Standards of Evidence

Agreed. But the evolutionist almost always asserts that his special pleading is not as such, but objective. So idealistically your blue box statement is a goal that requires specifics.Objective criteria is subjective in the Creation-Evolution debate since Creationist presuppositions are pro-supernaturalistic and Evolution presuppositions are pro-materialistic.With this said what do you propose?Ray

Your own medicine: As long as info comes from an Atheist "scholar" Brian accepts it. Real science presupposes the existence of God because the world overwhelmingly looks designed. When observation is ignored and misrepresented to correspond to the exact opposite of intuition, Theist scholars (Stanford and MIT professors) call this Scientism. When I ten years old I immediately figured out that human evolution from apes is what persons who have no awareness of God must believe. You have misunderstood the issue. Creationists disagree with evolutionary interpretations, explanations and conclusions of scientific data. "Education" presupposes ignorance and does not apply in the context of Creation-Evolution debate.Ray

Evidence is evaluated by presuppositions; the same determines its interpretation.Objectivity is the ability to interpret evidence contrary to presuppositions and personal bias.For example: what is the best interpretation of the appearance of design seen in biological reality? Logically, it corresponds to the work of a Designer. How about parahomologous structures and anatomy? Logically, they correspond to the inference that evolution has occurred. I am trying to be objective even though I disagree with the latter. I happen to know that the latter inference, despite being, at face value, an objective interpretation, is actually made under the presupposition that God is not seen in reality. The former (objective interpretation of design corresponding to [invisible] Designer) falsifies the presupposition of the latter. BUT the latter presupposition claims to be a justified supposition based on other evidence. But the justification is nonetheless based on the non-objective presupposition that design does not correspond to Designer.The point is that presuppositions and worldviews supplant the ideal of what is objective.Does objectivity objectively exist?Yes, IF God exists then whatever He says is the only objective truth.Why?Answer: Because He is omnipotent and omniscient God. The same can only be objective because of who He is.The point is that only God's subjective views are objective truth. The Bible claims to contain God's subjective views and those views, if the claim is true, should correspond to reality.Genesis CLAIMS that God created the world and its contents on purpose. Since the world contains the overwhelming appearance of design the same corroborates and corresponds to the work of the Genesis Creator. Therefore the logical meaning of design corresponding to Designer is confirmed objective truth and the evolutionary interpretation (including the logical inference of homology), made under the supposition that design does not correspond to Designer, is subjective and false.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

Yes.Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

Idealistically, objectivity is always the goal, and science is always subjectively defined depending on one's worldview. Objectively defined, as my initial post did in this exchange, science presupposes the existence of God and interprets all evidence under said paradigm. "Here" means what?Your comment makes no sense. In your subjective viewpoint. Objectively, evidence always requires interpretation.Ray

As to what the fact or evidence means. I assume your assertion true, the issue is, what does the fact or data mean?RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

Impossible ideal. "Everyone has opinions about the existence of God. Honest and objective persons state them up front so when they creep into conclusions the public will know it." Darwinism says God is not involved in reality; you have misunderstood the "neutral" claim, which only seeks to conceal the Atheist agenda (presupposition that God is not involved in reality).Ray

Whether true or false I have already agreed to agree that we have a fact. Now, what does the fact or evidence MEAN?What does the fact mean to, let's say, the Theory of Evolution?In other words, I am asking you to interpret the fact into a paradigm, or theory, or what have you? Where has this happened and why is it a secret? How do we know the prediction is a consequence of the unnamed theory? Why don't you tell us what theory so we can see whether we agree with your interpretation of the fact/evidence? Agreed. Since you have not told us what theory X is I cannot answer the question and neither can anyone else. How would anyone know unless theory X is unveiled? In general I agree that some forms of evidence are superior to other types. For example: the interior passage system of the Great Pyramid cannot be changed. It is visual and it is widely available to see by anyone on the Internet. The passage system, once explained, matches major Biblical claims, thus confirming those claims. The strength of THIS evidence is: the unalterable visual evidence of the interior AND well known major Bible claims. Mutual correspondence is superior evidence because the interior cannot be changed and it is available for anyone to SEE and major Bible claims are widely known and undisputed.So yes there is superior evidence. Compared to evolutionary extrapolation based on scant evidence in hand, the Great Pyramid/Bible evidence is vastly superior.Ray

