I want AIG creationists on my jury!

good analogy

Ken Ham has stated this approach in several of his videos. He refers to it as "putting on your Bible glasses." You start with the Bible and fit everything to it.

The other "luminary" who has said exactly the same thing?

None other than Dr. Dr. William Dembski!

How amazing.

Ahem...

"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23

U.S. justice system be damned, the presupposition of the Creationist is that you are a filthy, rotten sinner, and you did it.

HP said: Ahem... "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23 U.S. justice system be damned, the presupposition of the Creationist is that you are a filthy, rotten sinner, and you did it.

Creationists start with the authority of the Word of God and evolutionists start with the authority of human reasoning. If we as creationists agree to “leave the Bible out of it,” then we are starting with the same presuppositions as the evolutionists and will not be effective.

you are a filthy, rotten sinner, and you did it.

Do we know about legal systems that work that way?

And it follows from that view that no Christian should ever be acquitted, hm?

Slightly off-topic. I have been wading through a bunch of YEC gobbledy-gook lately trying to learn the faulty geologic arguments (particularly the Hovind-isms discussed in the Talk Origins archive) and the corresponding realities.** I noticed that a lot of the creationist claims get published in their own "journal(s)."

It got me to wondering what would happen if one of us actual scientists synthesized a research paper that illustrates clear evidence that has long-ago debunked arguments that support one of the "presuppositions" and submitted it to a creationist journal. Obviously it would be rejected, but then wouldn't it be fun to take the "Expelled" approach and cry, "foul!" and try to get all sorts of media attention for it? On the other hand, maybe it would be a waste of time...

**The most entertaining thing about these is that there are several different ages given depending on whatever claim is being made. I was surprised to see that dates on the order of 20 million years could still qualify as "Young Earth" despite the fact that this would run considerably afoul of the "inerrant" stories in Genesis.

It seems to me that the only person who would take such a position is someone who knows full well that all of the evidence is against him. Maybe that is why creationists steadfaastly refuse to search for any evidence or even examine any evidence that anyone else has found.

Of course this is the absolute opposite of real science. Anyone who claims that scientists interpret the evidence according to their presuppositions has obviously never actually done science. The entire enterprise is really just a concerted effort to overcome presuppositions, biases and prejudice. If one fails in that effort then one will be firmly corrected. That is the real reason why creationists never publish in real scientific journals.

KP said: debunked arguments that support one of the "presuppositions" and submitted it to a creationist journal. Obviously it would be rejected, but then wouldn't it be

Presuppositionalism is the creation science of epistemology

stevaroni said: Sadly, a review of my old pictures reveals that I didn't do nearly enough sinning back in the day.

I understand the legal application, and it sounds good to me - if I'm presupposed incapable of shooting anyone, and therefore all evidence must be interpreted in this light (and as creationists have demonstrated, if it cannot possibly be interpreted that way it simply doesn't exist), there are a few people I'd be inclined to shoot.

What amuses me is, creationists not only assume their religious conclusions, they simply cannot conceive of arriving at conclusions impacting their religion any other way. So the evidence is only consistent with some incongenial explanation? It can ONLY be because some unbeliever forced the evidence to fit a wrong presupposition.

And in fact, I've seen the argument made (against science) that if you do NOT know the "right" answer before you start, how can you ever be absolutely sure the evidence you've found is pointing you in the right direction? You might actually be in error! The reply that science is frequently in error, and additional evidence is constantly honing scientific theory, is regarded as admission of weakness. You ADMIT that you might be wrong? Believers never need to do that, becuase it can't happen. Presuppositioons prevent this. (But note that where scientific investigation doesn't threaten their faith, the notion of being more nearly correct the more you learn poses no problems)

Equally amusing is how tightly compartmentalized this is in the creationist mind. They use logical inference from available evidence every waking moment of their lives, and wouldn't be able to function at all otherwise. Some of them (engineers I've worked with) apply truly rigorous application of inference to evidence, demanding that even speculation about what's going on be based on available evidence and underlying knowledge, contradicting none of it. Yet mention their faith, and all these lifelong thought habits vanish with chilling totality. Suddenly, the evidence means what it MUST mean, no matter how obviously it does not.

So RBH has, in my opinion, generalized a bit too much. These folks use presupposition to arrive at only religious conclusions. Where their faith is not threatened, they're no less capable of understanding or reasoning from evidence as anyone else. I often think creationists harbor a deep unarticulated suspicion that evidence is profoundly dangerous to their faith; it simply must be neutralized. Which isn't very hard when the need is so urgent.

They have a presupposition that there is no supernatural intervention of any kind. We have a presupposition that there is supernatural intervention in the past, not in the present.

