Does the Bible trump all evidence?
Should creationists stick with their views no matter what the evidence says?
Published: 6 April 2014 (GMT+10)
K.C. from the U.S. wrote in with a concern about creationist paleontologist Dr. Kurt Wise’s approach to the evidence:
If Dr. Wise states that he will never change his views no matter the amount of evidence against them; why bother refuting this evidence? It seems ludicrous to attack evidence with evidence when in Dr Wise’s thinking evidence does not really matter. I think he would have to admit that he takes his evidence to fit his preconceived interpretation of Genesis. So, the matter revolves around ones interpretation of Scripture. Yet, this ministry barely steps into the high waters of Biblical hermeneutics. Wise’s method is in fact bullet proof-The Bible says so, I believe it regardless of any evidence against it. Is this a good practice in any discipline? Surely God would have us exercise our minds in a much better fashion then this? The real issue for Wise then would be simply a matter of interpretation not evidence. In Wise’s mind Scripture is the authority. Yet, authority is not really the issue.
CMI’s Keaton Halley responds:
Thanks for the question. You may be writing under the false impression that Dr. Wise works here, so I recommend that you write to him if you want his opinion. But I will try to address your concerns anyway, from my point of view.
To begin with, I’m not sure that Dr. Wise intended his statements to be taken in the way you read them, but even if that is precisely his view not all creationists would share that opinion. Also, it is unclear to me what exactly you mean by "evidence", but in the broadest sense evidence is simply grounds for believing something. At CMI, we certainly think that we have good grounds for believing the Bible. Neither we nor the Bible advocate a ‘blind faith’ approach. Instead, we show how Christianity makes better sense of reality than any other worldview.
Still, once we are firmly convinced that the Bible is the Word of God and that Genesis teaches six days, etc., it is appropriate to use that knowledge to test other truth claims. When new apeman claims are trumpeted by the media, for example, we do not immediately question our entire worldview, but ask how the facts themselves might be better interpreted within a creationist paradigm.
Those committed to an evolutionary paradigm do the same thing. Notice how, when evolutionist Mary Schweitzer found soft tissues, blood cells, proteins, and DNA within dinosaur bones, she did not question the 65+ million year age of the bones, but assumed that there must be some mechanism to preserve soft tissue for all that time. So while you are right to say that our interpretation of the Bible is crucial, the Bible isn’t the only thing being interpreted. Evolutionists and long agers often try to sell their interpretations as facts, but we’ve often shown how they smuggle faulty assumptions into their reconstructions of history.
Of course, the Bible often gives us a clearer picture of history than the study of nature because (1) the Bible contains propositional statements, whereas nature doesn’t literally say anything, and (2) the Bible gives us eyewitness testimony from an infallible source.
For these and other reasons, I do think it is appropriate to trust the Bible even when I don’t have all the answers about a particular evolutionary claim. After all, the Bible itself tells us to "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths" (Proverbs 3:5–6). But no, this does not mean that if Jesus’ bones were discovered, for example, that we should keep believing the Bible anyway. As the Apostle Paul wrote, "if Christ has not been raised… your faith is in vain" (1 Corinthians 15:14).
Now, if I’m reading you right, you also say that biblical authority is not the issue because the argument really depends on whether we’re interpreting Genesis correctly. Certainly, our case for six days, etc. does depend on us getting our interpretation right, but I still think the controversy is fundamentally about biblical authority. That’s because we are not only claiming that our interpretation is correct, but also that it is clear. There are objective rules for proper interpretation, which (contrary to what I understand you to say) we actually write about extensively in our published materials. But our detailed exegesis only serves to reinforce what should be obvious to every student of the Bible, that God created in six days, that death entered the world after Adam sinned, that Noah’s flood covered the globe, etc. While these doctrines are clear in the text, people don’t want to believe them because they have been influenced by the ideas of millions of years and evolution. But when we allow outside influences to run roughshod over proper exegesis, it’s no longer merely a matter of interpretation, it’s about failing to take God at his word.
I don’t mean that to sound harsh, because I respect many Christians who do not share my convictions about Genesis. However, we all have feet of clay. I’m not sure where you stand on these things, but if you have doubts about Genesis I encourage you to look at our arguments from Scripture and read our articles that expose many of the assumptions in the evolutionary and long-age paradigms. You might start with Did God create over billions of years? and Did God really take six days?
