Creation Mythologies

Refuting the illogic of "intelligent design" and creationism. An illustrated guide to fallacies of logic.

Almost all societies have invented creation myths in an attempt to explain the world, and human life and death. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious tradition is no different.

Christian creationism has its roots in the two-thousand-plus year old mythology recorded in Genesis. Various forms of creationism exist, all are religious, and each maintains a different relationship to scientific knowledge. Some variants of creationism accept the realities of science and the fact of biological evolution, while others deny uncomfortable scientific facts and attempt to replace reality with pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo and philosophical sleight of hand.

The so-called 'intelligent designer' is the latest Christian craze. Predominantly an American phenomenon, this rehash of Paley's “Blind Watchmaker” argument is an unscientific money-maker designed to supplant or compete with the teaching of evolution in classrooms. At least Paley was honest about his motives – those who testify on behalf of ID are not honest about the identity of the so-called 'intelligent designer' when they refuse to speculate on the identity of (God).

The most deluded form of creationism, Young Earth Creationism, goes so far as to deny the scientifically established age of the Earth in a deceitful attempt to support the ridiculous notion of Biblical inerrancy.

God by Any Other Name is still God

The so-called 'intelligent designer' is the latest Christian craze. Predominantly an American phenomenon, this rehash of Paley's “Blind Watchmaker” argument is an unscientific money-maker designed to supplant or compete with the teaching of evolution in classrooms. At least Paley was honest about his motives – those who testify on behalf of ID are not honest about the identity of the so-called 'intelligent designer' when they refuse to speculate on the identity of (God).

"In his 139-page opinion, Jones reviews the history of intelligent design. He declares: "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that intelligent design is a religious view, a mere re-labelling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.""

Refusal vs Refutation

Refusal to believe theories that logically follow from evidence does not constitute refutation. This point is missed by creationists when they deny the evidence that led to evolutionary theories, or when they fail to understand that there is not one single theory that seeks to explain the fact of biological evolution, or when they mistake acknowledgement of incomplete explanation for a complete failure of explanation.

There are undoubtedly numerous explanations for the cognitive errors and illogic of collective creationist positions. Most obvious is the impact of poor science education in those areas of the U.S. in which fundamentalism is deeply entrenched.

Individuals who have been raised with insistent belief in special creation experience dissonance when faced with scientific facts, so they are likely to close their minds to those facts. The handfull of scientists who make their living through the advocation of anti-science promotion of ID theory cannot be accused of lack of science education per se, so their motivation in promoting creationism must stem from cognitive bias founded in inculcated religious convictions.

The problem of dissonance is, of course, compounded for most creationists by anti-science policies adopted by those in charge of education in Bible Belt states. Such policies lower the standards of science education to deplorable levels for a supposedly advanced nation [NSTA, NSES, 8th grade, PISA]. For example, US students ranked between 20th and 27th of 4o nations in a 2003 comparison of scores on science testing (Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD PISA (Program for Student Assessment) 2003 database.)

The low level of science education of many creationist debaters is compounded by their repetition of information found in books and on websites with pro-creationist/anti-science bias. With little apparent comprehension of the scientific principles under discussion, and without apparent awareness that the information that they parrot is incomplete, biased, or inaccurate, creationist debaters are ill-equipped to refute the logic of science. They remain blissfully, if irritatingly ignorant of the theories that they attack, and most show no signs of willingness to acquaint themselves with those facts or to subject their own beliefs to scrutiny.

One glaring example of creationist ignorance of evolutionary science is illustrated by an insistence upon treating all evolutionary theory as beginning and ending with Darwinism coupled with an apparent lack of awareness of any form of mutation other than the point-mutation. They alone know whether they adopt this position of anti-science ignorance out of lack of acquaintance with scientific principles and/or with insistence upon the safety of attacking straw men. However, considering the anti-science education position espoused by the ID platform, coupled with poor standards of science education and evident antipathy to science and to intellectualism, it seems probable that most of the cognitive errors and illogic displayed by most creationist debaters stem from obdurate ignorance of science (at the very least).

Another example of ignorance in creationist debaters relates to their failure to distinguish between abiogenesis – the theory that life arose in primordial chemicals – and biological evolution, those events that altered the frequency of alleles down through successive generations of live organisms. Although biological evolution acted upon the products of biopoiesis (abiogenesis), the two are no more the same than rusting is equivalent to automobile manufacture.

