In an editorial review of Ken Ham's book,, we're told that Ham's book "approaches the issues from a presuppositional point of view, whereas most works on apologetics come from an evidentialist perspective. This doesn’t mean that we don’t provide any evidence for our positions; it means we start from the Bible and show why the evidence makes sense in light of Scripture and cannot be accounted for in a naturalistic, atheistic worldview." LINK . In my new book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist , I have a chapter on apologetic methodology where I argue that if the evidence existed then no other apologetic method but evidentialism would be used by apologists (chapter 5).For if the evidence existed then apologists would never have come up with any other method. You know it. I know it. We all know it. So Ken Ham's presuppositional apologetics is a tacit admission he doesn't think the evidence exists to believe!