1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Fallacies of Evolution

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by usfan, May 24, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. usfan

    usfan Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2019
    Messages:
    425
    Ratings:
    +122
    Religion:
    Biblical Christianity
    Here is a list of fallacies for the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as it is commonly taught in schools.
    1. False Equivalence. We can observe simple variability within an organism. Colored moths adapt to changing tree bark. Rabbits adapt to their surroundings. This is an observable, repeatable science, also known as 'micro evolution'. The fallacy is in making an equivalence between minor changes in physical traits, to extrapolating large changes in the genetic structure. But that is NOT observed, & cannot be tested. It is a false equivalence, to equate minor changes in micro evolution with the major ones in macro evolution.
    2. Argument of Authority. 'All really smart people believe in the ToE.' This is not a scientific proof, but an argument of authority, as if truth were a democratic process. Real science must be proved, via the scientific method, not merely declared by elites.
    3. 'Everybody believes this!' This is an attempt to prove something by asserting it is common knowledge. It is obviously not true, anyway, as many people do not believe in the ToE, in spite of decades of indoctrination from the educational system, public television, & other institutions intent on promoting this ideology.
    4. The infinite monkey theorem. 'Given enough time, anything is possible.' is the appeal here. If you have infinite monkeys, typing on infinite typewriters (lets update this to computers!), eventually you would get the works of Shakespeare, etc. This is an appeal to measure the ToE with probability, rather than observable science. We still cannot observe or repeat the basic claims of the ToE, so the belief that anything is possible, given enough time is merely that: A belief.
    5. Ad Hominem. This is a favorite on the forums. If you cannot answer someone's arguments, you can still demean them & call them names. It is an attempt to discredit the person, rather than deal with the science or the arguments.
    6. Argument by Assertion. Instead of presenting evidence, assertions are repeated over & over, as if that will make up for the impotence of the arguments.
    7. Argument from Ignorance. This is claiming that evolution is true, because it has not been proven false. But the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic, to prove their claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" ~Marcello Truzzi
    8. Circular Reasoning. This is the argument that evolution is true, because we see all the variety of living things that have evolved. It is using the assumption of evolution to prove itself. Taxonomic classifications are often used in this manner.
    9. Equivocation. This is similar to the false equivalence. It is using the terms 'evolution' when talking about variability within an organism, & changing the context to macro evolution. It is comparing horizontal diversity in an organism to vertical diversity in the DNA. But one is obviously visible & repeatable, while the other is not.
    10. Correlation proves Causation. This attempts to use similarity of appearance (looks like) as proof of descendancy. But morphological similarity can often display wide divergence in the DNA, with no evidence there was every a convergence.

    The ToE has not been demonstrated by scientific methodology, only asserted & claimed. It is, in fact, a belief.. an almost religious belief in the origins of living things. It is an essential element for a naturalistic view of the universe, & for that reason, it is defended (and promoted) with jihadist zeal. But it is too full of logical & scientific flaws to be called 'science'. It is a philosophical construct, with very shaky foundations. There are many other flaws in the ToE, regarding the dating methods, conjectures about the fossil record, & other conflicts with factual data.

    Why are logical fallacies the primary 'arguments' given for the theory of universal common descent, if it is so plainly obvious and 'settled science!', as the True Believers claim?
     
    • Funny Funny x 5
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  2. viole

    viole Metaphysical Naturalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    8,571
    Ratings:
    +3,774
    Religion:
    Gnostic Atheism
    Well, if humans do not share a common ancestor with other primates, that would entail that God has an obsession for apes, considering that the pinnacle of His creation, the very creature His son will incarnate into, looks like one. Actually, is one.

    Looks like SD to me.

    Ciao

    - viole
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. Koldo

    Koldo Incredible Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    9,736
    Ratings:
    +1,215
    I really have no problem with people questioning the ToE. I think it is fair to criticize and one should always have some degree of skepctisim, but... I often find myself frustrated with the double standards, you know ? I mean, generally the ones that have the harsher criticism towards the ToE are the religious people with a creation story that certainly wouldn't stand if they applied the same degree of skepticism they apply to the ToE.

    Just so we are clear on this from the start: you are not one of those people, right ?
     
    • Like Like x 6
    • Winner Winner x 4
  4. usfan

    usfan Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2019
    Messages:
    425
    Ratings:
    +122
    Religion:
    Biblical Christianity
    My issue with the theory of universal common descent is scientific and logical. I am a theist, but so are most believers in the ToE. Obviously, atheism is not required to believe (or promote) the theory of universal common descent.

