Your Age, My Assertion, Your Fallacy

[NamesAreHardToPick]

My father, who has his Ph.D. in physics and is a staunch YEC, has often debated me over the issue of evolution. Although my major is evolutionary biology, I have no degree and I am at least 30 years younger than the man. The debate between him and I has continued to rage on for quite sometime now, and to be honest, I've won them all. The other day, I got the feeling he was getting sick of attempting to convert me to his radical religious doctrine (I am a Christian) and he finally said, "Well you're just 22 and don't have a Ph.D. like I do. What the [heck] do you know?"

To be honest, I'm not surprised. I've torn the guy to shreds so many times in debate, it's not worth it. But the thing is that I realized from witnessing debates on this forum is that just because someone does have a Ph.D. and is older, does not mean they're right. As much as I hate to admit, I've seen even evolution cohorts use someone's degree or age to claim they are right.

Just something to keep in mind the next time some 12 year old Creationist comes in here claiming that evolution is false. The theory of evolution is supported by evidence, not by people's Ph.D.s or people's ages. And let's face it, if people would support their assertions with evidence, and not appeals to authority, this debate wouldn't even be happening.

 

[Jet Black]

I hope you pointed out the argument from Authority fallacy. I think the main complaint we have here about the 12 year olds is when they come in with posts like "lol ur so stupid evolution is false becoz their isnt enough dust on the moon"

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

My father, who has his Ph.D. in physics and is a staunch YEC, has often debated me over the issue of evolution. Although my major is evolutionary biology, I have no degree and I am at least 30 years younger than the man. The debate between him and I has continued to rage on for quite sometime now, and to be honest, I've won them all. The other day, I got the feeling he was getting sick of attempting to convert me to his radical religious doctrine (I am a Christian) and he finally said, "Well you're just 22 and don't have a Ph.D. like I do. What the [heck] do you know?"

To be honest, I'm not surprised. I've torn the guy to shreds so many times in debate, it's not worth it. But the thing is that I realized from witnessing debates on this forum is that just because someone does have a Ph.D. and is older, does not mean they're right. As much as I hate to admit, I've seen even evolution cohorts use someone's degree or age to claim they are right.

As much as I hate to admit it you are right. I hate to admit it because I do have Ph.D. and I am getting really old and feeling older.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

Yeah. I mean don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people with Ph.D.s are idiots, just that having one of those doesn't necessarily make you right. I'd rather see people base their judgment (especially in biology) on the evidence we find. And I realize it's those wonderful Ph.D. scientists who are finding it, but still it's the evidence that is convincing.

For being good in math, my dad doesn't seem to get logic.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

As much as I hate to admit it you are right. I hate to admit it because I do have Ph.D. and I am getting really old and feeling older.

Awesome. I am currently working on getting my Ph.D. (someday) in evolutionary biology.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yeah. I mean don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people with Ph.D.s are idiots, just that having one of those doesn't necessarily make you right. I'd rather see people base their judgment (especially in biology) on the evidence we find. And I realize it's those wonderful Ph.D. scientists who are finding it, but still it's the evidence that is convincing.

For being good in math, my dad doesn't seem to get logic.

A case in point is Gerardus Bouw who IIRC has a Ph.D. in Astronomy and is a geocentrist

 

[nvxplorer]

You are certainly correct, but there is a difference between being an authority on a subject, and the argument from authority fallacy (used by your father). Many creationists will dismiss an argument because someone has a Ph.D. The reverse argument from authority fallacy, if you will. It is reasonable to trust an expert over a novice, and as such, the letters behind a person’s name do have significance.

 

[rjw]

My father, who has his Ph.D. in physics and is a staunch YEC, has often debated me over the issue of evolution. Although my major is evolutionary biology, I have no degree and I am at least 30 years younger than the man. The debate between him and I has continued to rage on for quite sometime now, and to be honest, I've won them all. The other day, I got the feeling he was getting sick of attempting to convert me to his radical religious doctrine (I am a Christian) and he finally said, "Well you're just 22 and don't have a Ph.D. like I do. What the [heck] do you know?"

