Faithful Thinkers: Norman Geisler: Christians Must Build a Positive Case For Creation

Introduction

As a defender of the Christian worldview it is important for me to show how other worldviews fall short of reality. In my discussions regarding the specifics of the biblical model for the origins of the universe, life, and humanity, I do this quite a bit. However, as Norman Geisler emphasizes in his book "Origin Science: A Proposal for the Creation/Evolution Controversy," that is not sufficient:

"If Creationist views are to gain scientific credibility then they must follow the principles of origin science and build a positive case for a primary cause, rather than relying on the ineffective means of pointing out flaws in various evolutionary hypotheses."

"If Creationist views are to gain scientific credibility then they must follow the principles of origin science and build a positive case for a primary cause, rather than relying on the ineffective means of pointing out flaws in various evolutionary hypotheses."- Norman Geisler- "Origin Science: A Proposal for the Creation-Evolution Controversy"

Isn't Showing Problems In Alternatives Enough?

It is important that problems be shown with competing worldviews, but without the presentation of good reasons to accept a particular alternative, a vacuum is left. Let's say that I have presented compelling arguments for the universe to need a cause but I have not given any compelling reasons (or worse, given invalid or unsound reasons) for believing that God is the cause. If that vacuum is left, the skeptic is left to ponder other alternatives, such as the multiverse.

Many creationists, unfortunately, rely solely on demonstrating holes in evolution theory without offering sound reasons to accept that God is the designer behind the origins of species. Some even present a model that has no scientific credibility because it does not match the data of nature (see post from last month). Scientists are well aware of where controversy exists within the broader community of evolutionists; they also know where none of their theories have answers. This is nothing new to them and does not usually bother them, so creationists cannot act as if these issues are significant and demand a change on their own. An alternative model that can not only accommodate all the data that the skeptic's view can accommodate but that can explain the data that the skeptic's view cannot explain, must be presented with positive arguments for excepting it. Positive arguments do not rely on the process of elimination; they present arguments without premises of comparison to competing views. The additional explanatory power and the positive arguments provide a more reasonable ground for considering an alternative model than merely, "your view has problems here, here, and here," especially when those problems are already known.

Conclusion

It is important to show where problems do exist in a worldview, for without problems, there is not a compelling reason to consider any alternative. However, if we wish to promote a specific alternative and not just leave the person hanging (so to say), we must present a positive case for the alternative that we believe is true. This applies not just to questions of origins, but to all areas of reality that Christians appeal to in order to demonstrate flaws in alternative worldviews.