The nature of evidence

The following text was in a recent AIG newsletter.
---------
"Many people do not really understand the nature of ‘evidence.’ They
think that to oppose evolution or disprove an old earth, one has to come
up with totally different or unique ‘evidence’ and don’t understand that
it is not a matter of ‘their evidence vs ours.’ All evidence is actually
interpreted, and all scientists actually have the same observations—the
same data—available to them in principle. If Christians really understood
that all evidence is actually interpreted on the basis of certain
presuppositions, then we wouldn’t be in the least bit intimidated by the
evolutionists’ supposed ‘evidence.’ We should instead be looking at the
evolutionist’s (or old-earther’s) interpretation of the evidence, and how
the same evidence could be interpreted within a biblical framework and be
confirmed by testable and repeatable science."
-------------
How might it best be answered?

My own take is that, while it is a true statement, a YEC interpretation
requires thousands of "ad hocs" to be consistent while conventional
science requires few or none. But I'm sure there is a better response
than that.

Burgy

www.burgy.50megs.com/change.htm (How we changed the whole world)

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
Received on Sat Dec 13 15:25:20 2003