Logic & Science

“Reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do. More precisely, it is assessing the authenticity, accuracy, and/or worth of knowledge claims and arguments. It requires careful, precise, persistent and objective analysis of any knowledge claim or belief to judge its validity and/or worth.” Source: definition of critical thinking

The practice of critical thinking sets out to assess the validity of premises, logic of arguments, and reliability of conclusions. In practice, discerning the truth of an argument is not always a simple task. Core Concepts in Critical Thinking Introduction to Statements or Claims

An argument is a set of statements. The premises – facts or propositions – are intended to provide support for the conclusion. The conclusion is asserted to be true on the basis of the premises. If an argument is cogent, then a true conclusion follows logically from true premises.

Logic can be symbolic or informal. Symbolic logic examines the precise symbolic representation of logical concepts, the abstract relationships between these concepts, and the systematization of these relationships. Informal logic involves the application of logical principles to assessment the types of informal arguments and claims that we encounter in daily life. Propositional logic is a branch of symbolic logic dealing with propositions as units and with their combinations and the connectives that relate them – if, then compound statements. Propositional Logic Terms and Symbols Proposition evaluator. Categorical logic and categorical syllogisms are more concrete than is propositional logic – some, all, and/not. Venn diagram evaluator.

An understanding of Fallacies of Logic – recognized structural errors in argumentation – provides a shortcut to assessing the cogency of an argument. We most often encounter prepositional arguments in daily life, while the logic of science, and of mathematics in particular, is more often categorical. In special cases such as the behavior of gases, at different temperatures, and under pressure, the “problem of induction” can be disregarded and predictive equations are termed Laws (The Gas Laws).

Scientific predictions, however, represent a subset of experimentation and are propositional – if this hypothesis is correct, then we will observe such and such a phenomenon. Failure to observe the predicted phenomenon might be taken to disprove the hypothesis. However, the failure might be a result of experimental or observational error, or might result from faulty predictions based upon a reasonable hypothesis. Alternatively, the hypothesis may be incorrect, but the predicted phenomenon is observed because of a mechanism not yet hypothetically considered.

For these reasons peer-reviewed scientific papers include analyses of current thinking, descriptions of methods, and statements of results so that other researchers might attempt replication. In science, unlike the case for mathematics, proof is not possible, while disproof – falsification – is possible. For this reason, hypotheses to be experimentally tested are ideally framed in such a way that they may be disproved – falsifiable hypotheses. When an empirically based, logical hypothesis, which has not been disproved after repeated testing, is deemed satisfactory by consensus within the scientific community, then the hypothesis graduates to the status of Theory (capitalized to differentiate the scientific term from its vernacular usage). In practice, much of science proceeds upon positive results – repeated observations of a phenomenon under particular conditions. In the softer sciences, such as the social sciences, statistical analyses of results play an important role. Some sciences, such as paleontology are by their nature outside the possibility of experimentation – we cannot resurrect dinosaurs or recreate meteor impacts – and must proceed on the basis of accumulated empirical evidence.

Illogical Deceit Theory

Why “illogical”? See the Fallacies of Logic section, a dissection of the fallacies of logic to be found in many arguments, specifically the arguments of creationists, pro-‘intelligent design theory’ debaters (proids) and professional proponents of "intelligent design" (idists.)

Why “deceit”? The claims of idists that idism does not speculate on the nature of the ‘designer’ are deceitful in view of all the evidence that links idism to religion. Any doubts concerning such evidence should be dispelled by googling abiogenesis, or "intelligent design", and observing the number of religion oriented websites. One has to wonder why, if the proposals of ‘intelligent design theory’ had true merit, the professional proponents of 'id' theory should have chosen to lie in court.

Claims that ‘intelligent design theory’ (idism) is science and not theology are also deceitful in view of the anti-evolutionist and religious stance taken by proids. God cannot be examined by science, so idism is religious both in subject matter and in approach. See also The Wedge Document and On the teaching of Pseudoscience. (External: On the Teaching of Pseudoscience and The Wedge Document.)

The arguments of idism belong in the realm of philosophy and not in the science curriculum. Therefore, discussion of idism ought to be confined to university level philosophy courses. There the principles of critical thinking ought to be within the intellectual grasp of most students. Further, the dissection of fallacies of logic is pertinent to the course curriculum in philosophy.

