Creation vs. Evolution Debate

[Jim Parker]

From my observation of this debate, it is far too much based on the use of "straw man" and "red herring" arguments.

Definition of "straw man" logical fallacy:
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
Example: "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that." That statement is a "straw man."
Not funding one program will not "leave us defenseless." It will remove one item from the defense budget.

An Evolution- Creation debate Straw Man logical fallacy: Evolution science promotes atheism.

Evolutionary scientists look at the physical evidence available and draw conclusions based on that evidence alone. Since there is no available scientific evidence to prove the existence of God, they cannot include any theological content in their research. (There are certainly logical reasons to believe in God but logical reasoning and scientific evidence are not the same thing.)
The fact that evolution scientists do not talk about God's work of creation is because they cannot demonstrate scientifically to have taken place. That is not the promotion of atheism. It is admitting that they can't directly examine God.

Definition of a "Red Herring" fallacy:
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

Example: "We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous."
The topic is the popularity of a measure.
The topic of the number of measures on the ballot in introduced to replace it as an argument against it.

(2) Science is based on theories rather than facts and is, therefore, not a reliable source for facts.
The word "science" refers to a method of inquiry as a means to discover facts.
The method of scientific inquiry includes; observation, hypothesizing, and testing of the hypothesis.
If the hypothesis (theory) is correct, the testing will prove it to be so.
If the theory is not correct, the testing will prove it to be incorrect.
If it is proven incorrect, the hypothesis (theory) will be revised to better reflect reality based on the observations of the test results.
When the hypothesis correctly and repeatedly predicts the results of testing, the scientist has arrived at a proven fact.
The red herring statement substitutes the topic "fact" for the topic 'theory."

It is also a straw man fallacy because it presents science as being a catalogue of facts when, in fact, it is a method of discovering facts.

And the statement is a Guilt By Association logical fallacy because proposes that, because scientific research has resulted in erroneous conclusions, we can safely assume that no conclusions based on science can be considered reliable. The idea being that one failure to find the right answer means that all attempts using the same methods must result in wrong answers.

If science were not a reliable method of discovering facts then we would not have x-ray and MRI machines to assist doctors in diagnoses or vaccines for polio and small pox or micro-wave ovens or telephones or computers with which to waste time on the internet endlessly arguing about nothing very important.
2


iakov the fool

 

[Pegasus]

Is there a debate proposition somewhere up there I missed? Or is this post considered a red herring?

 

[Runner]

An Evolution- Creation debate Straw Man logical fallacy: Evolution science promotes atheism.

Evolutionary scientists look at the physical evidence available and draw conclusions based on that evidence alone. Since there is no available scientific evidence to prove the existence of God, they cannot include any theological content in their research. (There are certainly logical reasons to believe in God but logical reasoning and scientific evidence are not the same thing.)
The fact that evolution scientists do not talk about God's work of creation is because they cannot demonstrate scientifically to have taken place. That is not the promotion of atheism. It is admitting that they can't directly examine God.

Evolutionary science "assumes" atheism. Atheism is its foundation. In a perfect world, science would indeed proceed dispassionately, without regard to where the evidence leads. But this is not how evolutionary science proceeds. If it were, proponents of evolution within the scientific community would at least give the proponents of Intelligent Design and the most highly qualified critics of evolution, such as Stephen Meyer, a fair hearing.

But they do not. They do their best to keep the public, the schools and the scientific community from giving ID and the evolution critics like Meyer any hearing at all.

ID includes a wealth of scientific evidence; Meyer's work likewise. One can "examine God" through the evidence for ID at least as directly (and I would say, more compellingly) than one can "examine evolution" from the extremely limited evidence available. The laboratory science related to evolution, such a fruit fly experiments involving billions of generations, is devastating to the natural selection hypothesis. The Cambrian fossil record is as problematical for Darwinian evolution as the Big Bang was for the "steady state eternal universe" hypothesis. But the hardcore proponents of evolutionary science remain unfazed because for them evolutionary science is not science at all; it is an atheistic religion.

