In looking over at the Answers in Genesis website, I came across an article by Ken Ham.
Creation: Where’s the Proof?
| Answers in Genesis
Ham writes:
On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
This is an old arguement that my creationist friends have used to show why I have "gotten it wrong". On the surface, it seems like a valid point to make.
Ken even goes so far as to say the we may not even know what our presuppositions are because they are ingrained in us from the things we were taught, or our experiences.
Admittedly, there must be some presuppositions in order to have any interpretation of data. The question is: Are we prisoners of our presuppositions?
What methodology should be used so that the influence of our presuppositions can be negated or minimized when interpreting evidence (fossils, geological samples, etc)?
edit: "date" to "data"
This message has been edited by LinearAq, 03-08-2005 11:50 AM