Torch, Summer 1993

rock layer and sees that they are assigned by the evolutionary timetable to different geological ages. He therefore concludes it may look like it was all laid down at one time, but it wasn't. In spite of its appearance, the different parts of the layer must have been deposited during different geological ages because the fossilized creatures could not have been contemporaries. Each person's conclusion is based on his presuppositions. As another example of the differences in evolutionist and creationist thinking, consider the fossil evidence. The evolutionist looks at similarities and differences in the fossils and constructs "family trees" on the basis of his evolutionary presupposition that the simple evolved into the complex. Hypothetical connections between different "branches" of the "tree" are assumed to have existed even though no fossil evidence can be found. On the other hand, the creationist looks at the same evidence and finds that complex organisms appear fully formed in the fossil record without any evidence of ancestors or intermediate forms . To him the evidence points to many disconnected "bushes" instead of a single "tree." He concludes that the fossil record supports creation. CRiTicAL TltiNkiNG As we consider the above examples, we probably find ourselves agreeing strongly with one interpretation and disagreeing strongly with the other. This was the result of our own presuppositions. We all have them and should be aware of them. We should also be aware of one possible conclusion that some people draw from the above discussion, that all sets of presuppositions are equally valid. They are not all equally valid. In fact, they are often mutually exclusive. Conflicting presuppositions cannot both be valid. The problem we have, then, is how we determine their validity. Sometimes presuppositions can be examined directly to assess their 8 Torch validity. But more often it is necessary to look at the logical conclusions that can be drawn from the presuppositions and compare them with the evidence. The problem we all have is that our bias often keeps us from considering any evidence at all, and then it keeps us from seeing evidence that would contradict our presuppositions. Once this evidence is confronted, revision of our presuppositions can follow. The willingness to risk this type of mental activity is the essence of critical thinking. TltouGltTful REspoNsE As Christians and creationists, we should not be afraid of thinking or of truth. John tells us, "Thy word is truth" (John 17:17b) and "the Spirit is truth" (I John 5:6). We should seek to be the best thinkers possible for the glory of God, and we should encourage thinking in our children. If we tell them all their lives what to think instead of showing them how to think, they will be easier prey for false doctrine of every kind, not just that of evolution. As Christians and creationists, we must be concerned with how we can use this information to help us with our witnessing. Our primary concern should be presenting Christ and His claims, not making creationists out of evolutionists. If that were the case, we would merely have an unsaved creationist instead of an unsaved evolutionist. However, we should not hesitate to discuss creation when appropriate in witnessing, professional communication, or friendly conversation. If our purpose is to lead a person to Christ, we should avoid the "straw man" approach, which is all too popular among Christian speakers. In this approach, we present the other side in the worst possible light, with the weakest possible support, and then we proceed to demolish this "straw man" with our own position. This type of approach is very convincing to those who are already convinced, but not to those on the other side. Instead, we should credit the other side with being interested in the pursuit of truth. We should try to understand where they are coming from. Then we seek to raise questions in their minds about some of the logical consequences of their position. Some examples of questions we could raise would concern the following : What about "missing links"? The supposed evolutionary tree contains many supposed transitional forms or "missing links." They are "missing" in the sense that no fossil evidence has been found. What about the mathematical improbability that random mutations could produce new organisms? What about the problem that evolution is a theory without a mechanism? Evolutionists all agree that evolution "must have happened." But they disagree on any mechanism or method by which it could have occurred. Many other similar questions can be found in the writings of creationist authors. What then of our original question: Can a creationist be a critical thinker? We have seen that thinking is a mandate from Scripture, that Christians and creationists (including the founders of many of the sciences) have been outstanding thinkers throughout history, and that the source of the conflict in thinking between creationists and evolutionists lies in their presuppositions, not in the quality of their thinking. Yes, not only can a creationist be a critical thinker, but doing so will make him a far more effective Christian. Remember, however, that being a creationist does not automatically make us good thinkers. It is an area in which we all can and should strive to improve for the glory of God.