Archive for: Neo-Darwinists
This is the third part of a four part series introducing logical fallacies commonly used by Neo-Darwinists, Evolutionists, and Atheists. To better understand why we should bother to know what these fallacies are, please read the introduction.
The fallacy of false alternative concerns the use of extremes. It attempts to make a case for something that could be stated like “if you’re not with us, you’re against us”, or, “the only possible choice is my choice.” In science, this completely ignores the fundamental goal of scientific inquiry. Those who study evolutionary biology (and believe in a common origin of all life) should be hungry for more data and hypotheses to consider in contrast or comparison with their own. Instead, they completely dismiss and ignore any possible alternative theories. It’s like they are saying, “well OK, we solved that problem, now we can relax”. When in fact the actual physical evidence for the origin of life only as Darwin theorized is completely lacking. Logically, you would think that a scientist whose passion is discovery would be enthusiastically open to new ideas with compelling arguments and evidence to back up those ideas. In the world of the Neo-Darwinist, there is no alternative—hence the false alternative. They make the case for evolution on a grand scale beginning with the extreme of a single progenitor, or common cellular ancestor for all living things. There is no room for consideration or even modification of that theory—which is still theory and based on philosophical conclusions; not scientific ones (since the process cannot be repeated in any type of experiment).
An example of a viable alternative is open dialogue that includes the study of change over time, which all scientists acknowledge, without the necessity of a single-cell ancestry of all life. That is a weak hinge-pin on which their whole case stands—one without hard data (you can’t reproduce history) and a “believe it or leave it” mentality. The Neo-Darwinist excludes anyone in disagreement with their atheistic worldview—not necessarily their science.
In stark contrast, scientists who pursue additional study in the realm of Intelligent Design come from a myriad of perspectives. They bring to the table (or the lab) a sense of exploration and discovery— with an openness to learn that anyone who pursues deeper knowledge must have. Only someone who is teachable can learn new things (duh). Once the Neo-Darwinists closed their minds to alternative theories, they stopped up the very process Darwin himself practiced to develop his theories.
This is the second part of a four part series introducing logical fallacies commonly used by Neo-Darwinists, Evolutionists, and Atheists. To better understand why we should bother to know what these fallacies are, please read the introduction.
Argumentum Ad Verecundiam
An appeal to authority exists in the debate over Intelligent Design when only those who hold an atheistic world view are considered true experts in a field of scientific study. This fallacy occurs when one person’s expert opinion is assumed to be more important than another’s; even though their comparative professional credentials are equivalent. Discriminatory authority ensues because worldview affects the perception of many scientists and, like it or not, impacts interpretation of scientific study. It is not grounded by factual results of experimentation, because neither evolution nor design can be proven by repeatable methodology.
All theories of biological origins are speculative—they are based on beliefs, not observable facts. As a result, if an individual is an educated, highly credentialed, competent scientist, he or she is fully qualified to interpret the same observations, but will do so in light of their worldview. One group is open to finding a designer or creator (often in complete separation from religious overtones), the other desperately hopes not to. Why can’t both engage in rational, respectful discourse? (We already know the answer to that.)
An argument that appeals to only one group of two distinct groups within the same expertise, when neither can be conclusively proven, is fallacious. Both sides must be considered equally and given equal due—that is really what the overall debate is about. One reason the ID scientists are not guilty of this fallacy is that they are not attempting to attack or discredit evolutionary researchers. Their platform is to achieve equal ground and opportunity within scientific academia to pursue research of their own: objective, scientific research.
Ad Hominem
No doubt you have read and heard many examples of this fallacy. Now you know what to call it. This argument attempts to reject or dismiss another person’s statement or position by attacking the person rather than the statement or position itself. Ad Hominem is the most frequent tactic employed by the Neo-Darwinist movement and their supporters. The most commonly used words in the works of these scientists when addressing intelligent design proponents are: “stupid, idiots, imbeciles, ignorant, crackpots, loons, irrational (this one’s ironic considering their use of the term in an Ad Hominem fallacy)” and many, many more (some unprintable). But you get the picture.
Did they really just say that?
A very small, but striking example containing both fallacies (italics mine) is below. There are so many more out there to be read…
“…the DI [Discovery Institute] got its list by asking crackpots and specialists in irrelevant disciplines to volunteer to sign on [To sign on to the DI’s list of scientists who support researching intelligent design.], so it is a real (but silly) list that exposes the existence of a tiny minority of loons within science.”(an excerpt from Science Blogs – Pharyngula)
This is the first part of a four part series introducing logical fallacies commonly used by Neo-Darwinists, Evolutionists, and Atheists. To better understand why we should bother to know what these fallacies are, please read the introduction.
