hooberus
Abaddon, many creationists (such as AiG) and many evolutionists have presuppositions (if you seach the word "presuppositions" in the AiG search engine you will see that they admit that they do). For Biblical creationists (such as AiG) the Bible is generally considered to be a starting axiom.
Don't you think that there is a difference?
The Creationists I quote assume THEIR interpretation of the Bible is correct, for a start. There is no proof of this.
Now, whilst it might suit your argument to concentrate on evolutionists who exclude any possibility of a creator, this is not representative.
It is wrong to paint all people who believe in a creator god as being YEC'ers; some may believe everything of science's interpretation of physical evidence, but still believe in god's guiding hand. Others believe something 'twixt the two poles.
It is wrong to paint evolutionists as people who exclude the existence of a 'god'. Many people who believe in the evolutionary process also believe in god; their interpretation of what the Bible says is simply different to a YEC'er.
Thus the whole presentation by Creationists of a very literal bent, such as YEC'ers, is not what they make it seem.
It is not the Bible versus science.
It is their opinion of what the Bible means against science.
It is all about them.
It is all about the sanctification of their own opinion as divine truth.
Their unprovable claim that they have the sole correct interpretation of an ancient text leads them to make claims about what other parts of the Bible mean - claims which are again unprovable, but are used to back the condemnation of others or to insist upon the compliance of others with what they say is god's word, but is actually just their human opinion.
Evolution of course has its egos too. But no evolutionist will make a claim that those that (say) believe the mass extinction at the end of the Cretatious was due to volcanic activity will burn in fire whilst those that believe it was a meteor will go to heaven. And their egos are subjected to a pretty good process of ensuring that unsupported personal opinions are not accepted as science; peer review.
An opinion based on evidence can be checked. An opinion based upon a presuppostion cannot be checked. This is why it is difficult to have peer review of opinions based upon presuppostion; you can't check them. The reason they don't publish creationistic articles in mainstream science journals is that publishing an article based on someone's unsupported opinion without evidence or an underlying theory is something science journals strenuously try to avoid doing!
Creationism in its literalist forms is all about opinions, not interpretation of evidence. What Creationists use as evidence for their claims is not a direct record of events, for a start (unlike bones which are). Also, a passage of text has far larger number of possible interpretations than a set of similar fossils with small but desernable changes from the deepest fossil to the most shallowly buried one
Many evolutionists also have presuppositions (such as the belief that origins must be "naturalistic" to be science). However in the creation-evolution debate some evolutionists occasionally attempt to give the impression that they are somehow "dispassionate", "objective" scientists who "follow the evidence wherever it leads" -unlike the "presupositionalist" creationists.
Remember evolutionists can believe in god, but a literalistic Creationist's like YEC'ers cannot believe in much of modern sceince...
This is an important difference. In addition to believing their interpretation of the Bible is inerrant, people like YEC'ers also believe that much of modern science is wrong. Even though they use and trust the products developed with that science, if their opinion differs to scienece, they believe their opinion, and carry right on using phones, doctors, medicine, airplanes, cars, etc.
I mean, what are the odds, eh? 'Evil' science saves you from cancer but is wrong when it tries to date bones even if multiple methods arrive at similar dates?
The reason evolutionists generally feel their opinions are more objective is that they interpret the evidence,
Whilst people like those I quoted;
However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it?s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.
... insist they are right and that the evidence backs them up even if everyone else in the world says it doesn't.
Where evolutionists have bones in the ground, people like YEC'ers have words on a page.
We know the bones are an accurate impression of what was there. I don't think you despute that fossilised bones have been found all over the world, many of species no longer alive today.
Evolutionists interpret that evidence and the validity of those interpretations may be checked by examining the evidence. The theory may be refined, argued over, adjusted; but there is still the certainty that the bones were there, and came from creatures no longer alive, and that the bones had ancestors which left bones and descendents which left bones.
The words on a page that YEC'ers claim they have the sole accurate interpretation have nothing like that level of assurance behind them. We do not know if they are an accurate impression of what was there; some people assume they are.
My pointing out the bias of these evolutionists is primarily to to respond to their facade of pure objectivity, not to necessarily condemn presuppositionalism per se.
My dear hooberus, of course you're not going to condemn presuppostionalism. You're a presuppostionalist! You are asserting that the opinion of yourself and those of your ilk will be right, no matter what, even if you cannot prove it, even if every scientific test possible disagrees with you, even if you have no evidence.
However, as your continual attempts to defend the most literalistic forms of Creationism show, even though you ARE a presuppositionalist, you are on some level aware of the inadequacy of such an argument, as although you shouldn't have to prove it given the admitted unsupported nature of your argument, you always try to.
Interesting, eh?
Anyway, the fact remains that many in the evolutionary establishment are just as subject to presuppositionalism as even Biblical Creationists are.
No; bones in ground, stars in sky, and theories of how this came to be are not presuppostions. The evidence might lead to conclusions, but conclusions based on evidence are semantically and factually different to presuppositons. I am not saying that those conclusions are inerrant. Unlike literalistic Creationists who claim they are inerrant, science accepts it makes mistakes and needs checking and re-examination. The whole scientific process allows this; although inertia and conservatism (as in any human grouping) can DELAY change, the 'rules' of how 'science' work mean chnage WILL happen is EVIDENCE supports it.
My opinions have changed and would change again if evidence arose that invalidated the theories I base my opinons on.
Your beliefs are incapable of change if the evidence doesn't support them as you are a presuppositionalist and the evidence doesn't matter, you've already decided your opinion is right.
