Re: 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."<

Other posts have dealt well with the issue of judging between interpretations; however, this raises a couple of additional issues.

First, the advice seems rather hypocritical, as AiG, like most creation science organizations, does a poor job of accurately representing the evidence.

Secondly, the equation of young-earth with biblical must be rejected. Not that a young-earth approach cannot be biblical, but this claims that an old-earth view cannot be biblical.

    Dr. David Campbell
    Old Seashells
    University of Alabama
    Biodiversity & Systematics
    Dept. Biological Sciences
    Box 870345
    Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
    bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com

That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa

                 
Received on Mon Dec 15 13:34:46 2003