Trusting Eyewitness Testimony
![Image](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglEUPxDKH_rD-LkxoncnK92kLoiLL9pI95JiCuMw-Mh1L2GGQbf89QZXwGlHHfal3JvmmG7507nZKPbq_zIPZZkeFd4_yZDqEyrlmqqYDJt_mj4dGCsnP8hyphenhyphenyIyKk_YHp0d7QqGCu_ViU/w400-h266/ID-100604182.jpg)
For ages, eyewitness testimony was considered reliable in a courtroom setting and other ways. Some people began to think eyewitness testimony is not valid, and forensic evidence is more important. Such a claim is ineffable twaddle, and the sidewinders creating doubt were using spurious methods! Credit: FreeDigitalImages / IndypendenZ (yes, really) From an evolutionary standpoint, the concept is self-refuting. We are all just evolved pond scum, so the brains of witnesses are unreliable because evolution , so it's better to trust forensic evidence about the past — and interpret the evidence with our faulty brains! Remember, evidence does not "speak for itself". Biblical creationists and biblical inerrantists trust the eyewitness testimony of the Bible, and I reckon that this is one reason atheists and evolutionists reject eyewitness testimony. Nothing in the Bible, written by eyewitnesses, has been controverted by operational science or archaeology. Atheists reject miracl