Is "Evidence" the Test of Truth?

So how fun has this been up to this point. Thanks again for doing this. I am thoroughly enjoying our interactions.

To continue on our creation-evolution talk…

You said, “I take it from your response that you aren't satisfied with the facility of using evidence to establish whether or not something is true or false. If I can't use evidence to establish the truth or falsehood of claims, how am I supposed to determine if they are believable or not?...If you reject evidential inquiry as to the truth or falsehood of a claim, what if any basis is there to verify the truth or falsehood of anything?”

It seems that you believe that evidential inquiry is a valid standard of verification for the truth or falsity of a claim. Yet how do we know that it is? To me it appears as if it is not, because evolutionists and creationists both use evidential inquiry and yet come to totally different conclusions.

For example, you say “If there were evidence that supported a hypothesis that the earth is only 9,000 years old(Young Earth Creationism), and in doing so it invalidated an evolutionary theory, I'd be happy to accept that as the truth.” There is evidence, and I know that you have read much of it. It's just that you reject it. The same for the old earth model and for evolution. They all have “evidence” supporting their theories. Each of these positions not only has data, but they have the SAME data, each interpreted in different ways. Each has a full body of evidences, but what you and I must realize is that the evidence is a subjective interpretation of the objective data. You accept one interpretation and reject the others, based upon your belief.

So in one sense we can both say we have evidence that proves our theories, and both of us would be correct in saying this, from our point of view. It’s just that the interpretation of that evidence is subjective, it has been subjected to our predisposition and therefore could easily be the wrong interpretation. In other words, our rose-colored glasses are coloring the data. The question we must ask ourselves is, “Why do I believe the one interpretation and not the others? Why do I accept one’s presentation of the data and their interpretations of it and not the others?”

All of this is to say that you and I have a pre-evidential, pre-scientific belief system (metaphysic) that determines the nature of evidence and how we look at data. It is not based upon any data or observation but is essential to looking at all data and doing observation. In this we must both realize that if our interpretive framework is wrong then our understanding of the data must be wrong. In other words, ones interpretation of the data is only as valid as the metaphysical framework he is interpreting from. This is self-evident.

You asked, “What are you saying?” What I am saying is this:

1)We both need to realize that our beliefs are not based upon “evidence”. Rather, our interpretations of the evidence are based upon our beliefs.

2)“Evidence” is not self-attesting or self-defining, but rather it is subject to the one defining it. So, yes, I am saying that evidential inquiry is not enough in coming to any truth.


3)Therefore, “evidence” is not sufficient in establishing whether something metaphysical (our beliefs) is true or false.

4)We must both understand that if our metaphysic is wrong then our interpretation of data is proportionally wrong.

5)You and I are both, therefore, men of faith. We place our faith in our interpretation of data without the certainty of knowing if our interpretations are correct.

You ask “how then do we proceed?” I suggest we proceed by 1) First discussing the five points above and coming to a consensus on them and then 2) examining the validity of our pre-scientific metaphysics in light of logic and rationality.

I hope this was not too long. I look forward to hearing from you and will be soon to respond to our morality discussion.
Later Buddy.