LIST OF FALLACIES EVOLUTIONISTS AND/OR ATHIEST COMMIT
Evolutionists often commit the fallacy of
equivocation on the word
evolution. This word has a number of meanings. Evolution can mean
“change” in a general sense, but it can also refer to the idea that
organisms share a common ancestor. Either meaning is perfectly
legitimate, but the two meanings should not be conflated within an
argument. Many evolutionists seem to think that by demonstrating
evolution in the sense of “change,” that it proves evolution in the
sense of “common descent.”
Fallacy of equivocation
You might hear them say something like, “Creationists are wrong
because we can see evolution happening all the time. Organisms are
constantly changing and adapting to their environment.”
Non Sequitor: "Doesn't follow." Notice that many
times in debates when a particular perspective has no contributing
premises anymore, or supporting facts, they will resort to a certian
amount of word fillers(time wasters.) In order to fill in the time
gap during the debate, where they lack real factual support, or have
exausted theirs. typically THEY have used terminology not as a means of
relaying true information, but as a means of commiting a fallacy of an
appeal to authority of sorts. I do this too, but it is dishonest in
debate. It is best to define terms implicitly and not as a result of
showing off vocabulary to distinguish ones authority of lack of
authority. Simply knowing terminology does not in fact prove ones
authority. It may simply mean that one may like reading dictionaries
in his spare time.
The Fallacy of Begging the question, more commonly known as "circular
reason," or arbitrary logic:
When I was reading a book on logic sold by Ken Ham ministries it said this:
"In order to determine the truth value of a statement, it is necessary
to go outside the statment." - Introductory Logic- by D. J. Wilson,
and J. B. Nance - 2002 by mars hill textbooks.
Circular and arbitrary arguments are not useful because anyone who
denies the conclusion would also deny the premise (since the
conclusion is essentially the same as the premise).
So, the argument,
“Evolution must be true because it is a fact,”
-while technically valid, is fallacious because the arguer has merely assumed
what he is trying to prove.
again we must go OUTSIDE the statment to declare it true.
Arbitrary assumptions are not to be used
in logical reasoning because we could equally well assume the exact
opposite. It would be just as legitimate to argue,
“Evolution cannot
be true because it is false.”
It should also be noted that there are certain special cases where
circular reasoning is unavoidable and not necessarily fallacious.
Remember that begging the question is not invalid; it is considered
fallacious because it is arbitrary. But what if it were not arbitrary?
There are some situations where the conclusion of an argument must be
assumed at the outset, but is not arbitrary.2 Here is an example:
Without laws of logic, we could not make an argument.
We can make an argument.
Therefore, there must be laws of logic.
This argument is perfectly reasonable, and valid. But it is subtly
circular. This argument is using a law of logic called modus tollens
to prove that there are laws of logic. So, we have tacitly assumed
what we are trying to prove. But it is absolutely unavoidable in this
case. We must use laws of logic to prove anything—even the existence
of laws of logic.
[
Self Defeating argument (see below)]
However, the above argument is not arbitrary. We do have a good reason
for assuming laws of logic, since without them we couldn’t prove
anything. And perhaps most significantly, anyone attempting to
disprove the existence of laws of logic would have to first assume
that laws of logic do exist in order to make the argument. He would
refute himself.
Most of the examples of circular reasoning used by evolutionists are
of the fallacious begging-the-question variety—they are arbitrary.
Consider the evolutionist who argues:
“The Bible cannot be correct because it says that stars were
created in a single day; but we now know that it takes millions of
years for stars to form.”
By assuming that stars form over millions of years, the critic has
taken for granted that they were not supernaturally created. He has
tacitly assumed the Bible is wrong in his attempt to argue that the
Bible is wrong; he has begged the question. Another example is:
“We know evolution must have happened, because we are here!”
This argument begs the question, since the way we got here is the very
point in question.
Watch for arguments that subtly presume (in an arbitrary way) what the
critic is attempting to prove. In particular, evolutionists will often
take for granted the assumptions of naturalism, uniformitarianism,
strict empiricism (the notion that all truth claims are answered by
observation and experimentation), and sometimes evolution itself. But,
of course, these are the very claims at issue. When an evolutionist
takes these things for granted, he is not giving a good logical reason
for his position; he is simply arbitrarily asserting his position."
above clip from:
Logical
Fallacies: The Fallacy of Begging the Question - Answers in
Genesis
or yet another fallacy: below from creationmoments.com
" A very common example of this comes in the form of, "There wasn't
enough water in the Biblical Flood to cover all the mountains" or
"Where did all the water go?"
What they are asserting is that there wasn't enough water to cover the
present-day mountains. This is fallacious because they are presuming
evolutionary time scales for the rates of the mountains forming – that
is, millions of years. This means that the mountains we have today
would have been nearly identical in height just 4,500 years ago at the
time of the Flood. This is begging the question because the premise of
their argument assumes long ages are true in order to argue that long
ages are true (and, thus, that the Flood could not have happened).
If, as creationists say, the mountains we have today formed rapidly,
starting during the Flood, then there is no problem with the amount of
water we have today covering the Earth. Thus, the Flood account only
seems inconsistent if you don't use all of the Flood model's premises.
Taken together, the Flood model explains consistently the evidence we
have in the geologic record.
above clip from
LOGICAL
FALLACIES OF EVOLUTION 101: BEGGING THE QUESTION | Creation
Moments
In conclusion:
feel free to add to the list your fallacies of evolution/athiesm whatever.