I've always wanted to ask with Ken Ham: Imagine if a meteor struck, say, in central New Jersey, and within a week, within a mile radius from the strike, suddenly there were thousands of new species of animals, plants, insects, creatures different from anything seen before. It's clearly from the meteor impact, and it's all verified by real biologists. We evolutionists would be forced -- FORCED -- to reevaluate what caused the appearance of new species throughout history. Tell me, Ken, ONE event that would force you to evaluate your "presupposition".

HP said: Ahem... "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23 U.S. justice system be damned, the presupposition of the Creationist is that you are a filthy, rotten sinner, and you did it.

creationists start with the authority of the Word of God and evolutionists start with the authority of human reasoning....We are forensically interpreting the data based on our presupposition. The evolutionists do the same thing.

Isn't that the way people naturally learn? They look at any evidence presented to them, accept or reject what supports their presuppositions, and move forward ever strongly in their beliefs since they now have additional support for their beliefs. It doesn't matter that there might be evidence to the contrary since it doesn't fit into their world view.

PT in January wrote about Wise the creationist:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/01/honest-creation.html

This is exactly what you're talking about, isn't it? It is a clash of world views, and if the general public overwhelmingly believes in a flat earth, then the earth is indeed flat and that's what will be taught. We might not come to that, yet this continual struggle of world views will never end.

Sadly, a review of my old pictures reveals that I didn't do nearly enough sinning back in the day.

I would hope so. Jury selection is exactly what you are talking about. Each side get to question the jurists and attempt to cull out people who will interpret the facts from the innocent or guilty perspective. But make no mistake about it...a side WILL be chosen, because the person believes there is only one reality. But the juries verdict doesn't change reality either.

Even if evidences depend on theories they do not necessarily depend on the theories being tested or checked. Scientists can rely on theories accepted by both sides of the dispute.
Both he proponents of the theory of phlogiston and the proponents of the theory of oxygen, for example, agreed on one fact: there was an increase in mass during calcination. They accepted the theory that a balance measures mass. Creationists accept many laws of physics. So these laws can be used as evidence to support the radioactive dating to the age of the Earth, for just one example.
Finally, it is important to say that even if a scientist accept “supranatural explanations”, the problem is that these explanations do not have predictive power. It doesn’t help to say "The plane flies because God wants." Maybe, that’s true, but that’s not sufficient: we must discover the physical laws to build airplanes so that they can fly.

stevaroni said:

Creationists start with the authority of the Word of God and evolutionists start with the authority of human reasoning. If we as creationists agree to “leave the Bible out of it,” then we are starting with the same presuppositions as the evolutionists and will not be effective.

Hmmm. Wikipedia lists 59 major "flavors" creation stories. That apparently means that you could put 59 creationists, who all start with basically the same "presupposition", that God Did It, in one room and still get 59 different, distinct, answers, mutually exclusive to the point of hostility, possibly war. Meanwhile, if you were to assemble 59 individuals from all different countries and cultures, who has somehow never heard of evolution but were united in skepticism and the inclination to demand physical evidence, and present the objective case for evolution and the "case" for the 59 creation myths, I guarantee that you'd end up with 59 people picking the same thing. Oh wait - that experiment has already been run, with basically the entire scientific establishment of the world in the last quarter of the 19th century, all those men and women, all those disparate countries and cultures, converging on one answer. Go figger.

Now, the presupposition of the U.S. justice system is (purportedly) that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But if we adopt the AIG/ICR philosophical/apologetic position regarding presuppositions, no amount of evidence that seems to support guilt can alter the presumption of innocence. Hence if I’m ever charged with a crime, I want AIG creationists on the jury: I’m guaranteed an acquittal, because, you see, evidence doesn’t count in evaluating presuppositions! And doing CSI becomes infinitely easier: Decide who’s guilty beforehand and simply interpret the evidence appropriately.

— Richard B. Hoppe

Frank J said: While ID is just as bad as science and theology as YEC (and the ~58 other brands of creationism), it is far slicker as a strategy. Because it takes no position on the designer's identity...

So, if my faith says 'Every Villian Is Lemons' - EVIL - and you push a bit of zinc and a bit of copper into a lemon, and it lights a bulb, I just shrug and say "Nope. Not possible."

Or do I say "It's a trick from the Fruit Demon".

Or do I say "Your bias just makes you THINK the bulb is being lit".

Or do I say "We should teach about both electrodes AND the EVIL Fruit Demon, and let young kids decide."

Or do I say "....?

