Phat writes:
One major question that must be answered is whether the idea that there is more than one way to interpret evidence and science is a valid and logical idea.
You know that saying, don't you? "Every good lie contains some truth."
Think of Bob's car in the driveway with his keys sitting on a table.
You could say this is evidence that Bob left his keys at home and is on a walk.
You could say this is evidence that Bob is at home.
Two ways to interpret the evidence, but only 1 or none can be correct. They can't both be right.
The issue is that this is how YECs tend to abuse the word evidence.
A scientist would say that this is evidence that the vehicle's ignition is not started.
A scientist wouldn't use such information as "evidence" that Bob left his keys at home and is on a walk, because this information doesn't point in that direction. You would need
more information to make that conclusion.
A scientist wouldn't use such information as "evidence" that Bob is at home, because this information doesn't point in that direction. You would need
more information to make that conclusion.
There is a difference between "pointing in the direction of" and "not contradicting."
Once you have more information... say, searching the house and not finding Bob...
You can say that this is evidence that Bob left his keys at home and is on a walk.
But a scientist still wouldn't say such a thing.
A scientist would say that this is evidence that Bob isn't home and he is elsewhere... without his car.
Maybe Bob got picked up by a friend.
Maybe Bob has a dirt bike he also likes to ride.
When a scientist talks about conclusions based on evidence... those conclusions are specific-enough to be derived by the evidence, but also general-enough to not go beyond the reach of the evidence. More speculation can lead to more hypotheses and more testing... which can produce more evidence to make more conclusions.
Moral of the rambling: When someone talks about "multiple ways to interpret evidence" just look for the "conclusions" they're drawing that are not actually supported by the evidence but merely not-contradicted by the evidence. This is where you'll find the wishful thinking as opposed to interpreting the evidence correctly.
Edited by Stile, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
