Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
Why would we advise against using some arguments that appear to support creation? Simply put, some arguments are wrong, even if what they are arguing for is ultimately right.
As a biblical authority ministry, each day we deal with arguments: not heated disagreements, but rather what Merriam–Webster defines as “reasons given in proof or rebuttal” of ideas. We often explain why we disagree with various arguments for evolution and regularly present arguments in support of a biblical point of view. However, there are some arguments for creation that we simply should not use.
Why would we advise against using some arguments that appear to support creation? Simply put, some arguments are wrong, even if what they are arguing for is ultimately right. We would do a disservice to our witness for Christ by knowingly using bad argumentation—effectively bearing false witness—even if those arguments are used to support the truth of the Bible.
Some arguments are wrong, even if what they are arguing for is ultimately right.
How can we determine if an argument is good or bad? For starters, is it consistent with the Bible? We can boldly proclaim the truth of the global Flood and the resurrection of Jesus Christ because they are recorded in Scripture. While other evidence confirms these accounts, the fact that they are part of God’s Word is the best evidence. On the other hand, there are certain ideas that the Bible plainly denies. We know that humankind is not inherently good, for instance, and that humans did not evolve from apelike creatures. We can discount these ideas because they both directly contradict the Bible.
The arguments that we use must also be rational. God created our minds and expects us to use good reasoning. He deals with us on the basis of sound reasoning, even saying in Isaiah 1:18, “Come, let us reason together.” Thus, when we develop various models to explain how what we see in the world is consistent with what we read in God’s Word, we must be certain the models are logical and sensible.
When we use a particular scientific model as part of an argument, we must remember that creation models are not part of God’s Word and, thus, they are not infallible (see Can Creation Models Be Wrong?). We must discern what is biblically necessary from that which, while perhaps supporting the Bible, is nonetheless simply a scientifically falsifiable model. We must subject creationist claims to the same high standards of peer review we would demand of evolutionists. Otherwise, using undocumented or doubtful evidences, logical fallacies, and models that are incompatible with Scripture may hurt our case and weaken our testimony, making us look foolish to those outside (Colossians 4:5–6).
No matter how attractive a “favorite” argument is—no matter how “perfectly” it seems to explain something in the Bible—if it does not hold up to scrutiny, it should be avoided. Casting aside a flawed model is not the same as casting away Scripture.
Some frequently used arguments are based on inaccurate historical data. Some are based on scientific models that were attractive at one time, but have been found to be unsupportable after further analysis. Some arguments are no more than mere speculation from the outset and should be avoided.
There are many arguments we believe are not valid, and, thus, we suggest they not be used at all. Some frequently used arguments should be avoided or used in a tentative way, as they have not been sufficiently researched—or have been shown to be inadequate or insufficient in some aspect. The purpose of the articles in the Arguments to Avoid topic page is to explore many of these issues and to help you understand how to discern the good from the bad that you may honor Christ with the arguments you use.