Great article and reply! You guys really bless and strengthen me. Keep up the great work. Blessings.
Keaton is right- the Bible is the authority- God's word. Many seem to put "science" in the authoritative position and come up with all sorts of mythical gymnastics trying to fit in the evolutionary authority. Evolution is the reason for many suicides-people are indoctrinated to believe they are nothing but pond scum.
When you believe the bible and gie\ve it authority you realise the truth is very different-we are all God's special children and our Elder Brother Jesus really is our Saviour
Bible inerrancy and scriptural authority should be a non negotiable given with every Christian.
We are indeed living in the times when even the elect can be led astray- namely by the satanic lie and mythology of evolution, humanism and atheism, basically the same thing- a denial of our Creator God.
All evidence should be discerned and tested against scripture to see if it conforms to the truth of God's word or not. The bible will trump a lie or false interpretation any day. Where it touches on true science, for example, it is true in every way. Regarding history; we have an overview starting from day one of Creation right through to the end of history(Revelation)- and the beginning of eternity. God has revealed all this to us-He knows what He's talking about
The article reminds me of my father. He was an atheist and an evolutionist and said there was no God and the Bible was full of mistakes but could produce no proof to back up his claims. My mother on the other hand was an ardent Roman Catholic who believed in God but like wise could produce no proof for her belief. In my teens I decided to try to find out who was right and spent several years searching for the truth. Eventually I found it and one day went to my father and told him I had found indisputable proof that the Bible was right and not full of myths and fables. My dad, whom I had always considered to be an honest skeptic, astounded me by saying that even if I could prove the Bible true he would not believe it because he didn't want to, and that basically is the problem with die-hard evolutionists; not a lack of evidence but a refusal to acknowledge a Creator Who might require them to obey His laws. At almost 80 yrs of age I have never found anything to contradict the truth I discovered so many years ago, but the really irrefutable proof is something no one will find unless they come to know Jesus Christ as Saviour and have His Spirit dwelling within. That will kill all arguments stone dead.
Thank you for your ministry. I follow several creation and apologetic sites and yours is among the best. I still believe that ultimately the debate of "evidence" versus anything else is much like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. God ultimately wants our faith and I don't think that will ever something be so obvious empirically - also "by design" from our maker, as evidenced in Eph 2:8.
One thing I'll add is that the assault on Christianity seems to be stronger than ever. I knew 20+ years ago that when I was fervently taught Roman and Greek mythology that the goal was to create a myth mindset so that the next step would be to characterize Christianity as a myth. Unfortunately there is that inconvenient fact that Jesus is, was and will continue to be the most influential figure in all of history. That doesn't happen just by fad. Look at how fast fads pass in this age of the internet.
Praise God for your continued work and keep it up!
The notion that the Bible is the gift of God has to be assessed against the given that He also gave us the greatest gift in the universe - the human brain. He did not intend a mere book, written down by fallible humans - not God - some of whom are not even known, and many of which were projecting their own agendas, lusts wishes and desires.
How can Deuteronomy 5, 17 “You shall not murder."
Zondervan (2011-01-09). Holy Bible (NIV) (p. 165). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.) stack up against (Deuteronomy 22,20 ) "If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
Zondervan (2011-01-09). Holy Bible (NIV) (p. 179). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
This EXACTLY the kind of outrage perpetrated by men in countries where Sharia is prevalant. If it happened in any Christian country, we would jail those men and throw away the key.
So no. The bible does NOT trump all evidence.
'The Bible gives us eyewitness testimony from an infallible source.'
This seems to me to pretty much put in a nutshell the objections to Dr Wise's standpoint. And yet you offer no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. The best you offer is a line from Proverbs which tells us to trust the Lord, but that says nothing about the Bible, and even if it did would merely be self-supporting.
How can you base your argument on such unsubstantiated foundations?
The statement you quote comes underneath "once we are firmly convinced that the Bible is the Word of God". In context, that line was not meant to establish the truth of Scripture but to explain why, given its trustworthiness, the Bible is often more helpful than science in reconstructing the past. The point of the article was not to provide all the reasons to trust the Bible as God's Word, because we do this throughout our site.
