Every once in a while, a proponent of molecules-to-man evolution will ask, "What evidence will it take for you to change your mind and accept evolution?" On the surface, that seems to be a reasonable question, and people asking it are often sincere. Unfortunately, there are some problems at its base.
There is an erroneous belief that a question by itself is not fallacious. Loaded terminology and the complex question are two examples, often intertwined, of an illogical question. Seems to me that the question of what it would take to make a creationist believe in evolution contains an unargued philosophical bias. To get past the expensive words, it basically means that we all have a worldview, and there are certain things that we take as "givens" or established truths that don't need explanation or investigation. The biases in the "what would it take" question are that materialism is true, evolution is a fact, and there's got to be a way to get through to the creationist.
|Generated at RedKid.net, then modified.|
A kind of "smoking gun" approach that many atheists take is trying to find an error in the Bible. Then, by unwarranted extension, the supposed error disproves the entire Bible and the existence of God. Similarly, some tinhorns will say that a Christian is not acting in a manner pleasing to their arbitrary standards, so religion is bad. On the other side, there are well-meaning but woefully uninformed Christians who round up some stories and post them as if they were conclusive proof that evolution is false, God is true, and will bring an atheist to his knees in sobbing repentance. Sorry, none of these ideas work the way people seem to think.
Is there evidence to move a Christian toward evolution and renounce creation? There is no smoking gun, and the idea also presupposes that all the evidence against creation and for creation would be automatically shown to be false or irrelevant. "Here's a link to a paper by a secular geologist that affirms radiometric dating, so all of your young Earth material is dismissed." Not hardly! We have a passel of evidence for a young Earth that secularists reject out of hand (most indicators for the age of the Earth are, by far, showing a comparatively young Earth, for example).
Another problem for materialistic evidence is that it keeps on changing. Check the evolution reports, and you'll find many reports of scientists saying they have to having to rethink the narrative, recalculate dates, reclassify where alleged life forms belong on Darwin's failed Tree of Life, and so on. The putative "facts" for evolution keep on changing, and it's a lousy philosophy in which to put one's faith.
There's a bigger issue involved for the biblical creationist that goes beyond rejecting the abundant data refuting evolution and affirming creation. Namely, we'd have to give up logic, which comes from God, as well as a little thing that science demands: an orderly and predictable universe. Science is not possible in an evolutionary, chance-driven universe. Also, we would have to give up the Word of the living God. Ain't happening, old son! They can presuppose materialism and suppress the truth to their own humiliation, but there are those of us who don't cotton to backing off from our presuppositions: God's Word is true.