Creationists sometimes use arguments like the following:
We can’t think of any way that some things could have evolved slowly over time (for instance, bacterial flagella). Therefore, it could not have evolved, and molecules-to-man evolution is false.
Evolutionists object: “Just because we don’t know how evolution occurred doesn’t mean it didn’t. Creationists are using an argument from ignorance and have a lack of imagination.” We could reword our argument above in a weaker form that solves this objection:
After much research, we cannot find any possible way that some things could have evolved. We have demonstrated that the most reasonable evolutionary scenarios would fail completely because of the laws of physics, chemistry, science, and chance. On the other hand, we know that intelligence is capable of producing information (like that in DNA). Thus, it is much more reasonable to believe that an intelligence created this information rather than that it evolved.
This is really just a technicality, however. When evolutionists say that one of our arguments doesn’t technically prove anything, this reveals how weak their position really is. Why don’t they just come up with a detailed step-by-step scenario of how these things could have evolved? The reason is that they don’t have any explanation. Every scenario that anyone can think of, when examined closely, proves to be a failure. And so they have to resort to technicalities about logic and avoid our arguments altogether.
Imagine using this logic in every-day life. Suppose a criminal on trial is shown clearly on videotape robbing a bank. His credit card was used at a convenience store down the street from the bank earlier that day, and the camera at the convenience store reveals that he was wearing the same clothes he used when robbing the bank. His fingerprints were also found on the bank doors and counter, and the police found a strand of his hair and found that the DNA matched.
This robber could say, “This doesn’t prove anything. Just because you can’t think of any way that I’m innocent doesn’t mean that I’m not innocent. You just lack imagination.” When the lawyers ask him to provide a scenario where he is innocent that fits all the data, he can’t give one. At least not one that makes sense. The court concludes that the evidence “proves” that this man is guilty. This is common sense. It works in court, and it should work in the creation/evolution debate, too.