# presuppositionalist and evidential method



## Brian Withnell (Dec 30, 2009)

This is going to be a strange thing. Both I and my pastor (and just about everyone at my church that has been there for any length of time) is fully immersed (pun intended) in presuppositional apologetics. While that is true, we also know a great deal of the illogic of those that oppose the truth. For instance, we are planning a team taught adult class to cover, what is not sufficient for Christian theology, but what contradicts, from a theoretical point of view, the possibility of origin of life strictly from mechanistic evolution. The goal is not to "prove" the Bible, but to disprove mechanistic evolution to the point where those that are not so well versed can have not only confidence from trusting what God has said in his word, but also what he has revealed in his world.

We'll be using Meyer's Signature in the Cell as a starting point to show what I have long known ... creation itself reveals that evolution is just not possible.

I'll be addressing information theory (how I have know it just doesn't make sense) and statistics. Both my areas of training.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Dec 30, 2009)

So, will you be disproving the mechanics or the philosophical side of evolution as well?


----------



## MMasztal (Jan 2, 2010)

Meyer's book is excellent! Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason: Stand to Reason: Equipping Christian Ambassadors with Knowledge, Wisdom, and Character. also uses your method as he too sees evolution's weak footings. With your experience with math and stats, you'll be able to effectively explain the improbable leaps one needs to accept evolution as a theory of the universe.

I too subscribe to presuppositional apologetics as my main method, but evidence is still useful.


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 1, 2010)

the book The Politically Incorect Guide to Evolution i found to be very helpful in this matter. also when i debate evolutionists i go to the logical problems with their so called proof. like they try to use microevolution as proof of macroevolution, but no amount of changes within a given species prove that that species can change into any other species. dogs evolving into dogs prove that dogs can evolve into dogs, not cats. the fossel record, in principle, cannot prove macroevolution. they also love to appeal to scientific consensus as proof of their theory, but this is nothing but the fallacy of mass appeal, a group of people believing in something has no bearing on whther it is true or not. i hope this is helpful.


----------

