Over the past few weeks, I am happy to say that I changed my debating strategy, and apologetical approach. It is still in the works, but I think it is a very successful model for debating naturalists both in person, and online.
I used to be a presuppositional apologist. My use of evidence/philosophy of presuppositions was about 30:70. Most of my creation resources also use this method. I do feel, however, that while the idea of presuppositions can be useful, and after months of study on this topic, I confidently believe that the evidence can stand on it's own, especially when dealing with lay people. With the more staunch evolutionists, that are not convinced by any amount of evidence that you give them, I still continue to stress that we both interpret according to our worldview.
Evidentialism is the most powerful, and offensive form of apologetics, and the method I use to debunk evolution and naturalism continues this assault. A relatively significant mistake that many creationists use is to defend Creation BEFORE dismantling evolution. The evolutionists like to trick us to make it look like the burden of proof is on us, and this isn't true. We are not the ones trying to get our teachings in the schools, but the evolutionists ARE the ones teaching all of this to our students, so naturally, the burden of proof is on them. Here is the thing: They don't like this, because after you have dismantled evolution, there is only one alternative...And you know what that means...
Ok, so now let's get to my actual method. I start by asking one of this question:
Evolution with God?
Evolution with no God?
If they answer WITH God, I know that I can use more Scriptural proof, and biblical proof with scientific evidence, but if they answer with no God, then I immediately start attacking evolution. I do NOT even mention the age of the Earth at this point, because it is unnecessary. After laying out the grounds by saying that evolution is not science, and distinguishing between variations within a kind and molecules to man evolution, and demonstrate that evolution is not observable, I continue to go on the offensive.
I lay out my argument by stating this bombshell to them: Biology is a dead end for evolution. Biology is what evolution stands on, and eliminating biology from their evidence is a deafening blow. Now, how is biology a dead end?
1. The death of Junk DNA. This was once one of the greatest and main arguments for evolution. But scientific discoveries have discovered that most of our DNA does have a function. People who use this as an argument are using a 'form follows function' argument, akin to vestigial organs.
2. The destructive nature of mutations and genetic entropy. Mutations do NOT gain new functions, or new information. It is a scrambling of existing information, not any NEW information.
Genetic entropy was made popular by Dr. John C. Sanford, creator of the 'gene gun'. The basics of genetic entropy is the decay of our genome, because of the huge number of mutations each generation. It contradicts the supposed upward process of Darwinian evolution. At this current rate, the human race could NOT be what it is today, because at this rate for 200,000 years, the human race would have gone extinct (yes I have read the objections to GE, they are a grasping at NOTHING, and stupid).
3. Evolution is without a mechanism! Mutations + Natural Selection goes in the OPPOSITE way of evolution. Natural selection is not a creative process, but a quality control system. This Darwinian idea is without a mechanism. They then put the mechanism involving pseudogenes, and junk DNA, but as explained above, to no avail. 'Hox Genes' are often cited as 'proof' for macro-evolution, but this is simply not so. A non-creationist had this to say about them
‘Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. … Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.’ (Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.107B:167–177)
After going through all of these, it shows them that Darwinian Evolution is simply IMPOSSIBLE, and should be abandoned in the light of science. I explain to them that since biology is not of any help to them, then the evidence must be in the fossils. And we both know, this is NOT the case
The fossil record shows a few main things:
1. Complex life forms at every stage
2. Sudden Appearance of fully formed fossils (Cambrian Explosion etc.)
3. Stasis. Animals that are supposedly tens millions of years old look almost exactly like their modern counterpart.
4. We do not find the millions of transitional forms expected, but only a few disputable examples. There is only data at the 'tips and nodes' of the branches, there is no trunk, or full branches showing the smooth transitions between 'kinds.'
5. Extinction, not evolution (Flood evidence)
6. The geologic column is not as the textbooks present. The 'order' in the fossil record, and can be dealt with through the catastrophe of the Global Flood.
Fossils are an amazing evidence of a global flood, and they do not provide evidence necessary for evolution (Still no evidence)
It is at this point in the debate where I start speaking about the age of the earth, because I have now dealt with some of the best arguments for the evolutionary theory. I have toppled two legs of their stool of naturalism, and once I deal with age, the whole paradigm comes crashing down. I often use some arguments from the 101 Evidences for a Young Earth. Some of my favorites, and most common examples are Human Genome decay, The magnetic field decay, and the 'Population rates', along with other such as C-14 in diamonds, and helium in zircon crystals. I also explain how each strata is NOT a separate age...
This has been a very efficient strategy that I recommend to everyone. I definitely believe the evidence can stand on it's own, without the use of presuppositional apologetics. Remember! We have the science on our side, and more importantly, an empty tomb!