I have been forming and revising my argument in defense of Biblical creation for the past year and a half, and believe I have narrowed it down to as concise as possible explanation as to how a creationist can continue amongst a world of evidence in favor of evolution:
Long-term evolution is not directly observed; therefore it is dependent upon a particular interpretation of the fossil record / DNA history. I see that interpretation as being fueled by two fundamental starting assumptions: (1) that everything must have a natural explanation, and (2) everything continues today at the same rate/way it has in the past.
These two concepts of naturalism and uniformitism are necessary for the evolutionary interpretation of the evidence. The Bible outlines several events and information that very well could have violated these two concepts. For example: (1) a 6-day creation week where everything pops into existence mid-life cycle confusing dating method’s starting conditions; (2) a cursed world following the original sin that changes the way the world operates introducing pain, suffering, death possibly the point at which the decay process began; (3) a global catastrophic flood reshapes the geography of the earth and possibly is the source of most of the fossil record and the start of nearly every geologic phenomenon. Therefore IF the Bible is true, naturalism and uniformitism fails – and therefore so does the interpretations that follows from them.
So why does an evolutionary lineage seem so convincing? I think it is because they are convincingly mixing short-term, small-scale observed actual changes with long-term unobserved assumptions. Creationists agree that these small-scale natural selection changes occur, to say anything else would be ridiculous. Creationists stop agreeing when we go into the realm of the unseen speculations (ironic, right?)
You see, this isn’t about direct evidence. It is about an interpretation of the left-behind evidence based on starting assumptions. I have a different set of starting assumptions (mine aren’t provable either). We’re in the same boat, that’s why this debate continues on, but it does not mean the creationist position is less logical or ignores any evidence. The debate is really about our starting assumptions, and although I understand the atheistic reasons for denying my starting assumptions, Christians have no logical reason to deny creationism that comes from a straight-forward reading of the Bible while at the same time being a Christian by trusting on the same written revelation.
2 Peter 3: 5-6 “But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.”