The Parallel Strategies of Presuppositionalism and Young Earth Creationism

Faith & Science Conversation
,
1
  • This chart shows how YECs treat science the way presuppositionalists treat truth:

YEC View of Science vs. Presuppositionalist View of Truth

Category YEC: Science Presuppositionalist: Truth
Best Science that confirms the Bible (e.g., Flood geology, design arguments). Truth that is explicitly grounded in God’s Word (Scripture = ultimate authority).
Acceptable Science that doesn’t conflict with the Bible (medicine, engineering, basic chemistry). Truth claims that don’t contradict Scripture, even if not directly biblical (e.g., 2+2=4).
Invalid / Dangerous Anything that conflicts with their reading of the Bible (evolution, deep time, Big Bang cosmology) = “false science,” often seen as deception. Any claim made outside of God’s revelation is not just false but foolish/deceptive (atheist reasoning, secular philosophy).

Key similarity:

  • Both YECs and presuppositionalists redefine core terms (science, truth) so that their position is always safe from challenge. Opposing evidence isn’t engaged with on neutral terms; it’s dismissed as deception or foolishness.

Key difference:

  • YECs focus mainly on scientific data and its interpretation.

  • Presuppositionalists focus on epistemology (the rules of knowing itself).
    But both operate in the same self-sealing framework.

  • YECs and presuppositionalists share the illusion of debate. Both redefine the key terms so they can never lose: for YECs, “true science” is only what agrees with their reading of the Bible; for presuppositionalists, “true knowledge” is only what begins with God’s Word. To outsiders it looks like engagement, but the conclusion is predetermined and any counter-evidence is dismissed as deception or foolishness. That makes for strong in-group reinforcement, but not for real dialogue, because the discussion is structured to close itself off from correction.

5 Likes
2

Terry, I fully agree with this evaluation. I wonder, out of the spirit of self examination, how we should respond to a passage from Paul that bothers me a lot, and I think is taken out of context, in relation to this.

1 Cor 2:14

The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

Thank you.

In contrast, I remember a quote from a Christian apologist at Lausanne, who said something to the effect of, “As a Christian apologist, I approach truth with the hope that Christ and Christianity are right. However, I will try to examine the evidence without bias, and if it is convincing, I will change my mind, and follow the truth where it leads.”

6 Likes
3

I do think that this verse needs to be read as part of a wider message starting at 1 Cor 1:17. The key point is the crucified Christ - a message that is foolishness to the gentiles, unless the Spirit of God opens their (our) understanding about the significance of this message.

3 Likes
4

Randy, That verse is often lifted out of its context and used as a kind of trump card in apologetics.

In the flow of Paul’s letter, he’s contrasting the “wisdom of the world” with the surprising wisdom of God revealed in the cross. The point isn’t that people without the Spirit are incapable of grasping ordinary reasoning, evidence, or truth in general. It’s that the gospel itself—the crucified Messiah as the center of God’s plan—looks like folly until the Spirit enables someone to recognize it as God’s wisdom.

Presuppositionalists, however, often stretch the verse much further, turning it into a blanket claim that unbelievers can’t understand anything rightly, or that there’s no point in rational dialogue. But that doesn’t fit Paul’s own practice. In Acts, Paul reasons with Jews from Scripture, debates philosophers in Athens, and even quotes their poets. He clearly believed non-Christians could follow arguments, even if they didn’t yet embrace the gospel.

That resonates with the Lausanne quote you recalled: an apologist admitting he hopes Christianity is true, but is also willing to follow truth wherever it leads. That’s epistemic humility. It contrasts sharply with the closed-circle presuppositional script, which insists that the conclusion is already known and no real reasoning is needed.

So 1 Cor 2:14 calls us not to abandon reason or dialogue, but to recognize that the recognition of Christ crucified as God’s wisdom is a work of the Spirit—not something we can argue anyone into. That keeps us humble, while still valuing honest inquiry.

@Kendel @marta

7 Likes
5
3 Likes
6

Thanks. I appreciate it, and I agree with most of it. Out of my (possible) pride,I still have a bone to pick with Paul; I think that he’s mistaken that there is an element of the gospel that can not be accepted except without the help of God. This would be for 2 reasons:

  1. it seems to me to imply that God has made us irretrievably evil, on our own; which would possibly imply that He has a stain, as being the author of that

  2. It still leaves a nidus of doubt about our own ability to objectively and humbly look at the evidence, as much as possible, and reject even our own faith, if it appears illogical.

I remember reading that FF Bruce once said that Paul would be rolling over in his own grave, if he knew that we put his writings on the level of Torah; but I’m ok with being wrong!

Thanks for the invitation to read the Chat GPT; unfortunately, I can’t unlock it with my firewall at work, but I’ll try looking into it later.

I appreciate your good thoughts.

5 Likes
7

Thank you! Wow, that was a lot of work.

