Flyer75 writes:
I'm reading "Evidence for Christianity" right now and McDowell makes a compelling case. It's more then enough evidence to hold up in a court of law.
When Christians sit down with Moslems, Hindus and Buddhists to make their case they find that other religions make equally compelling cases, with the emphasis on "equally compelling." As compelling as stories of miracles and resurrections can be, the underlying evidence that they ever really happened is less than compelling, usually absent.
Evidence that meets the legal standards of proof for the veracity of the accounts in the Bible would have carried the day for Christians in court rooms in Dayton and Little Rock and Dover, yet they didn't even make the attempt.
I can't believe McDowell still has a following. When I first got into the creation/evolution debate 30 years ago McDowell was very popular, and the two volumes of his book
Evidence that Demands a Verdict (copyright 1972) still sit on my bookshelves as a legacy of that era. But I don't see him cited much anymore. There's no law that says that just because someone uses the word "evidence" in the title of their book that they actually have to have any.
--Percy