> I find that sometimes creationists use evidence to defend their
> view, and then later they say that the view is presupposed based on
> revelation, which makes evidence irrelevant. ...
> You can't have your cake and eat it too.
> While I can see your point, I can't help but wonder if most
> Christian apologetics work the same way too, with the exception of
> the presuppositionalists in the tradition of Van Til. I do see the
> "flip-flopping" between using evidence and talking about
> presuppositions. ...
I can see the point in what the creationists say and why they use a
"flip-flop" approach, as you call it. Such an approach is necessary
because (1) the scientific community will not give credence to
anything without "evidence" and (2) all evidence is interpreted by
the scientific community in light of their presuppositions. Hence,
a 2-pronged approach is necessary - (1) point out weaknesses in the
current presuppositions and present alternative modes of thought and
(2) present evidences that support the alternative. There is nothing
wrong with this approach: we use this approach in any scientific
endeavor - I know I certainly did in preparing and presenting my dissertation.
It is difficult to tell from words what one's attitude is, and it is
certainly easy to misjudge based on words, especially over the
internet. But please don't be guilty of judging creationists from a
double standard - if traditional scientific inquiry uses the
"flip-flop" approach, don't criticise others if they use the same
William M. Frix, PhD
Assistant Professor, Electrical Engineering
John Brown University
Siloam Springs, AR 72761
Phone: (501) 524-7466
FAX: (501) 524-7499