I called in to HBC to discuss the crucial subject of how presuppositions and paradigms function as templates to interpret “facts.” There are no “brute facts” that come un-interpreted, outside of some contextual framework or worldview. In this discussion we investigate how the human mind categorizes the “data” or experience and how our governing assumptions about life and the world determine what the “facts” are, which constitute evidence and/or which are rejected and reinterpreted based on our beliefs (even we presume ourselves to be perfectly “neutral” and “empirical”). Chris and I cover the similarity of the events of 9/11 and so-called “evidence,” with Darwinian naturalistic materialism, and how these will be interpreted to fit the underlying belief structure. This discussion functions as the first of my coming responses to Martin Kalyniuk’s piece defending Theistic evolution.

Until the presuppositions are challenged, the “evidence” will always be stretched or cut to fit “the facts,” as demonstrated in Thomas Kuhn’s famous book, The Structures of Scientific Revolutions. Only when this, and the countless instances of reliance on the fallacy of consensus and authority are properly understood, is Darwinian naturalism truly unmasked as nonsensical, irrational, contradictory and intellectually bankrupt. Also covered is the amazing truth that DNA does not create new information, only existing information “switches” that are alternately on or off. As a result, “species” do not mutate into completely different forms – the bear does not become aquatic by swimming often. (Adaptation only allows for existing DNA information to function anew, and “adaptation” is not transformism – that new “species” arise).