"Presuppositions". My Goat is Got!

 
https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/presuppositions.html

Creationist's talk of scientists having "presuppositions" really gets my goat.

Let's be clear.

A hypothesis is an idea that has the possibility or potentiality of being shown to be in accordance with the facts, or false. It is not something to be 'believed in'.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been shown to be in accordance with the facts, and better still, can predict further observations that are consistent with it.

A presupposition is an assumption that something is true, whether or not it is. I don't know what orifice it is pulled out from, but it is a smelly one. The only thing I can think of is that it is a result of unreasoning indoctrination. Facts are irrelevant.

Why is presupposition a gross insult? People go into science to enhance our knowledge of the world. We go wherever evidence and reason leads us. Science, although not perfect and infallible, is just the best way we have stumbled upon to find how to minimise bias, prejudice and presuppositions. Nothing, but nothing is taken for granted, and everything is open to question - except that the only 'presupposition' is that there is no undetectable, invisible, little magic imp trying to make us make the world look different to what common sense tells us it is by using his Ju-ju. What for? Most of us are not so gullible or stupid. 

Contrast the above with the creationist stance, exemplified by the Answers in Genesis', blog, (AiG's -Answers in Genesis') 'Statement of Faith', https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/aig-statement-of-faith.html, in which we find, 

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

The "definition" is not elucidated. Nor is it clear whether Ken Ham, founder of the AiG blog, who presumably wrote this, considers himself to be the only infallible person possessing all information. after the words of Galileo and Newton, after William of Occaam/Ockam,

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” ―  Galileo Galilei, Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina.

And, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes." - Newton.

But back to the cheap, lazy, deceptive and insolent insults. 

What does it take to gain a doctorate in science?

• Do well enough in school to qualify for an undergraduate science course at an accredited centre of learning. 
  
  
• Complete the course and earn a bachelors's degree. This normally takes three or four years of work and study.
  
  
• Go on to a master's course, normally 1 - 2 years of further work.
  
  
• Become a PhD or doctor, involving a deeper study, and in particular, preparing a dissertation on an original piece of research you should be prepared to strenuously 'defend' against peers (people in the same field) whose job it is to try and find and expose any weaknesses in your work.

Once you gain a doctorate, you publish your dissertation, and put it out into the world where people are free to dismiss your years of work and study with one word comments in social media such as "Rubbish!" or "Without presupposing evolution, the writers do not show any independent evidence for evolution.

No $hit. Go to the 'ERV FAQ' https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/endogenous-retroviruses-frequently.html