Here’s an interesting article:

Do I Need Scientific, Forensic Evidence to Prove Christianity Is True?
J. Warner March 9, 2015 Nature of Evidence, Writings 5,974 Views

FacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWhatsAppPinterestFacebook MessengerEmailShare
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Do I Need Scientific, Forensic Evidence to Prove Christianity Is TrueThe relationship between science and faith continues to be hotly debated in our culture today. Eric Metaxas’ recent viral Wall Street Journal article, “Is Science Leading Us to God?” certainly reignited the discussion. His brief description of the teleological, fine-tuning parameters of the universe became the most-read online article the Journal has ever published. Even more recently, CNN has now begun a six-part series entitled, “Finding Jesus”. This mini-series seeks to discover “fascinating new insights into the historical Jesus, utilizing the latest scientific techniques and archaeological research”. The show examines six ancient relics of Christianity to see if “today’s technology can prove their authenticity.” In an empiricist culture deeply enthralled with scientific discovery and fascinated by shows like CSI, Cold-Case and Forensic Files, I’m not surprised by the demand for physical, scientific, forensic evidence. But as a cold-case detective with over twenty-five years of investigative experience, I’m here to tell you a simple truth: we don’t need any evidence of this nature to make a criminal case, and we don’t need scientific, forensic evidence to prove Christianity either.

Would it be nice to have scientific, physical evidence? Absolutely. When we first formed our cold-case unit, I retrieved over thirty unsolved cases from our homicide vault and sifted through each file, hoping to find one or two we could solve quickly with some piece of DNA or other form of scientific evidence. After all, our forensic technology has improved dramatically over the years, and I hoped to capitalize on this advancement to solve one or two of these cases quickly (to demonstrate the value of our new investigative team). Alas, I couldn’t find a single case of this nature. My partner and I were initially disappointed. But over the next fifteen years, we became the most active and successful cold-case team in Los Angeles County, solving more consecutive cases and appearing more times on Dateline than any other investigative team. And none of our cases benefited significantly from scientific evidence.

Most people don’t understand the broad categories of evidence used in criminal trials. As it turns out, evidence falls into one of two categories: direct and indirect. Direct evidence is simply eyewitness testimony. Indirect evidence (also known as circumstantial evidence) is everything else. Scientific evidence is an important form of circumstantial evidence, and I would certainly have welcomed evidence of this nature over the years (it sure would have made my job easier). But I’ve never been this lucky. In fact, I’ve investigated cases lacking any physical evidence at all. In one case, the murderer killed his wife and claimed she abandoned her family. He filed a bogus missing persons report and our agency initially believed him. Sadly, no one worked the case as a homicide for the first six years. By the time we re-opened it as a homicide case, the murderer had remarried and moved from the house where he killed our victim. We had no crime scene to investigate and not a single piece of scientific evidence.

When the case went to trial, the jury faced a number of unanswered questions: When precisely did he kill her? How did he kill her? What did he do with her body? How did he move her car so it would look like she abandoned her family? We couldn’t answer any of these questions and we didn’t have a single piece of physical evidence (let alone scientific evidence). But the jury only took four hours to find our defendant guilty (he later confessed to the murder at his sentencing hearing). That case strengthened my understanding of the nature and role of evidence and the luxury of scientific corroboration. It’s nice when you have it, but you don’t really need it. And when it comes to cold-cases you don’t often have this evidential luxury (there’s a reason these cases are cold, after all). The vast majority of my cases are constructed from a collection of seemingly meaningless statements and behaviors; stuff you might not even think was important at the time of the crime. But when these small indicators are assembled cumulatively and examined against the backdrop of the crime, little things become big evidence.

This is by far a more difficult way to build a case. Sometimes a single piece of scientific, forensic evidence can be very compelling, and in an impatient culture conditioned for brevity and 140 character communication, it’s not surprising jurors might prefer the shortest possible trial. Cases made by dramatic scientific evidence are definitely appealing. But real life is different than what you’ve been watching on television and at the movies. Making a case for anything in the past (whether it’s a murder or some other historical event) is often messy and complicated. It takes time. I’ve had cases that took over five years to put together and another five to bring to trial (luckily we’re able to work more than one case at a time). Scientific cases may be compelling, but in my experience, they are incredibly rare.

So I’m not surprised (given the antiquity of the Biblical events) we can’t make a case from scientific, forensic evidence. In fact, I wouldn’t expect us to be able to do this, any more than I expect to make a scientific case as a cold-case detective. That’s alright with me; I’ve seen many juries arrive confidently at the correct decision with no scientific evidence at all. We don’t need evidence of this nature to make a criminal case, and we don’t need scientific, forensic evidence to prove Christianity either.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, a Christian Case Maker, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity

@ AJ777

I’ve seen many juries arrive confidently at the correct decision with no scientific evidence at all.

How does this "investigator" know the correct decision ahead of time? If the verdict had been "Not Guilty" would that have been the "correct decision'? Hmmm...I would be inclined (If I was a lawyer) to appeal every single case this man investigated.

Secondly Historical Investigation does not work like this investigator, modern History demands a clear view and open mind, unlike theology or a Police Investigation (although the Police should be open, they mostly are not). He clearly is working under the "Prime Suspect Modus" what Historians call a Presuppositionalist position. Indeed the way that many theologians still work today in a vain attempt to prove their faith(s) correct.

The Historical Method is as follows (especially Graeco Roman History)
“Depending on the degree of importance of knowing the truth of something we make sure we are being told the truth by checking such things as:
1>Who is telling us this?
2>How do I know if I can trust them?
3>Can their claims be confirmed somehow?”
4>How do I know if this document is genuine?

on points 2 and 3> we use archeology, other written sources, inscriptions, cartology, modern ground probes, aerial photography, topography, geography, biology, In fact any discipline that could be used to confirm (or deny) the claim presented.

And to date and I will repeat:“there is no contemporary evidence for the Jesus figure as described in the gospels. None"

If you want to believe or have faith in a Jesus figure as described in the gospels then by all means feel free, but please do not dress it up as a reliable history based conclusion.

That some people may take this as a starting point to mythicise the Jesus figure is understandable, others may deny the existence. Absence of evidence can, indeed, be 'evidence of absence.' However I prefer the Scottish verdict in Law ”Not Proven”. “

(Edit to include point 2)

Old man shouts, do you have practical hands on experience in law enforcement or criminal law. If not, why are you qualified to criticize those who risk their lives to protect you?

@ AJ777

do you have practical hands on experience in law enforcement or criminal law. If not, why are you qualified to criticize those who risk their lives to protect you?

So you want to live in a society where you cannot question laws or law enforcement? There are words for that : Police State.

Something your Jesus seemed to be dead against when it was the Romans in charge...or is support of a Police State part of your weird Protestant Cult?

You really are a numpty when you come out with stuff like that. What do you do? Draw a huge target on your foot, get a friend to make sure you are not holding the gun the wrong way round and then pull the trigger?

I am a reasonably well educated citizen of two countries and, as such, I have the legal, moral and ethical right to comment on ALL parts of government. It is called Civic Responsibility You should try it....

(edit spelling)