“No” amount of evidence given from a worldview, that is contradictory, should change a person’s view if that person’s worldview is “not” contradictory.
Evidence is really interpretation of facts based on a worldview. The Principle of Non-contradiction asserts that "no statement can be both true and false" at the same time. If a worldview is contradictory, then anything can be used as evidence no matter how absurd the evidence is.
Evidence is not really the issue. What is the issue is whether the premises in a worldview works coherently with the preconditions that make things rational. Some of these preconditions are logic, uniformity, absolute morality, prescriptive information systems, intentional choice, personal freedom, etc. These premises are derived from the biblical framework and science only works coherently under these preconditions.
When it comes to the Bible I don’t know of any contradiction that has not been taken out of context or of a worldview that shows it’s not contradictory before presenting evidence that opposes the biblical framework. Any perceived other contradictions are usually not contradictions but unknowns.
Currently, the most used contradictory worldview that’s used to undermine the Bible is evolution. Evolution is contradictory because it uses science to exclude the supernatural but at the same time uses science as proof of falsification of supernatural assertions within the bible. This worldview both excludes and includes the supernatural at the same time to assert its philosophy.
I believe you are not interpreting that correctly; it seems K.C. was saying something more to the point of "If something is proven as a fact (as far as facts can be proven) but the bible says it cannot be so, do you say it cannot be or do you say we must revise/remove this section of the bible"?
To put it a little more bluntly: "a creature 17000 years old appears before you (with 2000 more of his kin), one who you can test and he can prove he has such an age, and tells you that he has watched earth for the past 10000 years and none of what the bible says has been observed by him or any of his thousands of colleagues who have been working in tandem to do so and can prove their observations with recordings that establish verifiable facts alongside historical conjecture (we know the day/time something occurred and have seen the written memories and independent of all of this they can produce a recording of the incident in question)."
What do you do then?
I do think the Bible is falsifiable in principle, as indicated by my statements in the article about discovering the bones of Jesus. But inventing an unrealistic hypothetical scenario which stipulates that we are wrong tells us nothing about how reasonable we are being with the actual evidence we have. The evidence we have clearly supports the truth of Scripture.
"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."
We are to trust God Himself, without doubting.
If an apparent 'contradiction' confronts us, regarding Scripture, it is appropriate to confess, 'My understanding is lacking in regard to that matter'.
There is no evidence that contradicts the Bible that is not rooted in rationalization such as made-up stories, arbitrary assumptions, irrational statements, or outright lies. The Bible trumps rationalization. However, interpretations of the Bible are often also rooted in rationalization as well. And it is very difficult to know whether we are following a paradigm in our minds or real reality. We must be open to the teaching and correction of the Holy Spirit regarding our interpretations or either the Bible or the creation.
In the middle of reading this, I had to pause for a moment and marvel what a lucid and gracious peace of writing your response here was.
Within the response, was mention of CMI's extensive exegesis of various topics and felt I should blurt out something that troubled me in my reading on the site. In addition to CMI's matchless technical material presented with a Creationist perspective, I've noticed the occasional presentation and defense of various key Bible doctrines.
I've also noticed what must be the deliberate avoidance of certain controversial doctrines and I commend CMI for that. For examples, a search reveals no coverage of the rapture or the various tenets of Calvinism. Clearly, you rightly consider wading in to certain disputes as being outside your mission.
CMI's perfection in nearly everything it does makes the handful of things that I've seen that I considered doctrinal errors all the more glaring. CMI's authors sometimes make stands on several doctrines that do not relate to the creation and that many in the Body of Christ would dispute.
It would be nice if you expanded your list of no nos, I guess.
We do try to stick to issues related to creation and the authority of Scripture. But you didn't mention which teachings you take issue with, so I can't respond to that. Anyway, thanks for your words of encouragement.
How can you say you don't know what Wise intended when Wise says in the article on your site, "As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."?
The statement is quite clear and consistent with the feedback letter.
