Assumptions & Presuppositions of Liberals

Assumptions and presuppositions of liberals

Followers of liberalism often claim that they have no presuppositions and assumptions. It is possible that some liberals may believe this statement to be true. I personally don't believe that the liberal elite are that naive. It is much more likely that they find this "No presuppositions" claim to be a useful argument to deceive the ignorant. The reality is that liberals are confident and unquestioning of their belief in their presuppositions. They trust so completely in their vision that they can't understand how anyone would not make the same assumptions as those that they personally revere. In that light, it seemed that it would be a good exercise to list some of the unproven and unprovable assumptions and presuppositions with which liberals have become identified:

1. Materialism: The unprovable presupposition that no God, no spirits, no heaven, no hell, no life after death, no angels exist.
2. Naturalism: The unprovable presupposition that nothing happens because of God, or because of any spiritual cause.
3. Uniformitarianism: The unprovable presupposition that there was no creation and there was no flood.
4. Post-Modernism: The unprovable presupposition that there is no truth; no lie, no fact, no fiction, but only winners and losers.
5. Chaos theory: The unprovable presupposition that there is no order, that everything is random, that observation and science mean nothing.
6. Rationalism: The unprovable presupposition that the human mind can manufacture knowledge without the benefit of observation or revelation. This is the idea that rationalized speculation (making it up) is a source of knowledge and understanding. Of course, liberals firmly believe that their own creative stories are valid and yours are not.

Those are the main presuppositions but here are some more:

1. The myth that all things are relative. The myth each person must find his or her own "truth," as if there were many truths rather than one truth. The myth that there are no absolutes. The myth that everything is "both/and" and that nothing is "either/or."
2. The myth that it's OK to reconstruct (lie about) history. The myth that it's OK to reconstruct (lie about) the U.S. Constitution. Reconstructionism (regardless or the type) is a presupposition that is a synonym for lying.
3. The myth that we all descended from fish. The myth that energy designed and created itself. The myth that living cells designed and created themselves. The myth of spontaneous life. The myth that hydrogen turns into people over time. The myth that there must be a mysterious law of nature, which can be not observed anywhere; a mysterious law that somehow works just the opposite of the Second Law of Thermodynamics creating evolution. "Remember this tendency from order to disorder applies to all real processes. Real processes include, of course, biological and geological processes, as well as chemical and physical processes. The interesting question is: "How does a real biological process, which goes from order to disorder, result in evolution, which goes from disorder to order?" Perhaps the evolutionist can ultimately find an answer to this question, but he at least should not ignore it, as most evolutionists do. Especially is such a question vital, when we are thinking of evolution as a growth process on the grand scale from atom to Adam and from particle to people. This represents an absolutely gigantic increase in order and complexity, and is clearly out of place altogether in the context of the Second Law." http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-thermodynamics-entropy/

   The Evolutionists will tell you a half truth about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Evolutionists will tell the half truth: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to isolated systems, so it's not relevant to evolution, because the Earth is an open system." This is a clever lie. Here is the part of the truth that they are withholding: the Second Law of Thermodynamics was derived using theoretical isolated systems, but it applies to all systems, and can only be overcome locally and temporarily in open systems when stringent conditions are met. Not only that, but we are not talking about the Earth. The Earth is just a subsystem of a much larger system called the Universe. The Universe is an isolated system. Evolutionists claim that Evolution took place in this isolated system, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that their story is a myth.