In the more than 10 years since idism has been attracting the donations of proids, idists and fodis have not performed a scientific investigation nor produced a single peer-reviewed scientific publication specifically related to idism.

___

For brevity, intelligent design theory will be abbreviated “idism”. In so far as religion appeals to the emotions and to faith-despite-absence-of-direct-evidence the term 'id' seems appropriate because it refers to the feeling, non-rational part of the brain.

For brevity, those who promote idism will be abbreviated “idists”. This is a more polite term than is sometimes employed. However, some of the chief advocates of idism do have higher education, and ought to be considered more intelligent than the less polite terminology implies. Haven't guessed the term? Substitute 'o' for the first 's' in "idists. Aside from the inaccuracy of this term, employing it renders the evolutionist debater guilty of an ad hominem fallacy.

Internet debaters who are pro-idism will be abbreviated “proids”, and while some of these individuals may seem, within vernacular usage, to warrant the discarded appelation above, committing ad hominem fallacies is not good argumentation.

For accuracy the purported intelligent designer, 'id', will be referred to as God. The ultimate point being that philosophers can speculate about the existence of God, but that science cannot, by its naturalist nature examine the supernatural.

Reducible complexity

The contribution of intelligent design advocate, biochemist Michael Behe consists solely of the scientifically refuted notion that a multicomponent functional system cannot have arisen by "Darwinian" evolution. In essence, Behe argues that because removal of any component will render the system non-functional, such a system could not be produced by continuously improving the initial function (which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system (p.39 of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution). Behe targetted several complex systems as purportedly providing support for this flawed proposal: evolution of the eye, clotting cascades and complement system, and the bacterial flagellum.

There are major problems with Michael Behe's contrived challenge of 'irreducible complexity'.
First, the implicit assumption that the components of currently functional system have 'always and only' performed the function that they currently display. The most obvious illustration of this flaw lies in an examination of Behe's for-the-scientifically-ignorant analogy of a spring-based mouse trap. All the components of a spring-based mouse trap can be found, in modified forms, functioning in a variety of settings. It is only the assemblage of these modified forms within a mouse trap that renders each a necessary component of the trap's function. (Intelligent design devotees seem incapable of grasping the point that analogies are useful in explanatory descriptions, but that fallacious arguments from analogy are rapidly invalidated as arguments aimed at attacking scientific facts.) Second, research in medical genetics has uncovered mechanisms that explain 'reducible' complexity. Third, research has demonstrated that assembly of pre-existing modifications operate in subsequently evolved features.

1.
Inherited epigenetic variation--revisiting soft inheritance..
Phenotypic variation is traditionally parsed into components that are directed by genetic and environmental variation. The line between these two components is blurred by inherited epigenetic variation, which is potentially sensitive to environmental inputs. Chromatin and DNA methylation-based mechanisms mediate a semi-independent epigenetic inheritance system at the interface between genetic control and the environment. Should the existence of inherited epigenetic variation alter our thinking about evolutionary change?
Richards EJ. Inherited epigenetic variation--revisiting soft inheritance. Nat Rev Genet. 2006 May;7(5):395-401.


Insights into the spliceosome suggest new explanations for generating biological complexity. modified, hyperlinks inserted:
While politicians debate whether evolution occurs, scientists are busy debating how it occurs. . . .there are more ways than previously thought to achieve the impressive complexity characteristic of humans. Many organisms — including humans — evolve in part by using a complex mechanism by which strands of RNA are spliced together in a two-step process, and delicate balancing of the way this process is executed can generate an enormous number of new gene products, providing a vast reservoir of material for selection during evolution. . . between the “important” coding sections of RNA lie non-coding patches — introns — and as RNA is made it’s the job of a cellular machine called the spliceosome to chop the introns out and splice the rest of the coding sections back together. . . the two steps in this process require the spliceosome to change its shape, flipping back and forth between two distinct conformations. . . Changes in the balance between these two states — referred to as equilibrium — will cause the spliceosome to dwell longer in one conformation at the cost of the other, improving one of the two steps of splicing, to the detriment of the other step. Mutations either in spliceosomal components or in the intron RNA strands can change how the RNA and the spliceosome interact with one another and thus affect the equilibrium. . . there are an abundance of mutated intron splice sites in human DNA, also called alternative splice sites. . . when the equilibrium of the spliceosome is changed — either because the mutated splice sites interact with it differently or because other accessory molecules bind to the spliceosome — they can be recognized and spliced. The utilization of alternative splice sites allows for different combinations of coding RNA sequences to be put together, so that one RNA transcript can make a variety of different products, each with a potentially different function. This explains why, when the human genome was first sequenced, relatively few genes were found. . . This has allowed our genome to develop in complexity.”
Molecular Cell 21(4): 543-553 (February 17, 2006)

