Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > The Logical Fallacies of Evolution

evopeach Posts: 248 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,09:47    False Dilemma Definition: A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator. Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy Evolutionists say either the universe, life etc. are all the result of natural law driven phenomena or they are driven by supernatural interventionist acts that are purely and wholly expressions of religion. From this they conclude that no science can ever be assumed valid because if the supernatural is permitted a result cannot be relied upon as repeatable and dependable because it would be indistinguishable whether the result was obtained scientifically or as a direct result of supernatural intervention. Given the concept of ID there is in fact a third scientific choice: At an undefined point in time an Intelligent Designer hybridized intellect, power and ability onto matter resulting in the design in life that we observe as well as the operation of the universe. Past that point the ID has intervened in the universe only rarely and in general has been content to let the universe operate within the boundaries of physical law.

TheMissingLink Posts: 19 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,10:06    Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 20 2005,14:47) False Dilemma Definition: A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator. Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy Evolutionists say either the universe, life etc. are all the result of natural law driven phenomena or they are driven by supernatural interventionist acts that are purely and wholly expressions of religion. From this they conclude that no science can ever be assumed valid because if the supernatural is permitted a result cannot be relied upon as repeatable and dependable because it would be indistinguishable whether the result was obtained scientifically or as a direct result of supernatural intervention. Given the concept of ID there is in fact a third scientific choice: At an undefined point in time an Intelligent Designer hybridized intellect, power and ability onto matter resulting in the design in life that we observe as well as the operation of the universe. Past that point the ID has intervened in the universe only rarely and in general has been content to let the universe operate within the boundaries of physical law. The problem with your "one time" defense, Peach, is that you can't provide any observable data about when and if such a "one time" event will happen again. And in the absense of such data, you can't be sure that when you walk out of your front door tomorrow morning you won't rise from the earth as if touched by his noodly appendage! Therefor, nothing you can know about science is reliable because any unexpected or non-intuitive result can be just another case of the Intelligent Designer mucking up the words... again. It may well be that God mucks up the works with some regularity, but science must proceed on the assumption that he does not.

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,10:10    Evo, Check the definition of "strawman". Quote Evolutionists say either the universe, life etc. are all the result of natural law driven phenomena or they are driven by supernatural interventionist acts that are purely and wholly expressions of religion. Who says this?  (Don't be afraid of posting sources.) I thought it was the IDers that argue that if Evolution isn't true then ID must be.  THAT is a false dilemna. -Dan

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,10:17    'Sfunny, because this exact false dichotomy is exactly how creationists justify their beliefs. The argument "I personally find the evidence for evolution lacking, therefore Gawd musta dunnit" is a classic example of faulty reasoning of the sort Not X, therefore Y, where no independent justification whatever for (Y) is offered. Even if the theory of evolution went belly up tomorrow (stop dreaming, TivoSpeech), I would still be under no compunction to embrace any form of creationism. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

evopeach Posts: 248 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,11:06    Group Answer The definition of ID precludes your response from being meaningful. If you assume the definition of ID by its proponents is untrue and a lie there is no logical way to debate unless you can show evidence that ID has been practiced in the public schools and has proven to be a guise for the presentation of special creation or that there is court acceptable evidence of a secret plan to do so at the first opportunity. Since that has never been permitted or put into evidence there is no evidence other than your unsubstantiated assertion of lying. Your argument is illogical. Actually there is prima facia evidence of only one creation whether the big bang or special creation because if there more than one there would be observable traces of it in the universe and no one has ever detected other than a single originating event in cosmology or astronomy. There is no data that evidences sporadic and frequent and unpredictable suspensions of natural law over time. It is logical to assume that the rule of natural law is the normal operation of the universe. In addition, the bible records only one creative event and one worldwide catastrophe, never to be repeated. Further, conservative scholars hold to the absolute economy of miracles and that when and if they occur over time they are clear unambigious supensions of natural law so apparent as to be clearly distinguishable from natural law. The logical approach to science is to assume the universe operates by fundamental laws in every aspect of life. example:   I believe God could perform a miracle of healing of a terminally ill person. I would however assume that God expects me to take advantage of all talent and intellect and expertise humanly available to accomplish such healing if possible. And to remain open to the possibility that if that effort fails He might act to heal miraculously. The economy of miracles. If chemotherapy etc cures cancer that is not a miracle it happens with some frequency. I can depend over the long haul on that frequency of cure rate from chemo for a specific form of cancer. ID is indeed a third alternative to the false choice argument now being presented to the court by the plaintiff which is that ID is creationism and thus fits into the second of the only two choices permitted. Otherwise the plaintiff would agree that ID is an independent third choice of approaching the apparent design argument but that it is inherently religious because it postulates an ID and not because it is special creationism. Practically speaking the ID concept of original design and then natural law should be appealing in that almost never does the original designer of anything get involved in the routine operation of the entity.It is left up to repairmen, etc. to keep it going based on detailed examination of how it works. Of course eventually the Maytag fails so catastrophically it can't be fixed by anyone, but I have never had the patent owner out to diagnose and repair an appliance. Oh! That's right evos never utilize practical human experience in their thought processes otherwise they would know that a design always has an intelligent designer that is never an uncaring random process.

TheMissingLink Posts: 19 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,11:34    Quote Further, conservative scholars hold to the absolute economy of miracles... Hahaha.. Oh my god, that's the funniest thing I've read in days! "economy of miracles"... haha... you can't make that stuff up! "economy of miracles".. I just had to type it once more!!

evopeach Posts: 248 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,05:01    Your view is indistguishable from a white noise source.. meaningless like random mutations developing a four chamber heart. If you think the phrase is made up just type it in your browser.. idiot. Oh and I note the through and wel conceived logical response to the subject... opps over your head.

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard