List of Common Fallacies by Creationists

[Upchurch]

See? We completely agree.

Now that is mock worthy.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

See? We completely agree.

Upchurch totally copies American!

 

[Meadmaker]

It's sad that we, the people who believe in evolution, actually appear to be losing the debate in the public policy arena. You really have to ask why that is.

One reason we are losing is because our spokespeople are so frequently arrogant twits that nobody likes. If you listen to the arguments, they often sound like, "We're smart and modern. You are primitive hicks. Go home." It's not a way to make friends and influence people.

Another reason is that evolution is very counterintuitive and very difficult to understand. The fact is that most people who accept the theory could not defend it persuasively. I, myself, have a master's degree in engineering. I read a lot, including some populare science stuff, which includes some of Dawkins' books, Carl Sagan's "The Dragons of Eden", a few other books specifically on evolution, and lots of others on other scientific topics. In other words, I am way more educated than almost all Americans on the topic.

Despite that, when defending evolution, my most common defense of evolution consists primarily of another common logical fallacy, the Argument from Authority. Carl Sagan says it's true, and thousands of scientists say it is true. Therefore, it's true.

Meanwhile, we fail to understand the other side, and commonly make false statements about them. When that happens, it makes them less likely to believe us. To illustrate, I will take the original post, and show some flaws in the argument, which are numerous. I think there are three types.

1. False statements about believers in intelligent design.
2. Stating a fallacy that is also commonly used by "evolutionists"
3. Committing some other fallacy.

1. Subjectivism: Intelligent design is true because I want it to be true

This is common of any belief in a scientific theory which you don't understand. Since most believers of evolution can't explain evolution, they are committing the same fallacy.

Creationist dudes are all intensely religious,

This is simply false. I have known several "creationist dudes". Most are pretty casual about religion. They haven't bothered to study religion. They haven't bothered to study science. Neither one affects their life very much, so they haven't devoted much thought to it. It is true that, because of that, they commit that fallacy of subjectivism. In effect, they say, "I don't know much about this, but this one sounds right to me."

Don;t make the mistake of assuming that because the pamphlet writers are intense fundamentalists, all the pamphlet readers and pamphlet believers are also intense fundamentalists.

2. Appeal to Ignorance:

Evolutionists practice the flip side of this. They are ignorant. They can't prove evolution. However, they believe it anyway.

3. False Alternative: If Evolution is false, then God did it

First, t is very important to recognize that Intelligent Design doesn't say that. They are saying that some sort of divine thingy did it, but they don't say anything about the nature of that divine thingy. They are saying that life could not have happened by a random process.

Of course, we know that the leaders of the ID movement in America are, in fact, saying that God did it, and most of them also think one particular God did it. In fact, there is pretty solid evidence that the whole concept of Intelligent Design was invented primarily in a hope to pass muster against laws related to separation of church and state. They want to teach creationism without teaching creationism.

Nevertheless, they aren't teaching creationism.

If you fight intelligent design by saying it is creationism, you are committing logical fallacy. They are saying X, but we know that X is really Y. Y is demonstrably false. Therefore X is false. It's a classic strawman. Y, which is biblical literalism, is easily refuted scientifically. So, the straw man of biblical literalism is destroyed, and supporters of evolution claim that ID has been destroyed as well.

4. Non Sequitur: What happens when you use Religion in a Scientific debate.

Commonly employed by evolutionists as well, in this form: "Since God is not necessary to explain the existence or complexity of life, there is no reason to believe God exists." Sometimes, the consequent of the statement may even be "God does not exist" Logically, neither one is supported. Evolution is about science, not religion. It is possible to believe in both, simultaneously, with no contradictions. In fact, many people do. Not every evolutionist would employ this argument, but some do.

In fact, I'm fairly confident at least one will, in this thread.

 

[hgc]

...
If you fight intelligent design by saying it is creationism, you are committing logical fallacy. They are saying X, but we know that X is really Y. Y is demonstrably false. Therefore X is false. It's a classic strawman. Y, which is biblical literalism, is easily refuted scientifically. So, the straw man of biblical literalism is destroyed, and supporters of evolution claim that ID has been destroyed as well.
...

I don't completely agree with you here. There are more aspects to this public debate than establishing the evidence for or against some scientific/pseudo-scientifc reasoning. Though the "ID is really creationism" concept may be a strawman strictly as regards the evidence against the reasoning of ID, it is quite instructive in helping people understand why ID exists in the first place. It goes to the motives of ID proponents. Credibility does count for something in a debate.

