Fallacious pro-evolution arguments

Lately I’ve been getting more and more dissatisfied with the sloppy manner in which supporters of evolution at this forum are handling the creationists who post here. For a little while the problem was just that when a creationist comes to this forum with an honest question, they would often get more insults than answers in response. I see this most often in RichardT’s case. I’ll pull up one typical reply to his posts, not because I’m trying to pick on the member who posted this one in particular, but because this isn’t my main point and I don’t want to take up too much space with multiple examples of it.

This trend has annoyed me for a while, but lately there’s been a second trend here that I consider even worse: supporters of evolution at this forum now seem to hold the arguments used by creationists to a much higher standard than their own arguments. The way this happens is that any creationist argument will typically be replied to in the manner outlined above, and pro-evolution posters have such a majority at this forum that they’re capable of shouting down whatever arguments they disagree with without having to point out any actual flaws in it. When it comes to arguments in favor of evolution, however, any logical inconsistencies tend to be ignored.

Several times I’ve seen creationists here attempt to point out the flaws in arguments used in favor of evolution here, and received the same predictable response that they receive for everything else they post about their viewpoint. This is a good example of them being shouted down even though they actually have a point—not a point against evolution, but a point against the arguments being used in favor of it at this forum. Since most of the people using these arguments seem incapable of listening to what creationists have to say about this, I think I should point out for myself some of the fallacious pro-evolution arguments I’ve seen used here.

1: Supporters of evolution are quick to point out that evidence against evolution should not be considered evidence for biblical creationism, because biblical creationism is not the only alternative to evolution. However, when creationists mention the fact that famous scientists of the past such as Isaac Newton were biblical creationists, supporters of evolution say that this is not significant because these people lived before Darwin’s time, and biblical creationism was the only thing anyone would believe in the absence of the theory of evolution. I don’t think I need to point out the inconsistency between these two claims.

2: Whenever supporters of evolution challenge creationists about not accepting the theory, they define evolution in the most basic terms that exist—change in allele frequency as a result of mutations and natural selection—and ask creationists how they can reject something that can be observed happening in the present. This argument is used even against creationists who do accept evolution by this definition, but do not accept common ancestry. The fact that supporters of evolution also expect creationists to accept common ancestry is only mentioned as long as specific instances of it are being discussed (such as the relationship between humans and other primates), and then as soon as the discussion returns to more general terms, supporters of evolution continue to accuse creationists of rejecting evolution by its much more basic definition. I’ve seen this strawman used against almost every creationist who currently posts here.

3: Most atheists at this forum claim that there is no conflict between evolution and religion, because evolution is no reason not to believe in god. However, whenever the actual existence or non-existence of a god is discussed with any of these posters, the same people claim that since the theories of evolution and abiogenesis can explain life’s origin and development without involving a god, god becomes an unnecessary entity that is ruled out by Occam’s Razor. Richard Dawkins has explained this in the greatest detail—for a person who calls themselves a scientist to believe in god is similar to a “scientist” believing in homeopathy: you cannot trust someone to be capable of performing science in an unbiased manner when they simultaneously believe something so completely unsupported. The same people who claim this should not also be trying to win support for evolution with the argument that it does not conflict with religion.

4: I’ve seen supporters of evolution claim here dozens of times that the theory of evolution has never been used as support for racism. This claim is simply false, as I’ve already pointed out in this thread. Blayz’s first reply shows the typical response that supporters of evolution here have to this idea.

It used to be that people would occasionally come to this forum as creationists, and as a result of their participation here, would eventually end up accepting evolution. I remember this happening in the case of Dracil and MySavior. If I had joined this forum in its current state when I was still a creationist, however, seeing the theory of evolution supported by arguments such as these would have convinced me that it relies on these sorts of fallacies for support. Participating in this forum now when I was a creationist would have convinced me to remain a creationist for as long as I was posting here; I am completely certain of this.

As far as I’m concerned, the only thing being accomplished here nowadays is making the theory of evolution look bad in front of people such as RichardT, who probably would have accepted it months ago if this forum were still the way it was when I joined it four years ago. I joined this forum in order to try and get creationists to accept evolution, and I’m not sure it’s worthwhile for me to continue participating here now that we’re accomplishing the opposite. I don’t really expect these problems to be fixed, but I think it’s still worth pointing them out so that if I do end up disappearing from this forum permanently, people here will understand the reason for it.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'd like to comment on #3.