2.
Lenski et al have demonstrated that complex features can evolve by expanding earlier, simpler functions, and that an intermediate stage is not necessary for this evolution. Thus, they have demonstrated how to reconstruct a complete evolutionary history of a complex genetically encoded function. Their computations vindicate Darwin's idea that the target of natural selection constantly changes, and that the complex feature of today may share very little with the original function. Darwin wrote, "if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct."

The work of Lenski et al and the experiments of Bridgham et al (below) demonstrate that Behe's contrived challenge to Darwinian evolution, namely "irreducible complexity", is not a valid criticism of the mechanisms of evolution. The two groups have demonstrated that complex systems can evolve and lend disproof to the claim that complex systems must have been designed.

The evolutionary origin of complex features.
A long-standing challenge to evolutionary theory has been whether it can explain the origin of complex organismal features. We examined this issue using digital organisms--computer programs that self-replicate, mutate, compete and evolve. Populations of digital organisms often evolved the ability to perform complex logic functions requiring the coordinated execution of many genomic instructions. Complex functions evolved by building on simpler functions that had evolved earlier, provided that these were also selectively favoured. However, no particular intermediate stage was essential for evolving complex functions. The first genotypes able to perform complex functions differed from their non-performing parents by only one or two mutations, but differed from the ancestor by many mutations that were also crucial to the new functions. In some cases, mutations that were deleterious when they appeared served as stepping-stones in the evolution of complex features. These findings show how complex functions can originate by random mutation and natural selection.
Lenski RE, Ofria C, Pennock RT, Adami C. The evolutionary origin of complex features. Nature. 2003 May 8;423(6936):139-44.


Lock before Key: Entrez PubMed: "According to Darwinian theory, complexity evolves by a stepwise process of elaboration and optimization under natural selection. Biological systems composed of tightly integrated parts seem to challenge this view, because it is not obvious how any element's function can be selected for unless the partners with which it interacts are already present. Here we demonstrate how an integrated molecular system-the specific functional interaction between the steroid hormone aldosterone and its partner the mineralocorticoid receptor-evolved by a stepwise Darwinian process. Using ancestral gene resurrection, we show that, long before the hormone evolved, the receptor's affinity for aldosterone was present as a structural by-product of its partnership with chemically similar, more ancient ligands. Introducing two amino acid changes into the ancestral sequence recapitulates the evolution of present-day receptor specificity. Our results indicate that tight interactions can evolve by molecular exploitation-recruitment of an older molecule, previously constrained for a different role, into a new functional complex."

Bridgham JT, Carroll SM, Thornton JW. Evolution of hormone-receptor complexity by molecular exploitation. Science. 2006 Apr 7;312(5770):97-101.
Comment in: Science. 2006 Apr 7;312(5770):61-3.

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

association fallacies

Association fallacies rely upon the negative implications of "guilt by association" or the positive implications of "honor by association."

These fallacies are based upon the implication that a claim is false or true based upon beliefs held by, or attributed to, the people or organizations that hold the belief.

Creationists, in line with the emotional basis for their claims, all too often resort to association fallacies. One example of the "honor by association" fallacy is to point out that scientists and Nobel Prize winners have signed a document against Darwinian theories, as though this lends credence to 'id' pseudoscience. Godwin's Law and Desperate Attacks on Darwinism provides an example of unfounded accusations that Darwin's ideas inevitable led to Nazi atrocities, as though this would demote evolution from fact (argumentum ad nazium, reductio ad Hitlerum).

authority

Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam

Proids employ this fallacy in more than one way:

1. Individual scientists, most of who are not qualified in molecular genetics, have signed a document declaring that they do not believe that misrepresented Darwinian explanations explain biological evolution. Even those signatories who are qualified in molecular genetics render their own opinions suspect according to point 4 of the qualifications of acceptable authority below.

