Biased Interpretation?

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 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

Certainly it appears to you that this is just "smoke and mirrors" to hide the fact that creationists can't explain scientists' interpretation of the facts. However:For the rock dating:
1. Daughter products in the rock at formation?
2. Loss of the parent isotope?please don't address my weak answers since that would take this off topic....they are just examples of possible creationist explainations.Regardless, the problem at hand (presupposition imprisonment) cannot be addressed by simply putting up what you see as impregnable examples of evolutionist unbiased interpretation/gathering of evidence.Is there a mechanism that can be used to overcome these presuppositions and is agreable to both creationists and evolutionists? I haven't thought of one yet. I hope to hear from the creationist side with any suggestions they might find appealing.Personnally, I thought the current scientific method, with its requirement of repeatability, prediction of future observations, and falsifiability was enough to minimize personal bias. Perhaps not.

Your reply along with Ned's and Jon's give the implication that there is no "real" problem with presupposition bias...only one perceived by one side.Are you suggesting that since they are constrained by a bias (Bible) that they feel evolutionists SURELY MUST BE constrained by some bias also?How can you know that you are not?Better yet, how can you convince those that accuse you, that you aren't constrained by inordinate presuppositions?I have met a number of creationists that seem very knowledgeable about science. Then they spout the presupposition retoric and I wonder if they are capable (and deceitful) or not capable (and honest). Then again, there is always the possibility that I could be the one who is not seeing.

What do you mean by no one? No one on the creationist side or no one at all?What criteria might be used to identify the biases that are the cause of the interpretation problems? Do the biases identified by the creationist camp have any qualities in common with each other?Thanks for the ref to the Dates and Dating forum. However, I have been there and read a good deal. Don't understand it all but research should help out with that. I was just suggesting possible creationist responses...and I did say they were weak.

True, the biases and/or presuppositions have not been delineated, except the "no God" one. I have read a 5 other articles on AIG that bring up the same idea about prejudice based on presuppositions. None of them say what those presuppositions are. I recently sent an email asking what they thought those presuppositions were and how they determined what they were. Their answers are usually slow in coming.Perhaps some of the creationist members can provide some help on identifying the beam in our eyes.