The Recusant: Logical Fallacies of Evolutionists

[Stone]

Taken from The Recusant - Issue 55 [Eastertide 2021]

For a fuller explanation, please see the excellent video by Dr. Jason Lisle: “Evolution and Logical Fallacies” - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K-Q6mbEMYc

Logical Fallacies of Evolutionists

Like Mathematics, logic is a science, it is the study of correct and incorrect reasoning and as with mathematics, using logic, one can arrive at certainties which one can know to be true. A logical fallacy is not a false conclusion, it is a fault in the process of reasoning which leads to
a false conclusion.

Studying the physical sciences, it seems, it no guarantee that one has any kind of a firm grasp of logic. Here is a selection of some of the more common fallacies to be often found amongst believers in evolution.

The Fallacy of Reification. This is when one treats a thing as though it were a person. For instance: “Science says/declares/tells us…” - no, science is not a person and therefore “science” does not say anything. Scientists say things. Spot the difference: not quite the same is it? Scientists are, after all, only human like the rest of us. Likewise, the “fossil record,” carbon dating, comparative anatomy or whatever else, don’t actually tell us anything… the men who refer to those things and cite them as evidence are the ones telling us things, but those men are prone to misinterpreting the evidence, as well as being subject to the same human weaknesses (envy, pride, human respect, laziness and so forth) as the rest of us. Even the word “evidence” is used in this fallacious way. “Evidence says…” - in fact, no, the evidence does not do any talking, it does not say anything. You, the scientist, the evolutionist, the one who is interpreting the evidence, you are the one who says (whatever it is). “Creationists say this, but science says that...” - spot the difference! Why is it “science” and not “scientists”..?


The Fallacy of Equivocation. This is where the meaning of a word is shifted during the course of the argument. I gather it is also known as “bait and switch” in North American English. It is very common amongst evolutionists, some of whom don’t even seem to realise that they are committing it. The most obvious example is the very word ‘evolution’ itself. The textbook will say: “We see evolution around us all the time,” and will point to how new and different breeds of dog can be produced; or how certain animals or species can become extinct. That kind of “evolution” is what we see, yes. The first is sometimes called “micro evolution” but in reality it is just lots of variety within the gene pool; the second thing is just extinction, something which results in less variety and not more, it involves a loss and not a gain. Then there is the other sort of “evolution” - where rocks and water somehow become a “primordial soup” and organic matter appears from inorganic matter, or where amoebas turn into fish, fish into land animals, reptiles into birds and monkeys into humans. Clearly that is not the same thing at all, but it is given the same name. The first “evolution” is then used to, as it were, “prove” the second one.

Another example is the word ‘science.’ An evolutionist will say: “You believe in science, don’t you? Well evolution is science, so you should believe in evolution.” Even if we take for granted the modern habit that “science” really means the physical sciences, the “science” which we believe in means the tools God has given us to learn more about the physical attributes of His creation, the method or procedure, or what-have-you. On the other hand, evolution is only “science” in the sense that it is one particular model of origins (and not a very good one at that) - not the same thing. Add to that the fallacy of reification (see above) and you have two fallacies in one - “How can you not believe in evolution when science has declared it to be true.” It sounds and looks ridiculous in the cold light of day, and yet this kind of talk is common because, on most people, it works.

“Evolution is a theory, just like gravity is a theory, and you believe in gravity don’t you?” - gravity is a scientific theory, meaning it is supported by evidence and experiment. Evolution is only a “theory” in the commonplace meaning of the word, an idea, a supposition. The way in which textbooks talk of evolutionary change as happening through “beneficial mutations” is another example of this fallacy. “Here’s a picture of a fruit fly with curly wings, or a cow with five legs...mutations such as these are harmful, but it is the good mutations which make evolution happen.” So why don’t you present us with evidence of “good mutations”? Could it be because there aren’t any, because it doesn’t happen? All the mutations we
know about involve already existing genetic information being misplaced or scrambled (for instance, the cow’s fifth leg is still a cow leg; the fruit fly’s curly wings are still fly wings) - whereas the mythical “mutations” required by evolution, the ones which nobody has ever seen, are “mutations” involving the sudden and unaccountable appearance of new, additional genetic information which was not previously there. In effect, the “mutations” required for evolution are something quite different and therefore ought not to be given the same name, and there is no evidence that any such thing has ever taken place.

The Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. This is when one says “If A then B ...B, therefore A.” For instance, “If it is raining, the grass will be wet. The grass is wet, therefore it must be raining.” What if somebody turned on the sprinklers, or some kids have just had a water fight, or someone was washing his car? “If evolution were true, we’d expect to see lots of fossils in layers, and similarities in the anatomy of different animals. We do see those things, therefore evolution must be true.” Hold on a moment - what about other possible explanations, such as a worldwide flood and a common designer? Incorrect theories can make correct predictions - even if the “prediction” is true (and let’s leave to one side whether it is really a prediction if you already know it!), that still does not prove that the theory is true.


The Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. As above, only in a negative form. “If it’s raining the grass will be wet. It’s not raining, therefore the grass must not be wet.” If A is true then B is true. Very well. But if A is not true, B might still nevertheless be true, for all we know. “If
dinosaurs and humans were found in the same rock layers, it would prove that they were alive at the same time. They are not found in the same rock layers, therefore they did not live at the same time.” The first half is true, the second a fallacy. Just because you haven’t found humans and dinosaurs in the same rock layers, that doesn’t prove that they didn’t live at the same time.


The Fallacy of False Dichotomy. Sometimes known as “false dilemma” or “bifurcation,” this consists of presenting two (and only two) options or possibilities when that is not the case. “Either there are laws governing nature, or God works miracles.” Why aren’t both possible? “You believe what your Church teaches, but I follow my reason!” Actually, I believe and follow both, and arguably one cannot be being fully rational if one rejects the existence of the God who made everything. Almost without fail, the evolutionist commits this fallacy every time he talks about “science versus religion.” “Which do you believe, science or the teachings of your religion?” Both, in fact. The same is true of both the title and the concept of Fr. Paul Robinson’s book, implying that there is a tension between “science” and “religion” pulling in Logical Fallacies of Evolutionists opposite directions, which can only be avoided by steering a “realist” path between the two. If anyone is tempted to doubt that, let him carefully consider what is being implied by Fr. Robinson’s words when he says that the creationist view “makes science an enemy of reason.”


The ‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy. This is a form of circular reasoning, whereby one makes a universal statement and then eliminates or  isqualifies the evidence which disproves it. It tends to go something like this: “All serious scientists believe in evolution.” Or, “no serious scientist has a problem with…” When you point out a scientist who does not agree with evolution (or global warming, or whatever it might be…) you will be told that that scientist is not a serious scientist. Why isn’t he a “serious” scientist, you might enquire? Well, the answer would be, for one thing, he believes the earth is 6,000 years old - how can anyone take someone like that seriously! No serious science journal would accept a paper from a creationist. All the leading academics agree that... (insert contentious statement here!). It’s so obvious. And yet they do it all the time, so one can only suppose that many people are nevertheless taken in by it.


Begging the Question. This is another form of circular reasoning, where the conclusion of an argument is already embedded into one of the premises. In a fallacy of this sort, the error lies in the underlining assumption which is there from the start. “How do I know that evolution is true? Because it’s a fact!” That one is a bit obvious. Here’s another, slightly more subtle example: “Creationists are wrong because the geological column shows that the earth is billions of years old and the fossil record shows how life evolved.” The very existence of such a thing as the “geological column” outside the textbooks is one of the main things young earth creationists dispute. The same goes for the “fossil record.” Yes, there are fossils, but they don’t form a “record.” The fossils are a fact, the “record” is a matter of interpretation, nothing more. We say instead that the layers of rock and the fossils were deposited all in one go and are evidence of a worldwide flood. Saying that we are wrong about the fossil record because of the fossil record (which is in effect what almost all “billions-of-years” exponent say, Fr. Robinson included) is, when you stop to think about it, not very intelligent and not really very helpful either. Appealing to the very thing under dispute solves nothing, but is the essence of begging the question.

