Attacking Evolution #2B

What is the best evidence to attack evolution?

We are enjoying the letter exchange with Von at Von’s Substack on the topic of “How to Attack Evolution” or, in its long form, “What is the best way to attack evolution in our modern age?" We appreciate the exchange and this is our second letter in answer to the question posed.

We understand the confusion at our previous position regarding “evidence”, i.e., that (in Von’s words) “the best way to attack evolution is ‘with evidence’, and then proceeds to tell us that that won’t work!”

Let us explain. Two things can be true at once. First, evidence is the only thing that matters for rationally or logically convincing anyone about anything or event that happened in the past. We suppose that we could be fooled about some event in the past. Perhaps historians completely fabricated the story that Brutus killed Julius Caesar. How would we know? But for any past event that left current material evidence, that evidence is the only thing that can be used to infer causes of that past event. Science operates this way for historical sciences, such as the science practiced by paleontologists, archeologists, forensic scientists, and so on.

Second, there are many (maybe most in today’s world) that cannot be convinced of truth by any evidence if the inferences from the evidence contradict their worldview. This is what we meant by “it is not about the evidence.” Many of these people are atheists (we agree that most who identify as atheists are not atheists; they are like the devil: they know God exists, they just don’t like him.) But many are Christians!

Christians? Yes, there are many Christians who have bought into a naturalistic world view. Maybe they are “lapsed Christians” as Von suggests. Mostly, they are just ill-informed. That is exactly why the target audience for our latest book (Without Excuse: Evidence for Creation by God) is Christians and others who have a world view amenable to consider all logical inferences from the evidence. For Christians, they can be persuaded by evidence. Their world view permits it. But for atheists, naturalists, materialists, etc., it’s not about the evidence. Their world view does not permit consideration of all logical inferences from the evidence.

We agree with Von and (in his words) “count logic as part of ‘evidence’, which doesn’t seem to be the norm.” Apologists for the faith have long used logical arguments alone to support Biblical truths. Our understanding is that C.S. Lewis was persuaded of the existence of God based on the presence of apparent moral absolutes among people. The idea that humans entertain ideas of “right” and “wrong” must have a basis in a standard of right and wrong. What is the source of that standard? It is not (at least directly) material evidence.

Along the same lines, we argue in Without Excuse, for example, that the fact that evolutionists care what creationists believe is strong evidence against naturalistic evolutionary processes. There is no “caring” in blind, purposeless nature. If evolutionary processes produced us all without purpose or plan, why should evolutionists care that evolution produced creationists?

The moment evolutionists express “care” about what another human believes, they show distrust in their own theory. They should, in fact, glory in their chosen creation story! Because it is so powerful, it can create beings that don’t believe in it. We find it curious that in a “Darwinian world” creationists should be mere purposeless products of nature, but in a “world of Darwinists” creationists become moral agents guilty of believing a wrong thing. It seems we are not in a Darwinian world, but, instead, a world of Darwinians.

Even so, will the evidence of caring convince a materialist that God exists and He created people in His image with the breath of life?

We would not hold our breath.

Find more info at our brand new website, Creation Reformation. This site is brand new and still a bit under construction. If you find broken links, let us know. Enjoy!