I have already agreed (for the sake of argument) with the results. The issue is interpretation of those results into a paradigm or theory. Straggler, apparently, cannot grasp the next and very important step, which is what this topic is about.Physical evidence (in and by itself) needs more interpretation than textual evidence. On this basis alone textual evidence is superior standard of evidence. But if your worldview denies textual evidence to be evidence in the first place then that is a subjective judgement. Agreed. You have described an ideal that does not exist. All discovery and collection is done with a preset theory in mind.Ray

Correct, EXCEPT: the Creationist interpretation is a scientific explanation, as is Evolution. Your subjective bias was showing. Since you are an evolutionist we are not surprised. You do not know what you are talking about. All evidence requires interpretation. I am sure that the evolutionary heirarchy on this board would agree with me. Completely false. Again, you do not know what you are talking about.Ray

Comment presupposes your opinion as a legitimate (silent) authority while exempting yourself from refutation by other authorities. This is the epitome of subjective thinking.Objective persons have sources for their views or they are unsupported and subjective. We know evolutionists routinely rely on the "appeal to authority" card because they cannot produce a source for their assertions and they want their subjective preconceptions to be regarded as evidence, fact or objective truth.I have indeed made an assertion: "All evidence requires interpretation."It is an axiomatic truth that is accepted by all scholars blindly. I do not need to support that the Earth is round.Appearance of design, according to your special pleading, needs interpretation. I say it means what it indicates at face value (invisible Designer, that is my interpretation). But in your hypothetical scenario, the measurement evidence, requires no interpretation. You need to be consistent.Ray

WHAT THEORY?Forum rules state that we are not to repeat the same point over and over. I have violated the rule and so has Straggler.Now I ask that a Moderator to please take the time to address the cause of violating the rule.Straggler has identified a fact or a piece of evidence. This evidence is measured result. I have plainly, for the sake of argument, accepted the fact or evidence. But Straggler THEN says or asks how the fact (or evidence) does not support the theory? In response I have repeatedly asked "What theory?" He has never once stated the theory that the fact allegedly supports. Around and around we go. Straggler demands that I accept the fact as supporting an unnamed theory and I demand to know what theory he (or she) is talking about?Is it too much to ask that a Moderator require Straggler to name the theory he is talking about? Please remember, I have accepted his fact of "specific measured result" but do not know what theory it allegedly supports?I will not ride on the Straggler merry-go-round any longer.Ray

Excellent. Then you should not have called anything "Theory X" since all you are talking about is a standard prediction. In other words, Straggler was stating things so badly. All he had to do was say that he was talking about the standard scientific method of prediction and experiment.Standard experimental methodology.Make prediction.Conduct experiment.Prediction is either confirmed or falsified (or inconclusive).If prediction is confirmed, then others should be able to duplicate and confirm. If so, we have a scientific fact established by this well known method.It is a self-evidently solid method; again, what is the point?Ray

True, but other methods are equally objective. Your opinion is noted. That is because Creationism is not a theory and it never claimed to be a theory. Your straw man is noted. Creationism is an identification process and explanation of the same set of scientifc data that is available to everyone. This comment says Evolution is objective. Since you are an evolutionist we know you believe this to be true.Objective persons know Evolution is not objective since its presuppositions only allow one interpretation and conclusion. Both Creationism and Evolution interpret and explain the same scientific evidence. Both use antithetic presuppositions. The Creationist interpretation and explanation of scientific data is superior to Evolution explanation and interpretation because ours corresponds to reality unlike yours. Any fact produced by prediction and experimentation is better explained by the Creationist paradigm. Since 45 percent of all Americans are Creationist it looks like we have a lot of people who agree with our interpretation and explanation of scientific data regardless of who produces it and regardless of which standard or methodology. How does the Big Bang contradict Creationism?Ray