To be honest, I'm not surprised. I've torn the guy to shreds so many times in debate, it's not worth it. But the thing is that I realized from witnessing debates on this forum is that just because someone does have a Ph.D. and is older, does not mean they're right. As much as I hate to admit, I've seen even evolution cohorts use someone's degree or age to claim they are right.

Just something to keep in mind the next time some 12 year old Creationist comes in here claiming that evolution is false. The theory of evolution is supported by evidence, not by people's Ph.D.s or people's ages. And let's face it, if people would support their assertions with evidence, and not appeals to authority, this debate wouldn't even be happening.

Hello NamesAreHardToPick,

A very good post.

I do not envy you in your situation. Nevertheless, you are correct in what you say.


Regards, Roland

 

[Apos]

Arguments from Authority are not necessarily falacious. It is only when that Authority is offered without any expectation that the arguments used by the authority can be themselves examined, or the authority is not actually . In the case of your father, a Ph.D in physics alone (does he still publish? Does he keep up with modern journals) doesn't really specially qualify him in any way on the matter of biology, chemistry, surgery, etc. Furthermore, knowledge today is so specialized that even biologists rarely consider themselves experts or even knowledgeable in biology in general, but rather in very limited subspecialities. That is why authorities have to be appropriate to the subject matter before we can really consider them and their worth in a debate.

 

[Oliver]

I'm curious: what were the arguments he used to try and convince you? Are they mostly scientific (or pseudo scientific) arguments, or did he focus on theology? And if the former, were they arguments from biology, or did he rather focus on the age of the Earth?

 

[Dannager]

As Apos pointed out, the Argument from Authority fallacy only exists when the authority in question doesn't give them credibility in the argument in question. A biologist can most certainly say "Look, I've got a doctorate - I know something about evolution," while a physicist would be fallacious in saying "Look, I've got a doctorate - I know something about evolution." It all depends on the manner in which the authority is leveraged.

 

[Jet Black]

As Apos pointed out, the Argument from Authority fallacy only exists when the authority in question doesn't give them credibility in the argument in question. A biologist can most certainly say "Look, I've got a doctorate - I know something about evolution," while a physicist would be fallacious in saying "Look, I've got a doctorate - I know something about evolution." It all depends on the manner in which the authority is leveraged.

not exactly. you wouldn't accept an argument from Jonathan wells even though he has a biology PhD. The fallacy is generally where the authority itself is used as a supporting argument i.e. "evolution is false because Jonathan wells says so, and he is a biologist" The fact that Wells says so and is a biologist is irrelevant to the argument being presented.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

I'm curious: what were the arguments he used to try and convince you? Are they mostly scientific (or pseudo scientific) arguments, or did he focus on theology? And if the former, were they arguments from biology, or did he rather focus on the age of the Earth?

He always used to talk about the age of the Earth at the beginning, but eventually gave up on that because I pointed out the non-sequitur. Then he used morality, also a non-sequitur, and I pointed out that. Finally he started arguing more biology (mainly about how mutations don't add information and are not beneficial, etc), but still can't win on that account either.

As Apos pointed out, the Argument from Authority fallacy only exists when the authority in question doesn't give them credibility in the argument in question. A biologist can most certainly say "Look, I've got a doctorate - I know something about evolution," while a physicist would be fallacious in saying "Look, I've got a doctorate - I know something about evolution." It all depends on the manner in which the authority is leveraged.

Incorrect, and Jet Black pointed out a reason why. There are quite a few Ph.D. biologists who are part of AiG. Does the fact that they have a Ph.D. give them the right to state they know what evolution is and therefore know more than someone who doesn't. Not necessarily because evolution - being a scientific theory - is based on evidence, and therefore it is one's evidence that makes him/her right or wrong, not their degree.

Now after having said that, I do expect a higher degree of expertise from someone with a Ph.D., but if they fail to offer evidence and only cite their degree as "proof," it's easy to dismiss.

 

[Schroeder]

My father, who has his Ph.D. in physics and is a staunch YEC, has often debated me over the issue of evolution. Although my major is evolutionary biology, I have no degree and I am at least 30 years younger than the man. The debate between him and I has continued to rage on for quite sometime now, and to be honest, I've won them all. The other day, I got the feeling he was getting sick of attempting to convert me to his radical religious doctrine (I am a Christian) and he finally said, "Well you're just 22 and don't have a Ph.D. like I do. What the [heck] do you know?"

To be honest, I'm not surprised. I've torn the guy to shreds so many times in debate, it's not worth it. But the thing is that I realized from witnessing debates on this forum is that just because someone does have a Ph.D. and is older, does not mean they're right. As much as I hate to admit, I've seen even evolution cohorts use someone's degree or age to claim they are right.

Just something to keep in mind the next time some 12 year old Creationist comes in here claiming that evolution is false. The theory of evolution is supported by evidence, not by people's Ph.D.s or people's ages. And let's face it, if people would support their assertions with evidence, and not appeals to authority, this debate wouldn't even be happening.

Well of course you think you have won them all or you wouldnt keep arguing with him. kind of a dumb to say you always won. whuy should we take your word for it. what you just said isnt much different if at all from saying im right because i have a phd or degree is it. Sorry but evolutionary "evidence" is in the eye of the beholder, seeing how we cant go back in time. and nothing living now shows evolution. it amazes me i keep hearing we wont witness it because it takes so long, Yet if everything has been around so long i would think we would see it occure in a least one species somewhere that shows a intermediate or a species with just omne more step before he changes into a distincly different species such as a reptile to a mammal. maybe we should see a mammal turn into a reptmal or mamrept. A species that can be a mammal or a reptil debending on the environment or conditions it is in. By the way what did the insects evolve from? don't think i have heard much about that. just curiouse.

 

[Schroeder]

He always used to talk about the age of the Earth at the beginning, but eventually gave up on that because I pointed out the non-sequitur. Then he used morality, also a non-sequitur, and I pointed out that. Finally he started arguing more biology (mainly about how mutations don't add information and are not beneficial, etc), but still can't win on that account either.

again why would we take your word for it, i would exspect anyone to believe i won all the arguements i have had in this thread just because i said i did. and mutations dont add New info. Of course you just say What is new info? easy way out. This is a good indication they would rather not figure out what new info truelly is. i will use this saying on you about beneficial mutations. What is a beneficial mutation. All the ones given to show this are not benificial in its deffinition. its only helpful IF it already has a problem. other wise it wouldnt be. if the "benificial" mutation was given in a healthy species would it still be benificial. and which is just adaptation and not a mutation. such as the nylon eating bacteria. why is it not just a adaptative advantage it has. it just had the ability to do this already. i mean if it was a mutation it would reguire a generation or amny many to make it happen. but nylon hasnt been around long. im probably completly wrong, i havnt been here in a while.

Incorrect, and Jet Black pointed out a reason why. There are quite a few Ph.D. biologists who are part of AiG. Does the fact that they have a Ph.D. give them the right to state they know what evolution is and therefore know more than someone who doesn't. Not necessarily because evolution - being a scientific theory - is based on evidence, and therefore it is one's evidence that makes him/her right or wrong, not their degree.

Now after having said that, I do expect a higher degree of expertise from someone with a Ph.D., but if they fail to offer evidence and only cite their degree as "proof," it's easy to dismiss.

i would think it is there INTERPRETATION of the evidence based on what they believe about a lot of things such as Life Faith what they were taught growing up. no one is nonbiased. So it all goes both ways. which is why it will be around for as long as we live.

 

[Dracil]

"Dr." Kent Hovind.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

Well of course you think you have won them all or you wouldnt keep arguing with him. kind of a dumb to say you always won. whuy should we take your word for it.

You shouldn't rather you should continue to read what I said and you'd understand what I meant by "won."

what you just said isnt much different if at all from saying im right because i have a phd or degree is it.

Actually, no. My assertion was not saying "evolution is true because I say so." Rather I am stating that if one is to argue about evolution they should realize that the theory - if true - is supported by evidence, not appeals to authority.

Sorry but evolutionary "evidence" is in the eye of the beholder, seeing how we cant go back in time.

Fallacy of non-sequitur.

and nothing living now shows evolution.

This is either a lie or ignorance. Organisms change all the time, rather you claim that is only limited on the small scale. However, given the fact that we've seen evolution happen on say, the genus level, I'd really need to see solid evidence to say it can't happen otherwise.

it amazes me i keep hearing we wont witness it because it takes so long, Yet if everything has been around so long i would think we would see it occure in a least one species somewhere that shows a intermediate or a species with just omne more step before he changes into a distincly different species such as a reptile to a mammal. maybe we should see a mammal turn into a reptmal or mamrept. A species that can be a mammal or a reptil debending on the environment or conditions it is in.

I have yet to say that. Rather if you are looking for a transition, look no further than the platypus. Even Creationists get tripped up on that one (as do some scientists). It doesn't really fit a solid category.

And how do you not know the organisms today aren't the transitions anyway? How do you know a reptile isn't the transition and something else is the actual organism. You're guilty of a huge fallacy of assumption because you are assuming that today we have solid groups of organisms and we should find transitions between them.

By the way what did the insects evolve from? don't think i have heard much about that. just curiouse.

Bugs. I swear, they are everywhere.

again why would we take your word for it, i would exspect anyone to believe i won all the arguements i have had in this thread just because i said i did.

Wow, I don't think I expected you too. But good job on letting that OP swing way over your head.

and mutations dont add New info. Of course you just say What is new info? easy way out. This is a good indication they would rather not figure out what new info truelly is. i will use this saying on you about beneficial mutations.

Ding-a-ling-a-ling. Nylon bug, the mutated T-Receptor cell in the CD4 gene of homo sapiens sapiens, E.Coli, etcetera.

What is a beneficial mutation. All the ones given to show this are not benificial in its deffinition.

I would say not being able to get HIV is a beneficial mutation. I would say being able to absorb a material which you were not able to absorb before is beneficial. I'd say HIV has mutated very beneficially toward itself (HIV superbug anyone?) in the fact that it can get around our medicine.

its only helpful IF it already has a problem. other wise it wouldnt be. if the "benificial" mutation was given in a healthy species would it still be benificial. and which is just adaptation and not a mutation. such as the nylon eating bacteria. why is it not just a adaptative advantage it has. it just had the ability to do this already. i mean if it was a mutation it would reguire a generation or amny many to make it happen. but nylon hasnt been around long. im probably completly wrong, i havnt been here in a while.

I'm thinking the same thing. Maybe you should catch up, no?

 

[shinbits]

I think it's also fair to point out that just because something is widely accepted, that also doesn't make it true or false.

 

[Valkhorn]

I think it's also fair to point out that just because something is widely accepted, that also doesn't make it true or false.

What about when something is widely accepted AND has practical application?

The idea of an old Earth is one that produces results like coal and oil - and the ability to find them. That powers your home, heats your house, fuels your car, and even gives you plastic.

The idea of Evolution gives us more advanced medicine, genetics, antibiotics, and better ways to treat biological illnesses.

It even helps us to understand hereditary diseases and ailments from heart disease to male-pattern baldness.

But I suppose that is of trivial consequence compared to the millions of things creation science has done which includes... um... the... oh wait

YEC hasn't produced any results. Now why is that?

 

[Nightson]

I think it's also fair to point out that just because something is widely accepted, that also doesn't make it true or false.

Yep. It's widely accepted because it's true.