DullJake
New Blood
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 7
I put together a little list of fallacies that Intelligent design guys and creationists usually make. I also have a little cartoon (it’s a four parter, and it’s published twice a week) that also pokes fun at them. You can visit my post here for the cartoon at brainode.com
The list is:
1. Subjectivism: Intelligent design is true because I want it to be true
That’s a pretty common mistake that these guys make. Creationist dudes are all intensely religious, and whenever they see any iota of evidence that might “prove” their beliefs, they are completely blind to any fact that disputes it.
2. Appeal to Ignorance: Can the average person prove Evolution
Most creationists know that the average person is not totally familiar with evolution, and that there are many big gaps in their understanding. By exploiting an individuals own ignorance, they create doubt by asking questions that the average layman cannot answer, like “if we descended from monkeys, why are there monkeys now?” or “how can evolution explain how something as complex as an eye was formed?” A good scientist will be able to answer that, but not Joe Everyman.
3. False Alternative: If Evolution is false, then God did it
This fallacy is pretty common among intelligent design proponents. It basically supposes that any gap or dispute about the theory of evolution automatically suggests that their own creationist theory must therefore be true. But if evolution was proven to be false (which it will never be, sorry to say), then why would their explanation be the only alternative?
4. Non Sequitur: What happens when you use Religion in a Scientific debate
Non sequitur mean, quite literally in Latin, what “does not follow”. It’s an argument that proposes an irrelevant conclusion. It relies on an implicit claim that is not stated in the argument, and that the entire argument shifts direction towards a conclusion that had nothing to do with the argument in the first place. The argument can go as follows: “Evolution cannot fully explain all biological questions; therefore all life is the product of a supreme designing intelligence”. The implicit premise is that there is a God, and also that this God is able to create living matter. Since this premise has nothing to do with biology, it has no place in a debate on evolution. at there is a God, and also that this God is able to create living matter. Since this premise has nothing to do with biology, it has no place in a debate on evolution.
The list is:
1. Subjectivism: Intelligent design is true because I want it to be true
That’s a pretty common mistake that these guys make. Creationist dudes are all intensely religious, and whenever they see any iota of evidence that might “prove” their beliefs, they are completely blind to any fact that disputes it.
2. Appeal to Ignorance: Can the average person prove Evolution
Most creationists know that the average person is not totally familiar with evolution, and that there are many big gaps in their understanding. By exploiting an individuals own ignorance, they create doubt by asking questions that the average layman cannot answer, like “if we descended from monkeys, why are there monkeys now?” or “how can evolution explain how something as complex as an eye was formed?” A good scientist will be able to answer that, but not Joe Everyman.
3. False Alternative: If Evolution is false, then God did it
This fallacy is pretty common among intelligent design proponents. It basically supposes that any gap or dispute about the theory of evolution automatically suggests that their own creationist theory must therefore be true. But if evolution was proven to be false (which it will never be, sorry to say), then why would their explanation be the only alternative?
4. Non Sequitur: What happens when you use Religion in a Scientific debate
Non sequitur mean, quite literally in Latin, what “does not follow”. It’s an argument that proposes an irrelevant conclusion. It relies on an implicit claim that is not stated in the argument, and that the entire argument shifts direction towards a conclusion that had nothing to do with the argument in the first place. The argument can go as follows: “Evolution cannot fully explain all biological questions; therefore all life is the product of a supreme designing intelligence”. The implicit premise is that there is a God, and also that this God is able to create living matter. Since this premise has nothing to do with biology, it has no place in a debate on evolution. at there is a God, and also that this God is able to create living matter. Since this premise has nothing to do with biology, it has no place in a debate on evolution.
