Logic: Subjectivist Fallacies

This is the first part of a four part series introducing logical fallacies commonly used by Neo-Darwinists, Evolutionists, and Atheists. To better understand why we should bother to know what these fallacies are, please read the introduction.

Appeal to Majority

The majority of people (in this case, academic scientists) believe something to be true, therefore it is true. This fallacy is committed when the rhetoric turns to comments such as “everyone knows” or “any true scientist will tell you”, etc.

Wherein the appeal is to consider how many ascribe to the position instead of calmly using the merits of the position itself. This is very common among evolutionists.

Argumentum Ad Populum

An appeal to emotion occurs when rhetoric replaces logic and the intent is to make an audience act on emotion instead of rational judgment.

It is ultimately an attempt to steer the thinker toward subjectivism—a position based on the desire to believe something rather than a logical conclusion based on fact.

A Thin Smokescreen at Best

In the neo-Darwinist strategy, there is a continuous tension to ensure our children are educated in line with the rest of the world. It appeals to the emotions of parents who might somehow be concerned that we are robbing our kids of a decent “science” education by considering, for example, intelligent design. It’s funny that even though evolution has not been proven as fact, the argumentum ad populum and appeal to majority are played as smokescreens to strongly imply that it has been proven and accepted by true scientists all over the world, and therefore should not be questioned. Otherwise, we Americans might be ridiculed by the international community and left behind as other cultures embrace the implications that evolution gives society the freedom to pursue. This entire strategy is heavily rooted in these two logical fallacies.

For example:

“…remember that this is a political problem, not a scientific one. Please try to avoid “science talk.” As Eugenie Scott, our executive director at the National Center for Science Education says, “We will not solve this problem [allowing the teaching of ID theory in schools] by throwing science at it. We must appeal to the legislators as fellow citizens, parents, and educators. No academic-speak! …We have to stop them [ID advocates]” (excerpt from The Panda’s Thumb).

This one’s pretty clear—a thin smokescreen at best.

There are lots more examples where this came from. Proceed with caution though as you search for them. You will find the rhetoric quite harsh, illogical, venomous, insulting, condescending, and: all directed at you—the thinking believer. And if you feel the need to respond to some of these posts, remember—attract don’t attack; we must be the salt and light to a lost world…