Evolution has had an atheistic foundation since Darwin's day. It assumes - absolutely and with no room for discussion - a materialistic, naturalistic, non-supernatural explanation for the origin of species. All evolutionary scientists likewise assume a materialistic, naturalistic, non-supernatural origin for life itself (abiogenesis). As you may know, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, was willing to concede that life might have been seeded on earth by aliens, but not by God; aliens are materialistic, naturalistic and non-supernatural, you see, but God isn't.

Evolutionary science doesn't reject theistic explanations because they are "unscientific" but because evolutionary science defines "science" as meaning "the search for materialistic, naturalistic, non-supernatural explanations for all phenomena."

God is simply not part of the evolutionary science paradigm; He cannot, and is not, allowed a foot in the door. Evolutionary science is absolutely hostile to evolution. "Theistic evolution" is an oxymoron, the equivalent of "godly atheism." There is no understanding in Christianity whereby God simply created life and allowed it to evolve. The Christian teaching is that God created Adam in His image by a special act of creation; evolution is fundamentally, irreconcilably at odds with this doctrine. A recent book by Douglas Groothuis I just finished makes the point of how ironic it is that some Christians have embraced the notion of "theistic evolution" when Darwin's very purpose was to eliminate God from the equation.

So while I understand the point you are making about straw man fallacies, I think you are giving evolutionary science too much credit. In the abstract, the study of evolution may not "promote" atheism, but in reality evolution science has atheism as its foundation and is "indistinguishable from" atheism.

I may think the Young Earth community is as off-base as the Flat Earth community because (1) an ancient, spherical earth is demonstrated by multiple branches of science and can easily be demonstrated today, and (2) an ancient, spherical earth is not contrary to any Christian doctrine. But evolutionary science is - and it is not driven by a desire for scientific truth, but by an atheist agenda.

 

[Edward]

Is there a debate proposition somewhere up there I missed? Or is this post considered a red herring?

Yeah, let's just skip the issue and get right to the argument. Straw man! Straw man!

 

[Jim Parker]

Evolutionary science "assumes" atheism. Atheism is its foundation.

That is the Logical fallacy called: Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:
1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make.

All science is the study of creation.
Science is not useful for studying God the Creator because God the Creator is not available for examination. Science does not have tools for examining God.

In a perfect world, science would indeed proceed dispassionately, without regard to where the evidence leads. But this is not how evolutionary science proceeds. If it were, proponents of evolution within the scientific community would at least give the proponents of Intelligent Design and the most highly qualified critics of evolution, such as Stephen Meyer, a fair hearing.

That is a Straw Man fallacy.
Intelligent design is nothing more than the inclusion of the acts of God into the study of nature. (God's creation)
Although conclusions of proponents of ID may very well have arrived at their conclusions logically, science deals only with the created universe because it is not able to observe God.

ID is simply the attempt to insert theology (Genesis) into science where it does not belong.
Theology and science are two different fields based on very different methodologies.
You can't do science by revelation and you cant do theology by the scientific method.
The two fields are simply incompatible.

 

[jasonc]

That is the Logical fallacy called: Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:
1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make.

All science is the study of creation.
Science is not useful for studying God the Creator because God the Creator is not available for examination. Science does not have tools for examining God.


That is a Straw Man fallacy.
Intelligent design is nothing more than the inclusion of the acts of God into the study of nature. (God's creation)
Although conclusions of proponents of ID may very well have arrived at their conclusions logically, science deals only with the created universe because it is not able to observe God.

ID is simply the attempt to insert theology (Genesis) into science where it does not belong.
Theology and science are two different fields based on very different methodologies.
You can't do science by revelation and you cant do theology by the scientific method.
The two fields are simply incompatible.

A doctor is only concerned with the here and now. He won't ask how you got here nor ask why you parents decided to have you.evolution in part does beg the question of why we are here.

One doesnt t need to know how the first electric power plant came to be in order to run the one works in.literally I know of some that could run a cng turbine of the modern era but couldn't restart a 1930s diesel turbine.

I'm not against the study of history but ones belief of origins and the philosophy of why are here will influence that study of science. Much of history is indeed subject to those that write it after the fact .ie the victors write the story.we don't know much about the myans,olmec,Aztec as the spanish wiped those civilizations out.

 

[Elisha]

From my observation of this debate, it is far too much based on the use of "straw man" and "red herring" arguments.

