no…you seem to be ignorantly convinced that a TEist is not also a presuppositionalist and that is because you appear to be convinced that science cannot be performed in Christianity by the individual that does not align with TEism…in this case YEC. You parrot that YEC science is Pseudoscience. Funny thing is, Mary Schweitzer is not YEC and yet look at the flak she got when she first made her discovery. I think that if she was YEC, she would be defending against the term pseudoscience. Obviously she is not YEC and so that is my opinion, however, the evidence for said opinion is pretty strong there.
The point of the above is…this conspiracy that you are promoting “that presuppositionalism and YEC are parrallel strategies not also shared by TEism” is absurd, unintelligent, and ignoring the reality of what social sciences tell us about human conditioning and behaviour. You are pot calling the kettle black and that is the usual argument put forward on these forums…it becomes a boohoo session without biblical support. For me, the idea that TEism must resort to these boohoo sessions is simply because, they do not have biblical support for their views that God doesnt hold the intellectual rights for first cause and that all knowledge comes from Him.
In common usage, presuppositionalism names a Reformed apologetic method (Van Til/Bahnsen) that (a) denies neutral ground, (b) starts by presupposing Christian theism/Scripture as the ultimate authority, and (c) argues by the “impossibility of the contrary.”Theistic evolution (evolutionary creation) is a view about how God created, not an apologetic method, and its advocates are typically not presuppositionalists. Many use classical or evidentialist reasoning (two-books approach, integration of Scripture with nature’s record).
Clarifier:
Like any position, TE/EC acknowledges presuppositions (everyone has some), but that’s not what “presuppositionalism” means in standard theological/apologetics discourse.
Some individuals who accept evolution could personally adopt a presuppositional method, but that’s incidental, not intrinsic to TE/EC.
In standard apologetics lingo, “presuppositionalism” is a Van Til–style method, not a view of origins; theistic evolution isn’t presuppositional by definition and is usually argued on classical/evidential grounds.
there are no buts there Terry, its plainly obvious that anyone with even basic understanding of the way in which humanity functions already knows this…one always sees a red flag when common sense is being ignored…and in this case, the attempt at distance TEism from YEC via presuppositionalism is a fools errand. The Bible makes is quite clear no human is fundamentally capable of operating without corruption…in this case bias this thread attempts to call a “parallel strategy of presuppositionalism and YEC”.
The fact is, every belief has presuppositional assumptions…the problem here is that you are in fact complaining that a Christians higher authority presuppositionalist ideas contrast with those of the atheist such that the atheist is not presuppositional. I reject that…the atheist still has belief:
Atheism - the lack of belief in any God/god, however, that is in of itself a belief. The “lack of” is not proof of innocence…TEists here regularly cite that very notion in defending their position and i think YEC do the same. Also, they [atheists] do have beliefs about things such as the trustworthiness of friends and family, education, the law etc. All of these examples are option to corruption, so they are not automatically good as the atheist naturally believes, the atheist has that indoctrinated into them. For example, if you were born in North Korea… (i think you get the point of this example)
Collapses the distinction between having presuppositions (true of everyone) and Presuppositionalism (the Van Til/Clark apologetic method).
Claims attempts to distinguish TE/EC from YEC on methodological grounds are “a fool’s errand,” because all humans are biased and indoctrinated.
Adds a sociological riff (children adopt family/party/religion), concluding that first-cause theism erases any relevant divide between TE/EC and YEC.
Where the argument fails
Category mistake.
“Everyone has presuppositions” ≠ “everyone is a Presuppositionalist.” Presuppositionalism (capital P) is a specific apologetic method (no neutrality; Scripture as ultimate authority; ‘impossibility of the contrary’). TE/EC is an origins view, usually argued with classical/evidential methods. Conflating the generic with the technical term erases the live methodological difference.
Non sequitur from first cause.
That God is first cause does not select a young earth. Age and flood geology turn on exegesis and mechanism, not on the mere fact of divine ultimacy (which TE/EC affirms too).
Straw target.
No one claimed atheists have no presuppositions. The point was: TE/EC typically doesn’t use Van Til–style presuppositional apologetics. Shifting to “atheists believe things too” dodges the methodological claim.
Genetic fallacy / sociology ≠ warrant.
“People parrot what they’re taught” explains origins of belief, not whether YEC’s claims are true or its method is open to revision.
Evasion of the live questions.
Nothing here engages:
Text: Where does Scripture require solar 24-hour days before the sun, or that Gen 5 & 11 are gap-free clocks? Where does it say the creation-wide curse ends with Adam despite Gen 5:29; 8:21; Rom 8:19–22; Rev 22:3?
Mechanism: By what testable process do independent clocks (U-Pb dual chains, Ar-Ar, ice-layer counts with volcanic tie-points, seafloor magnetics) converge on deep time without catastrophic heat/radiation or unfalsifiable “apparent age”?
Openness: What would count, in principle, as a defeater for the young-earth reading?
Paste-ready mini-reply
The response trades on an equivocation: having presuppositions (true of everyone) is not the same as Presuppositionalism (the Van Til/Clark method). TE/EC typically argues on classical/evidential grounds; YEC ministries often adopt presuppositional apologetics—that’s a real methodological difference.