Something worth bearing in mind is that, if events had occurred as described in the bible, then the evidence objectively considered would be consistent with the bible, and scientists, historians and biblical literalists would all agree. This presuppositionalism is in itself an admission of defeat; you can only see things as consistent with text X by insisting that text X is true, and anyone who doesn't start with text X will never come to your conclusion.

Intelligent design creationism takes no official / open / public position on the designer’s identity… But everybody knows Who they really mean [wink wink nudge nudge]. Particularly when they are talking to (or soliciting money from) True Believers™.

— Paul Burnett

Something worth bearing in mind is that, if events had occurred as described in the bible, then the evidence objectively considered would be consistent with the bible, and scientists, historians and biblical literalists would all agree.

— Stephen Wells

For my sins I’m on the Answers in Genesis mailing list

I tried to help him see that neutral ground does not exist because both sides have presuppositions–creationists start with the authority of the Word of God and evolutionists start with the authority of human reasoning. If we as creationists agree to “leave the Bible out of it,” then we are starting with the same presuppositions as the evolutionists and will not be effective.

If she denies human reasoning is one of God's gifts, one that gave us, oh, stuff like indoor plumbing, electricity, medicine, computers, and the like, maybe she should be hanging with William S. Burroughs and the "exterminate all rational thought" crowd.

This would make a good storyline for one of the CSI shows !

— Peter Henderson

fnxtr said: If she denies human reasoning is one of God's gifts, one that gave us, oh, stuff like indoor plumbing, electricity, medicine, computers, and the like, maybe she should be hanging with William S. Burroughs and the "exterminate all rational thought" crowd.

J. L. Brown said:

fnxtr said: If she denies human reasoning is one of God's gifts, one that gave us, oh, stuff like indoor plumbing, electricity, medicine, computers, and the like, maybe she should be hanging with William S. Burroughs and the "exterminate all rational thought" crowd.

Um.. actually this is one bit of Abrahamic myth that I sort of like: Reason was NOT a gift from YHWH--we stole it. It's the old Prometheus story all over again, but we didn't need a divine hero to rescue us from ignorance. Instead, we rebelled on our own, defied even the deities who would have kept knowledge & reason from us. Humanity suffers as a result, but muddles along on it's own strengths; I think we are doing rather well. If some deity wants worship now, then (before we even consider coming to the table) it can bloody well reverse the curses placed on Adam & Eve. And the gods had best hurry, because we are well an our way to doing away with those curses all on our own.

J. L. Brown said:

fnxtr said: If she denies human reasoning is one of God's gifts, one that gave us, oh, stuff like indoor plumbing, electricity, medicine, computers, and the like, maybe she should be hanging with William S. Burroughs and the "exterminate all rational thought" crowd.

Um.. actually this is one bit of Abrahamic myth that I sort of like: Reason was NOT a gift from YHWH--we stole it. It's the old Prometheus story all over again, but we didn't need a divine hero to rescue us from ignorance. Instead, we rebelled on our own, defied even the deities who would have kept knowledge & reason from us. Humanity suffers as a result, but muddles along on it's own strengths; I think we are doing rather well. If some deity wants worship now, then (before we even consider coming to the table) it can bloody well reverse the curses placed on Adam & Eve. And the gods had best hurry, because we are well an our way to doing away with those curses all on our own.

Fair enough.

Then "human reason" is from the Evil One, and we should still be waiting for lightning to strike in order to have fire to keep the wolves away.

The bottom line is that in order to go along with the creationist three wheeled wagon...inquiry, investigation, logic and evidence has to be completely ignored.
You start by assuming god and you end by 'proving' god.

This has been admitted by almost every mouth piece for Creationism in living memory.

Methinks that must be the chink in their dubious armor of belief.
If every debate begun with that qualifier then the premise is their millstone...they will drown...but probably not quick enough!

PZ Myers On Presuppositions

I once was asked by a creationist what my presuppositions were. I knew I probably had some, but I could not put them into words. I now use the following from PZ Myers when asked what my presuppositions are:

"It's true, I do have some presuppositions. I think that explanations should deal with as much of the evidence as possible; they should avoid contradictions, both internal and with the evidence from the physical world; they should be logical; they should make predictions that can be tested; they should have some utility in addressing new evidence."

From http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/false_equivalence.php

One of the most direct statements on presuppositions from Answers in Genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/forward.asp. Most moderate Christians do not agree that what follows is science. I use this text to refute creationists who claim their beliefs are based on evidence.

"The authority of the Bible is the main emphasis of Answers in Genesis. We don’t try to ‘prove’ the Bible with science; rather, we accept the Bible’s propositions as true without proof, i.e. as axioms or presuppositions.

