Presuppositionalism

[Agnostic75]

Many Christian inerrantists, or biblical literalists, have accused non-Christians of presuppositionalism. I find that to be quite odd since if inerrancy, and bibilical literalism, are anything, they are presuppositionism. The late Henry Morris, Ph.d., Institute for Creation Research, was an inerrantist. He once said that “the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God’s word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.” (Henry Morris, ‘Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science,’ 1970, p. 32-33.)

In other words, Morris only used science when he believed that it agreed with his Bible-based presuppositions.

It is important to note that many non-Christians used to be Christians, and originally presupposed that the Bible is true.

It is also important to note that many current Christians who accept theistic evolution, who believe that a global flood did not occur, and who believe that the earth is old, originally presupposed that creationism is true, that a global flood did occur, and that the earth is young, and changed their minds.

[Matthew78]

Originally Posted by Agnostic75

Many Christian inerrantists, or biblical literalists, have accused non-Christians of presuppositionalism. I find that to be quite odd since if inerrancy, and bibilical literalism, are anything, they are presuppositionism. The late Henry Morris, Ph.d., Institute for Creation Research, was an inerrantist. He once said that “the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God’s word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.” (Henry Morris, ‘Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science,’ 1970, p. 32-33.)

In other words, Morris only used science when he believed that it agreed with his Bible-based presuppositions.

It is important to note that many non-Christians used to be Christians, and originally presupposed that the Bible is true.

It is also important to note that many current Christians who accept theistic evolution, who believe that a global flood did not occur, and who believe that the earth is old, originally presupposed that creationism is true, that a global flood did occur, and that the earth is young, and changed their minds.

The statement from Morris that I underlined shows that he was a spin-doctor for creationism. IIRC, he also wrote a small article in which he asked Christians if they were going to allow science to interpet the Bible or the Bible to interpet science. It didn't occur to me what he was saying but years later, I realized that he was suggesting that the Bible was to interpet science and Christians were not allowed to conclude that the Bible and science contradicted each other or that they could.

In short, Morris encouraged Christians to be intellectually dishonest. If the Bible seems to contradict science, it is always science that is wrong!

[Man of Faith]

I have no problem with the OP. I admit that I do use the presuppositions that the Bible is the history of man and catastrophism. I have a problem with evolutionists that don’t admit it, or don’t know that Darwinism is built on presuppositions. The main two being naturalism and uniformitarianism.

[Agnostic75]

Originally Posted by Man of Faith

I have no problem with the OP. I admit that I do use the presuppositions that the Bible is the history of man and catastrophism. I have a problem with evolutionists that don’t admit it, or don’t know that Darwinism is built on presuppositions. The main two being naturalism and uniformitarianism.

If a global flood occurred, would there be current scientific evidence that shows that it occurred? If so, what is the evidence?

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Agnostic75

If a global flood occurred, would there be current scientific evidence that shows that it occurred? If so, what is the evidence?

Are you implying that since everyone presupposes things, science is useless regarding studying whether or not a global flood probably occurred, and that all that people should debate is biblical inerrancy, and forget about science?

I suspect that he is trying to reduce science to nothing more than mere faith so as to be on the same level as his beliefs.

[cablescavenger]

Originally Posted by Man of Faith

I have no problem with the OP. I admit that I do use the presuppositions that the Bible is the history of man and catastrophism. I have a problem with evolutionists that don’t admit it, or don’t know that Darwinism is built on presuppositions. The main two being naturalism and uniformitarianism.

Doh! That will be me then. I wasn't exposed to catastrophism and anti Darwinism at school, but I will be sure to look it up!

[waitasec]

Originally Posted by Man of Faith

I have no problem with the OP. I admit that I do use the presuppositions that the Bible is the history of man and catastrophism. I have a problem with evolutionists that don’t admit it, or don’t know that Darwinism is built on presuppositions. The main two being naturalism and uniformitarianism.

there you go again...

[Man of Faith]

Originally Posted by Agnostic75

If a global flood occurred, would there be current scientific evidence that shows that it occurred? If so, what is the evidence?

There is evidence of a global flood. It's at your fingertips if you want to look. Sometimes I wonder if peoples Google works. Over 350 cultures around the world have a great flood story and 80% of the stories have commonalities.

[Agnostic75]

Originally Posted by Man of Faith

There is evidence of a global flood. It's at your fingertips if you want to look.

Please quote some of your favorite evidence regarding how the sorting of fossils and sediments indicates that a global flood occurred. Geology, physics, and biology are often complex sciences.

Do you really know enough about those sciences to claim that there is sufficient scientific evidence that a global flood occurred, that the earth is young, and that creationism is true? I assume that most inerrantists do not know a lot about geology, and physics, and biology.

Don't you believe that it is reasonable for a person to be a biblical inerrantist even if they know very little about science?

Originally Posted by Man of Faith

Over 350 cultures around the world have a great flood story and 80% of the stories have commonilities.

But you need for geology to back up the stories.

Who wrote the stories? According to your beliefs, the stories could only have been written by people who were on Noah's ark, and/or their descendants since the flood killed everyone else in the world. Do you know of any non-Abrahamic religious documents that mention Noah, and the mountains of Ararat? I am not aware of any.

If all flood stories were written by people who were on Noah's ark, and/or their descendants, there would probably be far more commonalities in the flood stories than there are. A very detailed list of global flood stories is at Flood Stories from Around the World. The great differences among them are much more obvious than the similarities.

It is important to note that many of the flood myths might have been written as deliberate fiction.

Research has shown that women, and people who have less education, and people who have lower incomes, tend to accept creationism more than other groups of people do. How do you account for that? Why do those groups of people tend to presuppose that creationism is true?

[Agnostic75]

Message to Man of Faith: Dr. Ken Miller, Ph.D., biology, is an expert on evolution, and he is a devout Roman Catholic. He has an article on the evolution of the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun. If Miller is guilty of presuppositionalism, what did he presuppose regarding his article on the evolution of the flagellum? What is wrong with the article?