Origins: Inevitable Presupposition

My mom and dad just went to see that new Ben Stein move ("Expelled") and Dad told me about it in an email, so I did what every good little xian daughter does when she lives in Korea and can't go see the movie yet...I looked up trailers on youtube.com.

Of course this action brought up video after video from both sides of the argument. Most of the creationist videos were from old, white haired pastors who use things like bananas and peanut butter to make their points. I read the comments people posted at the ends of them, and most of them say, "You're a pastor! You're not a scientist!" and on and on about how pastors are uninformed about observable data, and should leave God out of it. Okay, point taken. So of course you would expect the evolutionist videos to be by scientists...but oddly most of them were of teenage/college age boys in their basement with a camera, three big words they learned in philosophy class that they repeat over and over (see: "inconceivable" from The Princess Bride), and...of course that old staple "the f bomb." Always a valid point maker. Experts the lot of them. Not that they stand for all evolutionists...but...honestly, pastors don't stand for all creationists either.

Now,.....Let me move onto my real point. Everyone who likes to sound smart in these arguments likes to use the word "presupposition." As in, "Your very argument is based on your presupposition that there is a Creator, and that means God, and He has nothing to do with science." Likewise, "Your argument is based on presupposing that chaos is more intelligent than its result."

So why read on? So why bother to read anything that anyone has to say about the subject? My point is that, there is no way to avoid presupposition when it comes to things we can't/didn't observe. Like...I have to presuppose that the Sumerians invented the wheel, b/c all the history books say they did. Was I there? No. Were any of my teachers there? No. Were any of the textbook authors there? No. Then how do we know? B/c of ancient records and archaeology. That's what we have to go on. Does anyone question it or have a problem with it? No. Why should they? Valid research has gone into it. However...it could change at any second. All someone would have to do is to find an earlier wheel. Even if we had a stone that had the words "Hey, guys! I'm a Sumerian and I can tell you that we were the first!" If archaeologists found an earlier wheel...we'd have to believe the facts and not the written record.

So why believe the Bible if scientific fact proves that the Bible is wrong? Well, the Bible can be backed up by hundreds of other sources, as well as archaeology, as well as human nature, etc... Though, I guess if you don't believe the Bible, you hate that I am using the Bible's historical record to back up science. Well, it might interest you to know that nothing we have observed, tested, or discovered in science contradicts the Bible. Actually, it ends up backing it up. The only contradictions happen when we start making educated guesses that are based in evolution's presupposition that everything started from one organism that grew by itself to what we have today. But most of what evolution guesses at, the Bible already explains. Did the earth start in chaos? Yes, that's not an evolution discovery. That's in the Bible. Did everything come into being from nothing? Yes, that's not an evolutionary discovery. That's in the Bible. Were there dinosaurs? Yes....in the Bible. However, we can make scientific guesses from here to kingdom come...and they can all be based on math and science and whatever...but what you believe is going to come from a presupposition that you had before you started your math and science.

For instance. There is a certain kind of gene they have discovered recently called a "pseudogene". These genes seem to have no specific use and so that's where they got their name. Yet, they are there. Evolutionists say that these prove a parent ancestor b/c they were leftover from the transitional phase, but now have become "junk DNA". However, they are finding that these genes actually have a function, just not the same function as a regular gene. The very name for them was based on a presupposition that they served no purpose. It's like on Jurassic Park when Sam Neil's character was trying to prove that reptiles came from birds by saying, "and the very name 'raptor' means, 'bird of prey'." You can't prove something based on a name you give it from a presupposition you want to believe.

Okay...that's all I'm going to get into here about the debate. I'm not going to get into the age of the earth, b/c that has nothing to do with evolution by definition (i.e. if the earth is billions of years old, it still doesn't mean that man came from monkeys)...

So my point is, that whatever side you are on, you are either presupposing that there was a Creator, or you are presupposing that chaos can create intelligence...but there is no way around presupposing b/c no one was there to observe it. Unless there was a God, in which case...it would be really smart of Him to write a thing or two down about it...