A Presuppositional Approach to Creationism...

Here's an extensive post that I posted as a response to some silly arguing on another blog...I kinda got 'in the zone' and figured that I'd share some decent writing with some of my other readers. Here it is:

Now as for this whole creation/evolution debate, this is as silly as it is useless. I won't really shed any new light on the issue, but I do have SOMETHING to say:

In a nutshell, and as much as I understand things, the debate is NOT about evidence. It's NOT about "scientific evidence" versus "creationist evidence". The issue isn't even a 'scientific' issue. It's a philosophical one. It's not a point of 'our evidence' versus 'their evidence'. It's all about interpretation of data to turn 'data' INTO 'evidence'.

When either side looks at any 'fact of nature', they see it through a philosophical (and theological...though that term is not very tasty to some) lens that helps them to interpret it and fit it into their greater picture of reality.

When an atheistic evolutionist see a flower, he sees many things. He sees photosynthesis, cells, etc. The creationist sees the SAME data. The observations differ in their INTERPRETATION of that data.

The atheistic evolutionist, by fidelity to his naturalistic worldview, is committed to explaining said flower's existance in purely naturalistic terms. There's no space for any sort of divine miracle or supernatural process because such activity is presupposed to have not occured, as a philosophical starting point to his scientific enterprise. The evolutionist has his starting point that EFFECTS the data (like it or not there is no such thing as 'neutral observation'). IF, however infinitely remotely, that flower were placed there by God (or aliens, or whatever 'supernatural' method was involved), that evolutionist would have absolutely no way of ever arriving at that conclusion because they START with the assumption that the supernatural is impossible; only the natural is involved.

The creationist, on the other hand, has a different starting point. He starts with the authoritative self-revelation of God; ie. the Bible.
Regardless of where the creationist thinks the flower came from, he's bound by his other fidelity; fidelity to the Bible. If the Bible says that God created it 4000 years ago in 1 day, then that is a statement about the ultimate reality as it applies to that flower and it is one that he is fully rationally justified to believe (I'll illustrate this further on).

The evolutionist does not start at the same philosophical starting point as the creationist, so it's no surprise that the creationist and the evolutionist arrive at different interpretations of the data. One sees matter, energy, space and time. The other sees all of the above PLUS God orchestrating it all.

The REAL question is WHO has a more objective position from which to view the facts about the flower? Even more so, who has a more objective position from which to comment on the origins of the flower?

The evolutionist observes the flower in the present and then through logical extrapolation creates a likely scenerio of that flower's origin. The creationist, on the other hand, observes the flower in the present and then seeks an answer to the origins question in the only existent document that claims to be a historical eyewitness account of the ONLY observer of that event in time.

In all reality, both sound kinda silly. In the first place, the scientist is making an educated guess on something that he can have essentially absolutely no REAL data on. It's like hearing a noise in the bathroom and then speaking authoritatively on what's going on in there without ever looking into the bathroom to SEE what actually happened. Was that sound a mouse? A magazine falling off the rack? A pipe? An open window? Is there someone IN the bathroom? Two people? Seventeen people? The Detroit Redwings? Was the wall knocked down and the noise actually coming from outside? The evolutionist can listen closely, examine the door, perform logical extrapolations and take all the measurements in the world...but until he opens the door and looks into the bathroom himself, he'll never be doing anything more than simply guessing as to what happened...and there are a LOT of people doing a LOT of guess work.

Funny thing is, due to the nature of the debate, the evolutionist can NEVER EVER have a chance to 'peek inside the bathroom' to see what actually happened. There's a door seperating the evolutionist from the bathroom, and that door is 'time'. No way in, unless you have a time machine.

To keep using my stuid example, the creationist also has NO access to the bathroom. He cannot 'open the door' to see what happened. He can also listen closely, examine the door, perform logical extrapolations and take all the measurements in the world, but he's no better off than the evolutionist...except for one thing. The creationist is in touch with a person who claims to have been in the bathroom when said noise occured. The creationist didn't see him in the bathroom (for such is impossible), and he didn't see him open the door and come out. But, the eye-witness claims that he was there, saw what happened, and can even tell the creationist what happened.

NOW, who would one listen too?

The person who is guessing or the eye-witness? I mean, the witness is either lying, insane or actually telling the truth. So what do you listen to? The educated guess or the possible eye-witness account?

They BOTH take faith...but which faith is more firmly placed?

The answer seems pretty obvious to me. If the eye-witness is known as a truthful man, you would most likely listen to him. For the educated guesser to discredit the eye-witness, he'd have to produce some very strong data to discredit the eye-witness...like irrefutable and clear evidence to suggest that the eye-witness IS in fact lying (or a madman).

What would be the best irrefutable and clear evidence that the eye-witness was indeed lying (or a madman)? How about corroborating testimony of another eye-witness, or better yet multiple other eye-witnesses? Or a reputable expert on mental health who can comment on the mental state of the eye-witness.

Can the evolutionist produce multiple corroborating testimonies of OTHER eye-witnesses? Not that I'm aware of. How about 'divine mental health experts'? Same story...nada.

So, both DO seem to sound kinda silly. One guy is guessing and one guy claims to be an eye-witness. The thing is, if the educated guesser is right, it's SHEER chance. Even if he's right, it kinda sounds silly to me to take a gambling shot in the dark on finding truth. But if the eye-witness is telling the truth, it doesn't sound silly anymore. THEN, he's giving me the only eye-witness account of what happened and I would definitely be justified in believing him.

None the less, it still boils down to faith...who do you believe? The 'educated guesser' or the 'eternally waiting to be discredited' eye-witness?

**************
Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian