Analyzing Some Logical Fallacies Atheistic Evolutionists Tend To Adhere To
Let me remind you that NOT all evolutionists are atheists as some of Charles Darwin's disciples were religious people and the late Pope John Paul II embraced evolution as fact. However it seems to be that all atheists accept evolution because the alternative, that is special creation is "unthinkable" for them. It also seems to be that believing in evolution seems to be an essential part of atheism. It's time to tackle on the logical fallacies that evolutionists make. It would be important to know their logical fallacies aside from gathering scientific evidence against evolution.
Ad Hominen - Attacking the person instead of the argument
Evolutionist have attacked somebody who talks against evolution simply because the person is not a biologist. They think that unless you have a Ph.D in Biology, you have no right to argue that evolution is unscientific. Then again, since when have they been really open-minded to biologists who don't beleive in evolution right?
Appeal to popularity - Taking advantage of the majority vote
I have noticed how atheistic evolutionists say, "Well everybody believes in evolution." just because many believe in it to be a fact, never mind that not all evolutionists are atheists. It seems to be that for them, numbers makes right even if that a majority vote does not change any fact at all. It seems to be also that numbers makes up the truth for these people.
Begging the question - This is none other than a circular argument
It can go like, "This fossil is 70 million years old because it found in a layer of rock which we know is 70 million years old." This also beats common sense considering that if a ballpen that was created a year ago fell into a rock layer that is 50 years old, that does not make that ballpen fifty years old.
Category mistake - Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have that property
The argument is like, "Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity." It is a categorical mistake because gravity is observable and and it can be experimented upon. Now let the evolutionists make a single-celled organism turn into something... we'll wait. Wait, they just have to say that it can't be observed because it takes millions of years and isn't science supposedly built on observation?
Division - Assuming what is true for one is true for all
This is one of the worst mistakes that evolutionists like Richard Dawkins an atheistic evolutionist makes a lot. It's like saying, "No scientist ever doubts evolution." just because one or two believe it when some don't believe it. This has also been used in their foolishness in not allowing scientists who don't believe in evolution to speak their part.
False Dilemma - Giving so few choices when there are still many choices
Having no choice or many choices is a case to case basis which evolutionists are very close-minded and biased. They can say like, "Show me a verse in the Bible that disproves evolution." or "If you don't believe in evolution, you are not scientific. You have no right to talk about science unless you believe in evolution."
Genetic Fallacy - Attempting to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim.
This can also be linked to the fallacy of Ad Hominem. I have observed how often atheists say, "Well you can't trust the source because he is a Christian!" type of argument. That is, you may want to endorse the writings of Lee Strobel and because the person went from atheist to Christian, they may be quick to discredit the person simply for being a Christian.
Special Pleading - This is also the hypocrisy of double standard
For atheistic evolutionists, they say, "Christians are retarded and cannot be trusted upon especially in the fields of science." or at least who they perceive to be Christians. However their double standard occurs when they still use the benefits of creationist's contribution to science like Mendelian genetics, use a telescope which could have not existed if it wasn't for Galileo, study Newtonian physics and these men were creationists. Or another is that they say there are no morals but they will appeal to morals for their own convenience.
See also:
Ad Hominen - Attacking the person instead of the argument
Evolutionist have attacked somebody who talks against evolution simply because the person is not a biologist. They think that unless you have a Ph.D in Biology, you have no right to argue that evolution is unscientific. Then again, since when have they been really open-minded to biologists who don't beleive in evolution right?
Appeal to popularity - Taking advantage of the majority vote
I have noticed how atheistic evolutionists say, "Well everybody believes in evolution." just because many believe in it to be a fact, never mind that not all evolutionists are atheists. It seems to be that for them, numbers makes right even if that a majority vote does not change any fact at all. It seems to be also that numbers makes up the truth for these people.
Begging the question - This is none other than a circular argument
It can go like, "This fossil is 70 million years old because it found in a layer of rock which we know is 70 million years old." This also beats common sense considering that if a ballpen that was created a year ago fell into a rock layer that is 50 years old, that does not make that ballpen fifty years old.
Category mistake - Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have that property
The argument is like, "Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity." It is a categorical mistake because gravity is observable and and it can be experimented upon. Now let the evolutionists make a single-celled organism turn into something... we'll wait. Wait, they just have to say that it can't be observed because it takes millions of years and isn't science supposedly built on observation?
Division - Assuming what is true for one is true for all
This is one of the worst mistakes that evolutionists like Richard Dawkins an atheistic evolutionist makes a lot. It's like saying, "No scientist ever doubts evolution." just because one or two believe it when some don't believe it. This has also been used in their foolishness in not allowing scientists who don't believe in evolution to speak their part.
False Dilemma - Giving so few choices when there are still many choices
Having no choice or many choices is a case to case basis which evolutionists are very close-minded and biased. They can say like, "Show me a verse in the Bible that disproves evolution." or "If you don't believe in evolution, you are not scientific. You have no right to talk about science unless you believe in evolution."
Genetic Fallacy - Attempting to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim.
This can also be linked to the fallacy of Ad Hominem. I have observed how often atheists say, "Well you can't trust the source because he is a Christian!" type of argument. That is, you may want to endorse the writings of Lee Strobel and because the person went from atheist to Christian, they may be quick to discredit the person simply for being a Christian.
Special Pleading - This is also the hypocrisy of double standard
For atheistic evolutionists, they say, "Christians are retarded and cannot be trusted upon especially in the fields of science." or at least who they perceive to be Christians. However their double standard occurs when they still use the benefits of creationist's contribution to science like Mendelian genetics, use a telescope which could have not existed if it wasn't for Galileo, study Newtonian physics and these men were creationists. Or another is that they say there are no morals but they will appeal to morals for their own convenience.
See also:
- An Atheist Professor Converts to Christianity
- Atheism Has Been More Close Minded Than Christianity!
- Atheists Should Consider Rejecting EVERYTHING Isaac Newton Contributed to Science!
- Atheists Should Also Reject The Scientific Method!
- Brash Atheists Are Ungrateful People in Science!
- Does Science Disprove God or Prove God?
- How Militant Atheism Actually Disrupts True Science!
- How "Tolerant" Are Atheists As They Claim To Be Anyway?
- If Atheists Believe in Dawkin's Statement of "Only Pitiless Indifference" Then They Have NO BASIS For Condemning Bloody Acts of Injustice!
- Some Atheists and their Ad Hominem (Strawman) and Genetic Fallacy Attacks
- Some Ways Atheists Contradict Themselves!