Interpreting Evidence

R. Josiah Magnuson has been invited to participate in a forum on Evolution. Here is a sample post.


"Thanks for mentioning the word "interpreted." All evidence can be (and is) interpreted differently, depending on what the fundamental axioms of those involved are.

Many Evolutionists will assert that they have no biases or presuppositions. Of course, creationists point out that Evolutionists are indeed biased to believe that the origins of everything can be explained by naturalistic means.

The kind of science which puts men on the moon or sends nanobot machinery into cells is not the same as the "science" which attempts to explain where people originated or how the universe was birthed. Here-and-now-world science was not there to observe how life began and changed through time. So unless we one day build a time machine, we will forever build origins theories on pre-existing ideas.

If this is so, how can one who wants to know what the beginning was actually find out? Can we solve the origins debate?

In order to solve the origins debate, we must test the pre-existing ideas which we have against our here-and-now-world observations. This operation science can in fact do. When we take our here-and-now-world observations and churn them through the Evolutionary presuppostion, we come up with one interpretation, and when we take our here-and-now-world observations and churn them through the creationist presupposition, we come up with another interpretation. Whichever interpretation of the evidence works best, that is the correct interpretation.

My current position is that there are a number of things which the Evolutionary presupposition has failed to explain. The LH/DH amino acid problem is just one of these.

Thanks for the discussion!


-RJM"