If the origins account of a worldview is the ground floor of the worldview building, the foundations underpinning it are unprovable assumptions known as presuppositions (or axioms). As Christians, we infer many of our presuppositions from the Bible, but we also derive presuppositions from our interactions with the world around us.
Presuppositions consistent with the Bible include the propositions that God exists, that God is the Creator of the universe, that mankind has fallen into sin, that the reasoning of fallen man is not entirely trustworthy, and that God has chosen to reveal something of Himself, and His plans and purposes for mankind, in a written revelation: the Bible. Secular humanists (and atheists), on the other hand, derive their presuppositions solely from human reason and imagination applied to information gained from interactions with the surrounding world.
Presuppositions, as we said, cannot be proven. If a presupposition could be proven, then it is not really a presupposition—it is an interpreted fact—interpreted in the context of the worldview in question. Instead, presuppositions are both the foundation on which a worldview rests and a lens through which data is interpreted. Many people may not be aware of this. For example, in a debate between the late Cardinal George Pell and well-known atheist Richard Dawkins, the compere asked Pell if he could ever provide Dawkins with scientific proof that God exists.[1] The fact that this question was asked shows a misunderstanding of the presuppositional basis in the origins debate. Neither the atheist nor the theist (nor, for that matter, anyone that holds to a different worldview) can prove their presuppositions or disprove the presuppositions of the other side. They may, however, point to evidence that seems to strongly support their presuppositional stance. For the Christian, the historical and legal/testimonial evidence of Jesus’ rising from the dead affirms His authority and divinity, and with it His consistent stance on the total truth of the Old Testament, including its origins account. The atheist may seize upon some seeming evidence in support of the evolutionary narrative. But neither qualifies as any sort of ultimate proof. Such evidences simply act to underpin the interpretive lens of that worldview.
There is one more conclusion that follows from this. Presuppositions are resistant to debate, because any evidence that might imply they are wrong is interpreted by their proponents through that very lens. For example, the Bible when interpreted in a straightforward manner gives a timeline since creation of some thousands of years. But a young-earth creationist, Ken Coulson, who we’ll encounter later in the book, points out that scientific evidence exists (uranium radioisotope halos) that seem to require at least a hundred million years of time to generate. Does Coulson abandon his belief in the biblical timeline because of this? No—he interprets the scientific evidence in light of the Bible and provides an explanation which incorporates both lines of evidence.
We see the exact same process in the atheistic camp. Atheists have no demonstrable explanation for the emergence of life by natural means. Do they abandon their presuppositions because of this? No—they reinterpret the evidence, typically arguing along the lines that science has made good progress thus far, so there is no reason to believe this problem will not be solved at some future point.
Let’s look at another example. Suppose a social researcher cites statistics showing that most scientists support human evolution.[2] This fact might appear to humanists to support Darwinism; the statistic shows that the most educated and rational people favor Darwinism, hence, Darwinism must be both rational and sensible. Even further, they may view this victory of Darwinism in higher education as a sort of natural selection of stronger ideas over weaker ideas—Darwinism acting in the world of thought. But Christians could interpret this same piece of information differently, pointing out, for instance, that it supports the New Testament principle outlined in 1 Corinthians 1:26–29:
Brothers and sisters, consider your calling: Not many were wise from a human perspective, not many powerful, not many of noble birth. Instead, God has chosen what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen what is weak in the world to shame the strong. God has chosen what is insignificant and despised in the world—what is viewed as nothing—to bring to nothing what is viewed as something, so that no one may boast in his presence.
In this interpretation, the data corroborates what the Bible says and therefore supports the Christian worldview.
Hence a particular piece of data may appear to strongly support both the humanist’s Darwinian worldview and the Christian’s Christian worldview. The key takeaway is that presuppositions are not proven, but because they influence how data is interpreted, worldviews are self-reinforcing in a manner that can appear like circular reasoning.
This circularity is evident on all sides. For example, a Christian believes the Bible, in one sense, because it declares itself to be the revealed word of God. (However, Christians typically believe in the Bible for additional reasons, such as the striking abundance of early source documents, its trustworthiness as a historical text, the wisdom of its message, the historical fulfilment of biblical prophecies, and its impact on their personal lives.) The secular humanist and the atheist effectively both maintain that human reason is the only trustworthy authority, which again appears to have some circularity. The conclusion both parties reach very much depends on their starting points. This applies to all worldviews.
[1] The debate can be viewed at youtube.com/watch?v=QaA5QrZBzWg
[2] Masci, 2019.