The Complex Genome and Presuppositions

The article featured below has two important points to make. The first one is about how people interpret evidence, the second discusses some of the ways Darwinoids deal from the bottom of the deck while attempting to evosplain away facts that inconvenience their worldview.

Two problems for professing Christians are dealt with in the linked article. One is the basis of faith and evidence, the other is how Darwinists evosplain with bad material.
Background Image: RGBStock / Tomislav Alajbeg
When creationists ride with the evidence brand, they can be in for a world of hurt. I remember reading an article by an old earth compromiser who was thrilled that there was "proof" of the Big Bang and the inflation of the universe. Very shortly afterward, this was rejected. In a similar manner, I was being hounded by someone who was constantly alarmed when some evolutionary "evidence" was presented. "This can be refuted, right?" The faith of these professing Christians was not properly grounded and they are facing the barrage of fake news from the secular science industry, so they are often troubled.

Christians must presuppose the truth of God's Word which is the ultimate authority and basis for our faith. Materialists presuppose a godless universe (which cannot make sense of science and logic), prompting them to find rescuing devices on the frequent occasions that their supposed evidence for deep time and evolution are threatened. I mentioned those who ride for the evidence brand, which includes professing Christians who have a low view of Scripture as well as materialists. Their ride is a bumpy one, pilgrim.

When a creationist knows a subject and enters into a discussion, there is occasionally some tinhorn who wants to "educate" the poor deluded creationist. The evolutionist and his or her comrades may fire off several rounds of jargon and tell the creationist why he or she is wrong according to the evolutionists' allegedly superior knowledge. While it may look the the creationist is overwhelmed and shamed into submission, the facts provided are often outdated or even false. The writer of the letter to CMI presents a detailed evosplanation that gets a mite tedious and technical, but there are several logical points made with better science that can be helpful if you stay with it. Personally, the first part on presuppositions was my favorite.
Recently I’ve come across quite an interesting piece on the complexity of our genes, and as much as I hate to admit it, my faith is wavering due to this. It is the following…

‘The evolutionist refutation of this that I have heard so far is that “it is incorrect” to assume that all the enzymes, little mechanisms etc must be functioning perfectly in order for the cell to live. But nobody that I have found has explained why this is so. I would like some one on here to elaborate, please.

I can handle this one in pretty good detail

Let us first lay down some structure for the description.
To continue reading, click on "Presuppositionalism vs evidentialism, and is the human genome simple?"