Appeal to Majority
The majority of people (in this case, academic scientists) believe something to be true, therefore it is true. This fallacy is committed when the rhetoric turns to comments such as “everyone knows” or “any true scientist will tell you”, etc.
Wherein the appeal is to consider how many ascribe to the position instead of calmly using the merits of the position itself. This is very common among evolutionists.
Argumentum Ad Populum
An appeal to emotion occurs when rhetoric replaces logic and the intent is to make an audience act on emotion instead of rational judgment.
It is ultimately an attempt to steer the thinker toward subjectivism—a position based on the desire to believe something rather than a logical conclusion based on fact.
A Thin Smokescreen at Best
In the neo-Darwinist strategy, there is a continuous tension to ensure our children are educated in line with the rest of the world. It appeals to the emotions of parents who might somehow be concerned that we are robbing our kids of a decent “science” education by considering, for example, intelligent design. It’s funny that even though evolution has not been proven as fact, the argumentum ad populum and appeal to majority are played as smokescreens to strongly imply that it has been proven and accepted by true scientists all over the world, and therefore should not be questioned. Otherwise, we Americans might be ridiculed by the international community and left behind as other cultures embrace the implications that evolution gives society the freedom to pursue. This entire strategy is heavily rooted in these two logical fallacies.
For example:
“…remember that this is a political problem, not a scientific one. Please try to avoid “science talk.” As Eugenie Scott, our executive director at the National Center for Science Education says, “We will not solve this problem [allowing the teaching of ID theory in schools] by throwing science at it. We must appeal to the legislators as fellow citizens, parents, and educators. No academic-speak! 
…We have to stop them [ID advocates]” (excerpt from The Panda’s Thumb).
This one’s pretty clear—a thin smokescreen at best.
There are lots more examples where this came from. Proceed with caution though as you search for them. You will find the rhetoric quite harsh, illogical, venomous, insulting, condescending, and: all directed at you—the thinking believer. And if you feel the need to respond to some of these posts, remember—attract don’t attack; we must be the salt and light to a lost world…
In working on the Redeeming Darwin project with EvanTell and Probe Ministries, I started doing a little research into the world of the Neo-Darwinist, Evolutionist and Atheistic movements. With the release of Expelled I had the opportunity to learn even more. I was surprised to find very strong emotional content and very weak intellectual discourse; at least in what they publish online. I am amazed at how scornfully vitriolic and malicious the disposition is toward anyone who does not accept their philosophical (not scientific—those are still ‘theories’) conclusions. Individuals whose self-confessed missions in life are to the inquiry and discovery of science are not open to any new ideas that were threatening—not to science—but to their worldview.
Scientific expertise aside, if Neo-Darwinists, Evolutionists and Atheists claim to be such rational thinkers, wouldn’t their own dialogue be calm and logical rather than histrionic and passionate? If we Christians are truly “lunatics and liars” wouldn’t ours be the irrational, fanatical discussions? This is not the case. I found most of their writings to be laced with expletives I would not re-print, name-calling I would never think of, and arguments so full of logical fallacies it really made me take a closer look at how they defend their positions. It’s as if they are on a school ball field taunting the other kids and resorting to fighting; breaking all the rules because they just can’t seal the victory no matter how ‘good’ their players are or how hard they try. They are angry and very defensive. On the other side, you have the Intelligent Design folks (and even creationists—the two are not synonymous) who are calm and rational—simply requesting the opportunity to join the discussion.
Hmmm—typically when one side has the truth, they are cool, calm and collected—when another is standing on a weak and flawed position, they tend to resort to defensiveness, name calling, and irrational arguments. Interesting and revealing.
Therefore, I thought “how could I shed a small amount of light within this dark discussion?” I don’t have the time or desire to go search through the endless blogs (really bogs) of their rants and tirades. So, I will leave that to you. However, I do want to equip the reader (that’s you) with a few definitions and explanations of common logical fallacies you will find in their articles and posts. I am sure there are many more you can detect—I want to encourage you to think. Use your brain and really look at how the issues are addressed—not the issues themselves—consider how differently the two sides talk about them. It reveals what is truth and who holds it. Hopefully you are already firm in your faith, and this discovery process should only strengthen that faith. It certainly has mine.
Above all, be salt and light. Have patience and try not to fall into the temptation to be defensive and confrontational. Even as we arm ourselves to defend the truth; our theme should be in declaration of the power of the gospel. Attract—don’t attack. God can handle the Neo-Darwinists, Evolutionists and Atheists just fine. He created them too, even if they don’t believe it. So dive in, enjoy the discussion and never stop learning!
2 Corinthians 4:1-6