The people making those arguments are essentially forming two different arguments.

Yes, evolution and religion do not conflict. One can be religious and accept evolution. However, if we are going to go deep into a philosophical argument, evolution helps make religion useless as a term for describing the the diversification of life.

I would allow people to make both arguments — but simply to qualify them. If one wants to argue against religion, use Occam's Razor. However, if one wants a Creationist to accept evolution while keeping their religion, argue the former.

__________________
Come check out my podcast!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Current Reading:


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I agree with the conlusion, that we need to be more gracious in handing out evidence instead of insults. No sense dropping to their level. However I'm going to nitpick your points a bit.

#1. The two argumetns you list are not inconsistent with each other because they are not related. The first is a Flase Dichotomy, pretending there are only 2 options when there are actually many. The second is Appeal to Authority- and since the authority in question is outdated, his views don't matter to our modern ones.

#2. I'm not sure this is a deliberate strawman as much as it is a lakc of focus. It's hard to keep a discussion on a certain track, that may be the issue.

#3. Science does not necessarily conflict with religion. Religion is the realm on the non-physical; science has no jurisdiction. And vice versa. However, science does conflict with innerrancy (including creationism). And as long as the scientist in question is aware of the separation there is no reason he should not be trusted.

#4. You are dead right that the claim is false. We should know better then to pretend noone ever justified crimes against humanity with evolutionary thinking. I need to make it very clear though that this "evolutionary thinking" is based on a serious misunderstanding of what the ToE says. The ToE specifically refers to biology, and makes no claim whatsoever about how e ought or ought not to act. It carries no moral imperative one way or the other, it merely describes a process. The rationale for eugenics is based on a misunderstanding of the phrase "survival of the fittest" and has nothing to do with the actual ToE. So while it's true that evolution has been used as justification for racism, it is an incorrect persception of evolution thats involved and so this argument have nothign to do with the validity of the ToE. It's important to be clear on this point instead of just claiming it didn't happen; we should know better and should tell others as well.

__________________
On "illegal" immigration:
"Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free..." -The Statue of Liberty

On the alleged connection between Hitler and Atheism:
"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." -Hitler, Mein Kampf, Volume II, Chapter X

Danth's Law: "If you have to insist that you've won an internet argument, you've probably lost badly."

Originally Posted by Aggie

Lately I’ve been getting more and more dissatisfied with the sloppy manner in which supporters of evolution at this forum are handling the creationists who post here.

Hey --- you think that's bad --- check out Posts 327, 328, and 329 here. And if that's not good enough, I've just recently had my life threatened. I've even had to have admin clean up my guestbook.

Try walking in my shoes for awhile and put up with what I have to put up with.

__________________

3. So true, and Richard Dawkins suprised himself when people look at it as a pompous P-------. Some of his claims are really offensive. Like the fact that you have to be a stone atheist to be a real scientist. That must be news to scientists who are theists, monists, pantheists throught history. The other claim that I found really ofensive is when he said in Ireland to a aproving atheist audience that being raised (indoctrinated) Catholic (as a example of religious upbringing) was worse that being sexually abused as a child. I thing that a brief visit to the recovery subforums in CF would demostrate him wrong. I think R Dawkins just wants to be controversial and that he is just playing the other side of the fundamentalist game: either evolution or God. Make a choice. Not the best way to conduct a healty debate. Sadly in this forum the attitude of many of the atheists seems to be the same.I think that is the reason why many theists who are evolutionists just avoid this subforum.
4. The XX century is full of people that has misconstructed the theory of evolution and naturalistic atheism for evil purposes. The fact that the New Atheists are just sidesteping the issue is telling.
At least Bertrand Russell tried, a bit unconvicinly to adress the issue after WWII. He blamed the issue on religion but he recognized that you can believe in God without religion as many deists do or be a religious atheist as communists were.

Dawkins was saying more than this, though, and so are the people who use Dawkins’ argument at this forum. The argument is that someone who considers themselves a good scientist cannot be religious, because religion depends on the suspension of logic, and a person who does this about one aspect of his life can’t be trusted to be logical in other areas. That was the point of my homeopathy example.

I’m not saying I agree with this argument, but it’s definitely inconsistent with the claim that evolution and Christianity can be reconciled.