It's the belief of the arrogant that people disagree with them only because those people are ignorant and unenlightened. But, it doesn't take any intelligence to accept Evolution, to believe what you're told to believe.

 

[Pegasus]

That is the Logical fallacy called: Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:
1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make.

All science is the study of creation.
Science is not useful for studying God the Creator because God the Creator is not available for examination. Science does not have tools for examining God.


That is a Straw Man fallacy.
Intelligent design is nothing more than the inclusion of the acts of God into the study of nature. (God's creation)
Although conclusions of proponents of ID may very well have arrived at their conclusions logically, science deals only with the created universe because it is not able to observe God.

ID is simply the attempt to insert theology (Genesis) into science where it does not belong.
Theology and science are two different fields based on very different methodologies.
You can't do science by revelation and you cant do theology by the scientific method.
The two fields are simply incompatible.

You have actually poisoned the well above. Not to mention the OP is a false dichotomy.

 

[Nathan]

I guess I can be called a dummy. God said He created everything in 7 days so I believe it.

I figure you can trace back this event. Science?

God said He rested on the 7th day. Seems to me people have been doing that for quite some time.

But honestly, I've never understood the argument. In as much as against a young earth.

I see evolutionary creation as a way to try and sucker in believers.

 

[Elisha]

I see evolutionary creation as a way to try and sucker in believers.

The Atheist establishment is very happy to see Believers compromise and accept Evolution. But, Evolution is the doctrine that Nature is the creator. It's incompatible with Scripture, that God is creature. Evolution is also incompatible with true science which shows Nature is not the creator.

We can look at nature, it doesn't produce Evolution. We're given examples of decay of species and variations on a theme when we ask to see Evolution. But, those are not Evolution, no matter how much Evolutionists shake their fists, call us ignorant, and insist that they're showing us Evolution.

 

[Jim Parker]

You have actually poisoned the well above.

How so??

 

[Edward]

ID is simply the attempt to insert theology (Genesis) into science where it does not belong.
Theology and science are two different fields based on very different methodologies.
You can't do science by revelation and you cant do theology by the scientific method.
The two fields are simply incompatible.

It doesn't?
I keep hearing that. I question if it's really true. It is in some aspects, for sure. But not completely.
Or they'll kick you out of school or lock you up if necessary!It's not done traditionally, but it has to be possible.
I know that's what they want us to think, but I'm not so sure that they're really incompatible. I'll explain.

Correct me if I'm wrong here (lol) but the scientific methodology is to...
1. Observe phenomena.
2. Seek patterns and record measurements if applicable in the observation.
3. Formulate a hypothesis from the description and observation.
4! Gather independent data to challenge the hypothesis.

Right?

 

[Pegasus]

How so??

When you claimed that someone else poisoned the well, that is just another tactic to actually poison the well. Unless you can clearly identify the false premise in the argument and prove intent to poison.

Sometimes it takes a few turns in a debate/discussion to establish these claims.

Your OP is informative, but there is no debate proposal other than to define terms and establish boundaries to immediately place any opposing view in a position where they have just two choices. First choice is to agree with your views and the second one is an opposing view which is immediately thrown out based on the boundaries you set up. That is why I mentioned a false dichotomy.

So is this a creation-evolution debate proposal or just a thread defining terms?

 

[Pegasus]

ID is simply the attempt to insert theology (Genesis) into science where it does not belong.
Theology and science are two different fields based on very different methodologies.
You can't do science by revelation and you cant do theology by the scientific method.
The two fields are simply incompatible.

Yet there is science in Genesis chapter 1. Science as explained to Bedouin Israelites who lived under the stars at night and the sweat of the brow by sunlight. In the Beginning (Time) God (Creator) created the heavens (space) and earth (matter). Very basic. Nuts and bolts. However, if you get a chance to read Genesis 1 in the Hebrew mechanical translation using the Hebrew pictographs. There's a whole lot more to the story.

Moses had this to work with:

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_One/Pictograms/pictograms.html

 

[Jim Parker]

It doesn't?

No, theology doesn't belong in science.
Theology and science are two very different fields of knowledge with very different means of acquiring data.
The data of theology comes from God's self-revelation and is subjective.
The data of science comes from observation, measurement, and testing and is objective.

