Interpreting the Data

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

A certain anti-creationist insists that poems are interpreted, not facts or data. Strange talk from someone who supposedly has a doctorate, and I reckon that it's his bias that motivates such a wrong statement.

Picture this, if you will. I started up the car and the "check engine" light came on and stayed on, giving a dose of anxiety to start the day. When I took the car to my mechanic, he plugged in his machine to get the data. From the codes, that model's history, and other checking, he was able to tell me what was going on and repair it.

Information by itself is not very useful unless it is interpreted. Data in operational science is more likely to be interpreted in a straightforward way, while historical science approaches to Earth history and origins are subject to biases.
Tech Sgt. Annette Ferguson-Sims watches over a patient during an MRI scan.
U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Keith Brown.

Use of image does not imply endorsement of this site's contents.
If you haven't had an MRI scan, you probably know someone who has had the procedure done since millions of them are done every year. (Good thing biblical creationist scientist Dr. Raymond Damadian invented it, huh?) Or maybe an X-Ray, or something else. At any rate, you have to wait for the radiologist to look at the results and send them to your referring physician.

You can have a passel of information stowed in your saddle bags, but raw data won't do anyone much good. The mechanic interprets the data, the radiologist interprets the scan. I get my car fixed, hopefully you get better after your treatment.

We all have our biases, experiences, presuppositions, education, and worldviews affecting how we interpret information. In the examples of operational science and technology given above, the interpretations are pretty straightforward, different technicians would probably come up with similar results unless the circumstances were complicated, then they might have to confer. 

When it comes to historical science involving origins and Earth history, interpretations of data become much more subjective as worldviews come into play. Creationists and molecules-to-MRI-technician evolutionists all have the same facts and information, but interpret them in different ways. (For that matter, scientists disagree on hypotheses and models in both camps.) Someone's starting point makes a world of difference. "Science" is a method of interpreting information found in the natural and physical world, and not a monolithic guarantee of truth, even though some people make a religion out of science.

Secularists generally have a materialistic (no God) and evolutionary bias when they interpret data, and biblical creation scientists believe that God is the Creator and that the Bible is true. When an evolutionist tells you what happened in the distant past (especially in an educational system), you should be determining what are the facts, and how much of what you're being told is actually just a story. We have the eyewitness account of the Creator. They spin yarns based on their worldviews and biases.