Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth | Donate

Weighing the evidence

Evaluating a body of facts isn’t as easy as it seems

You have {{ remainingArticles }} free {{ counterWords }} remaining. You've read all of your free articles.

Full access isn’t far.

We can’t release more of our sound journalism without a subscription, but we can make it easy for you to come aboard.

Get into news that is grounded in facts and Biblical truth for as low as $2.99 per month.


Already a member? Sign in.

I’ve been thinking about evidence. We used to know what evidence was. Our only question was whether the man bringing his case possessed sufficient amounts of it. We would know it if we saw it. We would be able to say “guilty” or “not guilty.”

I looked up a definition: “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”

To read that, you would think everybody sees that “body of facts or information” the same way. Not so. What one person calls evidence another calls malarkey.

I always like to go back to the Bible. There’s the time in Israel’s history when civil war nearly broke out because a bunch of tribes thought they had evidence that another bunch of tribes was defecting from the true God (Joshua 22).

A bevy of dubious witnesses is a handful of nothing, as a hundred times zero is still zero.

What had happened was that the fledgling Israelite nation, having successfully conquered Canaan, divvied up the land under Joshua. Everyone was now heading home to his own fig tree. Moses had allowed the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh to choose portions on the east side of the Jordan, so off they went, bidding adieu to the other 9½ tribes west of the river.

But just before crossing over, the 2½ tribes built an altar near the river. Word got back to the others. It looked bad to them. They jumped to war preparations (Joshua 22:12). A posse of representatives confronted the eastern brothers for their “treachery” (v. 16). The stunned easterners explained that their pile of stones didn’t mean what the 10 tribes thought it meant. It was for a testimony, not a competing religion. All ended well.

If you guessed the moral of the story is that we should mind our own business and not pursue rumors of corruption, you guessed wrong. Scripture is bullish on good investigations: “If you hear in one of your cities, which the Lord your God is giving you to dwell there, that certain worthless fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods’ … then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently.”

The command is thrice repeated: Deuteronomy 13:12-14; Deuteronomy 17:3-4; Deuteronomy 19:15-18. In religion or nations, God loves truth and hates lies. Turning a blind eye is not a virtue.

Circumstantial evidence is a kind of evidence. If a man returns home unexpectedly from a business trip and finds a stranger in his pajamas, who his wife nervously claims is a long-lost cousin, it’s only circumstantial evidence. But I would investigate, wouldn’t you? Especially if I’ve been seeing a pattern.

Multiple witnesses are another type of evidence. The Bible has a two-witness rule: “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15).

But witness evaluation is crucial. A bevy of dubious witnesses is a handful of nothing, as a hundred times zero is still zero.

Peter and Susan Pevensie get a lesson in witness evaluation in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Though the strangeness of sister Lucy’s story about a land of Narnia makes the siblings assume at first that her testimony is not true and that Edmund’s is, the Professor directs them to consider their past experience with their respective siblings: “If you will excuse me for asking the question—does your experience lead you to regard your brother or your sister as the more reliable? I mean, which is the more truthful?”

This brings us to the matter of discernment, the ability to judge well. The raw data of so-called evidence is nothing without it, and discernment cannot be bought for money but comes from the Holy Spirit.

“The Lord … will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart” (1 Corinthians 4:5).

Andrée Seu Peterson

Andrée is a senior writer for WORLD Magazine. Her commentary has been compiled into three books including Won't Let You Go Unless You Bless Me. Andrée resides in Philadelphia, Penn.


Please wait while we load the latest comments...


Please register or subscribe to comment on this article.


In regards to evidence of election fraud, it seems to be one of claims by outside groups with significant bias and limited knowledge of the systems in operation vs claims by election officials (of both parties) who have run these systems for the most part without controversy for years.  I can understand why each group might be suspicious of the other.  Fortunately our judicial system offers a neutral ground (or, about as neutral as we can hope for in this fallen world) where these claims can be asserted and evaluated.  I'm incredibly grateful for all the efforts made to showcase the evidence that had been collected and allow it to stand and fall on its merits.  Absent that process we'd be left only with endless posturing and rumor mongering.  That so many continue to ignore or dismiss anything that disagrees with their favored evidence makes me wonder how committed our country is to discerning truth over validating our presuppositions.

I will say, mainstream media lost much of their credibility with their handling of the Hunter Biden laptop story, with the revelation that there was an active investigation in play coming right in the middle of all the contention surrounding election fraud.  I've been incredibly grateful for World's efforts to seek truth in the midst of these turbulent times.


Andree, thank you for your compelling observations about evidence. It seems very little discernment takes place today in the arena of truth finding; far too many of us are already decided before the quest begins.  Do we really seek to unravel the matter or are we aftaid of what we would likely lose if the evidence were followed and truth revealed? 

As the professor pondered in Back on This Side of the Door, "I wonder what they do teach them at these schools."  How very relevant to todays patterns of thinking after the scholastic bend of trusting our feelings in order to decide an outcome.  Wisdom cries for critical thinking through the weight of the evidence and letting that evidence bear witness to the truth.  


I have to give Peter and Susan a break, because the idea of a land like Narnia, was too impossible to believe.  So, believing Edmond over Lucy kept the world as it was, even though it was not logical based on the character of Edmond and Lucy.