All philosophical systems, not just Christianity, start with axioms. There are good reasons for accepting the axioms of Scripture as true, because it can be shown that they lead to a consistent view of physical and moral reality, which other axioms can’t provide.

Genesis contains a number of Hebrew grammatical features that show it was intended to teach a straightforward history of the world from its creation. Genesis, backed up by the rest of Scripture, unambiguously teaches that:2

The heavens, Earth and everything in them were created in six consecutive normal days, the same as those of our working week (Exodus 20:8–11).

Earth is about 6,000 years old, since Jesus said mankind was there from the ‘beginning of creation’, not billions of years later (Mark 10:6).

Adam sinned and brought physical death to mankind (Romans 5:12–19; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22).

Since man was the federal head of creation, the whole creation was cursed (Romans 8:20–22), which included death to animals, with the end of the original vegetarian diet for both humans and animals (Genesis 1:29–30).

God judged the world by a globe-covering Flood, which Jesus and Peter compared with the coming Judgment (Luke 17:26–27; 2 Peter 3:3–7). This destroyed all land vertebrate animals and people not on the ocean-liner-sized Ark.

God then judged the people by confusing their language at Babel—after they had refused to spread out and repopulate the Earth after the Flood.

Using this framework
It’s important to realize that all ‘facts’ of science do not speak for themselves, but are interpreted within a framework.

Evolutionists start with the axiom of naturalism or materialism, i.e. God (if He even exists) performed no miraculous acts of creation.

Biblical creationists interpret the same facts and observations, but within the framework outlined above."

Edwin Hensley said: One of the most direct statements on presuppositions from Answers in Genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/forward.asp. Most moderate Christians do not agree that what follows is science. I use this text to refute creationists who claim their beliefs are based on evidence. "The authority of the Bible is the main emphasis of Answers in Genesis. We don’t try to ‘prove’ the Bible with science; rather, we accept the Bible’s propositions as true without proof, i.e. as axioms or presuppositions. All philosophical systems, not just Christianity, start with axioms. There are good reasons for accepting the axioms of Scripture as true, because it can be shown that they lead to a consistent view of physical and moral reality, which other axioms can’t provide. Genesis contains a number of Hebrew grammatical features that show it was intended to teach a straightforward history of the world from its creation. Genesis, backed up by the rest of Scripture, unambiguously teaches that:2 The heavens, Earth and everything in them were created in six consecutive normal days, the same as those of our working week (Exodus 20:8–11). Earth is about 6,000 years old, since Jesus said mankind was there from the ‘beginning of creation’, not billions of years later (Mark 10:6). Adam sinned and brought physical death to mankind (Romans 5:12–19; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22). Since man was the federal head of creation, the whole creation was cursed (Romans 8:20–22), which included death to animals, with the end of the original vegetarian diet for both humans and animals (Genesis 1:29–30). God judged the world by a globe-covering Flood, which Jesus and Peter compared with the coming Judgment (Luke 17:26–27; 2 Peter 3:3–7). This destroyed all land vertebrate animals and people not on the ocean-liner-sized Ark. God then judged the people by confusing their language at Babel—after they had refused to spread out and repopulate the Earth after the Flood. Using this framework It’s important to realize that all ‘facts’ of science do not speak for themselves, but are interpreted within a framework. Evolutionists start with the axiom of naturalism or materialism, i.e. God (if He even exists) performed no miraculous acts of creation. Biblical creationists interpret the same facts and observations, but within the framework outlined above."

AiG said: God then judged the people by confusing their language at Babel—after they had refused to spread out and repopulate the Earth after the Flood.

Evolutionists start with the axiom of naturalism or materialism, i.e. God (if He even exists) performed no miraculous acts of creation.

Edwin Hensley said: One of the most direct statements on presuppositions from Answers in Genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/forward.asp. Most moderate Christians do not agree that what follows is science. I use this text to refute creationists who claim their beliefs are based on evidence. "The authority of the Bible is the main emphasis of Answers in Genesis. We don’t try to ‘prove’ the Bible with science; rather, we accept the Bible’s propositions as true without proof, i.e. as axioms or presuppositions. All philosophical systems, not just Christianity, start with axioms. There are good reasons for accepting the axioms of Scripture as true, because it can be shown that they lead to a consistent view of physical and moral reality, which other axioms can’t provide. Using this framework It’s important to realize that all ‘facts’ of science do not speak for themselves, but are interpreted within a framework. Evolutionists start with the axiom of naturalism or materialism, i.e. God (if He even exists) performed no miraculous acts of creation. Biblical creationists interpret the same facts and observations, but within the framework outlined above."