    As to my beliefs in origins: i am agnostic. I believe in God, but i don't know HOW he brought everything about. That is the question that science attempts to answer. The ToE falls outside the scrutiny of science, and is believed by faith, like other religious opinions.

    But, if the goal is to stereotype me, personally, without addressing the points, so that the OP can be dismissed, that is just another fallacy. 'Poison the Well', is a discredit or smear of the source, to evade the issue presented.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
  5. usfan

    usfan Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2019
    Messages:
    425
    Ratings:
    +122
    Religion:
    Biblical Christianity
    Humans are very common, throughout the earth, but other primates? ..not so much. Bugs, birds, and fish are much more plentiful, and varied, so by your argument, the Creator must prefer bugs, since they are so abundant and varied. ;)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. viole

    viole Metaphysical Naturalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    8,571
    Ratings:
    +3,774
    Religion:
    Gnostic Atheism
    I beg your pardon? Where did I say that evolutionary success is a sign of Gods predilection? I am just arguing that we look terribly similar to hairless apes, especially when compared with the rest. Which, in lack of common descent, might indicate that God loves apes, to make them the creatures His very son will incarnate into.

    I can only imagine God thinking: mmmh, now I am left with creating the being I created the whole universe for. How should she look like? I honestly did not think too much about that. i know she should be very different from everything else, since she should be in my image and I do not want to give the impression that she might come from some other lower animals, because of those pesky future atheistic evolutionists might use that. Oh Dear Me, i am exhausted after 6 days of work, and I cannot think. Wait, those bonobos look great if they did not have all that hair. Here we go.... good enough ... right Son? :)

    But you said “other” primates? So, you agree we are primates?

    Ciao

    - viole
     
    #6 viole, May 24, 2019
    Last edited: May 24, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
  7. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    3,233
    Ratings:
    +2,269
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Because they aren't.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  8. Altfish

    Altfish Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    7,084
    Ratings:
    +5,721
    Religion:
    Humanist
    Good grief, what a lot of assertions and list of false arguments with little evidence against evolution.

    Since Darwin first published in the mid 19th Century his theory has been tested, challenged, amended BUT it is still the best (by a long way) explanation for the diversity of life on earth.Science welcomes challenges.
    If you believe you have a rebutal and an alternative explanation, (Not "God did it") then publish it - fame fortune and Nobel Prizes await anyone who can disprove evolution.

    I'm not holding my breath
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Like Like x 3
  9. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    22,495
    Ratings:
    +12,353
    Religion:
    Atheist
    It appears from you list of "fallacies" that you have no understanding of the theory of evolution or how it is tested. Many of those might be true for an amateur, but a professional scientist is not allowed to make such errors.

    But let's go over one that is a clear error on your part. No one uses the "infinite monkey argument". That demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of how evolution works. That is based upon variation only. That is just one part of the driving forces of evolution. Evolution relies upon variation and natural selection working together. A more proper analogy is that of a limited number of monkeys typing with a selection method applied. When that is done they can and have written the works of Shakespeare in a computer simulation. In the same way we can show that evolution is more than possible.

    You need to repeat this mantra to yourself since like many creationists you do not understand it "Variation and natural selection. Variation and natural selection. Variation and natural selection. Variation and natural selection. Variation and natural selection. Variation and natural selection. . . . "
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  10. sun rise

    sun rise "Let there be peace and love among all"
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    32,859
    Ratings:
    +12,192
    Religion:
    Love
    The syllogism is "I don't understand science so I don't believe in science so I don't believe in the results of science when it disagrees with my a prior beliefs"
     
    • Like Like x 3
  11. icehorse

    icehorse Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    8,406
    Ratings:
    +4,227
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    I'm sure some people defend ToE as you describe. But most do not.

    I also think it's important to distinguish between scientific theories and scientific laws. The ToE is still evolving. Some aspects are more settled than others, but by no means is it considered "settled".
     
  12. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    3,233
    Ratings:
    +2,269
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    You are too kind. The process is: science disagrees with my prior beliefs, therefore I exercise great care not to learn or understand science - which allows me to disbelieve it without cognitive dissonance (the likelihood of cognitive dissonance being further reduced if the individual in question is as thick as two short planks).
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    25,271
    Ratings:
    +9,650
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Congratulations! You just won the Straw Man Creator Of The Year award. [​IMG]And doing so with some of the worst


    straw men I've seen in some time. It's almost as if you're vying for the Troll Of The Year award [​IMG]as well.


