Don’t evolutionists have different “evidence” than creationists have?

 Good article.  It shows the differences are in interpretation not “facts”.  Click this link to read the story AiG Weekly News .


17 Responses to Don’t evolutionists have different “evidence” than creationists have?

  1. Matt says:

    Hold on. You’re trying to use something from AiG? The same people who backed the Creation Museum? The same people who are infamous for misrepresenting evidence and scientific findings?
    Not really a good idea.


  2. Tom says:

    What evidence and scientific findings have they misrepresented? If you intend to make the accusation that is fine but please back it up with proof of your claims so people can examine your conclusions.


  3. Matt says:

    The big one is that dinosaurs and humans co-existed when there is zero evidence of that at all. None.

    But others have already looked through AiG’s site and arguments and ripped them to shreds. Enjoy.

    Even Christian groups have jumped in and laughed at the absurdity of AiG:


  4. Matt says:

    (Kindly check your spam filter, I made a post with several links but the spam filter seems to have not let it go through)


  5. Tom says:


    I cleared your post from the spam filter. I think that by default any comment with two or more links is assumed to be spam and then I have to mark it as “not spam”. I may consider raising the number of links it looks at to determine spam.


  6. Tom says:


    Thank you for the links. I have begun to look at them. I chose to look at Answers in Creation first for no particular reason other than the name seemed interesting. I was interested in seeing who the Christians were who were laughing at AIG. On the about page in this web site they say: “It began in January 2003. The site is quickly becoming known as a resource to the old-earth believer. Although AIC is mainly a Progressive Creationist website, all old-earth viewpoints are represented. Therefore, you may see differing views of old-earth belief represented. Answers In Creation is operated by one full time person, with the help of volunteers who submit articles and answer emails.”

    So this is the view of ONE Christian. Now I know that there are some Christians who are “old earth” believers. That is their right to believe what they want. I just hope though that these believers are not putting science above God. I would also urge you not to take the position of one, or of a small group, Christian, or Christians, and assume that they represent the majority.

    I will move to the other links as I get the time.


  7. Jon says:

    From the AiG “statement of faith” right on their website:

    No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

    So what was that about creationists and scientists having the same facts?


  8. Tom says:


    The quote you posted from the AIG Statement of Faith says nothing about the facts. It is a presupposition. In any situation/scenario/discussion there is only one set of “facts”. The differences arise because of the different presuppositions that individuals bring to the examination of the facts. This statement establishes the lens through which all the evidence will be examined by the people at AIG. ALL believers should view everything through the lens of what the Bible says.


  9. Jon says:

    Tom, you’re just playing with words here.

    When AiG asserts that anything contradictory to scripture can’t by definition be true, they’re not interpreting facts, they’re ignoring them. Therefore the set of facts scientists use differs fundamentally from the set of facts creationists use.


  10. Tom says:


    I am not playing with words. I am simply pointing out that we all come to the facts that we are examining with some presuppositions. We all have some presuppositions and they influence our understanding of the facts. For most Christians the inerrancy of the Word of God is our primary presupposition. As such anything that is not in line with Scriptures must by definition be false. This is not ignoring the facts, it is filtering them. Thus both have the same set of facts – because there is only one set of facts.


  11. Jon says:

    If you consider a fact false, you don’t consider it a fact. Therefore your facts are different.

    It’s not that complicated.


  12. Tom says:

    A fact cannot be false by definition. The facts are not in question, it is the way we come to the facts that is in question. And I agree, it is not that complicated.


  13. Jon says:

    From your penultimate response:

    As such anything that is not in line with Scriptures must by definition be false.

    From your last response:

    A fact cannot be false by definition.

    Need we continue?


  14. Matt says:

    You’re playing with semantics.
    Replace ‘facts’ with ‘evidence’ then.

    The nature of science and the scientific method is neutral. It comes to no conclusions before evidence is examined. Then the initial conclusions are peer reviewed and so on. That’s proper and logical.

    Whereas the apparent alternative, used by AiG, is to come up with a conclusion first and then look for evidence to support it. Which is logically absurd and is in no way a proper way to defend/support a any sort of argument. It certainly is not a neutral method.


  15. Tom says:


    I agree that the “nature of science and the scientific method is neutral” but the nature of scientists is not neutral no matter how hard they try to be. Everyone has a bias or presupposition.

    My guess is that the people at AIG would not agree with you that they come up with the conclusion first. I would also assume that the people at AIG will quickly tell you that they are not neutral. If neutrality is required for the scientific method then no human would qualify.


  16. Tom says:


    There is no contradiction in what I said but you see it as though there is. So be it. Obviously we are never going to agree. Your presuppositions bring you to one conclusion when examining the facts and my presuppositions bring me to a different conclusion when examining the same facts.

    I wish you well and hope that Jesus will do a miracle in your life sometime.


  17. Jon says:


    The real source of the argument here is your use of “interpreting facts”.

    That phrase is a creationist political invention. No scientist I’ve ever seen uses it, at least not in the sense creationists do. Unlike creationists, when scientists “interpret facts”, they actually USE all of the facts. Creationists, as I’ve said, IGNORE facts, and actively. Therefore their interpretation is fundamentally flawed from the get go; they’re missing information! This is why scientists pay no heed to creationist ideas. They’re actively engaged in selecting the facts that agree with their ideas, and ignoring the ones that do not.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: