//
you're reading...
Creation/Evolution

Creationist admits evolution makes logical sense, if…

As a creationist, the biggest accusation I get hurled at me is: how can you accept creation amidst the mountain of evidence in favor of evolution?  This is a good question, and the answer actually reveals the real heart of the debate. 

The mountain of evidence mentioned does not prove evolution any more than it proves creation. What you may not realize is that evolutionists and creationists look at the exact same evidence, and come to different conclusions based on their starting assumptions.

The biggest lie in science is that “evidence speaks for itself”. No, it doesn’t. A dinosaur bone does not come out of the ground and tell you it is millions of years old. A person decides that based on an interpretation. None of us were there; therefore it HAS to be an interpretation.

If you come at the evidence with the world view that the supernatural does not exist and things in the past behave as they do today – you will come to a naturalistic, uniform conclusion…and it will make logical sense given your starting conditions.

If you come at the evidence with a world view that the supernatural does exist and we have a trustworthy eye witness document to historical events, you will come to different conclusions…and it still makes logical sense given your starting conditions.

Therefore, starting conditions are what the actual debate is. Not creation vs. evolution. Both of those theories are logical IF their starting condition is accurate.  You heard me right!  If I started with a view of the world that the supernatural does not exist, and things in the past happened exactly as they do today – then evolution makes logical sense. 

Creation apologists use rational arguments to show that it is more logical to believe in a higher power than it is to not.  Creation scientists use evidence of past events where things did not act as they did today to create a plausible scenario that measuring the past by the pace of the present is unreliable.  Combining these two arguments is the very basis of the creationist’s position.

Therefore the secular arguments that the creationist claims do not hold up in a modern, scientific world are fallacious.  They are defining science different.  They are defining evidence different.  And they are ignoring presuppositions.  There is MUCH more to this debate than just evidence!

Advertisements

About Tim

http://www.gracewithsalt.com

Discussion

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: