Bob Goettea
Bias and peer pressure cause many to accept evolution as “fact.” Yes, scientist and non-scientist alike are biased. Both interpret data on the basis of presupposition (biases) which they hold by faith. The thought system which man uses consists of presuppositions (or biases or assumptions), data and conclusions. Since man does not have absolute knowledge, his presuppositions are held by faith—being, or not being, a scientist has nothing to do with this.
Many non-scientists do not realize that scientists exercise faith in their work. Therefore, there are many misconceptions about conclusions scientists draw from scientific data. Scientific explanations are based on faith since faith is the ground on which the original presupposition(s) is (are) held. There is no such thing as an unbiased conclusion!
Examination of the diagram below will make this clearer. Two different individuals can examine the same data and come up with two different sets of conclusions because they used two different sets of presuppositions, held by faith.
Let us take several specific examples to see how this works out:
(1) The origin of life. The data (or observation) is that there are diverse kinds of life, from the single cell variety to large “complex” multi-cellular types.
The atheistic evolutionist presupposes: (a) there is no God and therefore no possibility of supernatural happenings; (b) life arose through processes still going on; (c) only data from the natural world is valid; any information provided by special revelation is excluded. He looks at this variety of life (data) and says that life must have come into being by natural processes (interaction of lifeless chemicals) at least once and then other life came from that first form (macroevolution).
On the other hand, the creationist’s presuppositions are: (a) God acted using His supernatural power—can call things into being from nothing; (b) God is not limited by time; (c) God, being there, has revealed what He did. The creationist concludes from the data that God created the vast array of life with the ability to multiply and reproduce its kind. The various kinds had the ability, within limits, for variation to adjust to varying conditions.
(2) The fossil record. The data is that there are numerous fossils
BSP 3:1 (Winter 1990) p. 23
representing many forms of life, large and small.
The atheistic evolutionist who presupposes—(a) that there were no catastrophic worldwide events such as a flood, (b) that life came about by chance, since there is no God, and that through the process of evolution (for which no mechanism has been proved) life became more “complex”—concludes that there must be transitional organisms as one form changed into another over long ages. He looks in vain for transitional forms (no conclusive forms have been found) because of the presuppositions which he holds by faith. Actually, the absence of transitional fossils is a very important piece of data ignored by many. Fossils of different-sized organisms which bear some similarity are arranged in a so-called order by evolutionists—all because of the presuppositions held.
The recent creationist, on the other hand, because of his presuppositions, mentioned in (1) above, concludes that the fossil organisms found merely represent the diversity of created life, many of which were killed and buried during a catastrophic worldwide flood. The recent creationist says that there are no transition fossils because of his presuppositions. The fossil record found does not differ appreciably from what would be expected if the majority of life in the world today were destroyed and fossilized by means of a worldwide flood.
Examination of this thought system helps to explain why there is diversity of opinion even within the Christian community concerning the interpretation of Genesis. Two individuals with differing presuppositions about the flood, local vs. universal for example, will come to very different conclusions regarding the origin and dates of the fossil record. This type of thinking has led to the variety of opinions termed: theistic evolution, progressive creation, gap theory, day-age theory, recent creation, etc.
In conclusion, it is extremely important for the Christian to question the presuppositions used by scientists in coming to their conclusions. It cannot be assumed that they have arrived at a conclusion in an unbiased manner. We all operate from a bias of some sort. This can help explain why so many scientists do not believe in creation. It is not because the data say, “No,” but because of the presuppositions the scientists operate with, or in other words, the faith premise from which they start. It is the author’s opinion that those who have opted for theistic evolution, progressive creation, day-age theory and the gap theory have accepted too much of the current “majority” scientific community’s conclusions without proper examination of the presuppositions upon which those conclusions are based.
Paul’s admonition to Timothy in 1 Tim 6:20–21 is still current: “Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge (science), which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith.”