Creation: ‘where’s the proof?’

‘I’ve been trying to witness to my friends. They say they don’t believe the Bible and aren’t interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there’s a God who created, and then they’ll listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they’ll start to listen to me?’

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events. Past and present

We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.

I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.

However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.

As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’

However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.

What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result. Debate terms

If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:

1. ‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see Naturalism, logic and reality.

2. Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).

A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).

Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history! Ultimately, God’s Word convicts

1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: ‘For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’

Also, Isaiah 55:11: ‘So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.’

Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts. Practical application

When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:

‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’

One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death.

‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’

1. Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence.

3. Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these).

4. Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).

Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about. Naturalism, logic and reality

Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:

1. A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’

The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.

2. On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.

This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

Oztrich boy made and “if...then” statement, referring to Fundamentalist criteria.

It was metmom who made the unqualified statement.

Does your criticism apply to her?

No...he's trying to be clever by using classical dialectics to draw you to a pre-determined, un-provable conclusion.

To steal a line from Dennis Miller, "I can see through this guy like a used bar of Neutrogena."

He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.... This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

That's precisely what it all logically boils down to!

Thanks for the great post, no nau!

The apostles... Yes, they were blessed with a lot more evidence (proof, if you wish) than the rest of us were, but I suspect that they were given that proof because they already had faith.

Spell check is your friend.

It certainly would be if I misspelled anything.

You got the wrong hombre, pardner.

You say that as though you believe leading readers to pre-determined conclusions is bad.

Ha.

If neither side did that, it would be a silent debate.

[[I have a liberal family member who always says she would rather go to hell because “that’s where all the cool people will be”. Sad.]]

Yeah- a lot of people say that or something like “I’d rather go to hell a free person who decides on their own than to go to heaven forced by hte church to choose” or somethign similar to that- Little do they realize

[[My personal opinion is that most of us are going to be more than a bit surprised about where we find ourselves after judgement, and with whom we will be spending eternity. And none more so than the more fervent true believers contributing to this thread.]]

Vet- if anyone obey’s God’s word and accepts Christ As God has said we need to do in order to be saved- there will be no surprises-

[[How do you know the Bible is not fiction?]]

[[Well, if you judge it the same way other historical documents are judged, it passes the test.]]

Fiction also doesn’t havem ore than 600 very specific prophesies that have and will continue to have come 100% true, nor does fiction answer prayer-

[[An interesting exercise is to close your eyes and try to comprehend TOTAL NOTHINGNESS - that is no Solar System, No Planets, No vegetation, No Seasons, No People. I can’t comprehend such a scenario.]]

Interesting you should ask this- I mentioned previously that I had an NDE, and right at hte end of the experience, I felt complete nothingness- I remember trying to explain the feeling, but I couldn’t adequately describe the terror of it- the best I could do was to say that it was a terror 5that was seperate from my nothingness, but it still was somehow able to affect the nothiness feeling. I know it doesn’t make sense- but with the whole hell-like experience of the NDE, it seemed to me at the time to be better off feeling the existence and sufferign in hell than to experience the nothingness and being aware of it- I guess the overhwelming feeling was that of totalt seperation and isolation, yet having awareness somehow.

[[“Gerald Schroeder’s scheme for matching up the days of Genesis doesn’t work. He has to invent the idea that “waters above the heavens” is when the Milky Way formed, but the earth wasn’t even around at the time so the text is pretty meaningless if his interpretation is correct. Also, he says that “let there be light” on Day 1 is when the cosmic background radiation thermally separated from the primordial plasma. ]]

Actually it does work- a student named Samson Dakota (you can google his name) is doing research into the fact that tremendous pressure on water can create light

[[Want to know why?]]

It’s very simple- they get fed up with, and can’t contend with, posters who refute their assumption driven declarations with cold hard science. They present their ‘evidence’ for Macroevolution, and their assertions get exposed as slight of hand misdirections and exposed as MICROEvolution, to hwich the scientists have no reasonable or valid rebuttles.

[[Most other scientists have either been banned or left in disgust.

Want to know why?]]

Not to mention that they’d rather start their own websites where they are surrounded by likeminded individuals who won’t take a critical look at hte REAL facts and who won’t constantly refute hteir ideas with facts, and folks hwo won’t point out the problems with the ‘evidences’, and hwo will all band together and attack anyone who dares expose the lies and half-truths of Macroevolution. Can’t blame htem though- it’s never easy taking a critical look at hte science and going against hte grain by refusing to blindly accept a hypothesis that has no scientific support- people don’t like hteir pet hypothesis’ being challenged.

No, it’s more like the reason scientists don’t publish studies in tabloids.

Keep in mind that the world of science is pretty demanding and neither polemics nor apologetics get very far.

This is a religion thread, and if posters had the faith they claim, there would be no need for arguing with science.

Quite simply, if science appears to contradict one’s interpretation of one’s religion, the better approach is to seek more understanding or accept the apparent contradictions. Trying to challenge cosmology, geology, chemistry, physics and biology and promulgating half truths and sometimes blatant untruths does no honor to any self-respecting religion.

[George Orwell did not live in vain.] I always end up reading these creation/evolution threads with a dropped jaw, until I get to a post from Coyoteman and realize that FR is not a total wasteland of ideas. Thanks again.

FR used to have quite a few very well spoken and knowledgeable people, on many different subjects. Most have been driven away, but Coyoteman has the patience of Job and sticks around despite the constant attacks from people who have more emotion than understanding.

Religion has changed in spite of many who will not acknowledge it. Yes the basic tenants of many have not; however, many have changed some rather startling things in their dogma. I cite for example Vatican 2. Paul was most likely spinning in his grave over that.

That's my primary reason for rejecting all faiths. None of them can agree on anything, and I've even seen the very same congregation change their beliefs over a decade or two. If there were a God, then He would be powerful enough to communicate the same message to all humans on the entire planet. But observing all the various faiths across the world, the only common thread between them is faith itself. Obviously most humans are hardwired to believe in something, but belief in any one thing is obviously irrelevant.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.