Fair question, but I think Dr. Wise's statements are somewhat ambiguous. For example, his essay is primarily dealing with scientific evidence. So is he only talking about "all the [scientific] evidence in the universe" turning against creationism? Or is he including evidence for creation from other fields, like our moral experience? Also, Dr. Wise spoke of the evidence turning "against creationism", not the Bible per se. So I'm not sure if "all the evidence" includes all the reasons we have to think the Bible is the Word of God, which would then indirectly support creationism because, as he says, that's what the Bible "seems to indicate." In other words, it's not clear that he's advocating fideism because he could be using one set of evidences (for creation through the Bible) to trump another set of evidences (against creation apart from the Bible). At the same time, we did recognize that his statements could easily be understood the way K.C. read them, which is why we put an editorial note next to his statements to clarify CMI's position.
This is a truly excellent reply! When it comes to evidence, the Bible should be considered as the most important piece of evidence. In every discussion that I have seen on this topic, the "evidence" is either hypothetical, or it is just interpretation being presented as "evidence".
If you look at recent History, say the last 500 years and compare the reliability of the bible to "speculative science" (if there is such a thing) the Bible wins hands down. If you look at experimental science there is no problem between the Bible and science except for a few unimportant issues of semantics. If you forget the Bible and look at "speculative science" compared against itself it's record is still dismal (15-20 year half life). The reason is that ego, and being published are in direct proportion to the degree of speculation.
Contrary to what K. C. has said here, I have found CMI to provide excellent reasons for believing the grammatical historical approach to interpreting the Bible. Now, I will admit that I have both heard a weekend seminar given by one of CMI's speakers and I bought about a dozen of the books and videos to check out on my own time. So the teaching I have found through CMI may not JUST be from the website itself. But their exegesis of Scripture is among the finest that I have come across, including my 4 years of study in theology.
In terms of authority, that was an issue for me, and one that I wanted to hear from both sides of the issue. I studied at a college that had a very high regard for the authority of Scripture and at a seminary that followed a much more critical approach. As Keaton says here, if Jesus is not raised from the dead, then we should all reject Christianity since it would not, could not be true. But, additionally, if you have a source that has been found to be correct innumerable times by the experts, then perhaps you should believe your source more than those spinning theories that discredit it. I raise Sir William Ramsay who was one of the greatest of archeologists and who began his career with an unfavorable opinion of the Bible's accuracy. By the time he was near the end of his career, he had reversed his position, finding that Luke, in particular, rated among the finest of historians whose information had been found to be not just good, but precise.
Although Keaton does not belabour the point here, evolution is not a science, it is actually historical reconstruction! Another commenter suggested that it would be interesting to see how many new inventions of the last 150 years have been based on evolution. His (and my) guess? None.
Keaton, you make a very good point when you bring up the challenge of Paul. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then we are wasting our time. Too often the word of God isn't studied by its followers, and then the charges by unbelievers that Christians have blind faith cause great concerns. We should not reject facts or use cognitive dissonance to make ourselves feel better.
But if this Resurrection did happen, then it should not be a huge leap to accept that Noah's flood released enough heat/radiation to melt the Earth 3 times over. Global floods are not natural occurrences and require Godly intervention, just like resurrection. Of course, we biblical creationists cannot cry miracle whenever we have a problem, but only when the word of God, the Bible, indicates that it happened.
I think Kurt Wise is sometimes misunderstood because of his high intelligence. I know he believes in the Bible 100%....He truly believes that there is no better information than that of the Bible. I also know that he believes that all evidence against the Bible can and will be refuted. So with him speaking about other evidence, he probably meant that it would be found to be useless information. So why would anyone listen to it? Now that is just a guess of mine. I have read articles and books and even heard him speak, so I don't think he is against finding out truth. Its just the whole of evolutionisic theory that he is against. He probably heard so much of it in college that it turns his stomach. I know I heard it a lot in secular universities. It was always portrayed as fact. They didn't bother to explain the theory side. And this is my theory, not fact.
A minor point: we actually advise people not to criticize evolution for its status as a "theory", since this term does not always mean an unsubstantiated conjecture. See our Don't Use page.
Many thanks for your reply.
The problem I have is that you don't 'provide all the reasons to trust the Bible as God's Word ... throughout [your] site.'
