[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Ok, the root of the argument here appears to be not whether mutation and speciation occur but what is the First Cause of man, correct?

Yes. Finally. Someone read the phrase "evolution as it relates to the origin of man" that I posted so many times.

That being the case, I believe that the argument dies when we realize that the current evolutionary paradigm is putting the pieces of evidence together to create a theory as to the most likely cause of our current state of evolution and that the bible says "God says it happened this way."


Science deals in trends and degrees of likelihood, the *insert appropriate religious text here* says with 100% certainty it happened this way.

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.

As to how either of those is presented in a school environment, I can see where a teacher, or even the text, would gloss over the topic of evolution and just say that "scientists say that this is how it happened." That is not a failing of the scientist or the theory, but of the teacher or the publisher.

And my contention is that since ORIGINS is completely unprovable, leave it out entirely.

Again, evolution, when presented correctly, is science, and creationism, no matter how you present it, is religion.

So mote it be...

No, ORIGINS is not science. Any way you try to slice it. ORIGINS is religion, by whatever means you try to explain it.