If you were put on trial in the case for Creation, what supportive evidence would you use?

Jim Warner Wallace is a cold-case homicide detective, and has used his approach to a crime scene to evaluate the evidence for Creation.

Jim helps us review the evidence that points to a Divine intruder in forming the world as we search for clues that confirm beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists. He shares profound evidence in his book God’s Crime Scene.

Jim mentions that every time he sees a defense offered in trial that is not really adequate, it fails for one of these 3 reasons:

1. There is not enough evidence to support their position.

2. It makes some logical fallacy, some logical connection is missing.

3. Failed attempts to redefine the case altogether.

There are critical pieces of evidence that we need to take into consideration during any investigation. We also need to ask direct questions, rather than just trying to redefine our case.

“‘Are they counting for all the evidence? Are they redefining the problems?’ This happens with consciousness for example. People are constantly trying to explain consciousness, not by providing evidence to explain it, but by trying to redefine what it is to avoid the outcomes that we think are most reasonable. Look for logical fallacies, logical missteps that don’t make any sense.”

There is great significance with evidence in any case and it needs to be weighed on both sides.

“The one big takeaway, for students especially is: Don’t be shaken. Just because the other side can offer an explanation, it doesn’t mean that explanation is true…and that’s also true for us. Just because we are offering an explanation, doesn’t mean that our explanation is true either; both sides need to be weighed with evidence.”

How can we properly gather the evidence for Creation?

Jim explains that out of the 5 W’s: Who, What, When, Where and Why, the most important of them all is the Who.

“If you take those five questions we always ask, the what, how, when, where – the problem is, don’t forget to ask the who question. If you stop short of the who question, you end up with more questions and have answers.

For example: If you’re looking at say the origin of life in the universe, ‘How did it happen? Where did it happen? When did it happen?’ All kinds of open questions because you refused to ask the bigger question, ‘Who could be responsible?’ The who ends up solving all the other questions.”

Remembering to ask important questions will provide supportive evidence in the case for Creation.

“If you remember to ask the who question you find yourself in a place of looking for that first cause. That is going to have all of us, atheist or otherwise, believe there’s a cause outside the universe that ’caused’ the universe. The only difference is they believe it’s an impersonal force; we believe it’s a personal force called God.”

Are we getting ready as Christians to defend what we believe?

Jim suggests that in order to build a strong case for ourselves, we need to be proactive by investigating the supportive evidence.

“I think there’s no time anymore for us to be accidental in our beliefs, we have to be intentional.

Highlight: Supportive evidence for Creation

Investigating God’s creation