The great debate is not over evidence, but rather over the interpretation of that evidence. Every scientist can look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion, depending on what their starting point is: their worldview assumptions. I have heard that two men can look at the Grand Canyon and pose two very different explanations of its origin. The evolutionist might say, “Look what the Colorado River did over millions of years!” The creationist might say, “Hey, look what the run-off from the flood did in a matter of hours!” They’re both looking at the same canyon, but the evolutionist interprets it through his worldview grid of millions of years, whereas the creationist sees it in light of the flood. Many people like some ideas from the Bible but are not quite ready to say that it is all true, because they have never seen scientific proof of it. This is where starting points become helpful. (The big word for the approach I’m discussing is presuppositional apologetics. )
So if the Bible can’t be proved scientifically, is there any point to creation science? Although those things don’t really prove it, if someone starts with the assumption that what the Bible says is true, the things we discover in science are consistent with the Bible. The Bible often has an explanation for things that are not easily explained in secular science. Case in point: languages. There are thousands of languages with unique features, and they tend to be fairly complex, even among people groups labeled as ‘primitive’. But the Bible says they originated at the tower of Babel and God created them. Therefore, in every area, we must use God’s Word as our starting point and we need to learn to explain this concept to others. God’s Word is true and it is my presupposition. Is it yours?