Same Facts - Different Interpretation?

I'm hearing this type of argument often from many of the creationists I debate. Can any of the more learned here assist in a logical and persuasive retort to this "Same Facts - Different Interpretation" argument? TIA...

quote:

---

All knowledge is built upon certain fundamental basics...the FOUNDATION of the knowledge. Pretty much everything you learn after you've got that foundation laid...is BASED on that foundation.

​

Much of the "science" you listed is based on a fundamental, foundational error which taints many of the conclusions that are reached as a result. The possibility is extremely unlikely that scientists are right is right because science has (largely) deviated from the path of the righteous, kicking any thought of God or divine intervention out of its processess.

​

You claim that Christians ignore scientific evidence in order to hold onto faith. You claim it again and again and again like a mantra. But the fact is that there are many scientists out there who started with a different foundation than you... a CHRISTIAN one, and have built up very workable models of our lives, our history and our universe that fit the Biblical worldview! That's why these stupid arguments always come down to Christians posting their links to explain this and atheists pointing to their links to explain it that way.

​

You INSIST yours are right! They both (Christian and non-Christian scientists) say the same thing..they just disagree with how things GOT that way...somewhere between the foundation (God or a lack thereof) and the finished result (the universe we see today) they took completely different, rational paths and reached the same point.

​

You INSIST your paths are the right ones!

​

Oh... we may be right now...It's a slim, miniscule possibility, right?

​

I conceed the same to you...simple as that. And it doesn't mean I'm ignoring any evidence at all. Don't even go there. I'm ignoring YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE!!. I'm ignoring YOUR WAY OF LOOKING AT THE SAME FACTS!!

​

We've been trying to drill this concept into your heads collectively here on apologetics for months now and I, for one, don't understand how people as learned as you obviously are still don't apparently get how two people can look at the same FACT and arrive at different workable conclusions for how it got there.

---

Well there's a very common example where creationists ignore the evidence - and in fact decree that it does not even exist.That is the argument that evolution must be false since there are no transitional fossils. Of course there are very many such fossils (talkorigins.org has a list of vertebrate transitional fossils - worth a look). Sometimes a creationist might insist that MEANT that he does not interpret the fossils as being transitionals but that would mean that his argument was false - the data really IS consistent with evolution.

I think this might be the heart of it. But it isn't that simple.The differences are not just that there are two different interpretations. It is that there are two different KINDS of interpretations.The scientific one is (mostly) coherent. It is consistent within itself. It is required to explain (or attempt to explain) all the facts that are available in ONE non-contradictory package.The creationist kind of interpretation consists of a whole bunch of ad-hoc explanations that are not mutually supportive. For example, we have a flood that is gentle to leave one kind of layer but violent to create others in the same general area and over one year.We have galloping continents but the oceans don't boil away.The over all explanations just don't actually explain what is actuall there to explain.If what they really mean is that the scientific "interpretation" doesn't allow for miracles but theirs does then fine but miracles are not part of science and things that are not science don't belong in science classes. Miracles are not "explanations" of anything.Another point they seem to be making: This is not correct. God is not kicked out, there is simply no way that they have suggested that would allow him to be included.How does one examine "devine intervention"? So far we have perfectly fine non devine processes which can explain what facts we see. If they want the intervention to be examined and included we'd have to be told how and where it would be.The need to include miraculous devine intervention as a part of their interpretation arises because they can't make a coherent explanation that works. If that is all they wanted in the first place where is there a thing called "creation science"? Why do they attempt to explain why, for example, dates are wrong through "scientific" sugggestions. Why not just say, "God fiddled it" but your measurements were done right after that?So which is it? Did God fiddle it (devine intervention) or not? How do I tell?

---

Common sense isn't

First, who gathers the facts? Who generates the hypotheses to test and then attempts to generate empirical evidence that either supports or refutest the hypotheses? Trained scientists using methodological naturalism or religious fundamentalists using ad hoc explanations that rely on untestable and undetectable supernatural god/gods/ pink unicorns etc?Creationists never generate a shred of data to support their hypotheses. They are strictly nay sayers without a shred of understanding of the sciences they denounce. They do not look at facts. Find me a creationist who even knows the basics of the ToE as opposed to some cartoonish version where cats give birth to dogs and where abiogenesis and evolution are identical. So, it is not even a distinction between interpretation of facts when creationists don't even have the basic background (and are almost universally to lazy to actually learn anything anyway) to understand the facts when presented much less interpret them in the context of the debate on the validity of evolution.You know why no creationist has ever generated any supporting data for their position? Simple, they cannot 1) propose a testable hypothesis of creationism 2) demonstrate how it can be falsified, which means they cannot get to the point where they can 3) gather supporting data and 4) demonstrate that their hypothesis better explains the natural world than competing hypotheses or theories...thus, all they can do is blather about how all evolutionists must be atheists, that scientists want to keep god out science, and that it is all just a matter of interpretation of facts with all interpretations having equal validity.The amazing thing is almost nobody would suggest this approach is meanignful with respect to the medical sciences, chemistry, physics, genetics etc...yet suddenly with evolution, every bozo with a religious text they have to adhere to dogmatically comes out of the woodwork as a self proclaimed expert on all aspects of biological science and that those of us who are actual practicing scientists have no more knowledge about the subject than they do...truly astounding what fundamentalism coupled with willful ignorance can produce. To bad for them such a mindset has never produced a single scientific discovery whereas methodological naturalism has.