1 Like
8

Well i can highlight one difference between myself as a YEC and the O.P

In the following example:

Presuppositionalists often use transcendental arguments to corner opponents (e.g.,

“Without God you can’t account for logic/morality/science

My regular statement on these forums is that Darwinian Evolution doesnt need God for morality, here’s why:

1000021830
10000218301812×2176 209 KB

People shouldnt be so rash as to make blanket generalisations about YEC when im around. Im quite certain the bible actually presents a rather different picture. Note Daniel ch 12.4

1000021831
10000218311812×2176 256 KB

I honestly cant be bothered addressing the rest, its not of any intellectual interest to me. I think next time, try reading the bible first rather than time wasting with nonsense :face_blowing_a_kiss:

9

This actually helps clarify my thinking in another thread where I set the Resurrection against apologetics: my thinking wasn’t really about arguing for the Resurrection, but asking the person where he/she lands on the matter. If the Resurrection is grasped as real, then the next step is the Cross, without which the Resurrection makes little to no sense. It’s a way, I suppose, of asking, “Where is your faith centered? what is the foundation?” If the foundation and center is just reasoning, then is there faith at all? But if the foundation is the Resurrection and then the Cross, why worry about the reasoning?

2 Likes
10

I don’t see that – it just means that we are spiritually dead and need (as one pastor at a friend’s church put it) “heavenly CPR” (or a heavenly defibrillator).

I think it was Richard Bauckham where I read a detailed argument that Paul knew quite well that his letters were being regarded as equally inspired as the Torah. I recall pondering how I would feel if I knew I was writing scripture!

1 Like
11

Adam presents his comment as if it demonstrates a key distinction between Young Earth Creationism and presuppositional apologetics. He contrasts the presuppositionalist claim that “without God you can’t account for logic, morality, or science” with his own repeated statement that “Darwinian evolution doesn’t need God for morality.” He implies that this shows a substantive difference in strategy.

Yet in making this contrast, Adam does not actually escape the underlying structure of presuppositional reasoning. Instead of offering an open analysis, he substitutes one absolute claim for another and insists that his authority — the Bible, with Daniel 12:4 as his chosen proof-text — provides the definitive resolution. By doing so, he mirrors the very dynamic he denies: an appeal to a non-negotiable authority coupled with dismissiveness toward alternative frameworks.

His refusal to engage the rest of the argument, coupled with the remark that it is “not of any intellectual interest” and his parting suggestion to “read the Bible first,” reinforces this parallel. Like the presuppositionalist, Adam positions himself not as a participant in inquiry but as the guardian of a closed system where his authority is final and competing views are “nonsense.”

In short, Adam fails to distinguish his method from presuppositionalism. While he disowns their transcendental argument, he replicates their strategy of asserting an unquestionable authority and shutting down dialogue, thereby demonstrating the very parallel under discussion.

3 Likes
12

[numbers added by Kendel]
Great questions. And a helpful explanation.

  1. Good question. Explanations or “definitions” of faith vary wildly and contradictorily, even within the same discussion and from the same person. From something “rock solid” and 100% objectively certain to what I think most of us experience, which is something like hope.
    I’ve got what I’ve got. I’ll take it.
    Strategies like @Terry_Sampson has explored in this thread or that I’ve heard elsewhere haven’t given me any more assurance at all. Exploration of subjectivity have been more helpful. James K. A. Smith’s often terribly flawed book, “Whose Afraid of Postmodernism” has some very good explorations of subjectivity in the first half of the first chapter. Before it goes off the rails into … presuppositional apologetics.

  2. Why worry about the reasoning? Again a really good question.
    I think we worry because culturally, we value objectivity over subjectivity. We like the feel of certainty that comes with science, for example. We want to be sure that what we believe is true, justified. We don’t want to feel we’ve been duped.
    When we read the Bible through those eyes, we are mislead by what we take for rock-solid certainty in the Bible - for example Romans 1:18&19: "18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. " This is in a section about people who commit idolatry, worshiping the created things rather than the one who created them. There was no question in these verses, or in the minds of the people who they condemn, that God or gods or the supernatural existed. And these verses don’t address that question. But we regularly read them as if they do.
    When people read in the Bible that we should be ready to give an account for our hope, they understand this to mean according to the rational standards of this day. Which is not possible. But people want it to be. Otherwise, it feels as if there is no way to claim one’s faith is other than a choice.
    I know of one or two people who are willing to embrace that idea.

