Evolution vs creation as the origin of life... The classic battle between good and evil. This post is not about the debate itself, but rather the mindset of each side and HOW they debate.
The fascinating point is that both sides see the exact same evidence. Both sides evaluate the exact same evidence. The battle is not about "evidence" at all... It is about interpretation!
The evolutionist looks at layers of sedimentary rock and sees evidence for millions of years of slow deposits.
The creationist looks at the same sedimentary rock layers and sees a catastrophic world wide flood depositing materials in a year that buried every living thing and formed rock. Creationism must be true!
Same rock... Same evidence.
This is true for every piece of evidence that exists. Both sides interpret the fact of present evidence as supporting their version truth. That is why this will never be solved through science. Each side will see the evidence as proof of their proposal. Since the past can never be tested in the present nor future... It can not be solved through science. Science itself, by definition, can never prove what did happen, only what can happen. The scientific method is based in testing, testing can only prove possibilities. But just because something "could have happened" does not mean it "did" in the same way that just because something "can happen " does not prove that it "will ". Just add science can not predict the future, it can not prove the past.
Now true, if science understands all of the variables at play in a scenerio, all of the aspects of a natural law, then predictions can be made confidently in that scenerio. This works both forward and future. But wait... How do we know that all variables have been accounted for? Only because both "it makes sense in light of presently testable experiments" and time had shown the predictions come true.! Time... Going forward. You can't then go back in time the same way unless you know the past conditions. There are assumptions here based on Uniformitarism.... The assumption that what is, always was.
So to go back in time and build models to explain why something happened or how... Requires a huge assumption, that conditions have always been the same.
Herein is the rub... The Bible clearly states that conditions have changed dramatically. People used to live a thousand years. Before that people could live forever, here in earth. Things were different then.! The creationist assumes this to be correct and interprets the evidence seem today in light of the described changes. The evolutionist, because he purposely seems to ignore and discount biblical teachings, assumes the bible history is false and that things were always as they are.
Two different foundations upon which to interpret the same evidence, two different sets of assumptions, brings two different conclusions.
So bottom line? Science can't solve this one, because of the nature is science based on testing in the present and the assumption that works today worked in the past, because nothing ever changes. Science seeks to build a story based on the assumption that there is no god. Based on an assumption.... Not fact.
It is the mindset of the interpreter that determines the conclusion reached on the evidence. Same evidence, two conclusions. The assumptions made before interpretation that determine the outcome.
If one assumes that there is a god, that a global flood happened, and that the history left to us is correct, all of the evidence we see today fits. All of it.
If one assumes that there is no God, that no world changing flood happened, and the bible is myth, most of the evidence fits evolutionary theory. Most, but not all. Holes are left that can not be explained.
But... The same evidence is used as proof in both cases.
Posted via Blogaway
