Over
the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:
‘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?’
Briefly,
my response is as follows.
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.
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,
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.
That’s
why the argument often turns into something like:
‘Can’t
you see what I’m talking about?’
‘No,
I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’
‘No,
I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’
‘No,
it’s not obvious.’ And so on.
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.
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
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
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!
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.
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.
Once
I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue:
‘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.’
In
arguing this way, a Christian is:
1.
Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to
interpret the evidence.
2.
Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.1
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).
5.
Honoring the Word of God that convicts the soul.
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 honors
those who honor His Word. We need to use God-honoring ways of reaching people
with the truth of what life is all about.
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?
Ed.
Note:
for more information on formal logic and the Christian faith, see Loving
God With All Your Mind: Logic and Creation.