    .

    .
    .
     
    #13 Skwim, May 24, 2019
    Last edited: May 24, 2019
    • Funny Funny x 6
    • Winner Winner x 2
  14. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,155
    Ratings:
    +5,211
    Religion:
    None
    The theory of biological evolution is a scientific theory. It is considered settled science, like the heliocentric theory or the germ theory of infectious disease. The evidence for evolution is staggering in its quantity and diversity.

    It's creationism that has never been demonstrated by any methodology more than bare assertion.

    The argument for evolution is based on the evidence, which is robust. There are only two conclusions possible upon reviewing that evidence, and one is absurd - either life evolved on earth as the theory suggests, or some extremely powerful agent or agents rigged the earth to look as if it did, including building strata of fossilized life forms that never lived, with the most primitive appearing would be found deepest and with a combination of radionuclides that made them appear oldest, with progressively more modern forms appearing in shallower strata. And then inserted ERVs into DNA in nested hierarchies. Then deposited ring species throughout the world.

    It's like a murder trial where there are only two possible interpretations of the evidence against the defendant - he's guilty, or some malevolent agent or agents went to the trouble to make it appear so, that is, framed him. No other possibilities.

    This is the same, unless you can come up with a third possibility were the theory ever falsified.

    The theory is science, and one of its crowning achievements. It falls outside of the scrutiny of everything but science.

    It's understood that this science is a threat to many believers, but that is of no concern to scientists, who plod on doing science anyway, going where the evidence leads.

    That's been noted before :

    "When engaged in discussion with an eminent theologian. "What inference," asked the theologian, "might one draw about the nature of God from a study of his works?" biochemist John Haldane replied: "An inordinate fondness for beetles."
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Like Like x 2
  15. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,214
    Ratings:
    +4,391
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Your initial post stereotyped, before anything else if it was a serious post. First problem is it reflects a low science IQ. Second it reflects an Fundamentalist Christian anti-science bias.

    Is that what you intended to communicate?
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Gerry

    Gerry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,316
    Ratings:
    +708
    Religion:
    Christian
    Humans are very common simply because they’re the only species that finds joy in destroying millions of animals to build a shopping center.
    Also, you have no proof that the Creator does NOT prefer bugs.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. Gerry

    Gerry Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,316
    Ratings:
    +708
    Religion:
    Christian
    If I was to grant that everything you wrote is true, then how would YOU explain where the abundance of life came from?

    Just curious.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  18. cladking

    cladking Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    797
    Ratings:
    +89
    Religion:
    not applicable
    You certainly said a mouthful. I am in at least partial agreement with all your points.

    I am in less agreement with the above because we do see dramatic changes in species. These changes are in every case caused buy the creation of artificial population bottlenecks where the individuals are selected for behavior. I believe this is how nature engineers large changes in species as well; individuals are selected by behavior and they breed a new species. There is no "survival of the fittest" or the ability to adapt to "changing conditions". These are artificial and exist only in the lab. They simply don't apply to significant change in more complex species.
     
  19. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Avatar Change Imminent
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    24,323
    Ratings:
    +7,329
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian almost quaker
    There are so many creatures with similar physiology and characteristics that its hard to define where there is a hard distinction except when they cannot interbreed. A worm is different from a squirrel but there are creatures similar to worms that are similar to others and so forth until you find there is a chain of similar creatures that goes between worms and squirrels. Evolutionary theory can explain all those similarities and chain of similarities. It also is scientific. It answers questions, is a workable model explaining how things work and successfully predicts further results.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    27,835
    Ratings:
    +11,551
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    Absolutely false. Even the Wikipedia articles on the "Theory of Evolution" and "speciation" will give you more than enough information, including links to scientific studies that shows otherwise.

    The ToE is based on the results of using the "scientific method", but that method is not used in religion.

    "Naturalism" does not rely on one accepting the ToE.

    "Jihad" is a quasi-religious concept, not a scientific one.

    A blanket statement with no supporting evidence.

    "Science", including the ToE, is not a "philosophy".

    Again, just another blanket statement with no evidence to support it.

    I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church and had plans on going into the ministry. However my scholastic interest was mainly in science whereas I eventually got a graduate degree in anthropology, and then I taught it for roughly 30 years. I left my church when I was in my mid-20's largely because I believe that any church that teaches what is known to be false should not ever be believed on anything else. The church I belong to for over 40 years now doesn't teach such lies and distortions, and it teaches that one can accept the ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.

    IOW, unlike my old church, it is not anti-science.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...