Evolutionists and creationists/ID proponents come to different conclusions from the same evidence according to their world view and starting presuppositions.
I do not believe that this is true. Creationists start with their conclusions, and then ignore evidence or force fit the evidence into their conclusions. Reading a website like Answers in Genesis is quite informative, if you know something about the science or are willing to go to a university library and look up actual scientific papers. AiG distorts the evidence, misquotes researchers, and/or ignores facts that are inconvenient.
-
Which evidence do you feel absolutely negates the possibility of special creation and has to point to evolution as the most valid option?
There is no single piece of evidence that absolutely negates the possibility of special creation. Rather, it is the entire body of evidence that, looked at in its entirety, gives a pretty unambiguous picture of the history of the world.
That said, my favorite single piece of evidence is the
nested hierarchical classification of the species. No single piece of evidence by itself will totally refute special creation, like I said, but this one piece is my favorite single piece.
-
Nonetheless the evidence must support one option better than the other.
Well, it could be that the evidence doesn't support either one very well at all. In that case, we should decide that neither theory is very likely and admit the truth is probably something else entirely.
Another possibility is that the evidence supports both theories pretty well. In that case, we would say that, until further tests and evidence comes up, both theories are likely contenders.
Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. --
Rick Perlstein