I am presenting this argument from a little different perspective than the usual creation position. Instead of focusing on the comparison of evidence between creation and evolution, I focus primarily on the evolution argument itself. With only a few exceptions, I quote evolutionists themselves and not creation sources. There are a couple of reasons I have taken this approach. First and primarily is that people have the tendency to believe the last argument they hear. When creation apologists present all the evidence for creation, it may sound persuasive; however, when they hear it from the evolutionary side, it will be presented as a viable argument as well, and people often shift back and forth based on what they hear. My goal is to show the need to critique what we are hearing rather than to be led by the hand to the conclusion evolutionists wants us to accept.
Second, when the evidence is presented, I hear the same criticisms. Evolutionists discredit creation sources without giving them an ear. I hear comments like, “Creation evidence is religion and not science”. Therefore, in this case study almost everything is presented directly from evolutionary sources. Now the criticism I am hearing on this paper is, “Why are you criticizing evolution instead of presenting evidence?” In reality, a committed evolutionist will believe what they have already pre-determined themselves to believe. My hope is that people will not just believe the group that shouts the loudest or presents the last argument, but they will examine what is presented and look past the argument to the substance. Instead of being led by the hand to what the evolutionist wants them to see while avoiding the contradictions, I want people to see the argument and ask questions that get to the root of the evidence – if it can be found. Critical questions help to distinguish between facts and assumptions.
I also want to address one last issue since I have already received much criticism regarding my definition of evolution. Some attempt to discredit this argument Because I lump biological evolution, physics, and astronomy together. Evolution is not biological only. Physics, astronomy, and biology are all presented by evolutionists as a part of the evolutionary model. When I refer to evolution, I am referring to the evolutionary concept or model. Contrary to the claims of critics, the ‘Big Bang’ is just as much a part of evolution as the formation of life, chance mutations, and natural selection. The galaxies support or contradict evolution just as much as biological evolution.
With such a wide scope to defend, many evolutionists try to separate arguments, claiming that criticism against one part of the evolutionary model is irrelevant to their defense in another part of the model, but this is not true. If the planets and galaxies did not form, neither could life. I use the noose that evolutionists tie in every area and I show how they hang themselves. The only way an evolutionist can defend evolution against its own leaders is to put leaders into separate categories. Most respondents have tried to distance themselves from the leaders I quote, but if the leaders and those fashioning the model are wrong, the model is wrong.
My goal is not to persuade people to creation (though I would like this to happen). My goal is to put a fork in the road so that each person is informed enough to know the choice they are making.