One problem is that both views are ultimately a matter of faith. Most people would recognize the creationist position as one of faith. Yet, the evolutionary position is one of faith also. Evolution cannot be empirically proven. The best one can do is to say, "here is my evidence and my reasoning." Evolution cannot be observed in the natural world today. (If it is happening at all, it is happening too slowly to be measured) It cannot be demonstrated in the laboratory. (By definition, evolution cannot be produced in the laboratory. Evolution requires chance without intervention of an intelligent being. A repeatable laboratory experiment would involve outside intervention on the part of the experimenter.) Which ever side of the fence one is on, it is a matter of looking at the knowable, verifiable evidence and then determining what explanation seems to make the most sense, or what explanation seems to have the highest probability of being correct. In the field of logic, this is called a "leap of faith."
This does not mean that faith is or must be irrational. Even without absolute proof, one may study a question and conclude that it is quite rational to believe one point of view and even irrational to accept the opposing point of view.
Unfortunately, rational, honest people can look at the same facts and draw very different conclusions. Look at some of the great unsolved cases such as the Lindbergh case or more recently OJ Simpson. Different people look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions. Some people feel that certain evidence is inadmissible, others may feel the same evidence is not only admissible, but conclusive. In the absence of absolute, nail-it-down proof, it ultimately comes down to "What do you believe.?"
So, creation v evolution. Which point of view is most rational, or which point of view seems irrational based upon the evidence at hand? The evolutionist position crumbles when we think it through.
1. In a world where in every other area but biology, randomness produces chaos, not order, where things left alone deteriorate and run down, rather than improving or moving on to a higher order, evolutionists are in the difficult position of asking us to believe that biology somehow is totally different and that things by pure chance evolve into higher, more advanced, more complex life forms.
Therefore, the most reasonable leap of faith is that since we live in a world where order, beauty, and function, are evidence of the intervention of a designer and since this is true in every area other than biology, the reasonable, rational expectation is that this is also true in the area of biology unless we have good solid reason to believe otherwise. The irrational expectation, in the absence of a very good reason to believe otherwise, is to believe that a particular segment of the universe is different from all others.
The fact that an individual has not met or experienced a particular designer is NOT evidence that he does not exist. If you look at a newspaper there is probably a photograph on the front page. You probably know nothing about the photographer. You have never met him, you don't know his name or what he looks like. You don't know what kind of camera or film he used. You probably do not fully understand how photographic film records an image or how that image is transferred to the printed page. However, none of that proves that the photographer does not exist or that the image you see is due to a random accident in a print shop.
It has been said that when one truly understands the improbability that earth's biological system could evolve by pure chance and without divine intervention, it is far more reasonable to expect a wind to blow through an automobile junkyard and then expect a 747 in flight to blow out the other end. That does sound ridiculous. Yet, evolutionists expect us to believe that something far, far, far more unlikely has occurred.
2. Science points to the universe as a created universe. There have been various "scientific" theories of creation such as the "Big Bang" theory. The universe cannot have created itself. That would involve the contradiction of a universe which existed prior to its own existence. Whatever one believes about the creation of the universe, it is not irrational to believe that it was created by something which existed prior to our known universe and thus is outside of and not part of our universe. It is also reasonable to believe that whatever created the universe also has guided its development. As pointed out in #1 above, it is least rational to believe that development and design is occurring by chance.
3. No known natural force in the universe is capable of bringing the universe into existence or imposing design and order on the universe as a whole. Therefore, it is not unreasonable, and it is quite reasonable to believe this design and order is coming from outside the known universe.
The argument can go on and on.
The believer will likely say "right on." The nonbeliever will likely say, "No way."
But, the creationist position is not the irrational empty belief which evolutionist might try to tell us that it is. In fact it is the evolutionist position which is irrational given all of the evidence.
And, for anyone who believes in the Bible, the case is closed. Gen. 1:24 "And god said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind..."
