we talk about this particular molecule or that protein or the other fossil, and so forth, and the IDC vs. evolution argument tries to pretend that they can come to some common understanding of what those facts are and what they mean.I believe that it is certainly within our capabilities to discuss what is observable (i.e., what is physically tangible) in our existence. Where we and the naturalist start to diverge is when we both make conclusions from our observations. The Christian believes in the supernatural. Some naturalists will claim to not not believe in the supernatural, which means that they are not unequivocally excluding the possibility of the supernatural, they just need sufficient evidence to commit to such a belief. Whether such a claim is sincere or not is irrelevant because the mere adherence to the need for evidence betrays the very objectivity the naturalist claims. In other words, by what evidence can they justify the claim that the process of using evidence provides them with a reliable measure of the workings of our universe? There can be no evidence presented which does not use the very process that is being questioned – unless the process is accepted on faith. Hence, I attempt to show the naturalist that concluding the possibility of the supernatural is prohibited only when the method is so narrowly defined as to prejudicially exclude it. Matt continues,
...because there is one fact that they will never agree on, and that is the question of whether Jesus is the Lord of the universe, or not. And as I said, that fact changes everything. --- There is no way to neutrally examine the facts on the table and come to a common conclusion, because there is that one other fact that will not, indeed cannot be agreed on by both sides, and that one fact fundamentally alters the interpretation of every other fact. The naturalists may believe that acknowledging this fact is a retreat, but it isn't. It's recognizing that if we pretend that facts are neutral, then we've already handed the debate to the naturalist, because this is the cornerstone of his philosophy.It is here where I attempt to call the naturalist’s bluff, so to speak, by reminding them of their inability to escape the abstract. While many naturalists attempt to frame the debate with the walls of determinism and chance – that of pure naturalism – they will inevitably sneak the abstract into the mix. Don’t think so? Just peruse their posts and comments. You’ll find a plethora of examples of their expressing moral outrage, ethics, concepts of justice, love, hate, friendship, and so on. The Christian Worldview answers such phenomenon as such: Despite their rejection of the Christian worldview, they remain human beings, made in the Image of God. As such, they cannot escape the realities of being so created. And, as such, we see how their ultimate rejection of who God is, and what He is owed, does not relieve them of the consequences of living in both a concrete and abstract world. Matt is correct in declaring that the evolution / creation debate is not simply about data, but falters on the stumbling block of Jesus. And that's one reason Christians should always keep the debate going.