 

[joe1347]

NEW YORK (Oct. 23) - Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved. . . "

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051024100409990019

I've often wondered why the creationist types (Intelligent Designers) don't focus in on what appear to still be scientific unknowns related to the origin of life (on earth). Specifically, I don't believe that science has yet determined what was the original source (or cause) for single cell life at the base of the "tree of life" billions of years ago? Comets or the incubator theory (heat + lighting + organic compounds = life) seem to be the best guesses by contempary scientists - but not yet scientific theories. You would think that "educated" creationists would sieze upon this fairly important gap in evolutionary theory and claim that while dinosaurs, natural selection, etc. are proven scientifically - God still is the original source of life (on earth) since lightning doesn't make DNA in the lab. Of course, this conflicts with the bible and young earth "theories" that the creationists seem so "stuck on" (i.e, caveman/Alley Oop hanging out with Dinosaurs). How about some real science mixed in with religion for once?

 

[DullJake]

If James Randi was reading some of the posts up here, I think he'd be dismayed by the few of you that consider Intelligent Design to be at all related to science. Also, if you think that Intelligent Design and Creationists are unrelated, I urge you to get a reality check. I am also completely disinterested in what the majority of Americans believe, since most people are easily duped by religion, or new age mumbo jumbo. The whole reason this site exists is to debunk pseudo scientific garbage like ID and all of its cousins.
Do yourselves a favor and go to skepdic.com to learn more about what intelligent design is, and ask yourself if any of those clowns at the discover institute don't read the bible on a daily basis.

 

[drkitten]

It's sad that we, the people who believe in evolution, actually appear to be losing the debate in the public policy arena. You really have to ask why that is.

Pig-ignorance of science appears to be the big reason. And, unfortunately, posts like this that purport to be supporting evolution and that consist almost entirely of lies, falsehoods, untruths, and simple mistakes are good examples of how pig-ignorance exists and spreads.

Just a few examples:

Another reason is that evolution is very counterintuitive and very difficult to understand. The fact is that most people who accept the theory could not defend it persuasively.

This is also true of quantum physics, of anti-cancer drugs, and of macro-economic theory, but people don't typically react with the same degree of religiously-motivated hostility to discussions of the mass of the top quark.

And the theory of evolution is one of the best-explained and most accessible theories out there; some of the best science writers of our time, particularly Gould and Dawkins, have spent more or less their entire careers writing specifically (and accessibly) about evolution. I'm not entirely sure what more you want "evolutionists" to do -- obviously we're not all writers of Dawkins' calibre, so you can't seriously expect us all to be able to write with his degree of liveliness and precision. But more to the point -- why should we? Dawkins' books are already written -- and the people who need to read them don't. Students are being taught from excellently-written textbooks such as Ken Miller's -- and the Dover school board is actively working to prevent or undercut that.

This is common of any belief in a scientific theory which you don't understand. Since most believers of evolution can't explain evolution, they are committing the same fallacy.

I'm sorry, but this simply isn't true. I don't understand quantum physics, but I certainly have no emotional investment in it being true. I don't believe it because I want it to be true, but because credible people have told me it's true, and when I check the evidence or the papers, they're there and they say what they should say if quantum were true.

I believe quantum because of the evidence. I doubt you could find a single person who believes in quantum physics because he wants it to be true.

Evolutionists practice the flip side of this. They are ignorant. They can't prove evolution. However, they believe it anyway.

Again, false. Evolution is as well-proven as gravity or the composition of the moon's surface.

First, t is very important to recognize that Intelligent Design doesn't say that. They are saying that some sort of divine thingy did it, but they don't say anything about the nature of that divine thingy. They are saying that life could not have happened by a random process.

Did you read Dr. Forrest's testimony? They don't do this -- or more accurately, they are very adept at talking out of both sides of their mouths on this, depending upon who the audience is.

If you fight intelligent design by saying it is creationism, you are committing logical fallacy. They are saying X, but we know that X is really Y. Y is demonstrably false. Therefore X is false. It's a classic strawman. Y, which is biblical literalism, is easily refuted scientifically. So, the straw man of biblical literalism is destroyed, and supporters of evolution claim that ID has been destroyed as well.

It's only a fallacy if, in fact, X is not really Y. If X really is Y, then it's a valid argument. The question of whether ID theory is creationism is a question of fact -- and if you look at the historical record, I don't see how you can separate the two. (Neither, for that matter, do the experts such as Dr. Forrest who have looked at it. Do you think you know better than Dr. Forrest about "the history and nature of intelligent design"?)

 

[Upchurch]

If you fight intelligent design by saying it is creationism, you are committing logical fallacy.

{snip}

So, the straw man of biblical literalism is destroyed, and supporters of evolution claim that ID has been destroyed as well.

This would be true if all creationism was young Earth biblical literalism creationism. That falls apart on its own.