If you look at the way these claims have actually been addressed at this forum, though, it’s not in the way you’re describing. The response to someone bringing up Newton having been a creationist is almost always something along the lines of “Before Darwin most people were creationists, because there wasn’t anything better to believe.” I can look for an example of this, if you need one.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Inconsistency?

Claim 1: Evidence against evolution is not evidence for creationism.
Claim 2. The beliefs of pre-Darwin scientists are irrelevant as evidence against evolution.

Where is the inconsistency? All I see are two very different issues.


What you have posted is not an argument but a question. Recall your: "and ask . . . ."


Not true. We don't expect creationists to accept common ancestry, because we know they're committed to special creation. What we HOPE is that the creationist listen to what we say and give it consideration. And, we'll mention common ancestry whenever we feel it's necessary.

Not a strawman at all. I'm not exactly sure what you have in mind by a, " much more basic definition," but if it's simply "common ancestry," common ancestry is nothing more than the result of the mechanism: "change in allele frequency as a result of mutations and natural selection." One is the means and the other is the product, both of which are valid concepts that can be spoken of either individually or together. It's like talking about a pitched ball---swing---hit, and its result: a base run.



Really!!! "Most" you say. Hmmm. I'd like to see two, just TWO, examples of such an argument. However, IF anyone, atheist or otherwise makes such an argument---that Occam's Razor rules out anything---they would be in error.



That's one.

What bothers me is people who resort to hyperbole to make their point. The unqualified: "Supporters of evolution are," "Whenever supporters of evolution," and "supporters of evolution also expect." Even the qualified "Most atheists," and "supporters of evolution claim here dozens of times" stretches one's credulity.

Thank you for the OP, Aggie!

I agree. There's no need for abrasiveness in the discussions, no matter how disagreed. I see that kind of behavior in both camps. It is behavior accountable at individual level, not necessarily a classification or group. But I do see a heck of a lot more of it, coming from individuals from the creationist camp.

Either way, we should all be civil towards each other, regardless of disagreements. Let's try to keep the personal attacks out of the discussions.


Let me address one point. Well, that's not true for me.

First, I accept biological evolution, (not 'believe in'), and that acceptance is tentative. If newly discovered evidence contradicts, or really throws a curve ball at the theory, for example, trilobite fossils discovered in the same layers as human fossils, that's a huge discovery, much of the theory would have to be reworked, much of geology and paleontology too. (perhaps tossed out altogether) Even if that were to happen tomorrow, it doesn't automatically make Biblical Creationism the default 'theory'. It's got to stand on it's own merits, by surviving the rigorous scrutiny which evolution has been undergoing for the last 150 years. Good luck with that.

If anyone has discovered evidence which contradicts the current model, please share it with us here. But more importantly, you need to be going to journal editors with your discoveries.

Any takers on that? Anybody?

I agree with much of what Aggie said. The tone here has changed much since the last time I was active.

__________________

You don't think that Dawkins has a point? That scientists wall off the area of their minds that deal with religion from the part that deals with science? How can a good Catholic scientist believe in a man that was born of a virgin, multiplied fish and wine and rose from the dead without questioning? Then go off to do particle physics or some such... instead of doing an experiment why not just say "goddidit" and be done with it?

I'll tell you why... because he or she has walled off the part of their minds that plays church on Sundays from the part that is a scientist the rest of the week. Otherwise they couldn't be both.

As to inculcating a child into religion being child abuse... imagine raising a kid to believe in Santa into adulthood. It's the same thing... there are just a lot of people doing it so nobody complains. Now, when one guy points out what's being done he must be the one who's wrong.

So has the tone changed around here? Yes... it has. We don't have any honest creationists to deal with anymore. Just deceit and lies. After awhile you get tired of spending time researching posts only to have them dismissed with Hovind cut and pastes or irrelevant Bible verses. If some honest creationists have gotten caught up in the wave of revulsion... perhaps they should take it up with their ilk. I surely don't see any religious organizations trying to stop these fools. Maybe you do catch more flies with honey... I'm just sick and tired of wasting honey on insects.

As to your points... can I remind you of something? Creationism is a lie. One great big complete lie. These people who've used these mistaken points aren't lying... they're mistaken. They've made some mistakes not out of malice but out of wanting to do a good thing. Help 'em... don't beat 'em.

__________________
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others, unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. ..." - Barry Goldwater