You quote Ham as saying
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.
Many of the replies have used specific examples of scientific techniques to demonstrate the lack of presupposition such as rock dating. I would suggest that an open goal has been missed here. Evolutionists and scientists donot presuppose there is no God, neither do they presuppose that no God had a hand in creation.
To tackle the second point first, since evolution has nothing to do with the first life, they don't have to presuppose anything and even if they did, it would have no bearing on evolution.
The first point is so obvious that I'm surprised anyone still dares to use it as it can be shown not only to be wrong, but dishonest. Since this gets trotted out with nauseating regularity, I'm going to do this step by step.
1. I am a scientist.
2. I am a Christian.
3. I accept evolution as the best theory we have to explain the evidence
4. I believe in God.
5. I still have room to give God credit for creating life in some way or another.
Those five points show the total fallacy of the statement from Ham that you quoted. Now, I'm not the only scientist and Christian who can maintain a belief in God and accept evolution. If science really did presuppose that there was no God, there would be NO Christians in science. The only reason that this presupposition is trotted out by Creationists is to artificially level the playing field. They can't deny that they approach science with the presupposition that Biblical Creation is correct and that's one of the main criticisms of Biblical Creationists' approach to science - they know where they want the evidence to lead then perform mental gymnastics, breaking chemical and physical laws to get the evidence to the required destination. So, to level this playing field they arbitrarily ascribe presuppositions to the scientists to try to neutralise the criticisms of Creationists' presuppositional approach. Sadly, its all too easy to show that they are wrong in doing this as I've just done with my five points above.
Unfortunately the dishonesty of ascribing an atheism to those who accept evolution has become all to common, witness Willowtree's continual use of the term "evo-atheists" a while back, even when addressing Christians who accept evolution. When faced with this sort of evidence, out comes the usual "ah, but you're not a
true Christian".
There's none so blind and deaf as those that shut their eyes, cover their ears and sing "LA LA LA" loudly in the face of
evidence which soundly refutes their claims.
™ Version 4.2