2. The theories of peer-reviewed scientists are dismissed, amongst other criticisms, as being biased in favor of an atheistic position, or as ambitious self-promotion, or as propaganda, or as being suspect because examples of scientific fraud have been uncovered in the past. Obviously, such attacks on the credibility of accredited experts qualify as ad hominem fallacies.

Credible experts possess the following attributes:
1. sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
2. claims made are within area(s) of expertise
3. adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question
4. not significantly biased by subjective motivations or prejudices
5. expertise within a legitimate area or discipline (related to the subject matter)
6. the authority must be identified

Possession of higher academic qualifications alone does not qualify engineers or geologists, for example, to claim authority concerning biological evolution, which is outside their area of expertise (1, 2, 5). This is not to say that those with qualifications in engineering or geology could not have attained considerable knowledge concerning biology, molecular genetics, or biological evolution. However, it is reasonable to expect that such knowledge expressed by engineers or biologists would reflect agreement with, rather than run completely counter to, the opinions of experts in these areas (3). When the opinion of supposed authorities, particularly those whose academic qualifications lie outside the area (here, biology), express opinions directly counter to those of experts in the field, then the supposed authority is rightly suspected of prejudice (4) or ignorance of the particular area (1).

By the argument above, it matters not whether 100, or over 500 doctoral scientists, or any number of persons with a Ph.D. have signed a document expressing doubts concerning evolution. The signed statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

This statement misrepresents modern understanding of the mechanisms of biological evolution in that modern geneticists and evolutionary biologists do not claim that random mutation and natural selection alone account for the complexity of life. Darwin lived, wrote, and died before the discoveries of genetics, so Darwinian theory has already been examined by scientists and passed over in favor of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory. However, Darwin's mechanism of natural selection is one of the recognized mechanisms affecting the frequency of alternative genes (alleles). The doctoral signatories have misrepresented the current understanding of the mechanisms of evolution.

It might be reasonable to say that a full exposition of molecular genetics and population are genetics are beyond the high school science curriculum, but it is not reasonable to conclude that students not yet capable of comprehending these concepts should be further confused by teaching 'id' theory (religion) alongside their simplified introduction to the fact of biological evolution. Religious teachings are readily available at the Church of each student's choice, and many websites are devoted to 'id', to creationism (c), and to debate of creationism vs evolution (Y).

The "Discovery Institute" and the "Center for Science & Culture" first published its Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list in 2001, purportedly "to challenge "false statements" about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series."

"Darwinist efforts to use the courts, the media and academic tenure committees to suppress dissent and stifle discussion are in fact fueling even more dissent and inspiring more scientists to ask to be added to the list." [s]

Considering the promises made in The Wedge Document, this statement is glaring example of a tu quoque fallacy -- a "you too!" fallacy.

The fact remains that as an argument for insertion of idism alongside evolution in science classrooms, the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list remains an example of fallacious appeal to authority.

composing problems

Composition, Fallacy of composition

Fallacy of composition arguments hinge upon an artificial and inappropriate extrapolation from members of group to the whole group, or parts of an object to the whole object.

Attempts to discredit modern theory by citing past theories discredited by modern science fail on the grounds that they are fallacies of composition. The fact that some earlier scientific theories have been discarded does not mean that current theories ought necessarily to be discarded. Equally, the fact that some scientists have made fraudulent claims, or that some evidence has been faked does not mean that all scientists make fraudulent claims or that all evidence has been faked.

The history of science suggests that some current hypotheses and theories will be supplanted by better explanations, just as some earlier hypotheses have been revised. Such revisions are within the nature of science and will be based upon new empirical or experimental evidence* and not upon the unfounded criticisms of creationists unless creationist or idists present new evidence or valid experimental results.

Creationists, idists, and fodis do not yet have a falsifiable hypothesis for idism, have not yet conducted scientific experiments on idism, and have not yet** published any peer-reviewed scientific papers on idism, so it is extremely unlikely that any revisions of scientific hypotheses or theories will ever result from creationists' fallacies of composition.


*Recently discovered exceptions to the central dogma of genetics are an example of this revision – the concepts within the "dogma" have been repeatedly verified, but experimentally discovered exceptions have led to an expansion of understanding to include the newly discovered mechanisms of genetic expression.
** as of June, '06

deliberate ambiguities

eEquivocation, Doublespeak, (subtype of Ambiguity), Fallacy of four terms

When one term is used with more than one meaning, the fallacy of equivocation has been committed. Such ambiguities may be deliberate, or they may result from ignorance of more specific meanings of the term.

