tangible scientific proof against the flat Earth viewpoint.3
Today there are numerous methods in which one can prove, without any doubt, that the Earth is
in fact spherical and not flat. During the past century, scientists came up with brilliant solutions
to problems and technology increased at a rate that far exceeds technological improvements of
previous centuries or millennia. Today, we have high precision GPS systems that can pinpoint
your position on the surface of the Earth very accurately. This is done through exact
triangulation between geostationary satellites that are placed around the globe and a calculation
that measures the angles and distances from your GPS device to the GPS satellites, which then
provides you with an accurate location.4 This feat of technology would have been unimaginable
in the early 1,800‟s. At that point, flight was stil something that eluded humans and comparing
the situation then to what we have today, it is really astonishing to realise how much the human
race has achieved in a period of just more than a century. Compared to the past four to five
millennia for which we have historic records, knowledge and technology has never increased as
rapidly as during the past two centuries.
A few hundred years ago, people believed that larger objects fall to the Earth faster than smaller
objects, or that the effect of gravity differs for objects with different masses.5 As science
progressed and technology improved, this assumption has been proven incorrect. When
scientists identified external influences, through improved apparatus with which they could
perform additional tests, they quickly realised that there were other factors that significantly
affected objects as they fall through air. The advances in technology allowed them to test the
same hypothesis under conditions that were specifically altered, to ensure that all external
influences could be isolated. This ultimately led to the disproval of the original theory and
provided additional insight. The reason why people believed the theory to be true was because
they were only able to see half of the picture and did not know about the other half that was still
missing and hidden from sight. Taking a closer look at this example, we will quickly
demonstrate how their thoughts progressed from forming a hypothesis, to finally proving that
their initial hypothesis was incorrect.
It is also important to remember that scientists today (although they possess vast amounts of
knowledge, far exceeding those of previous centuries and having high precision technologically,
advanced instrumentation and measuring techniques for assessing situations under scientific
scrutiny) still often have to deal with situations, where there are many unknowns present. Even
in our advanced technological state, we still lack efficient means of experimentation in many
fields. Scientists often admit that they are aware of these limitations in their research and will
admit that their theory, although accepted by the majority as true, cannot be proven as true.6
The problem remains; no matter where we find ourselves in history and technological
advancement, we are limited by our dimensionality - time and locality. We will never, from this
limited position, know with 100% certainty what percentage of the full picture is in view before
us. For any subject that we would like to investigate, we are only able to test and observe from
within our limited position and no matter how hard we try, there are certain aspects that will
always remain elusive.
To give a little better understanding of the processes normally followed during a scientific
analysis, we will look at how scientists of past centuries c onsidered how different objects
behaved when dropped and fell through air under the influence of gravity. They observed
specific qualities and the behaviour of the object, as it was falling. They would then interpret
and draw some conclusions from their observations, based on their understanding of the
processes involved. Although they may not have understood all of the factors at that time, their
observations gave them enough confidence to formulate a hypothesis, explaining why the
objects were behaving in a certain way as they were falling through air.
To demonstrate: A scientist, centuries ago, could take a rock and a feather and drop them at the
same time from the balcony of his house and observe the results as both fell to the ground. In
this case, it would not matter how many times the scientist repeated this test - the rock would
always reach the ground first, since the resistance for the rock, falling through air, is much less
than that of the feather.
After repeating the test and obtaining several sets of data that point to the rock, which is
heavier, falling to the Earth faster than the feather, the scientist may feel confident from his
interpretation of the behaviour of the objects, that his repeated results had proven his
assumption as true. He would feel that his analysis of the behaviour of objects in relationship to
the gravity of Earth, where “the Earth‟s gravity has a greater attraction to heavier objects than it
has to lighter objects,” had been proven to be true and that lighter objects are indeed attracted
to the Earth with less force than is the case for heavier objects.
Although the results may be conclusive to the scientist at the time, he has not fully understood
all the factors that were influencing his observations when he was conducting his tests. His
conclusions will therefore be erroneous even though he feels that he is absolutely certain of his
facts.
A few centuries ago no counter-arguments or methods existed to disprove this theory, and
lacking the means to prove otherwise, this is what the majority of people accepted as true. This
theory was incorrect, because important facts had not been considered in the formulation of the
theory, due to limitations in the capability to eliminate external influences, like:
A: -- The medium (air), in which the objects were being tested, is a gas and has specific
properties like density, viscosity and compressibility. It produces a counteracting force that is a
function of the shape of the object, in relation to its mass. What this means, is that when the
scientist first came up with the idea that there were different gravitational forces affecting objects
with different masses, he left out the counteracting effects that air would have on objects as they
travelled through it.