I've looked and looked and found none. Indeed what I can find is the simple statement that you DON'T requires reasons for this belief. As Dr Jonathan Safarti clearly states in http://creation.com/the-authority-of-scripture:
'Creation Ministries International accepts the authority of Scripture as an axiom or presupposition: i.e. as a starting point or assumption that requires no proof, and is the basis for all reasoning.'
Well, we've published thousands of articles about how the evidence confirms Scripture, so you can't have looked too hard. But, again, you are taking things out of context. The very article you reference also explains that the truth of the Bible is supported by internal consistency and independent external evidence. It explicitly says that even our "axiom" is checked in this way, so we are not advocating blind faith. See also Using the Bible to prove the Bible?
I love reading your articles and especially when you take on questions like the one here. But I also enjoy reading the comments, (almost as much as the articles). Particularly enjoyable was the comment from Steven I believe his name is. His story about his atheist father and his Roman Catholic mother, neither of whom could provide proof of their beliefs was simply a fantastic comment! I was so blessed by it. I am sharing it on my FB page. Keep up the great work you are doing. I pray that God will bless me financially so that I can donate to your work. You are well deserving of the support! God bless you all!
Keaton Halley: I love your comments. They are so wise and understandable. Thanks.
Sorry, I'm obviously not making myself clear.
I'm not disagreeing that there are things in the Bible which are true, though we might differ as to how much of it is true.
The question is not whether it's true, but whether it is God's word. There are plenty of books that are true, but not written by God. Why do you suppose that this one is, particularly when there are so many parts of it that we know for certain to have been written by men?
No, I understand. When I talk about the Bible being true, I mean that everything in it is true, including the parts where it claims to be breathed out by God (e.g., 2 Timothy 3:16). This is consistent with it being written by men too, since "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21).
We find many lines of evidence which confirm the Bible's divine authorship, and the article I've already linked to above (Using the Bible to prove the Bible?) mentions some of them. For example, it explains how biblical teachings, but not other worldviews, provide the basis for science, morality, and free will. But its hard to see how a merely human work would accomplish all this and more, especially since these features of reality depend on truths about who God is and how He acts.
The evolutionists love to fantasize about how the earth could be millions of years old, while Bible believers [Creationists] believe the historical writings of those before us. Scientists long believed the earth was flat, while the Bible explained it to be round. Science explained the sun revolved around the earth while the Bible explained the Sun as the center. Scientists over time have been proven false again and again, most recently with the Global cooling of the 1970’s and now the Global warning. While at the same time archeology has done nothing BUT proven the Word of the One True God written in the Bible as accurate.
Please keep up the incredible work you do in bringing the truth and new finds to us all.
In closing it would seem much of science has believed in the prince of persia’s greatest trick; to have man believe he doesn’t exist. The question is for what end?
I agree that the majority of scientists have often been wrong, and the Bible has often been vindicated. But I would not say that the Bible clearly taught that the Sun was the center of the solar system. I think the biblical language there is equivocal. And while some people in ancient times may have believed in a flat earth, this was never taught by a significant portion of either the church or the scientific community.
Hi. This is such an interesting topic! I don't mean to call you out, but I do not believe that you would stop being a Christian if someone claimed to have found Jesus' bones. How could you possibly verify such a claim? You couldn't. At least you couldn't with enough certainty to falsify the entire religion! In my opinion, you have conceived a scenario similar to commenter Shmyt B. That is, a verifiable discovery of Jesus' bones is an unrealistic hypothetical scenario that doesn't really tell us anything. (Of course the fact that they weren't discovered is clearly evidence for the truth of the Bible)
What is needed is a more plausible scenario. The question asked by K.C., the original guy, could be interpreted as: what evidence could plausibly appear that would falsify biblical creation?
I think that's a fair point. It would be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you actually had the bones of Jesus. I hope I at least made the point that Christianity is falsifiable in principle. But I'm sure we could come up with some more plausible scenarios that would falsify Christianity. For example, if we found loads of clear cut transitional forms leading from apes to humans, and we discovered naturalistic mechanisms that could easily account for all those genetic steps, and we found many other similar challenges to the Bible's credibility, that ought to do the job. But I am confident that such things won't happen, because Christianity is true! See also Is the Bible falsifiable?
Thanks for drawing my attention to the various sources you cite, because combined they really do highlight the problem.
