There’s a difference between precision and accuracy. It’s possible to have precise answers that are wrong.
(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)
For example, scientists observe and test. Then they make assumptions. Based on the assumptions, they calculate an age for the earth. These calculations don’t lead to tentative answers. They lead to arbitrary but precise answers. Arbitrary thinking is irrational.
(end quote)
(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)
Assumption-based thinking is amazingly versatile since, once an ungodly thinker accepts reasoning based on made-up stuff, this ungodly thinker can prove anything the ungodly thinker wants to believe. If an ungodly thinker accepts made-up stuff as proof, then the ungodly thinker can use made-up stuff as proof to “prove” that we should accept made-up stuff as proof. Yes. That logic is insane because it’s circular. And made-up stuff can also “prove” that divine revelation can’t be proof. Anything goes in this make-believe world of an insane person. And ungodly thinkers find this insane logic handy when they want to question the truth they hate but also want to avoid questioning the lies they love.
(end quote)
(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)
Assumption-based thinking is a house of cards since we pull our assumptions from our worldviews, and we create our worldviews from previous assumptions we pulled from our worldviews of the past. And yet ungodly schools teach students to be dogmatic about assumption-based thinking. The students then know they’re right because they’ve learned to be dogmatic. They’ve learned to avoid thinking rationally. They’ve learned “it’s sane to reason using premises that are mere assumptions.” They’ve learned to debate using irrational thinking and debate tricks (fallacies). They’ve learned irrational thinking is “logical thinking” and “critical thinking,” when it’s insanity.
(end quote)
Continued comment on Bill Nye defending assumptions as the basis of thought
(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)
“Then, by the way, the fundamental thing that we disagree on, Mr. Ham, is this nature of what you can prove to yourself. This is to say, when people make assumptions based on radiometric dating, when they make assumptions about the expanding universe, when they make assumptions about the rate at which genes change in populations of bacteria in laboratory growth media, they’re making assumptions based on previous experience. They’re not coming out of whole cloth.” ~ Bill Nye
…
this package-deal fallacy is why he implied there’s no difference between scientific observation and historical storytelling.
For instance, Bill said, “make assumptions based on radiometric dating.” The term “radiometric dating” implies there’s an accurate way to measure dates. However, we can’t observe or measure the age of the earth directly but only through assumptions (axiomatic-thinking fallacies) and circular reasoning. Therefore, all secular dating methods interpret observations based on assumptions and circular reasoning. Scientists and “educators” often confuse assumptions with reality and insist it’s OK to base thinking on made-up stuff. That makes matters worse.
Of course, they’ll find a way to put a smokescreen over this made-up stuff using deceptive language. It’s rare for a scientist to admit the calculated dates are no more valid than the made-up stuff used to calculate those dates, even though they should admit it. But by refusing to admit this lack of validity, scientists confuse assumptions with reality. That’s why they speak of billions of years dogmatically and rarely admit they base their claims on made-up stuff. They think they’re objective and honest.
(end quote)
(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)
The Central Question: What’s the rational basis for thought?
While thought always has a foundation, we can’t trust every foundation. On the one hand, Bill Nye claims assumptions are a good foundation, while on the other hand, Ken Ham insists that divine revelation is a good foundation. The two positions in their simplest form are:
“Made-up stuff is the best basis for thought.”
versus
“Divine revelation is the best basis for thought.”
Consider the following interchange:
Sandy Sandbuilder: It’s reasonable to assume that if the scientific method develops propositions and theories, then these propositions and theories are the truth about the universe created by God.
Rocky Rockbuilder: It’s never reasonable to assume. Assuming is making up stuff and thinking the made-up stuff is true. A proposition is a claim. We can use the scientific method to develop a claim. We can’t use it to prove a claim. However, if we’re making a product, say a paper airplane, we can test the paper airplane and see if it flies. We can’t test a story about the distant past to see whether it happened unless we have a time machine.
(end quote)
(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)
Since both Bill Nye and Ken Ham started with the same observations, we know the debate wasn’t about the observations. What was it about? They debated the best starting point for interpreting the observations. Bill Nye starts his thinking by assuming. Starting with those assumptions, Bill makes up a story about God and the history of the world. Ken Ham starts his thinking with the Bible through which God reveals Himself and the history of the world to Ken. It’s likely Bill received the stories of other people who started their thinking by assuming. He claimed those stories as his own without knowing those people assumed the stories. It’s likely God revealed some of what Ken understands about the Bible by speaking through other people of God.