"Science is dogma", "evolution is just a theory, so 'id' theory is science and is equally valid", "science is just a matter of faith". These are tu quoques because evolutionists state that religion beliefs are expressed in dogma, idism is not a scientific theory, and religion truly is expected to be a matter of Faith.

"Science is dogma" is a deliberate or ignorant misrepresentation of the nature of science. It could reasonably be argued that some scientific theories are so central and so well established that they have become part of the foundation of understanding of particular scientific principles. The central dogma of genetics is an example of inappropriate use of the term 'dogma'. This important concept has been confirmed almost without exception, yet a few important exceptions to the rule have been found by scientists.

"Evolution is just a theory, so 'id' theory is science and is equally valid". Such a statement misrepresents evolution, theory, idism, and science.

Biological evolution, change in the genome between parental and descendent generations is an observable fact. Evolutionary processes have been demonstrated to be operating in our own species, in bacteria, and in cichlid fish, to name but three examples. Evolution (biological) is not a theory, it is a fact. Evolutionary theories do not claim to be facts, they are formulations that seek to explain, on the basis of empirical observation and experimental testing, mechanisms that have generated the fact of biological evolution.

In vernacular usage, the term theory refers to everyday notions and to cognitive formulations that have not been subjected to any experimental testing. Scientific theories, on the other hand, are the descendents of scientific hypotheses that have withstood falsification testing. A scientific theory is much, much better established than a vernacular-terminology theory.

Despite the books written about "intelligent design theory" it is a religiously motivated philosophy that has not been subjected to any scientific testing, and, as such idism is not science. The content of idism consists only of numbers games and attacks on science (more to follow).

In the vernacular, faith can be defined as aceptance of ideals and beliefs that are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason. Within Christianity, Faith (uppercase deliberate) is a very important principle in which the Believer is expected to accept God into his or her heart expressly without any direct, irrefutable, tangible evidence for the existence or actions of God. Modern philosophers of religion acknowledge that philosophical attempts to prove the existence of God have failed, and philosophy of religion has fallen back on fideism. Since much of the benefit of belief in religion comes through the emotional components of belief, the principle of basing belief solely on Faith has considerable merit.

Science, on the other hand is not a matter of faith because acceptance of scientific principles is based upon empirical and experimental evidence that has been independently examined or replicated experimentally and thus has survived the scrutiny of accredited experts in the field.

Credible experts possess the following attributes:
1. sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
2. claims made are within area(s) of expertise
3. adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question
4. not significantly biased by subjective motivations or prejudices
5. expertise within a legitimate area or discipline (related to the subject matter)
6. the authority must be identified

fallatio

Excuse the pun!

Argumentum ad Logicam : Fallacist's Fallacy : Fallacy Fallacy

In creating a site about fallacies of logic inherent in creationist arguments, the author realizes that pointing out fallacies alone does not render the opponents' conclusions incorrect. Demonstration of the falsity of creationists' claims does require scientific exposition, but that is not the primary purpose of this blog.

It is theoretically possible, on grounds of logic, that creationists' and idists' attacks on science could be well founded. In so far as scientists usually admit that their hypothesis or theory will be subject to subsequent revision, creationists and idists are correct that gaps exist in scientific knowledge. Scientists regularly admit that science has unanswered questions. This is one of the features that makes the study of science interesting. The nature 0f scientific investigation is to incrementally refine the body of understanding. Rarely do scientific discoveries completely overturn previous paradigms.

In this regard, though, it is an argument from ignorance, or thinking from ignorance, to believe that disproving scientific explanations is even possible by idist means, let alone that it could prove the existence of God. Just as a single exposure of a fallacious argument does not overturn creationist arguments, a single gap in scientific knowledge does not discredit the broad subject of scientific understanding. This is a fallacy of composition – extrapolating from a part to the whole. In thinking that attacking elements of science could disprove biological evolution, creationists and idists are themselves committing the argumentam ad logicam fallacy.

Creationist and idist arguments, though often implied rather than being spelled out fully, do not constitute a body of argument remotely as strong as empirical scientific evidence and scientific hypotheses and theories. So, exposure of all or many of the fallacies in creationist and idist arguments is not to commit the fallacist's fallacy.