However, there are old Earth not-so-literal creationists, too, and I think this is the "Creationism" that is being compared to Intelligent Design. Further, I would assert that a supernatural agent-based creationism is the necessary logical conclusion of Intelligent Design. While this supernatural agent need not necessarily be the Christian God of Creationism, given the attributes such an agent would require, it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

 

[gnome]

Who specifically do you nominate as suggesting that? The faults are multitudinous in any case, be one a YEC, OEC, IDer, or anyone else who is not a dyed-in-the-wool evolutionist.

BTW, is there some implication that non-creationists do not use all the same fallacies in their debates, assuming the truth of the axioms they prefer -- one axiom being that 'the physical exists' with 'physical' carrying all the implications of casual usage?

Ohhh do I hate to get started with you sometimes... but is there any point to studying science if that "axiom" turns out not to be true? So if someone is partaking of science at all, it's a bit late to be questioning that, isn't it?

 

[hgc]

Ohhh do I hate to get started with you sometimes... but is there any point to studying science if that "axiom" turns out not to be true? So if someone is partaking of science at all, it's a bit late to be questioning that, isn't it?

"Real" scientists don't believe in reality.

 

[hammegk]

... Specifically, I don't believe that science has yet determined what was the original source (or cause) for single cell life at the base of the "tree of life" billions of years ago? Comets or the incubator theory (heat + lighting + organic compounds = life) seem to be the best guesses by contempary scientists - but not yet scientific theories.

LOL.

Let me be the first to explain to you that The Theory of Evolution (aka neo-Darwinism) DOES NOT ADDRESS the problem of abiogenesis.

That is NOT part of The Theory !!!!

Whew! I feel better now ....

... is there any point to studying science if that "axiom" turns out not to be true?

Of course there is, and Science works equally well under either monism, 'body', or 'mind', as the ontological reality. The differences show up in other features of one's worldview, and 'mind' always remains less inimical to free-will, sprituality, etc. than 'body'. Neither view solves the problems.

Evolution is a crux in the matter. Choose 'body' and evolution, Darwinian or otherwise, is only possible answer since nothing else can logically exist that could effect or affect any outcome. Choose 'mind', and that 100% certainty disappears.

 

[drkitten]

Let me be the first to explain to you that The Theory of Evolution (aka neo-Darwinism) DOES NOT ADDRESS the problem of abiogenesis.

True but irrelevant in context, since what joe said was:

Specifically, I don't believe that sciencehas yet determined what was the original source (or cause) for single cell life at the base of the "tree of life" billions of years ago?

And although the Theory of Evolution does not address the problem of abiogenesis, there are other hypotheses out there that certainly attempt to.

The basic problem is that the uncertainty at this level of discourse isn't helpful to the creationist perspective and point of view. Simply asking that teachers "teach the controversy" isn't helpful, because on the rare occaisons where abiogenesis is addressed at all, the controversy is almost automatically taught as students are asked to look at the evidence between and among the various competing scientific hypotheses and asked to evaluate them critically. Unfortunately, since the creationists cannot produce any evidence at all to support their point of view, they tend to get left at the gate as the students discuss whether the clay-crystal model or the amino-acid-soup model is more reasonable.

Really, this kind of argument quickly ends up becoming fatal to the creationists. Not only does it do a good job of illustrating exactly the sort of evidence and reason-based argumentation that is part and parcel of science, but it also clearly shows the difference between a small-h hypothesis (such as the various aproaches to the origins of life) and a capital-T Theory (such as evolution), which ends up strengthening the overall hand of the evolutionists.

So the reason that creationists don't discuss abiogenesis and the genuine scientific controversy that exists there is because it ends up playing to the evolutionists' strengths.

 

[hammegk]

So the reason that creationists don't discuss abiogenesis and the genuine scientific controversy that exists there is because it ends up playing to the evolutionists' strengths.

Interesting comment. The group I have found most unwilling to discuss life and how it began were True Believers in The Theory, and they seemed to recognize it as feet of clay.

Again, for a true believer evolutionist-scientist-materialist it cannot be goddidit. At least, I suggest that is how your religious opponents see your stance, rightly or wrongly.

 

[joe1347]

So the reason that creationists don't discuss abiogenesis and the genuine scientific controversy that exists there is because it ends up playing to the evolutionists' strengths.

Makes sense. I guess that explains why the creationists seem so stuck to what "scientific outsiders" consider such an untenable position. That is - they (creationists) can't be seen as "giving in" on absolutely any aspect of what the bible preaches for fear of losing the faithful to science - no matter how ridiculous the so-called "scientific" claims.

I must lead too sheltered of a life since I just can't understand why 51% of Americans believe this nonsense (Intelligent Design/Creationism). Even if the 51% only gets their science from Movies - such as Jurassic Park - isn't that still enough to refute much of creationist dogma (not theory)?

