Evidence Without Reason is Lame, Reason Without Evidence is Blind

Earlier I issued a challenge to creationists right here. It has generated quite a storm of controversy. For some reason whenever we argue against creationism or faith itself, this happens. At issue this time is whether philosophy is considered to be evidence, or even helpful at all. Creationists are arguing that it is. Others disagree vehemently. To help answer this issue let's consider for comparison the well-known aphorism, "Science without philosophy is lame, philosophy without science is blind." [Most people substitute the word "religion" for "philosophy" as quoted originally by Einstein]. If we take this aphorism and correctly unpack it, the point being made is this:
Evidence without reason is lame, reason without evidence is blind.
For if by philosophy we mean the use of good critical thinking skills, then evidence can be "hamstrung" by people with poor critical thinking skills. Creationists fit the first part of this aphorism perfectly. They don't really know what constitutes as evidence, even while dealing with the evidence. For the lack of evidence is not evidence for creation. The lack of evidence is merely the lack of evidence, get it?! Moreover, just as the tools for digging up treasures in the ground are not themselves the treasures found, so also the rules of logic that help us reason correctly are not themselves the evidence found either. So creationists also fit the second half of this aphorism perfectly. They are using reason to skirt or ignore the evidence because they are blind to it. Have you ever heard of the phrase "He's too smart for his own good"? That describes a person who can justify almost anything. Christians have had some really smart pseudo-intellectuals down through the centuries who can fool anyone who wants to be fooled. Faith causes people to want to be fooled, while faith causes the brain of the pseudo-intellectual to lie to its host. Blind is a perfect metaphor for creationists.