B: -- The shape of an object and the way in which this relates to its mass, will have a significant
impact on how it will behave when falling through air. This phenomenon can also be referred to
as the resistance that the object will have when travelling through air or as it is more commonly
known – the object‟s “drag”.7 Today in engineering it is easy to calculate the drag coefficient of
any object and it is especially important when aerodynamic designs are considered. When the
effects of drag are not excluded from an experiment to determine what effect gravity has on it,
the interpretation of the results will be erroneous.
In the past, when the scientist made his observations, although the results may appear correct,
he would actually be wrong, due to a lack of understanding and having erroneous
preconceptions about the object that is being observed in the first place. The scientist would
also have been limited in his ability to create the right conditions for carrying out a test that
would prove otherwise.
Only once more sophisticated methodologies and equipment were invented as technology
improved, did it become possible to gain a more complete understanding of the forces at work
and properly test all factors relating to this theory.
When scientists want to publish their findings in scientific papers, they would follow the following
process: After a scientist has initially published his original observations and conclusions, other
scientists may review those findings, conduct further tests and they may come to conclusions
confirming or refuting it. They may also point out aspects which were ignored or overlooked in
the initial experiment. This process is known as applying the scientific method and is seen as
good science in practice.8
Before publishing a paper, a scientist will have to double-check his findings and ensure that he
has done everything possible to eliminate any factors which may distort the results he obtained
from his experiment. If the scientist had a good understanding of all the forces in play when
dropping an object through air, he would have known that it would be necessary to eliminate the
effect of air on the object, since the presence of air, as the medium in which his test was
conducted, may have influenced or distorted the results that he obtained. The feather was not
falling straight down, but floated through the air - moving through air as a function of its shape,
its mass and air passing over it.
If however, the scientist performed the same experiment in an environment where no air was
present (like in a vacuum), the two objects would be observed as falling to the Earth at the same
speed and would reach the ground at exactly the same time, even when the test is repeated
more than once.
In these two examples an assumption or hypothesis, that was incorrect, was initially accepted
as true, due to the incapability to test all the influencing factors at that time. This is very
important to remember, since the same problems that scientists from earlier centuries faced, are
also faced by scientists today. There are often unknown factors in play when it comes to
collecting data from experimentation. What is most concerning is that, as a result of relativism
being introduced into society, it has become normal to accept as true those things, which can
even be proven false. This results in people no longer needing to question or to think critically
about a subject. What is the point? In the end, if one does not agree with what the majority
sees as true and trendy, it may negatively affect your social status, or even limit your career
options and who wants that?
Today, according to D‟Onofrio and Burigana, cosmology is an area of research in which
unknowns are often encountered in almost every experiment that is carried out.9 A true and
factual conclusion will always be impossible when a scientist fails to identify all aspects
influencing a subject under review, or even if he is able to identify these aspects, but unable to
test them, due to limitations in dimensionality. These unknowns eventually lead to assumptions,
which become theories, which cannot be proved, but are accepted by the science community as
true over time.
As with the falling objects experiment, if a scientist does not have a complete understanding of
the subject initially and is unable to identify all the factors, that influence certain aspects of his
experiment, a wrong deduction and subsequent conclusion will be reached. From these
examples one can see how easy it is for people, who usually accept the findings of scientists or
experts as true, to accept an incorrect viewpoint as the truth.
Just because some tests have been performed and/or facts proving a hypothesis as true does
not mean that it is actually true. It is very important to note that one or two scientific
experiments that are carried out, although proven as repeatable and the results verifiable, may
provide misleading information if any facts or influences, internal or external, are not fully
understood, or if they are misinterpreted or are omitted from a test during the collecting of data
through experimentation.
Scientists can often reach incorrect conclusions after conducting preliminary experimentation
that supports, or is biased towards, proving their own hypotheses. Although their results are
seemingly proven as correct for the tests that were performed, additional tests can often be
performed that would reveal the flaws in the scientists‟ reasoning.
In many cases today, even though technology has advanced by leaps and bounds, the same
flaws and limitations can be identified in scientific experiments or observations, as in the past.
Many theories and hypotheses exist around various subjects for which some experiments were
conducted, but for which specific facts have emerged, proving that the original assumption or
hypothesis was actually incorrect.
Very often, it is extremely difficult to fully understand a subject or even to perform an experiment
to prove a hypothesis, since it is physically impossible to carry out experimentation that would
confirm the theory. In all experiments that are conducted by human beings, our 4-dimentional
space-time environment limits us. We do not have the ability as yet, to move around in time or
to travel the astronomical