 

[gnome]

Of course there is, and Science works equally well under either monism, 'body', or 'mind', as the ontological reality. The differences show up in other features of one's worldview, and 'mind' always remains less inimical to free-will, sprituality, etc. than 'body'. Neither view solves the problems.

Could you please describe to me an example of science performed under the assumption that the physical may not exist?

 

[bagtaggar]

Perhaps this is unnecessary, but has anyone seen the big list of creationist claims?

 

[Meadmaker]

Pig-ignorance of science appears to be the big reason. And, unfortunately, posts like this that purport to be supporting evolution and that consist almost entirely of lies, falsehoods, untruths, and simple mistakes are good examples of how pig-ignorance exists and spreads.

If you ever want to see why the good guys are losing the debate, reread that quote. However, let's deal with some of the ways I spread pig ignorance with my lies falsehoods and half-truths.

I doubt you could find a single person who believes in quantum physics because he wants it to be true.

I know several, actually. By introducing what appears to be uncertainty into physical laws, it opens up a mechanism by which very improbable events could happen without violating the laws of physics. A lot of people believe that miracles happen by God tweaking the probabilities found with quantum mechanics so that just the right thing happens. God causes an extra electron to change state, which causes a butterfly's wing to flap just a bit differently, and pretty soon a hurricane is bearing down upon Florida.

I wouldn't recommend paying for it, but if you can find a movie called "What the Bleep Do You Know" you will find plenty of people who believe in quantum mechanics because they want to.

Again, false. Evolution is as well-proven as gravity or the composition of the moon's surface.

I should clarify. I, personally, cannot explain and certainly cannot prove evolution, but I believe it anyway. I have to rely on an argument from authority. I've read those authorities, and they make sense, but it is an argument from authority none the less.

Did you read Dr. Forrest's testimony? They don't do this -- or more accurately, they are very adept at talking out of both sides of their mouths on this, depending upon who the audience is.

The theory of intelligent design says what it says regardless of who is saying it, or what they say when they are saying something that isn't the theory of intelligent design. You can't fight intelligent design by saying it's really just something else. It isn't, regardless of who believes it or what else those other people believe.

For what it's worth, one of my coworkers believes in Intelligent Design. He's a devout Hindu.

In discussing the argument from ignorance, I realized I had forgotten my main point about the argument from ignorance. Opponents of evolution frequently say, "You can't show me a single case of a species transforming into another. Therefore, evolution is unproven." That's an argument from ignorance. Opponents of any theory that relies on miraculous intervention frequently say, "You can't show me a single instance of a miracle, therefore the existence of miracles is unproven." That, too, is an argument from ignorance.




P.S. I'm going to call intelligent design a "theory", although it would be better called a conjecture or a hypothesis. Please forgive me.

 

[Meadmaker]

This would be true if all creationism was young Earth biblical literalism creationism. That falls apart on its own.

However, there are old Earth not-so-literal creationists, too, and I think this is the "Creationism" that is being compared to Intelligent Design. Further, I would assert that a supernatural agent-based creationism is the necessary logical conclusion of Intelligent Design. While this supernatural agent need not necessarily be the Christian God of Creationism, given the attributes such an agent would require, it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

I did indeed have in mind the young earth creationists when I made my comments. Intelligent Design does lead to a logical conclusion that there is some supernatural force at work, but that could be any force at all. Prometheus is a perfect candidate for the intelligent designer.


What I am saying is that you can't attack intelligent design effectively based on any sort of argument that it is really something else. It is what it is, and it has, at its core, a couple of scientific hypotheses. 1. Life is too complex to have involved randomly. and 2. The intermediate forms of complex organs would not serve enough useful purpose to create an evolutionary advantage. Therefore, natural selection cannot explain the complexity of life.

Neither of those is easily refuted. They are easily shown to be unproven, but to say that they are actually wrong is, unless I missed something, a bit of a stretch.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I'm not up on my Latin -- is there one that means Cherry Picking the Evidence? If not, that should be there as well.

It's not latin, but...
Fallacy of Exclusion
certainly fits your description.

 

[hgc]

...
What I am saying is that you can't attack intelligent design effectively based on any sort of argument that it is really something else. It is what it is, and it has, at its core, a couple of scientific hypotheses. 1. Life is too complex to have involved randomly. and 2. The intermediate forms of complex organs would not serve enough useful purpose to create an evolutionary advantage. Therefore, natural selection cannot explain the complexity of life.

Neither of those is easily refuted. They are easily shown to be unproven, but to say that they are actually wrong is, unless I missed something, a bit of a stretch.

The first point is a strawman. Natural Selection is not a random process. Thus irrelevant and refuted.

The second point has been refuted for each example the ID'ers have proposed, from the eye to bacterial flagellum.

Despite these refutations, ID'ers who have been corrected about these points continue to flog these falacies, which brings us back to the lying.