3 Likes
13

no terry, my statement was that individuals who make absurd blanket statements that attempt to place YEC in the presuppositionalist basket is bull and you know it is. Following biblical theology WHICH IS GOD BREATHED is not a presuppositionalists position any more than you demand “science…” . Christians do not have the scope to go any further than “choose you this day whom ye will serve” Joshua 24:15 Once you make that choice, you follow a world view where the interpretation is already done for you…the Bible is Gods revelation in the words of men. God has already made known to his writers of the Bible what they are supposed to record…its doesnt need any further interpretation. That is not a presupposition, its a biblical fact stated within the pages of the bible itself. I have quoted the texts for this a number of times on these forums (eg Psalms 119, 2 Timothy 3, Isaiah 28)

Psalms is quite relevant in this moment…seeing we are talking about intellectual time wasting…

“The entrance of your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple”

Instead of trying to make up some errant meaning that is best suited to Darwinian conclusions, how about just reading Psalms 19 and following the principle the Psalmist clearly gave us there when reading the rest of the Bible?

14

despite our differences, these are wise words Kendel and i agree with you there.

15

Answers in Genesis - Presuppositional Procedure

Christian thought holds as its most basic, fundamental, all-pervasive, and necessary starting point or presupposition, the being of God who has revealed Himself in Scripture. Thus, our presupposition is God and His Word.

CMI - Presuppositionalism vs evidentialism, and is the human genome simple?

the difference between creation and evolution is not about the evidence, but the presuppositions by which we interpret the evidence

Jason Lisle - Answers in Genesis -Testing Worldviews

we, as a ministry, are presuppositional. We agree that presuppositional apologetics is the most effective and biblical way to defend the faith.

5 Likes
16
  • Thanks! Really great stuff. It’s quite obvious who doesn’t know anything about Presuppositionalism.
17

Ron Professor John Lennox addresses this complaint in the following way…

Rationally Intelligible Universe:

Lennox finds the universe’s ability to be understood through reason a powerful argument for God. If the universe were the product of non-rational causes, it wouldn’t be fundamentally interpretable by our minds.

A “Best Explanation” Argument:

He proposes that God is the best explanation for the existence and intelligibility of the universe, much like a lawyer might argue for a best explanation in a case.

Faith and Evidence:

Lennox suggests that the concept of “proof” for God’s existence should not be limited to scientific or mathematical certainty but can encompass the evidence-based reasoning used in daily life.

This is a Christian forum right, so a Christian forum attempting to earbash its own religious principles is circular and irrational.

So your apparent attack there is only supporting the statement i have already made. The.O.P has incorrectly attempted to use that term to distance TEism from YECism when both share the identical fundamental principle that all knowledge comes from God.

I do not accept that one can claim fjrst cause, then ignore that moving forward playing word games…so yes it is from God because He is first cause!

Those who are not Christian may decide to use it to separate themselves from Christianity, however, as they are not experts in the sciences, the are generslly parroting “science says…” and i do not see that as any different to be honest as the theological arguments used are woeful and mostly flat out wrong…such as God is bound by science (God is neither controlled by science nor bound by it)

Wheres the proof?

Miracles such as a raising a decomposing body after 3 days are unscientific…a proven scientific impossibility because we can test for cellular decay and death in the laboratory).

This raises an important point…does God retain intellectual property rights over the ability of humanity to obtain knowledge that God has not directly chosen to reveal to us? For example, in the garden God said:

Genesis 3 “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil.”

Google AI results on the notion of intellectual property rights tell us:

intellectual property (IP) rights do not extend to someone unfamiliar with a design idea; IP rights are granted to the creator of the idea or the person who legally purchased the rights, and they protect the expression of the idea, not the idea itself. To gain IP protection for a design, the creator must be familiar with it to a degree that they can create the design.

My thought is that, if God retains intellectual property rights over knowledge that He has not revealled to us directly, that does not mean he does not retain His status as the intellectual source of said knowledge given He created the universe and therefore is first cause for the “science”(if you like) needed to do that

18

You do realize that YEC organizations expressly and openly base their worldview on presuppositionalism, and that John Lennox, who embraces a rational and best explanation approach, holds to the conventional evolutionary account?

2 Likes
19

that is a trait of human nature…not specifically YEC and that is what i have been trying to re inforce. All world views are presuppositionalist…there is no one other than a baby who doesnt parrot wives tales taught to them from an early age. For example, whilst im not a US citizen, i will bet that children raised in democrat families tend to be democrats…Christians, tend to be Christian, TEists tend to be TEists, YEC tend to be YEC and so on. I do not accept that one changing their minds is evidence that they are not predominantly presuppositionalist and that is because we usually find that elements of the underlying faith (if you like) remain. Let me explain:

There is a well known SDA minister in Australia who converted more than 200 Jehovahs Witnesses to Seventh Day Adventism. Trouble was, almost all of these individuals continued to hold on to some of the foundational JW principles that dogged said individuals and we know that a notable number of them eventually returned to JWism and of those that stayed in SDA church, their inability to overcome the JW dogma (presuppositions) caused considerable trouble with other SDA members! I do not however see the relevance of that in trying to promote a supposed divide between YEC and TEism when it comes to first cause.

20
1 Like