Fr. Paul Robinson seems to be prone to this particular fallacy. In saying that we “Biblicists” (his own made-up word) are wrong because we “make science an enemy of reason,” he assumes two things: first that evolutionary timescales are synonymous with science, and second that reason is on the side of this so-called “science” - even though this is appealing to the very thing at issue (we maintain that those ideas are irrational and don’t count as “science”!). He commits the same fallacy when he says that the Genesis account of creation can’t be taken as reliable because it would mean that God was deliberately choosing “to deceive our minds by creating a world in an instant that appears to have developed over long periods of time.” (See Recusant 46, p.45). Notice that his argument assumes that the world really does appear to have developed over long periods of time, although again, that is precisely the very thing which is disputed.


The Complex Question. The classic example is: “Are you still beating your wife?” Either yes or no might lead to a false conclusion. The reason it is called “complex” is because it is one question which really ought to be divided into two. “Did you ever beat your wife and if so, do
you still do it?” Likewise, “Why are you creationists against science?” “Which of the contradictory accounts in the Bible do you accept?” and so forth.

The “Ad Hominem” Fallacy from its name in Latin, the “argumentum ad hominem” (“an argument directed at a person,” and not at the words, ideas or reasoning which that person puts forth and represents, in other words). This is similar to the idea of shooting the messenger who brings bad news: the character of the person is attacked in order to discredit what they are saying. “I met him once, he's a really horrible person, so I wouldn’t listen to anything he says.” That may be true, he might be the most anti-social, mean spirited man ever to have lived, perhaps he has bad breath and doesn’t wash his socks, but that still doesn’t mean he hasn’t got a really good, water-tight argument in spite of his personal failings.

This fallacy is, in the experience of this writer, alarmingly common amongst Traditional Catholics. One of the signs to look out for is a failure to quote at length from the person in question and show why they are wrong by using their own words. Ask yourself: does the one doing the attacking engage with the actual argument as laid out by his opponent? Or am I being invited to focus on the imagined (or even true) faults or failings of his opponent, rather than such facts as are both undeniable and relevant, such as their words on a given subject or their actions in a given dispute?


The Fallacy of the Irrelevant Thesis. This is where the information provided is true but irrelevant. A thing can be true and yet still provide no kind of explanation. For instance, imagine telling an eager news reporter: “How come I am the only survivor of a horrific plane crash in which every single other person died? Because otherwise I wouldn’t be here to tell you all about it.” That may be true, but it is irrelevant: it doesn’t answer the original question. “Why do living creatures have complex parts which function together so perfectly? Because if they didn’t they would have died off.” That may be true - yes, they would have died off - but it still doesn’t answer the question: ‘why?’


The Appeal to Ignorance. This is when something is claimed simply on the basis that no one has proved it false. “There must be life in outer space. No one has ever proved that there isn’t.” If someone has not disproved a claim, that does not mean that the claim is true. Appeals to ignorance are reversible: one might equally say, “There is no life in outer space. No one has ever proved that there is.”


The Appeal to Authority. “Look at all these fancy scientists, Doctors, Professors, T.V. personalities, who all believe in Evolution, Big Bang and billions of years…” God is the only authority (and by extension, Sacred Scripture and His Church) to whom one can appeal without it being a fallacy. Those scientists with the fancy letters after their names and the lengthy biographies on Wikipedia don’t even claim to be infallible. They can be wrong. “Trust me, I’m a doctor!” was always a terrible argument, but it is perhaps the thing which is the most effective on the majority of people.

The Straw Man Fallacy. The one everyone always remembers: misrepresenting your opponent, refuting the things you wish he’d said but didn’t. For example, do we creationists really think and claim that God deliberately deceives everyone by creating the world with evidence of an old earth built into it because he wants us all to mistrust our reason? No..? And yet that is what Fr. Paul Robinson says of us. He also points out that that is not a Catholic attitude, to which we reply: “True, but irrelevant” (see above).