Creation Is Religion Pt VII

[An excerpt:  Creation Is Religion by Ken Ham]

I would appeal to any who have the opportunity to teach in the area of creation/evolution to research carefully their method of teaching. Ensure that the students understand the whole philosophical area, that is, the presuppositions and assumptions involved. Not only will students understand the issues better but they will also become better scientists and thinkers as a result. 

Another existing result of this presuppositional approach emphasizing the limitations of science, is the questions students ask at the end of such a program. When using the evidentialist approach, the questions students asked would be on topics such as, “What about Carbon 14 dating?” “Haven’t scientists proved fossils are millions of years old?” “Surely given enough time anything can happen.” However, using the presuppositional approach (which brings the issues to the fundamental belief level), it was exciting to see a dramatic change in the nature of questions asked: “Where did God come from?” “How do you know the Bible can be trusted and is true?” “Who wrote the Bible?” “Why is Christianity better than Buddhism?” The students started to see the real issue. It was really a conflict of beliefs. The results of this approach have been astounding. Many, many students have listened to the claims of Christ and have shown real interest in Christianity with a number of conversions as a result. 

This method works not only for public school students but for Christian school students as well. It is also an important method for the general public. One of the things they recognize is that creationists and evolutionists all have the same facts. Therefore, what we are really talking about are different interpretations of these same facts. They begin to see the real argument—two religions in conflict. Evidence is important (which is why creationists do intensive research), but the method used to present the evidence is vital to the success of the presentation.

Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter3.asp

A great deal of information about young earth and creation has come out in the last few years.  Are creationists winning the arguments in your opinion?  What do you like or dislike about their approach? 

What do you think of Hams' "evidentialist approach"?  Even if naturalists remain naturalists, isn't this teaching style better for all students in that they learn to adopt a healthy scientific skepticism examining the evidence?  Dinosaurs do not come with date stamps on their femers.  Science requires interpretation.  Which worldview makes more sense logically based on the evidence in your opinion?  

Response to comment [from an atheist]:  "The more coherent world view based on what the actual evidence says."

Agreed and according to William Dembski the standards of proof for evolution are abysmal.  He says The Triumph of Evolution, for example, was a propaganda book. http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Triumph-Idea-Carl-Zimmer/dp/0061138401/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279986516&sr=8-2 On the cover it has different types of eyes with different complexities.  It tells a story how these eyes developed.  Dembski says that is enough for the evolutionist.  It is an argument based on imagination.  Eyes have to be coordinated with neurobiology but they leave those details out.  They are bereft of the nuts and bolts of evidence (Dembski, 24 Jul 10, Crosswalk radio program).

Creation Is Religion Pt VII