Appeals to first cause, sociological indoctrination, or atheist bias don’t answer the live issues:
Text: chapter-and-verse for solar 24-hour days before the sun and gap-free genealogies; where does Scripture say the curse ends with Adam?
Mechanism: a testable explanation for why U-Pb, Ar-Ar, ice layers, and seafloor magnetics agree on deep time without invoking pervasive miracle.
Openness: name one in-principle defeater for your young-earth reading.
Until those are addressed, the claim that TE/EC ≈ YEC “because everyone has presuppositions” remains a category mistake, not an argument.
Sorry, but you use a worldview to interpret the Bible and then claim you have a Bible-based worldview. But your worldview is what you look at the Bible from, and that determines what you see. Your worldview is one that defines truth as having to be 100% scientifically and historically accurate, and you bring that to the text with you.
I reject that modern worldview when it comes to the scriptures because they have their own worldview, one mostly shared with the rest of the ancient near east, which is reflected in their culture and history. Indeed the whole Old Testament relates a battle between the ANE worldview Israel started with and one where the multiple gods all around are actually supposed to be Yahweh’s servants, but they rebelled, so that by the time of Christ Israel has an altered worldview, still ANE in most aspects but radically different at the core.
So the writers were just taking dictation? That’s bad theology!
And no, it isn’t “stated within the pages of the bible itself” – you’re adding that to the text.
Here we go with your category failure – you can’t see anything but “Darwin!” when people disagree with you, so you don’t actually see what they’ve really said.
There you go making an idol of science again. Stop ascribing capabilities to science that it doesn’t have!
Quite so. Adam makes a number of category mistakes, and this is just another.
Proverbs 2:6: “For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding”.
Proverbs 1:7: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction”.
Psalm 19:2: “Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge”.
Colossians 1:9: This verse speaks of believers being filled with “knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding”.
Philippians 1:9-10: The Apostle Paul prays for the believers to have their love abound “with knowledge and all discernment”.
I assert that TEist has no option but to include God because they cannot reconcile that part of Darwinian Evolution that suggests causality. I find it interesting that Intelligent Design seems to align with TEism because they have exactly the same problem as most on this forum do…causality…hence God.
So my question for the two of you is …Do you agree that God is first cause? If you do not agree then please provide biblical evidence refuting the fundamental belief there and whilst you are at it, please refute all of the above texts i have posted that evidence that all knowledge is directly from that first cause…are you going to attempt to claim those texts, they do not mean what they clearly say!
You were tasked with the dilemma that modern science proves Christ cannot have been raised from the dead on the third day in 33 AD. Your response has not even tried to address the science:
Terry’s experiment: I copied this thread, from OP to Adam’s last post, then told ChatGPT to clear the table and allow me to upload the whole thread before describing positions. When I did, ChatGPT came up with this:
Here’s the crisp reset you asked for—where both sides stand right now:
Where Terry’s argument stands
Thesis: YEC and presuppositionalism use parallel, self-sealing strategies: redefine key terms (science/truth), deny neutral ground, and insulate conclusions from correction.
Method: Scripture is authoritative, but genre + the broader canon + general revelation (Ps 19; Rom 1) inform interpretation. Accepts rare miracles (e.g., Resurrection) while relying on ordinary regularities for creation’s timescales.
Claims pressed on Adam:
Text: Where does Scripture require solar 24-hour days before the sun, gap-free genealogies as clocks, or say the curse ends with Adam?
Mechanism: What testable process makes multiple, independent deep-time clocks agree (U-Pb, Ar-Ar, ice layers, seafloor magnetics) without catastrophic side-effects or unfalsifiable “apparent age”?
Openness: Name an in-principle falsifier for YEC.
Bottom line: Until those are met, YEC looks methodologically closed in the same way presuppositionalism is.
Where Adam’s argument stands
Core stance: Everyone has presuppositions; calling YEC “presuppositionalist” is a smear. YEC is Bible-based (“God-breathed”); after choosing to serve God (Josh 24:15), interpretation is already done and shouldn’t be revised by “idolized” science.
Moves used:
• Denies neutral ground (“read your Bible first,” Scripture needs no further interpretation).
• Sociology point: People mostly parrot what they were taught; TE/EC vs YEC differences are inherited, not methodological.
• Tu quoque: If science weighs against YEC, consistency would make it disprove the Resurrection—so critics “idolize science.”
• Content distinction: Says he doesn’t argue “no God → no morality,” but maintains YEC’s biblical authority.
Bottom line: Treats Scripture’s authority as controlling over scientific claims; sees attempts to separate TE/EC from YEC by method as word games because “all have presuppositions.”
Miracle vs. method: Terry—rare signs + stable natural order; Adam—invokes miracles/limits of science against deep-time evidence.
Falsifiability: Terry asks for it; Adam has not named any in-principle defeater.
What would move the discussion forward
From Adam: Provide (a) chapter-and-verse that mandates Adam’s specific readings, and (b) a single, testable mechanism explaining the agreement of independent deep-time indicators without blanket miracle.
From Terry: State the exact evidential or textual showing that would make him revise his “parallel strategies” thesis (e.g., Adam naming falsifiers and then engaging one clock on shared terms).
That’s the table cleared—two positions, the clash point, and the next concrete moves.
The title of the thread is: “The Parallel Strategies of Presuppositionalism and Young Earth Creationism”. And …
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.
