Eye Witness vs Evolution

Well Happy New Year! One of New Year's Day's boredom is that certain cable stations play marathons of certain shows. Today, the Discovery channel is showing Myth Busters. It is a great show using the scientific method to prove or disprove many myths that permeate our culture.

In the episode I am currently watching a major contradiction has occurred. Can bullets fired up into the air and that fall back to the earth kill you? Initially, the circumstantial evidence showed that a bullet can not fall with enough speed to penetrate the human body. Yet when they went to an "international expert on falling bullets", they found that bullets shot up into the air has in fact killed people.

If you remember my earlier post in which Human Ape commented on how stupid creationists are, he used circumstantial evidence to show the contradiction between the Biblical account of creation and certain scientific evidence. This is where we must weigh eye witness testimony with forensic scientific experiments. There are times when eye witness testimony must outweigh what we think we have proved with science.

Now after more experiments by the Myth Busters, the apparent discrepancy became better understood. There was, in fact, no contradiction. Shooting bullets perfectly straight up into the air will probably not kill anyone. But that was just it. They have to be fired exactly straight up.

So although Evolutionists may come up with evidence against the Bible's view of creation, is there really a contradiction? Are all of the presuppositions carefully weighed and examined. Are all possible conclusions truly thought through? And have all further possible scientific discoveries really been ruled out? How often have scientific text books been changed due to new evidence and advanced science?

The Bible was written by eye witnesses. Christianity is not a religion of feelings or inward revelation. Its claims are historical and public. Should that not have weight in any discussion on origins?