"It is reasonable to, at least provisionally, reject an improbable proposition for which no adequate evidence has been presented. So, if you can show that all of the common arguments for a certain proposition are fallacious, and the burden of proof is on the proposition's proponents, then you do not commit this fallacy by rejecting that proposition. Rather, the fallacy is committed when you jump to the conclusion that just because one argument for it is fallacious, no cogent argument for it can exist." Fallacy Fallacy

Godwin's Law

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups."[def] Technically, Godwin's Law relates not to the fallacious employment of argumentum ad nazium or reductio ad Hitlerum (association fallacies), but to the contention that such arguments immediately render a debate concluded (and lost).

Of course, debaters frequently fail to acknowledge that they have technically lost an argument by resorting to irrelevant attacks or that they have resorted to irrelevant attacks because they have already lost the argument by failing to logically support their claims.

In the simplest analysis, inappropriate comparisons of whatever is under debate to Nazism or Hitler fall into the categories of irrelevant and biased guilty-by-implied-association attacks. Obviously if the debate is actually about the Third Reich, eugenics, the holocaust, or the phenomenon of scapegoating, then mention of the National Socialist Party or bad old Adolf would be relevant.

Godwin's Law and Desperate Attacks on Darwinism provides an example of biased, unfounded, emotional resort to unfounded analogies that are aimed at defaming scientific theories of evolution with the implicit counterclaim that God is the Creator. Needless to say, Godwin's Law will not be applied and Creationists will continue to make illogical, ad nauseam arguments, implicit or explicit, for Special Creation.

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.

irrelevance

Irrelevance crops up in many arguments:

When the argument itself seems logical, yet the conclusion is not relevant to or supported by the line of argument, then the fallacy is ignoratio elenchi (ignorance of the issue). Such problems may occur when the arguer is not responding to the actual question posed.

When the line of argument is off-target for the topic under discussion and distracts from the real topic, then the arguer has tossed a red herring into debate in order to create a smokescreen.

Irrelevant attacks on the arguer or cited authority are ad hominem fallacies. However, if the "authority" who/that has been cited fails as a legitimate authority on one or more grounds, then disputing the expertise or credibility of that person/reference is not an ad hominem fallacy.

Logic and emotion are often at odds. When irrelevant appeals to emotion are incorporated into arguments, then the conclusions drawn by that argument become suspect if the emotion is not specifically related to the topic. To argue that a person will probably enjoy eating chocolate is not necessarily unfounded, though it would not be relevant to discussion about chicken pot pie.

proof-disproof muddles

Argument from Ignorance, or argumentum ad ignorantiam:

This fallacy muddles the true-false dichotomy with the question of proof or disproof, and as such is a form of false dilemma where only two options are presented when several options exist. The ignored options include false claim-not disproven, and true claim-not proven, while the implied dichotomy confines options to false claim-disproven or true claim-proven. If only the world of thought were so simple.

Fallacious arguments from ignorance erroneously claim either that lack of proof must render a claim false, or that lack of disproof must render a claim true.

An Illogical Deceit example of this argument is embodied in the “irreducible complexity” claim that if evolutionary biologists cannot provide an explanation for “specified complexity”, then evolutionary theory fails, implying that biological evolution is not a fact, and hence implying that God (aka the ‘intelligent designer’) must be responsible for whatever biological mechanism is under debate.

The more careful claim of a pro-id debater would be that ‘id’ theory ought to be taught alongside science in the classroom. This is not a substantiable claim because nothing about 'id' theory qualifies it to be regarded as science. Merely disputing the content of science does not qualify as being science. While many proids appear not to understand the true nature of science, idists and fodis are mostly well enough educated that they ought to understand the advantages and limitations of scientific investigation.

Many creationism and ‘id’ debaters who display the argumentam ad ignorantiam logical fallacy do not make their reasoning explicit, such that the conclusion of truth or falsehood is merely implied, or the actual argument is buried in the wordiness typical of idist authors. Because idist authors write for a readership that is typically not well versed in science, idist writings necessarily contain very lengthy explanations. However, wordiness can also be a technique of verbal obfuscation wherein an argument – and its inherent deficiencies of logic – are obscured by rhetoric.

