Question Evolution Day 2014, The Evolution of This Creationist

Question Evolution Day, The Question Evolution Project, Cowboy Bob Sorensen, Piltdown Superman, Charles Darwin
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Taking a different approach on this Question Evolution Day. This article will have some thoughts, feelings and testimony.

I am on record for saying that I became interested in creation science long ago, and enthusiastically learned it. For a while, I was presenting it in churches with both scientific evidence and the theological importance. Ken Ham was working with the Institute for Creation Research back then, and I attended seminars and presentations. I met Ken, Duane Gish, Henry Morris, John Morris, Don DeYoung and others. Also, I had an impromptu debate with a couple of evolutionists that had a lasting impact on my na├»ve approach — I tried to convince them through evidence.

Due to various reasons, I put God on the shelf for about fifteen years. Long story, too long to repeat here.

During my backslidden time, I was investigating Buddhism, involved in politics and doing other odds-and-ends on another Weblog. But I had not rejected God, and would even write articles defending the Bible and refuting atheism. I think God was at work in me at that time, because some of the material I wrote began to convict me to come back to him.

About three years ago, I rededicated my life to Jesus Christ and felt the need to regain lost ground with good Bible teaching. My interest in creation science came roaring back, and this Weblog (and my special studies of logical fallacies) eventually came out of that period. So did Question Evolution Day (inspired by the Question Evolution campaign of CMI), and a Facebook Page of the same name that was changed to The Question Evolution Project because it is a resource, not just something for one day a year.

What a difference fifteen years made in the availability of creation materials! In the 1990s, I was not on the Web. Today, I have e-books, podcasts, Web articles, videos and other materials available, many of them are free. (But I still buy actual books made out of paper, can't ever give that up.) Now I can go and look things up at Creation Ministries International, Answers In Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Creation-Evolution Headlines and many others.

When I began, I wanted to do what I did in the past: Argue from evidence. After all, it was an exciting time to be a creationist in the 1990s, and is even more so now, since the evidence supports creation and refutes evolution. Since some people falsely claim that creationism is just "GodDidIt" or that we are into Fideism, I was going to use as much science as possible and let people make up their own minds. But I did not realize that I was continuing the same mistake that I had made in that impromptu debate long ago.

Then presuppositional apologetics entered the picture. Looking back, I realize that the seeds had been planted many years before, but not as overtly as I experienced it recently. (Ironically, this is usually a Reformed view, and I am not a Calvinist. Nor do I identify as Arminian.) Presuppositional (or "Covenantal", or "Transcendental") apologetics is horribly misunderstood and misrepresented. Also, there are several schools of thought on this, so as in so many other discussions, definitions are important. Not all schools of transcendental apologetics agree on methods.

My greatest influence on presuppositional apologetics is Dr. Jason Lisle. His book The Ultimate Proof of Creation and video are tremendous. Lisle drew from Dr. Greg Bahnsen, and I listened to several audio versions of his videos and purchased some MP3s. I also learned from Michael Butler's lectures, especially the ones on the foundation, goal, method and nature of science. Many of these lectures, I listened to repeatedly.

"What does this have to do with creation science, Cowboy Bob?"
Question Evolution Day, The Question Evolution Project, Cowboy Bob Sorensen, Piltdown Superman, Charles Darwin

I learned the importance of presuppositions and worldviews. No, I am not going to go into detail on that. Suffice to say that we all have our worldviews by which we live our lives, examine our experiences and interpret our evidence. As a biblical creationist, I presuppose that the Bible is true; it is my foundation. We all have our starting points. Most atheists assume that there is no God, that naturalism and evolution are true. The truth is, both atheists and evolutionists are hardcore presuppositionalists themselves! Belief in God is not an intellectual matter so much as it is a spiritual matter. Ray Comfort made that clear to me.

The Bible tells us that people already know that God exists, but suppress the truth in their rebellion against God. It also says that the heart of man is desperately wicked and deceitful. Sure, people think they are intellectual and reasonable, but they are deceived. They belong to their father down below, who has blinded them so that they cannot understand the deeper things of God.

This is not about evidence. I like to say that for every evidence, there is an equal and opposite rescuing device. Just like in my debate long ago, the same thing happens: I offer evidence, they offer excuses to reject it (including using logical fallacies and calling creationists "liars" because they do not want to examine the evidence), offer counter-evidence and arguments, you counter their counter... Despite the presuppositions and assertions of naturalists, humans are spiritual creatures. People have stated that they do not believe that God exists, don't quote that Bible at me and so on — and come to faith in Christ anyway.

So, my approach has evolved. Evidence is important and questions need to be answered. But I refuse to go to "neutral ground", because that does not exist. When someone wants you to discuss on "neutral ground" and leave the Bible out of it, you're forgetting that Jesus made it clear that there is no neutral ground, whoever is not for him is against him! Like Dr. Lisle suggested, we can show evidence, but within a presuppositional framework. I was startled one day to realize that I had been exposed to this approach from creationist organizations many years before!

I will not put God on trial, and let the mighty intellectual use his wisdom to decide whether or not God exists. Taking that approach says that I do not really believe the Bible, and I am also insulting God. If someone is going to come at me presuming atheism and disrespecting the Bible, then I go into worldviews and why atheism is irrational, lacking the necessary preconditions of intelligibility. Further, the biblical creationist worldview is the only one that makes sense of human experience and our human condition. I am not ashamed of the gospel, it is powerful.

So yes, I have changed and believe that I am on the right road for presenting the creation message. I am in good company. But there is still a great deal of room for learning and for improvement on my part. Christians, pray for me in my growth and that I continue to seek glory for God, not glory for Bob. Evolutionists can see if they are able to give real answers, not boilerplate answers, to the 15 Questions for Evolutionists. This is a great time to be a biblical creationist!