   More information on the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be found here & here & here & here & here

   Evolution also has an information problem. There is no mechanism in the story of molecules-to-man evolution to create new information. New information must be added for even the smallest step in evolution. (Read the latest science on the subject: Without Excuse by Werner Gitt, a description of the scientific Laws of Universal Information. See also: Information Theory Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. Here is another interesting article.) More is constantly being learned about information and about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evolutionists tend to hide in the weeds of the unknown with an argument from ignorance: "If you can't prove, by empirical science, that evolution is impossible, then it happened." By empirical science alone, we can only prove probabilities. The probabilities show the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story to be a bazaar hypothesis, a story that is so improbable that it should not be considered. However, empirical science is not a tool that can prove anything to be true or false absolutely. For absolute proof, we have revelation. (See Basic and Concise Guide to Practical, Useful Logic and Reasoning). God says that He created everything. He is the One Who enforces the laws of nature. He is the One Who will judge all of us in the end. We know that because we know Him presonally through the indwelling Presence of Jesus Christ and the moment-by-moment instruction of the Holy Spirit.

Most evolutionists don't even seem to be aware of this problem. Others have developed pat answers to keep people from thinking about it. They say things like this: We have observed duplication of sections of DNA. Those duplicated sections mutate, creating new information. Natural selection selects for the changes. That sounds feasible, but there is a problem. Mutations never create new information. So, they lie to the students and tell them that new information is created. It's an outright lie.

There is a constant scramble, on the part of Evolutionists, to provide some method by which complexity and order could have possibly developed by naturalistic means--as if telling an uncheckable lie makes the lie true. But they can't even come up with an uncheckable lie. So far they have come up with wild tales like the following: "Whence life complexity? Give evolutionists all the carbon-based molecules they want - will they get life to form and evolve? Will the amino acids form proteins (see online book) that can evolve into complex life? Michael Lynch and Ariel Fernandez, scientists at the University of Chicago, reported PhysOrg began with proteins, and then speculated that "Errors in protein structure sparked evolution of biological complexity." That's right: complex life is the result of mistakes. This idea was published in Nature.¹ "... "This new idea is actually un-Darwinian. In a nutshell, PhysOrg said, "random introduction of errors into proteins, rather than traditional natural selection, may have boosted the evolution of biological complexity."  How can that be?   It is illegitimate to use Natural Selection to support Evolution.  Natural Selection supports a young Earth and a Creator.  Is there any complex system that gets better with the introduction of random errors?"... "Help your local pre-creationist friend at the university become a full-fledged one. Give him or her the following books:

1. Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist by Moshe Averick. Chapter 3 gives a good summary of the hopelessness of evolutionary theories on the origin of life, with ample quotes from leading evolutionists and origin-of-life researchers themselves.
2. Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer.
3. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome by Dr. John C. Sanford. Fascinating and convincing evidence (from a geneticist) on why mutations will never, ever lead to increased fitness--in fact, the human genome is disintegrating due to mutations.
4. The Nature of Nature by numerous authors on both sides of the design question.
5. The Programming of Life by Don Johnson." (Source: CREV - read more)

1. The myth that enlightenment is exclusive to public schools.
2. The myth that God is not active in our lives.
3. The myth that there are many paths to God.
4. The myth of inherent human goodness.
5. The myth that God is not in control of every circumstance.
6. The myth that we need not obey God.
7. The myth that the Bible is not the Word of God.
8. The myth that the Bible has errors in it.
9. The myth that God no longer works in miraculous ways.
10. The myth that human mind can interpret the Bible using reason (rationalized speculation).
11. The myth that God does not give revelation through His Word, the Bible.
12. The myth that if you do more good than evil, that will get you into heaven.
13. The myth that there is no hell.
14. The myth that socialism is compassionate.
15. The myth that a living child is not a person because he or she has not yet been born.
16. The myth that it's OK to kill the old, the sick, or the disabled.
17. The myth that fornication or to have lewd thoughts are not destructive.
18. The myth that you can help the poor by punishing the rich.
19. The myth that you can help employees by punishing the employers.
20. The myth that high taxes don't hurt the economy.
21. The myth that the government should spend billions on social programs, which have proven to be failures.
22. The myth that the separation of Church and State means that the State must teach and be guided by the Secular/Religious Humanist religion.
23. The myth that the judicial branch of the U.S. Federal Government should be the most powerful even though not elected.