2 Timothy 3:16 says 'All Scripture is breathed out by God ...'
Regardless of whether we believe the statement or not, the problem here is that the author (Paul) didn't know what scripture was, or at least didn't mean by it the same thing we do, since the Bible as we know it wasn't put together until two centuries later. Some of what is in the Bible wasn't even written at the time.
The article that you cite by Jonathan Sarfati highlights the problem, as he points out that books which explicitly claim not to have been inspired by God (such as Maccabees) are excluded from the Bible.
But that leaves us an enormous amount of text that of itself makes no explicit claim either way. How do we know whether it counts as 'scripture' as defined in Timothy?
The question of which books are Scripture is a different question from whether all of Scripture is God-breathed. So you're actually switching to another objection here.
While it is technically true that "the Bible as we know it wasn't put together" under one cover, so to speak, until "centuries later", this does not mean that the individual books were not recognized as and functioning as Scripture for all that time, at least by parts of the church.
We have dealt with canonicity to some extent in The authority of Scripture and in our booklet How Did We Get our Bible? Plus, you can find more in-depth treatments elsewhere. So I think I will leave you to investigate this further for yourself. We've had a long enough exchange, and wandered a bit from the subject of the article.
Many thanks for the time you've taken to respond.
I think you're right; we're not going to get much further with the discussion, as is evinced by the fact that you've directed me back to precisely the article I quoted to you, which states that CMI's belief in the authority of scripture is axiomatic.
It's a shame, because I would genuinely like to understand why people believe that the Bible is the word of God. I see that I shall have to look elsewhere for an answer.
Thanks. I do think I gave you some of the reasons and your replies ignored these, but I'll publish this so readers can decide for themselves.
Hi! Thank you so much for your response. I do now think that creationism could be (in theory) falsified via the future discovery of transition fossils. There is one more concern, and I don't know if we'll be able to figure it out. I wonder what you think about it:
Evolutionists seem to have a different definition of 'transitional fossil' than creationists. By the Evolutionists’ definition there are (conveniently) 100s of trans. fossils between ape and man. And according to creationists’ definition there are (also conveniently) none. I searched this website for a well-defined definition of trans. fossil (like, ‘If it has X and Y, then it is a trans. fossil’). I only found one, an article by John Woodmorappe; he says, "as long as such things as half-legs/half-wings, or three-quarter scales/one-quarter feathers, are not found as fossils, the discontinuities among such things as reptiles and birds remain large." And even here, John wasn’t attempting a rigorous definition.
Interestingly, he wrote his article a couple years before the discovery of a lot of fossils (e.g. Dromaeosauridae) that have half arm/ half wings, and the discovery of a lot of feathered dinosaurs (e.g. Juravenator) which have feathers and scales. Now, I'm not saying that this is evidence for evolution. I'm saying that this is the closest I could find to a specific claim, followed by a discovery that could contradict that claim. I know already that evolutionists will say Juravenator is a transitional fossil, and creationists will say that it isn’t.
To sum up my point, your reasonably-sounding terms like, 'clear cut' and 'easily account for,' will be interpreted differently. Even if creationists make a falsifiable statement about transitional fossils, would evolutionists agree on what that meant?
I don't think we're being too stipulative with our definition. I'm not limiting the term "transitional forms" to only those ancestors in the direct line leading from, say, apes to humans or reptiles to birds, but they would have to be close-enough relatives so that they showed a series of gradual morphological gradations, and their dates would need to match up well with the evolutionary timescale and order of events. This is a reasonable prediction based on evolution, but this is not what we find. Instead, intermediates between higher taxonomic categories are characteristically absent. And evolutionists put far too much weight on flimsy and fragmentary evidence. Even the so-called feathered dinosaurs, which would not falsify creation if they turned out to be legitimate, are disputed by many evolutionists. Don't trust the illustrations but look at the actual facts behind the claims. See, for example, 'Feathered' dinos: no feathers after all!
Our showing how observed facts substantiated the Bible's view of creation is necessary so that unbelievers and believers both know that the Bible is true - that God wants you to have faith, but he gave us a brain because his Word is true and can stand research and scrutiny, unlike so much that passes for belief in the world and in other faiths