And most of all, as I said to you, the Bible says that if you come to God believing that He is, He’ll reveal Himself to you. You’ll know. If you search out the truth, you really want God to show you as you search out the silver and gold, He will show you. He will reveal Himself to you. ~ Ken Ham
Jesus Christ has revealed Himself to Ken Ham. Ken speaks from experience. He says, “If you come to God believing.” And yet, God only requires an open mind to Him. Everyone already knows He exists since He reveals Himself to every person. He just asks us to stop resisting Him. If we listen to His voice and acknowledge Him in respect and submission with a will to do His will, He’ll supply the faith. He’ll supply the belief. Faith comes by hearing His rhema, which is His utterance. We do need to yield to Him. Even though He foreknew who would yield themselves to Him, He won’t force Himself on us against our wills.
(end quote)
(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)
During the Nye-Ham debate, Bill said, “they’re making assumptions based on previous experience.” This statement gives a false impression. Bill implies ungodly thinkers pull assumptions from reality. However, they DON’T pull their assumptions from reality. They pull their assumptions from unreality, not from reality.
Unfortunately, many ungodly thinkers find ways to defend their thinking as they base reasoning on assumptions. Ungodly thinkers use assumptions to defend using assumptions as their basis for reasoning. That’s a circular reasoning fallacy. They don’t have much choice unless they give up ungodliness. And since these thinkers convince themselves that whatever they make up becomes magically true, how do we have rational discussions with them? Since they think their assumptions are superior to divine revelation, they take a dogmatic stand on whatever they make up. They blur the distinct line between divine revelation and making up stuff. That is, they lose the distinction between truth and lies. God revealed the difference to them, but they hated the Light and walked into a darkness where they no longer can see. And they “know” those who follow Christ are wrong because we don’t agree with their assumption-based thinking. Then, if we point out that they’re making up stuff, they get louder and more abusive. From there, they begin to use more sophisticated smokescreen fallacies to pretend they’re not just making up stuff and calling the made-up stuff true.
(end quote)
Bill Nye made it clear that the creation-evolution and God-NoGod debate is a debate between assumptions and divine revelation. He scoffed at divine revelation and defended basing all his thinking on assumptions. He said assumptions don’t come “out of whole cloth.” In other words, he implied there’s something behind assumptions. And there is something, but it’s vapor. It’s vacuous thinking behind assumptions. It’s sane to test an idea and say, “Let’s assume, for a moment, that …” That’s what Paul did when he said, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.” However, it’s insane to base conclusions on assumptions as Bill Nye and all evolutionists and atheists do.
(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)
Although Bill is defending the use of assumptions here, he doesn’t quite understand where assumptions come from or what they are. He says we get assumptions from previous experience, but his claim isn’t true as we’ve already shown. We get our assumptions out of our worldviews, and we create our worldviews from interpretations of previous experiences. We created those interpretations by filtering our experiences through whatever assumptions we pulled from our worldviews during those experiences. Outside influences and assumptions filter experience to create an interpretation. The interpretation of the experience goes into the worldview rather than the experience itself. But the assumptions came out of the worldview. All of this is circular reasoning.
Outside influences, such as peer pressure, TV brainwashing, distractions, or evil spirits can cloud the experience. However, outside influence is limited by the perceived reality in the worldview. The interpretation is what’s left after the outside influences and assumptions have twisted the interpretation and the worldview has filtered and adjusted the interpretation. After all of that, the interpretation goes into the worldview and may even change the worldview slightly. This process repeats every moment in every situation. That’s why assumptions are totally unreliable.
But Bill said, “they’re making assumptions based on previous experience,” and this statement gives a false impression. It implies that ungodly thinkers pull assumptions from reality, but they don’t pull their assumptions from reality. They pull their assumptions from unreality rather than reality.
(end quote)
(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)
Assumptions Based on Experience
The following quote is the clearest statement on assumptions in the entire debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye:
“Then, by the way, the fundamental thing that we disagree on, Mr. Ham, is this nature of what you can prove to yourself. This is to say, when people make assumptions based on radiometric dating, when they make assumptions about the expanding universe, when they make assumptions about the rate at which genes change in populations of bacteria in laboratory growth media, they’re making assumptions based on previous experience. They’re not coming out of whole cloth.” ~ Bill Nye
So Bill and Ken disagree on one fundamental: the basis of thought. But should we base thought on assumptions or divine revelation?
(end quote)
Assumptions aren’t a source of truth. They’re a source of self-deception. ALL truth is hidden in Christ Jesus. He IS the Truth. We must know Him to know the Truth.
(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)
Thinking of assumptions, you may have heard the saying “Never assume anything.” That seems like good advice, but to clarify the reason that it’s good advice, here’s the definition of “assumption” from Google:
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
synonyms: supposition, presumption, belief, expectation, conjecture, speculation, surmise, guess, premise, hypothesis
Here’s the way the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “assumption:”
a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted
Since assumptions consist of made-up stuff, we believe made-up stuff without proof whenever we assume. It’s like living in a world of make-believe. We think of our made-up assumptions as if they were facts. They aren’t facts in any sense since we can neither observe them nor prove them.
(end quote)
