Radio Daze

Googling 'radio-dating' will pull up far too many websites promoting creationist ignorance, where ignorance can be defined as "a lack of knowledge, or a willful lack of desire to improve the efficiency, merit, effectiveness or usefulness" of one's beliefs.

Fact: radiometric dating places the solar system's age at around 4.6 billion years (based on meteorites which formed from the accretion disk at roughly the same time as the Earth). The oldest rock (detrital zircon) found on Earth dates from 4.4-4.3 billion years ago.

Not only are creationists ignorant of the facts of science, they are guilty of logical fallacies in :

● assuming that denial of facts provides good grounds for cogent arguments when, in fact, an argument from incorrect or false premises will never constitute an acceptable argument. For example,

Dogs are blue (false even for the "Australian Blue")
Your pet is a dog
Therefore, your pet must be blue

It would also be fallacious (though less obviously so) to argue
All dogs are black (mistaken 'universal')
You have a pet
Therefore, your pet must be black

(Your pet could be a black cat, though the argument stumbles onto the truth of blackness based on a different species, or your pet might be a White Alsation or a Yellow Lab. If your pet were a Black Lab, the conclusion would be correct for the wrong reasons and the argument remains a fallacious example of ignoratio elenchi)

The Earth was created by God in six days,
Bishop Usher calculated that the Earth is 6,000 years old based on the Scriptures
Therefore, scientific measurements must be wrong,
Therefore, God must have created our "young" Earth in six days
Therefore, God must exist and is our Creator

or, the other version:
Scientists are all atheists
Therefore, scientists have falsified the age of the Earth
Therefore, God must have created our "young" Earth in six days
Therefore, God must exist and is our Creator

(not all scientists are atheists, and even if scientists were atheists, if the evidence indicated a young age for the Earth then scientists would follow the facts)

● circularity (as above), which is an argument chasing its own tail : claim that A → B, B, so A.
Scriptures tell us that God created the world in six days and the Bible states (by Bishop Usher's calculation) that the Earth is only six days old
(We deny scientific dates and claim that) the Earth is very young
Therefore, God created the world

(Even if the Earth really were very young (it isn't) it would not necessarily follow that God created the Earth because some other cause might have operated.)

● argument from denial (as above)

● fallacy of false dichotomy employing an either-or dichotomy : The basic dichotomy created by Young Earth Creationists is that either God created the Earth in six days and it is only 6,000 years old, or scientific measurements are correct. This argument ignores the very, very, very remote possibility that God exists and did create the very, very, very young Hadean Earth in six days, but that He did so 4.6 billion years ago. Further the false dichotomy ignores the possibility that God exists but did not bother Himself with the creation of planets. Obviously other possibilities exist and it is uneccessary to list all possibilities to make the point about false dichotomies. Creationist arguments are false dichotomies as soon as two alternative explanations (one claimed to be correct and the other claimed incorrect) are provided as the only possible explanations when more than two possible explanations exist.

● tu quoque attacks on any who accept the facts of scientific evidence that run along the lines of, "No, it's you who are wrong, you just don't want to see the Truth!"

● 'ass-backward' arguments – creationists begin their reasoning with a firm belief in God's existence (not a priori, but received) and an insistence that the Bible (internal contradictions notwithstanding) must be literally true, then they decide that any fact that runs counter to their firm, emotionally based beliefs must necessarily be false, and then they set about ridiculing or denying that fact. Unfortunately for those who insist on believing in Biblical metaphysics, scientific facts run counter to most of their received beliefs.

As I said – ignorant.

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 :

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.