Correct me if I'm wrong here (lol) but the scientific methodology is to...
1. Observe phenomena.
2. Seek patterns and record measurements if applicable in the observation.
3. Formulate a hypothesis from the description and observation.
4! Gather independent data to challenge the hypothesis.
Right?

Partially.

Your point?

And, please try to keep in mind that the topic of the thread is the use of logical fallacies in the argument for ID not a debate about ID and evolution and science and theology and the Bible.

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

Yet there is science in Genesis chapter 1. Science as explained to Bedouin Israelites

oi veh - where to begin......
(1) Please go look up the meaning of the word "science" in a modern dictionary. That's what we're talking about, not the "science" of the ancient world which defined the four elements as earth, wind, fire and water. The modern meaning of the word "science" did not exist 3500 years ago.
(2) Israelites were never Bedouin. (Nomadic Arabs)
(3) There is not one single scientific statement in Genesis 1.

Your logical fallacy is essentially a straw man in which you have misrepresented the genealogy of the heavens and the earth which is presented in Genesis 1 as science. That is a false equation.

In the Beginning (Time) God (Creator) created the heavens (space) and earth (matter). Very basic. Nuts and bolts.

(1) "in the beginning" refers to being before time existed since time did not exist until God created space-time.
(2) That God is the creator of all things visible and invisible is not a scientific fact since nothing of that truth can be proven by the application of scientific methods.

However, if you get a chance to read Genesis 1 in the Hebrew mechanical translation using the Hebrew pictographs.

Are you suggesting that you are fluent in reading the "original Hebrew pictographs"?
Are you suggesting that you have studied Gen. 1 as it was written in he "original Hebrew pictographs"?
Pardon me if I am a bit skeptical.
The oldest surviving manuscripts of the Old Testament (Dead Sea Scrolls) are from 2100 to 2200 years old and are written in ancient Hebrew, not Hebrew pictographs.

And the thread is about logical fallacies.

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

When you claimed that someone else poisoned the well, that is just another tactic to actually poison the well.Unless you can clearly identify the false premise in the argument and prove intent to poison.

By identifying all scientists with the negative connotation of "atheists", the well was poisoned.

Your OP is informative, but there is no debate proposal other than to define terms and establish boundaries to immediately place any opposing view in a position where they have just two choices.

Of course.
Logical fallacies have been identified and categorized for a very long time.
There are, in fact, only two choices: (1) the argument is logical and (2) the argument contains a logical fallacy.
The purpose of the OP was to point out that the "Creation vs. Evolution" discourse regularly contains those logical fallacies.

 

[Jim Parker]

From my observation of this debate, it is far too much based on the use of "straw man" and "red herring" arguments.

The objective of the OP is to help people avoid logical fallacies when presenting their apologetic.

 

[Brother Mike]

No, theology doesn't belong in science.
Theology and science are two very different fields of knowledge with very different means of acquiring data.
The data of theology comes from God's self-revelation and is subjective.
The data of science comes from observation, measurement, and testing and is objective.

Data from Science comes from wanting to believe something first. Then we make up the data to present that belief.
The world follows the satanic narrative because the World does not have the equipment to do the experiments themselves. Satan is the god of this world and his false narrative is in place.
People follow those that pretend to sound more informed and smarter than they despite the fact they are lying and and less informed.
People can't or don't back what they are told, but take the given brainwashed narrative.

False Science needs things that nobody can observe or prove. Like how does all the planets stay together following the sun at 483,000 mph. Can't be gravity as it moves in waves and not a constant, must be a made up substance called dark matter.

To prove Evolution you have to have something called probability blind luck, and a whole bunch of make believe time. Yet a sane person finding a watch in a forest does not believe that watch just evolved there due to the probability/Time matrix. instead they think the watch must have a maker.

A human being on the other hand who self repairs, has joint movement no robotics engineer can reproduce or last as long, has eyes the take in color and information then examine that information which can not be reproduced is said to just all happened by chance through a bunch of make believe Time and probability. Not by the Master Engineer. God our Father. If God said let their be earth that divides the Waters, that is real science (Gen 1)

Science has nothing to do with Logic it has to do with being blinded spiritually to accept false sciences.

 

[jasonc]

The objective of the OP is to help people avoid logical fallacies when presenting their apologetic.

Fair enough