I would add that evidentialism goes further back than the enlightenment. Evidentialism can also be termed "Classic Apologetics" that was articulated by Thomas Aquinas in his classic "proofs" for God's existence. For example, the world demonstrates design, so it must be God who created it. Though it is true that the world demonstrates design, and I will often challenge atheists to explain to me why such evidence is not compelling for them, primarily to illustrate the absurdity of their worldview, evidence in and of itself does not "prove" God's existence. The basic reason is that evidence must be interpreted.

Presuppositionalists begin with a biblical view of man that reveals man's intentional suppression of truth in order not to acknowledge what is true, ie, God exists. Sinners will do everything to explain away such evidence so as not to have to be held accountable to it. That is why an intelligent sinner will entertain non-sensical things like aliens putting life on earth. Aliens do not really care about what sexual behavior a person engages in, because the person is simply a biological life form expressing its natural inclination to further the species.

My observation has been that evidentialists view supposed evidence as a means to bring a person to salvation (the sinner can rationally weigh evidence and draw the conclusion that Christianity is plausible), where as presuppositionalists view evidence as a means to expose the corrupted bias of the sinner (the sinner is irrational with his interpretation of the evidence, because he is opposed to God).


Fred

"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns