Posts 8-12 In One

I'm a week late posting. I apologize.

I'm beginning to re-think my series. I plan to finish it, but since I did not start this blog for political reasons, I'd like to get through those debates and get back to the things I really want to post about (see my earlier posts).

To do this, I'm going to combine the rest of the Logic posts into this one.

Also, don't forget about Followers Say coming up in just two weeks!

Logical Fallacies to Watch Out For (continued):

8. Straw Man Argument:

Another personal favorite. This occurs when someone distorts their opponent's oppinion to make it easier to attack.

Christians are especially vulnerable to this. This is partly due to the "Inherit the Wind" standard set up, and partly because of the truly stupid arguments some Christians have made.

Darwinists like to make the public think that only the most extreme religious fundamentalists disagree with their theory. This is simple not true. (If you think it is, please provide some evidence.)

A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "just 32% of the public accepts [Evolution] as true."

I find it hard to believe that all 68% of America are extreme religious fundamentalists.

Why do Darwinists like to portray the argument as Science vs. the Bible?

Because, guess what? When the debate is set up that way, science always wins.

Despite what many Darwinists say, the evidence for Evolution is shakier than they would like. To draw attention away from this, they set up the Straw Man Argument.

9. Begging the Question:

An argument is said to be begging the question if it assumes the answer to the inquiry in question.

Example:
Question: Why should we believe what the Bible says?
Answer: Because the Bible says so.

Question: What evidence proves that life evolved from non-living molecules?
Answer: Don't reject a scientific theory just because of religious bias.

The latter answer assumes what is in dispute: that the evidence for chemical Evolution is so strong that only prejudiced people would be skeptical.

In arguments that beg the question, answers usually assume that science and reason are always on the same side.

This fallacy ties in to the Straw Man as well. If you let a Straw Man define the terms, you will always lost.

10. Lack of Testability:

We must learn to distinguish between theories that put themselves at risk (can be tested) and ones that cannot be show to be either true OR false.

Not everything a scientist says is scientific, and some theories coming from eminent scientists might be about as accurate as musings about Heaven. Both Creationism and Evolution can be stated in safe or risky ways.

If a Creationist says that they believe in Creation on faith, then there's nothing we can do to prove or disprove the theory. However, if a Creationist says that the evidence says taht living organisms are the product of intellegent life and could never have come into being by completelyl natural means from a probiotic soup of chemicals, that statement invites scientific testing.

Darwinism was first stated in a testable, risky way. It predicted that fossil hunters would eventually discover a great number of transitional intermidiates between the major groups (they didn't) and that animal breeders would succeed in creating distinct species (they didn't).

Today, Darwin's theory is stated in a risk-free way. Naturalistic evolution is identified with science itself, and any different theories or suggestions are immediately disqualified as "religion". This makes it impossible to have a scientific debate over whether the theory is true.

11. Vague and Shifting Definitions:

When debating, people (unfortunately mainly Darwinists) like to use the "bait and switch" strategy. They will lead you to agree to a harmless definition, and then use teh definition later in a very different way. Terms that are commonly subjected to this switch are "science" and "e/Evolution".

Someone might lead you to agree that dog breeding is evolution. Well, you might agree with that. Sure. If what "evolution" means is that there are variations within speicies, sure. (By the way, dog breeding is guided, and only variation, not evolution.)

The correct answer, then, for when someone asks you if you believe in evolution is:

"Define 'evoulution'."

12. Original Sin:

We need to look at all the facts with an open mind (not so open that your brain falls out, of course). Beware the original sin: believing what we want to believe. We are all guilty of this. It's human nature.

In the words of Richard Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool."

Thank you, and talk to you next time!