Re: The nature of evidence

>From: John W Burgeson <jwburgeson@juno.com>

> 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?

OK, so when symptoms of a serious illness send you to the hospital for an
MRI, how do you plan to have the evidential data interpreted? By a competent
and scientifically trained physician, or by Ken Ham using his biblical
framework?

hvt
Received on Sat Dec 13 16:34:48 2003