Logic: Fallacies of Credibility

This is the second 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.

Argumentum Ad Verecundiam

An appeal to authority exists in the debate over Intelligent Design when only those who hold an atheistic world view are considered true experts in a field of scientific study. This fallacy occurs when one person’s expert opinion is assumed to be more important than another’s; even though their comparative professional credentials are equivalent. Discriminatory authority ensues because worldview affects the perception of many scientists and, like it or not, impacts interpretation of scientific study. It is not grounded by factual results of experimentation, because neither evolution nor design can be proven by repeatable methodology.

All theories of biological origins are speculative—they are based on beliefs, not observable facts. As a result, if an individual is an educated, highly credentialed, competent scientist, he or she is fully qualified to interpret the same observations, but will do so in light of their worldview. One group is open to finding a designer or creator (often in complete separation from religious overtones), the other desperately hopes not to. Why can’t both engage in rational, respectful discourse? (We already know the answer to that.)

An argument that appeals to only one group of two distinct groups within the same expertise, when neither can be conclusively proven, is fallacious. Both sides must be considered equally and given equal due—that is really what the overall debate is about. One reason the ID scientists are not guilty of this fallacy is that they are not attempting to attack or discredit evolutionary researchers. Their platform is to achieve equal ground and opportunity within scientific academia to pursue research of their own: objective, scientific research.

Ad Hominem

No doubt you have read and heard many examples of this fallacy. Now you know what to call it. This argument attempts to reject or dismiss another person’s statement or position by attacking the person rather than the statement or position itself. Ad Hominem is the most frequent tactic employed by the Neo-Darwinist movement and their supporters. The most commonly used words in the works of these scientists when addressing intelligent design proponents are: “stupid, idiots, imbeciles, ignorant, crackpots, loons, irrational (this one’s ironic considering their use of the term in an Ad Hominem fallacy)” and many, many more (some unprintable). But you get the picture.

Did they really just say that?

A very small, but striking example containing both fallacies (italics mine) is below. There are so many more out there to be read…

“…the DI [Discovery Institute] got its list by asking crackpots and specialists in irrelevant disciplines to volunteer to sign on [To sign on to the DI’s list of scientists who support researching intelligent design.], so it is a real (but silly) list that exposes the existence of a tiny minority of loons within science.”(an excerpt from Science Blogs - Pharyngula)