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 :

incredulity

Argument from incredulity, God of the Gaps

The argument, "I don't believe that ..." is particularly common amongst creationists and proids.

This is a form of argument from ignorance in which the incredulous debater refuses to believe in a particular line of evidence (denial), or an interpretation of evidence that supports an alternate conclusion to that which the debater favors. The argument from incredulity essentially takes the position that personal reluctance to believe that something is true (or false) is a good reason for insisting that it is not true (or false). The fallacy lies in the segue from opinion to justification. The fact remains that while incredulity may be justified in that disbelief may have good grounds, it also may not be justified. The problem is simply that incredulity alone is not sufficient argument for or against a fact or interpretation.

In the history of human attempts to understand their universe, supernatural explanations – Gods of the Gaps – provided a framework for interpretation in the absense of scientific comprehension.

huff & puff

Straw man

Creationists, idists, and proids frequently create straw man arguments, and then huff and puff and blow the straw man down. The frequency of this argument within creationist propaganda is a reaction to the much stronger argument presented by evidential and experimental science. Confronted with the facts of scientific knowledge, creationists and proids typically retreat into denial or arguments from incredulity. For this reason, I believe that there is often little point in explaining the facts of science to those who have a strong emotional need to believe in some form of creationism.

The point mutation is one tool of the fallacious straw man argument – creationists argue that mutations at a single locus (position) within a chromosome could not be responsible for macroevolution. The argument is fallacious because evolutionary biologists do not claim that point mutations are responsible for biological evolution, whether microevolution or macroevolution, rather they have demonstrated that other sources of genetic variation are far more important. It is meaningless to attack science through an argument that is already established within science – there simply ceases to be an argument, except with the erroneous conclusions drawn by creationists.

In their fallacious straw man arguments, creationists and idists huff and puff against a weakened version of science, and hence a weakened version of the natural world. Creationists ignore the facts in order to support their arguments against the fact of biological evolution, and no argument can be considered cogent when it deliberately, or ignorantly, misrepresents facts. The argument may have emotional appeal to those who are committed to a belief in the Special Creation of Genesis, but the argument does not achieve its ends within the realm of logic.

The Straw Man Fallacy "Straw Man is one of the commonest of fallacies. It is endemic in public debates on politics, ethics, and religion. . . . The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent." :