When the reader is not well versed with the topic under discussion, he or she will have more difficulty in determining whether or not the writer has provided an accurate, authoritative, and complete account of the topic. When the conclusions drawn by the writer fit with the reader's preconceived notions or feelings about the topic, then the reader is at risk of being misled. Knowledge of the fallacies of logic can provide a short-cut to determining the difficulties with an argument. A single fallacy of logic does not necessarily render the conclusions suspect. However, a plethora of fallacies do indicate that the argument, and hence the conclusions drawn, are fatally flawed.

red herrings

Red Herring, Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase

The red herring is a diversionary tactic that distracts the opponent away from the real point under discussion. Red herring topics are irrelevant to the point under discussion, and serve to take the heat off an already weak argument.

Because creationists and advocates of intelligent design theory are arguing for a discredited, untenable position, they must resort to debating tactics such as the red herring.

shifting the burden of proof

Shifting the burden of proof

The burden of proof is always on the arguer, creationist or evolutionist, who is making an assertion. The difficulty for creationists lies in making logical arguments against evidence, and for evolutionists in sifting through voluminous evidence for a pertinent example to illustrate their point.

The construction of a cogent deductive argument begins with acceptable premises (supported by evidence) and proceeds according to the laws of deductive reasoning to a conclusion supported by the premises.

Shifting the burden of proof is a subtype of the argument from ignorance fallacy that shifts the burden of proof onto the person whose argument is attacked. This is the "prove it, or I am correct!" challenge that underlies many creationist taunts.

The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. The implied conclusion of creationist demands is that unless the evolutionist can provide an adequate explanation for specifically selected creationist questions, then evolutionary theory is false, biological evolution is no longer a fact, and the existence of God is proven (at another level of implication).

If one follows creation vs evolution debates, one will quickly observe that creationists do mention God, while evolutionists do not attempt to disprove the existence of God. Evolutionists typically defend the experimental justifications of evolutionary theory.

On the other hand, scientists defend, to other scientists, their conclusions based upon experimental results. Scientific reports follow a format of introduction to ideas based upon past research, the question to be addressed, experimental methods, experimental results, and conclusions based upon both current scientific understanding and their experimental results. Science proceeds by incremental gains in understanding. It is the very nature of science that conclusions are acknowledged not to be the final word upon explanation, and that, once a scientific theory is widely accepted, research will move on to yet unanswered questions. Creationists utilize, in their religiously-motivated attacks on science, one of the chief virtues of science – the reluctance of the community of scientists to accept any hypothesis or theory until burden of proof moves to the level of general acceptance.

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." :

tu quoque

Tu quoque, You too, You also, You're another

An arguer commits a tu quoque fallacy when, in the context of an attack within an argument, the arguer contends that the opponent is behaving is some way in which the arguer is also behaving and it is implied or explicitly stated that the opponent is incorrect to do so.

The tu quoque fallacy is a form of argumentum ad verecundiam combined with the two wrongs make a right fallacy:

Common creationist and proid tu quoque fallacies also involve equivocation, which takes advantage of the ambiguities of vernacular terminology:

"Science is dogma", "evolution is just a theory, so 'id' theory is science and is equally valid", "science is just a matter of faith". These are tu quoques because evolutionists state that religion beliefs are expressed in dogma, idism is not a scientific theory, and religion truly is expected to be a matter of Faith. Such arguments are often employed to divert discussion away from the real point of discussion – they are red herrings. These tu quoques will be addressed in the deliberate ambiguities post.

"Darwinist efforts to use the courts, the media and academic tenure committees to suppress dissent and stifle discussion are in fact fueling even more dissent and inspiring more scientists to ask to be added to the list." [s]

Considering the promises made in The Wedge Document, this statement is glaring example of a tu quoque fallacy – a "you too!" fallacy. The statement was made by Dr. John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture as justification for the fallacious appeal to authority made in compiling and publishing the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list.

"According to West, it was the fast growing number of scientific dissenters which encouraged the Institute to launch a website -- http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ -- to give the list a permanent home." [s]

This may, or may not be the reason for the website. It could equally be that scientists known to have strong religious convictions were approached by the DI, and that the website was launched to advertise the list. Such behavior would be well within the rights of those wishing to promote the 'id' platform. The point is that the list was compiled specifically to sway public and school board opinion, and the statement was made to the media, so the statement is a tu quoque.

Tu quoque statements are along the lines of an abusive husband's saying that he would not have beaten his wife if she had not burnt the toast. Equally, if the wife said that she would burn the toast again because her husband had beaten her, she would be committing a less egregious tu quoque action.