I tried to help him see that neutral ground does not exist because both sides have presuppositions–creationists start with the authority of the Word of God and evolutionists start with the authority of human reasoning. If we as creationists agree to “leave the Bible out of it,” then we are starting with the same presuppositions as the evolutionists and will not be effective.

WRT the original post, it seems reasonable to conclude that most of O.J. Simpson's original jury were creationists. Once you have established the "presupposition" that "racist" police had tampered with the evidence, then no possible evidence to the contrary could possible change that presupposition, since all evidence fits with the presupposition that "all evidence to the contrary is falsified".

it seems reasonable to conclude that most of O.J. Simpson’s original jury were creationists. Once you have established the “presupposition” that “racist” police had tampered with the evidence, then no possible evidence to the contrary could possible change that presuppositio

stevaroni said: If you're honest creationist, you have to admit that things like radiocarbon dating certainly seem to falsify the assumption that the earth is only 600 years old, the total lack of geological evidence certainly seems falsify the assumption of the global flood, and the giant pile of odd, ancient bones which have been inconveniently streaming out of the earth for the last few centuries certainly seem to falsify the assumption that the biosphere was magically created in its present state sometime in the middle of the bronze age.

Edwin Hensley said: Since man was the federal head of creation, the whole creation was cursed (Romans 8:20–22), which included death to animals, with the end of the original vegetarian diet for both humans and animals (Genesis 1:29–30).

Edwin Hensley said: PZ Myers On Presuppositions I once was asked by a creationist what my presuppositions were. I knew I probably had some, but I could not put them into words. I now use the following from PZ Myers when asked what my presuppositions are: "It's true, I do have some presuppositions. I think that explanations should deal with as much of the evidence as possible; they should avoid contradictions, both internal and with the evidence from the physical world; they should be logical; they should make predictions that can be tested; they should have some utility in addressing new evidence." From http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/false_equivalence.php

Creationists have a much easier job than us from a rhetorical perspective.

— chuck

Note, by "paraphrase" I don't mean that Pope John Paul II was describing the antics of creationists. Rather his famous 1996 statement on evolution clearly shows that he was impressed at how the evidence for evolution produced "convergence, neither sought nor fabricated." Intentional or not, to me it's the greatest dig against anti-evolution antics ever.

chuck said:

Edwin Hensley said: PZ Myers On Presuppositions I once was asked by a creationist what my presuppositions were. I knew I probably had some, but I could not put them into words. I now use the following from PZ Myers when asked what my presuppositions are: "It's true, I do have some presuppositions. I think that explanations should deal with as much of the evidence as possible; they should avoid contradictions, both internal and with the evidence from the physical world; they should be logical; they should make predictions that can be tested; they should have some utility in addressing new evidence." From http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/false_equivalence.php

I hate to break it to you, but compared to "The One True God Took Time Out Of His Busy Day To Create You And A World For You To Live In.", you might as well just say "Blah blah blah blah blah..." to most creationists. Creationists have a much easier job than us from a rhetorical perspective.

PZ wrote:

"It’s true, I do have some presuppositions. I think that explanations should deal with as much of the evidence as possible; they should avoid contradictions, both internal and with the evidence from the physical world; they should be logical; they should make predictions that can be tested; they should have some utility in addressing new evidence.”

That's good. I'm going to use that. I also have a few responses I like to give to creationists. For example, if asked what I believe I could respond:

"I believe in me. I believe that I am intelligent enough to understand at least something about how the universe works and that I am courageous enough to follow the evidence where it leads. I also believe that other humans possess the same qualities and that I can use the results of their research in order to discover some truths about reality."

If asked if I have faith I can reply:

I have faith in the scientific method. I have faith that the universe is comprehensible and that by using the scientific method some truths about the universe can be discovered. I have faith that humans can rise above their presuppositions, prejudices and misconceptions in order to more fully understand the universe.

Notice that all of this is completely separate from any belief or faith in God. As Frank pointed out, this approach has proven to be highly successful, certainly much more so than the blind faith approach, as if there were anything laudable about blind faith.

stevaroni said: Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Pentecostals and Pastafarians will all get the same number for the acceleration of gravity.

Their results are unrepeatable, and it is therefore impossible to rule out the possibility that their conclusions contain either simple application errors or systemic technique errors.

Flint said: Results? I can't quite stretch this word far enough to cover arbitrary statements of religious faith.

I would not want AiG creationists on my jury. I want people who will listen to evidence rather than their own presuppositions, even those beginning with a presupposition of my innocence. Why? Well, I know RBH’s post was a bit tongue-in-cheek...

— eric

AIG has similarly “convicted” YEC.

— I

The process - starting with the conclusion and ignoring any evidence that does not fit ...

stevaroni said: Skeptic!