There is a distinct difference between a pre-suppositionalist versus evidentialist approach to the science of origins. An evidentialist approach- whether carried out by an evolutionary scientist or a creation scientist- pretends we can prove from the natural data itself the order and timing of biological and geological origins. The pre-suppositionalist approach recognizes the variables are so many, the possible explanatory models are so great, the data is often so vague, and human nature is so fallen, that man cannot prove from natural data the order and timing of origins. Men should be able to recognize that nature was created by God (though they often even deny this), but this is quite different from knowing the order and timing of origins. An evidential approach to the science of origins also shares the general deficiencies of evidentialism overall.
Pre-suppositionalism in general recognizes the limits of man’s ability to acquire knowledge apart from pre-suppositional faith in the divine revelation of scripture. This general distinction stems from at least four clear and significant differences between the presuppositional and evidentialist apologetic approaches. One underlying difference concerns a different perspective on the condition of man in his unregenerate state. The presuppositionalist views man as totally depraved and totally corrupted by sin, whereas the evidentialist views man’s corruption in a more limited fashion. The evidentialist believes there is enough remaining capacity for sound reasoning in the unregenerate man to bring him through rational evidence to the point of faith. The evidentialist would acknowledge the presence of sin in man, but would deny that it is so great that it must be totally transformed before it can attain a living and true knowledge of God. It does not acknowledge that the unregenerate man’s will is totally bent against acknowledging the truth. On the other hand, the presuppositionalist regards unregenerate man as lacking such a capacity for sound reasoning. He views man as willfully bent against acknowledging truth (Romans 3:11), and as wholly bent on suppression of the truth (Romans 1:18).
Flowing out of this different perspective on the nature of man is a different perspective on the danger of autonomous reasoning. The evidentialist implicitly acknowledges the legitimacy of human autonomous reasoning, whereas the presuppositionalist explicitly rejects it. Evidentialism permits man to stand back, weigh the evidence for and against God and the truth of his word, and arrive at a judgment. Now, of course, the Christian evidentialist would assert that the judgment that should be arrived at is for God and the Bible. But the presuppositionalist argues the ends do not justify the means. The presuppositionalist argues that Eve’s sin began when she put herself in the role of judge and jury of God. Man does not have a right to such a vaulted position as a creature of God to question him (Romans 9:20), but should always embrace God and his word in faith.
One reason why they have a different view on autonomous reasoning is their different view on the antithesis between God’s kingdom and the kingdom of this world. This antithesis blurs along the edges in the evidentialist conception, but remains quite separate and distinct in the presuppositionalist conception. According to the evidentialist conception, there are more areas of neutrality which serve as the common ground of believer and unbeliever. Reason and logic are considered by the evidentialist as one such neutral territory. Since it is considered neutral territory, it is also regarded as fertile ground to arrive at Biblical truth. But the presuppositionalist denies that this is neutral territory, but rather argues that such human wisdom is thoroughly darkened and corrupted by sin (Romans 1:21). It asserts fallen human wisdom and divine wisdom are diametrically opposed and antithetical (I Corinthians 1:21).
Finally, the evidentialist assumes faith can come through reasoning and understanding, whereas the presuppositionalist affirms that right reasoning and understanding can only be attained through faith. The presuppositionalist points out how "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom". Without such an embrace of God in faith, man is left to grope in darkness and futility. Without presupposed faith in God and his word, the most mundane aspects of human experience- from the laws of ethics to the laws of science- cannot be rationally understood and explained.
With regards specifically to the science of origins, the factors against knowing the order and timing from natural data itself are overwhelming. When considering the order and timing of events in the distant past, there are a multitude of variables to consider. Perhaps must fundamental concerns the state and beginning of the creation itself. If God created a fully functioning universe ex nihilo, then it has a built-in appearance of age from an evolutionist perspective. (From a creationist perspective, it has a built-in appearance of what it is.) But even with this knowledge, there is still question as to the exact details of what the world looked like at creation. From the evolutionary perspective, the world was not created fully functioning ex nihilo, but this is an assumption of his model, and hence a variable. There is further the variable of the uniformity of the laws of nature. From a scriptural perspective there are dis-uniformities (e.g., man not subject to death), but it is not certain the extent of these in the pre-fall and pre-flood world from afterwards. Was there refraction of light as we know it since it is stated that God made the rainbow as a sign after Noah’s flood? Were there different laws operating to extend man’s life span? Were there other dis-uniformities? We simply do not know. Of course, the evolutionary model assumes uniformity, but this is an assumption and a variable. There is nothing in the materialistic conception of the Darwinian view to even commend laws of nature, much less their uniformity. Laws of natural science are not physical. But since they are not physical, then they must only exist as the thoughts of men trying to impose an order upon the chance reactions of atoms and molecules. According to the naturalistic conception, there is certainly no omniscient mind to fall back upon to say the way atoms and molecules behave in a particular space and time is universally the case. Therefore, such laws must be reduced to the conceptions of finite men: mere conventions, not uniform laws. Beyond these two variables, there are variables about conditions on and off the earth, and how they inter-relate. Furthermore, in almost every scientific study of origins there is some data that does not fit the model proposed. Explanations are generally given for this divergent data. But the explanations are generally unproved and even untestable. These are additional variables. There are variables relating to rates of decay, beginning conditions of objects, etc. Sometimes the data is not even clear. It may be hard to identify a specimen, or it may be hard to tell if it was tainted by its environment. Assumptions are often made in these circumstances about the specimen, adding an additional variable to the mix. In summary, there are a multitude of variables.
Math, like the scientific method, is a powerful tool to learn. But math has its limits when there are too many variables. If one is trying to solve two equations with three are more variables, it is not possible to determine the value of the variables. Of course, one can assume a value for one of the variables to know the other two, but then that is not a solution to the original problem, but only one of many possible solutions. Similarly, using the scientific method to know the timing and order of origins has such a multitude of variables that all that one can do is derive possible models to explain the natural data. And there are numerous possible models which could be proposed to explain the natural data if one is allowed to make unproved and untestable assumptions about many of the variables.
Add to all these difficulties the human nature of those engaging in science, and the pull against deriving a firm conclusion based only on the evidence is overwhelming. Humans have their agendas, due to economics, pride, social pressures, group and social biases, and - most importantly- sin and depravity. All these factors mitigate against deriving detailed knowledge of origins from the natural data.
In order therefore to attain any knowledge of the order and timing of
origins we must begin with a pre-suppositional faith in God’s word and
in its account of origins. We may be able to hypothesize beyond the
Biblical account, but we should recognize there are some significant obstacles
to our deriving any firm conclusion from the natural data itself.