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]

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]

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?

 

[McBell]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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?

 

[waitasec]

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.

:biglaugh:
yeah and they had access to satellites to inform them it was a global flood...
:areyoucra

 

[Man of Faith]

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?

I'll let the scientists debate about the details. It shouldn't come as a surprise that creation scientists support irreducible complexity and evolution scientists don’t. It also shouldn’t come as a surprise that the religious support what the leaders say. The Catholic’s official position is “to just trust science” and that their faith is compatible with religion, when in fact the Bible is grossly incompatible with it. However I notice that a large majority of Catholics do support evolution because of the church’s official position.

Miller has the same presuppositions in that article that all evolutionists do, that evolution happened now let’s figure out how. You should ask Behe to discuss the article, not me.

 

[Man of Faith]

:biglaugh:
yeah and they had access to satellites to inform them it was a global flood...
:areyoucra

Or it was passed down through oral tradition from the original tribes that were created after the global flood.

 

[Man of Faith]

But you need for geology to back up the stories.

Do you want to trade links? If I post a link about how geology shows a global flood, more than likely you will post a link in refute to it. That’s fine but that gets boring after a while. How one views the evidence is based on presuppositions. Like I said before Google can give you plenty of links to flood geology. You should be able to debate yourself on it. Post a link on flood geology from creationists, then refute it with another link from evolutionist. I’ll watch the debate in fascination. :clap

 

[waitasec]

Or it was passed down through oral tradition from the original tribes that were created after the global flood.

the point is....there was no way to confirm a world wide flood ever occurred since the internet and smart phones were down in the bronze age

 

[Matthew78]

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.

Darwin's theories of evolution incorporate uniformitarianism-sure. Naturalism, as in the belief that the physical world is all that there is and everything has a natural cause? If that's what you mean- I defy you to prove this.

You realize that even some Christians accept Darwinian evolution and they're not philosophical naturalists, right?

 

[Matthew78]

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.

This is scientific evidence?

Has it ever occurred to you that the reason why flood stories might be widespread around the world is that human civilizations flourished among water bodies such as river deltas and that these water bodies flooded on occasion? I can think of how Egypt emerged, as a civilization, precisely because it flourished for some time being that the Nile River ran through it and the Nile Delta made the land rich for farming. If there are flood stories around the world, then I strongly suspect that this would be the most natural explanation as to why.

 

[Krok]

I'll let the scientists debate about the details.

Great! I'm a scientist (a geologist), so I'm one of those scientists who can and do debate geology.

In my lifetime I've debated lots of things relating to rocks with other geologists (they're scientists!), but not even one of them has ever hinted that their research indicate that the Cape Supergroup was deposited in a global flood less than 10 000 years ago. In fact, all the evidence, every single bit (we use rocks in geology), indicate that it was deposited by lots of various methods between around 320 and around 500 million years ago. Some quick. Some slow. Some in lakes. Some in rivers. Some on beaches. Some in the sea. Some by wind. Some by water. Some by volcanic action. That's fact. Some minor details being debated aree: was the Witteberg Group deposited between 320 to 350 million years ago or 325 to 350 million years ago (you get my drift). There's heated debate about that one!

 

[Krok]

Do you want to trade links?

I'll give you scientific links. You'll give religious links.

If I post a link about how geology shows a global flood, more than likely you will post a link in refute to it.

Could you provide one scientific link?

That’s fine but that gets boring after a while. How one views the evidence is based on presuppositions.

Stop telling untruths. Science is based on empirical, verifiable evidence. Nothing else.

Like I said before Google can give you plenty of links to flood geology.

Not even one scientific link on "flood geology". Just religious ones.

You should be able to debate yourself on it. Post a link on flood geology from creationists, then refute it with another link from evolutionist. I’ll watch the debate in fascination. :clap

This was sorted more than 160 years ago. There was no global flood. There's no debate about it in scientific circles. Jhe "debate" is a figment of fundamentalist religious imaginations. And all they do is to tell untruths in those religious links.

 

[Krok]

I'll let the scientists debate about the details.

Earth to Man-of-Faith: there's no debate about it in scientific circles. More than 99.99% of relevant scientists accepted the theory. The few who don't, do it on religious grounds. And what's more, they refuse to publish in scientific journals, where their viewpoints can be discussed by their peers. Not science.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that creation scientists support irreducible complexity and evolution scientists don’t.

The fewer than 0.01% of relevant scientists who call themselves "creation scientists" have never even produced one little piece of evidence for their beliefs. Just quotes from their favourite holy books. That's why it is rejected by the other more than 99.99% of biologists.

It also shouldn’t come as a surprise that the religious support what the leaders say. The Catholic’s official position is “to just trust science” and that their faith is compatible with religion, when in fact the Bible is grossly incompatible with it. However I notice that a large majority of Catholics do support evolution because of the church’s official position.

Any evidence for this, or is it what you want to believe? Are you making it up?
In the end, it doesn't matter what lay people say about science. It's what the scientific method says about science that matters.

Miller has the same presuppositions in that article that all evolutionists do, that evolution happened now let’s figure out how.

Evolution happens. It's fact. Every single bit of empirical, verifiable evidence we have confirms the fact. You denying it won't change it. Wishful thinking won't change it. It just shows that you are deluded.

You should ask Behe to discuss the article, not me.

The same Behe that testified in court that astrology is "science"? He's a liar. Why would anyone trust what he says?