Book Review (3): The Ultimate Proof of Creation

Chapter 3, “Illustrations of the Ultimate Proof,” is Lisle’s attempt to confirm that even the most staunch evolutionists, or atheists, rely on the truth of the Bible in their arguments against it. His argument goes like this: “The unbeliever cannot consistently stand on his own worldview because it is irrational. Therefore, the unbeliever must stand on the Christian worldview in order to be rational. The unbeliever stands on Christian principles…but he denies that these are Christian principles. The unbeliever must use Christian principles to argue against the Bible. The fact that he is able to argue at all proves that he is wrong.” Though he could give many examples, Lisle focuses on these three – absolute morality, uniformity of nature, and laws of logic – because they are the most commonly used and the easiest to understand, and he goes into detail on each of them.

Though evolutionists and atheists often believe in morality, right and wrong, their worldview would suggest that morality is relative, and therefore, as shown earlier, irrational. But they would not dare consent to that conclusion, so they inconsistently stand on absolute morality, a biblical principle. Similarly, all non-creationists argue with an acceptance of the laws of logic, which are “God’s standards for thinking,” according to Lisle. He refutes a number of possible attempts to counter-step this definition and concludes again, “Laws of logic reflect the thinking of God and do not make sense in an evolutionary universe.” In explaining how only the biblical creation worldview accounts for rational thinking, science, and technology, Lisle even shows how Mormonism and Islam, along with all other non-biblical religions, fail to give adequate reason for the laws of logic humanity uses today. Finally, Lisle discusses uniformity of nature. While this is his, as a scientist, “personal favorite,” I found this section of the book to be challenging. Lisle understands logic, and he employs it well in his defense of biblical creation. He uses logic to show that uniformity of nature can only make sense in the biblical worldview. He repeats with different illustrations and examples the concept that any and every non-biblical stance, including such positions as theistic evolution, is by its very nature irrational. Lisle concludes, “If evolution were true, there wouldn’t be any rational reason to believe it!”

Lisle begins chapter 4, “Reasoning with an Evolutionist,” by saying, “Now that we’ve seen that there is an irrefutable proof of creation…” But I have a feeling many of his readers aren’t quite as comfortable saying that as he is. It’s not that we don’t fully agree with him; but there’s a confidence that comes with application of the truth that is amiss prior to that application. In other words, in order to share Lisle’s bold assertion that “an irrefutable proof of creation” has been presented, I need some help applying it. Thankfully, Lisle, in finally brings presuppositions to the discussion, gives that much needed application help. He gives a few examples of presuppositional beliefs – such as “God exists” and “the Bible is true” for creationists, and “naturalism,” “empiricism,” “evidence can be interpreted ‘neutrally’,” and even “evolution” itself for evolutionists – and he defines them as strongly held convictions that are assumed at the outset, “before any investigation of evidence.” They “control our interpretation of the evidence. We are often not aware of our presuppositions, but they are always present.” Lisle explains, “Presuppositions must be assumed before we can investigate other things.”

Lisle then applies what he has stated about presuppositions in explaining the pervasiveness of sin, the problem that has made humans incapable of discovering truth apart from God’s revelation. He mentions several Bible passages to support this claim, such as Romans 1:18-32 and Ephesians 4:17-18, and then he spends some time working through Proverbs 26:4-5. This passage from Proverbs seems contradictory at first glance, but it makes perfect sense once considered in depth. V4 says, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him.” Creationists must not embrace faulty presuppositions or allow our presuppositions to be discarded in battle, lest we become fools, like the evolutionists. V5 says, “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” Without embracing foolish presuppositions, we reveal to the fool that he is indeed a fool by taking his presuppositions to their logical conclusion. Once fools see that their logic is faulty, perhaps, by God’s grace, they will abandon their foolishness and repent and come to taste and see that the Lord is good. Otherwise, they will continue to think themselves wise, unaware of their foolishness. Lisle wraps up chapter 4 by giving several examples of this biblical strategy in practice, and it’s just what we need to come a step further to wholeheartedly embracing the ultimate proof of creation.