Why do some believe in Evolution, and some do not?

This depends on the definition of Evolution. If all that is meant by Evolution is change over time (as many textbooks innocuously suggest), then we can see the Evolution of many things, including our own bodies (aging). However, if when we speak of Evolution we are speaking of the process by which many biological scientists assert life has developed into its present form (an ancestral single-celled organism developing, or evolving, into the variety of life we see today) we have to delve more deeply into what the Bible says, the authority of the Bible, the cooperation of the Bible and current scientific ideas, etc.

It seems that the current disagreements between Christians on the topic of Evolution, and between Christians and "others", originates with individuals' worldviews (the set of suppositions or ideas that govern/influence the understanding of what we see, do, feel, understand, think, defend, attack, etc.).

We all have presuppositions. I go into a coffee store to buy coffee because I desire to drink it (more than I desire not to drink it) and I presuppose several things:

1. They have coffee.
2. They sell coffee.
3. They will sell me coffee.

Likewise, when I read and study the Bible, I do so because my desire to read and study it is greater than my desire not to, and I presuppose these things (among others) about my task:

1. It is beneficial.
2. I am capable of doing it.
3. The Bible is the inspired Word of God.
4. The Bible is inerrant (in its original autographs, or writings).
5. My translations have insignificantly altered the actual meaning of the text.
6. The Holy Spirit will assist me in understanding.
7. I will draw closer to God.
   

When many professional "scientists" interpret data from experiments, they also have presuppositions (any honest scientist will admit that). Some common presuppositions among many scientists are:

1. The data may not be accurate or reliable.
2. The data may be accurate or reliable.
3. The data mean something.
4. There is no supernatual element needed to understand and interpret the data.
5. The observable, "testable" universe is all there is, was, and will be.
6. Human understanding is sufficient to explain the data.

continued...

An orthodox Christian scientist may make some of the following presuppositions:

1. The data may not be accurate or reliable.
2. The data may be accurate or reliable.
3. The data may mean something.
4. There is a supernatural element necessary to understand and interpret the data properly. It can be found in the Holy Bible, which in its original autographs (manuscripts written by original authors) is inerrant and the Word of God.
5. The observable, "testable" universe was created by God at a finite point in time, which is recorded in Genesis, particularily.
6. Human understanding, apart from the Word of God, will never truly understand creation.

Starting with these two different sets of presuppositions, two scientists similarly educated in the same field will come up with two different conclusions, though the facts are the same for both. An example would be...to be continued.....

...(continued)...the fossil record.

An observer who has a naturalistic presupposition (all things can be explained by the "natural" world, through "natural" laws, without supernatural intervention) may see fossils lower in the strata and suppose that they were early, "primitive" organisms--some of the first to evolve, and that they were buried slowly by layer after layer of sediment and over (perhaps) millions of years, pressure, heat, and elemental solutes affected the remains and formed them into fossils.

An observer who has theistic presuppositions (i.e. understanding the Bible's Genesis account as an accurate description of the beginning of the universe) might look at the SAME fossils and understand them to be less-mobile organisms that were buried under layers and layers of sediment and millions of tons of water during the worldwide flood of Noah's time.

[Notice that the Fossil Record as interpreted by Evolutionists suggests that the "primitive" organisms are found first because they evolved first. Those same organisms are usually some of the least mobile, aquatic organisms. Therefore, a creationist's interpretation that these are found first because they were buried first during the flood (drastic sedimentation during the opening of the deep and heavy rains)]

Both observers are using the same data ("facts") and coming up with two very different, yet viable (according to their presuppositions). I will post other examples at a later date.

One of the bottom-line question that I believe must be asked is, "Whose interpretation makes the most sense of the data? Who has to stretch farthest to 'make it work'?"