Fallacies of Logic

Below in this section will be posted examples of the fallacious arguments to which creationists, 'intelligent design' proponents, and pro-'intelligent design' debaters resort in their attempt to prove their point. Because idism appeals to the pseudo-intellectual fundamentalist Christian, most examples will be pulled from 'intelligent design' arguments.

This is not to say that evolutionists do not make the occassional logical blooper. Perhaps the commonest is the circular argument. It should be noted that explanations can also appear circular, but this is not a problem of logic because explanations are not arguments.

See 'comments' or Illogical Deceit Theory post for explanation of terms.

Index of fallacies discussed:
posts:
* ad hominem * authority * composing problems * circular argument * denial * deliberate ambiguities * fallatio * huff & puff * incredulity * proof-disproof muddles * red herrings * shifting the burden of proof * tu quoque

key elements of fallacy
accident : appeal to authority : attack : authority : begging the question : circularity : co-incidence : composition : denial : disbelief : distraction : doublespeak : equivocation : fallacy of four terms : false dichotomy : false dichotomy radio-dating : generalization : huff & puff : incredulity : ignorance - ignorantium : individuals to group : inappropriate authority : irrelevant authority : members to whole : misuse of authority : parts to whole : personal attack : proof-disproof : prove it! : questionable authority : red herring : smoke screen : straw man : over-extrapolating over-generalization : unsupported conclusion : wild goose chase : you also, you're another, you too :

common names of fallacy
against the man : appeal to authority : argument from ignorance : argument from incredulity : begging the question : circular argument : composition : denial : disbelief : doublespeak : equivocation : fallacy of four terms : fallacious appeal to authority : fallacy of accident : inappropriate authority : incredulity : irrelevant authority : misuse of authority : questionable authority : red herring : smoke screen : special pleading : straw man : sweeping generalization : unsupported conclusion : wild goose chase : you also, you're another, you too

Latin names for fallacy
ad hominem : ad verecundiam : ad verecundiam fallacy : argumentum ad ignorantiam : argumentum ad verecundiam : dicto simplicter : ignoratio elenchi : petitio principii : tu quoque : verecundiam :

over-extrapolating

Fallacy of accident, sweeping generalization, dicto simpliciter

As applied to idism* claims this fallacious argument runs “we observe the products of (human) intelligence, so complex functionality implies intelligent design – biological life is complex and functional – therefore life must have been created by an intelligent designer.” This is the idism reworking of Paley's "Blind Watchmaker" argument (1802) argument.

The illogical difficulty with this argument lies in the fallacious generalization from our observation that human intelligence creates complex and functional objects (watches, computers, airplanes) to the unfounded conclusion that something that ‘accidentally’ shares only the features of functionality and complexity – biological life – must have arisen by the same mechanism, namely application of intelligence. This fallacious argument could also be regarded as a false analogy. In general, analogies are useful for the purposes of explanation, but they are risky endeavors in arguments. The idism platform, due to its lack of factual or experimental basis, consists almost entirely of analogies. That is idism is 'clearly religious and indubitably not science'.

A clear example of this fallacy: "We observe that tomatoes grow on plants, so the existence of round red fruit implies tomato plants – an apple is a round red fruit – therefore an apple must be the product of a tomato plant." True premises have been over-extrapolated to an incorrect conclusion.

If the complex object in question shares more relevant features with the observed object, then the conclusion may be true. “We observe that electronic devices are the products of human intelligence, so the existence of an electronic device implies human intelligent design – a television is an electronic device – therefore a television must be the product of human intelligence.”

* see 'comments' or the Illogical Deceit Theory post