Response to Top 25 Creationist Fallacies

I was busy downloading as much material I possibly could to be prepared for the next year of absence from Youtube and Itunes when I came across a special jewel. I had some stimulating conversations with friends earlier in the day concerning the works Indoctrinate U and Expelled so my mind was already turning. I spent the last several nights keeping my late night entertainment limited to that of America and Britain's Got Talent shows, and watching clips of Happy Tree Friends and other funny videos.

Anyways, surfing away for more Ben Stein clips I come across Top 25 Creationist Fallacies in the ranks. I started watching, well because I don't really plan on sleeping and I need to ensure Itunes gets all the beginning Greek lessons downloaded as well as see what else I can grab for free. I write this as a point-by-point response to the video maker. It seems of better quality than typical and having watched the first several minutes, I am in a blogging mood.

If you so desire to watch this 23 minute video and read what I have to say I suggest you pause it at appropriate points. Then again it may be easier to open a separate tab/window to watch the video and scroll along the reading.

1. Foundational Bias: There is no doubt that Ken Ham is bias in his approach. Is that grounds to disqualify his ability to think and observe/interpret evidence at hand? We are all bias, how much we are willing to admit to it varies. Allow me to point to Richard Lewontin's Billions and Billions of Demons

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say 

anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

I dare not alter the text, it speaks for itself. Bias exists based on worldview, whether either party is willing to admit to that bias it varies from person to person regardless of the content of their bias. Ken Ham defined his bias being that of a biblical worldview which is explained in AIG's (Answers in Genesis) mission statement.

2. Straw Man Argument: Well explained, fairly useful summary of the fallacy, no argument until he uses the example. I have mentioned in previous blogs about my disagreements with Way of the Master and their rather anti-intellectual approach to evangelism. This happens to be a decent example; however, having seen the full episode it is not uncommon method that WOTM doesn't intellectually answer objections to faith. I suppose to setup a more correct setup would to spend more time to explain the Big Bang theory in greater depth. I personally have not found an issue with the concept "there was nothing and out of nothing there was an explosion that created everything"; because I believe God caused the explosion. While that might sound illogical to a materialist, I am satisfied because I believe in the supernatural. It seems easier to me to believe that out of nothing God created everything then out of nothing, nothing created/caused everything... or wait, am I just offering another straw man argument? Often, a Straw man can be interpreted as a poor summary.

3. Hasty Generalization: The document claiming to make the "hasty generalization" is the Dissent From Darwinism, which simply is an acknowledgement of various accredited/academic people whom state  

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." 

They define random mutation and natural selection as the exact topics of dissent because to contest evolution is careless and rather dangerous. There are many forms of evolution, the most basic textbook example will introduce evolution as "change over time", often exemplified in what is known as micro-evolution or variation. Micro-evolution seems to imply that new minute traits were expressed as a form of evolution while variation simply implies that the traits are expressed traits which had existed in the genetic code in which no new information was added. The verbiage of the Dissent document is precise to ensure no mistake in the claim. In those terms, what is so dangerous about questioning descent with modification doctrine and putting it under serious scrutiny? The document doesn't say they believe it is wrong, false or any other damning verbs, just that they are not certain and believe random mutation and natural selection should be examined. I would put money on it that Expelled will mention Micheal Behe's Darwin's Black Box which points out that there has never been serious scientific scrutiny applied to evolutionary theory at the academic level to explore the operation of natural selection or random mutation at the biochemical level. Michael Behe goes further to point out there has not been studies to confirm how complex operations such as eyesight, flagellum locomotion and many other cellular mechanisms.

4. Argument From Authority: I would be foolish to hope he wouldn't use Kent Hovind, while I dare not judge a man's faith his message implies a form of theocratic or anti-government political stance. Thus he was imprisoned for tax fraud in 2007, destroying much of his credibility. Dr. Hovind's credentials were that he has his doctorate in science and was a teacher for 15 years or so. While I wouldn't call this a lie it is not the full truth, as I recall it the degree was from a Christian organization not fully accredited and the degree was in Christian education. He taught at Christian schools. I do believe Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) used his credentials in a misleading way. Oh yea, his sidekick in the video clip is his son. I am not aware of any other creationists whom flagrantly use this fallacy. I am not fond of Kent Hovind's tone, style or behavior towards evolutionists, the evidence he presents regarding age of the Earth, Dinosaurs, and the pre-Flood Earth is interesting to say the least.

5. Ad Hominem: I wonder how many people are aware of the full title of Origin of Species; it is viewable at 5:04. If "races" was meant by "species" then why wouldn't the book have repeated species instead of using races? The video maker does not reference the claim; it is my interpretation that "races" was in reference to human races. At the most innocent level it would be a higher classification than species perhaps order or class. It is easy to claim Ad Hominem when one does not include the full argument. Since the Ken Ham clip was cut, it cannot be known if the argument was further developed. However, it is true that in the late 19th century eugenics was popularized. I cannot prove that Darwinist evolution is the directly responsible for the Eugenics movement in the early 20th century and possibly a motivating cause for the Holocaust, the two can logically go hand in hand. If humans are the result of higher development then eugenics are possibly a form of selective breeding? I would also like to point out that the first minute of the video was almost entirely ad Hominem attacks.

6. Ad Populum: Wow, he asserted that Truth exists... I am speechless. Not really, though rather surprised. Kent Hovind's example clip... yea shot down. I likely won't be too much help to Kent in the rest of this.

7. Quote Mining: He points out that Stephen Jay Gould's quote about a lack of transitional fossils as a fallacy? Allow me to attempt to summarize Dr. Gould's theory (I actually don't know if it was theory or hypothesis via the scientific method) of Punctuated Equilibrium. As I recall this was in response to the seeming explosion in the fossil records in which developed fossils of various species have been found in leaps and bounds. The phylogenetic tree has been used as an example from simple life to be linked as the common ancestor to major classes: mammals, reptiles, amphibians etcetera. The existence of transitional fossils between reptiles and mammals for instance, or lack thereof, was popularly explained in two manners. One, punctuated equilibrium which millions of micro-evolutionary changes built up over millions of years which lead to an explosion of development to produce new classes of creatures, this was also proposed as a response that micro-evolutionary changes which did not add up to gradual eyesight or fish evolving to amphibians. The other manner of arguing the lack of transitional fossils was suggesting that instead of a common ancestor, instead there were multiple fully developed common ancestors. This would resemble many central points in the phylogenetic tree image instead a single origin. The possibility of many common ancestors also matches with the Biblical account of creation in which it says God created animals according to their "kinds" such as dogs, cats, primates etc.

8. Man on the Street Interview: I can't conceive why Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron are being supposed as Top Creationists... they intellectually made fools of Christianity in the televised debate with Rational Response. What is sad, basic theology or apologetical training could have actually had them stand a chance instead of showing the world yet another example of the lack of intellectualism in the faith. There are educated answers, they just didn't give them. Perhaps I should revisit this debate at length, let me know if I should bother, these do take some time.

9. Non-Sequitur: Kirk was doing so good until he used the absurd picture... I shake my head. In my opinion to more eloquently pull off the ad absurdum argument he should establish a more believable example, such as the Archaeopteryx as the supposed feathered reptile when instead it has been classified as a bird.

10. Red Herring: Distraction technique with a boot? The argument seems logical. The claim: long time is required to make fossils. The response: a fossilized cowboy boot is offered as evidence that it does not take a long time to fossilize materials. Long time is often referred to in the millions of years, by giving the example of a fossilized boot it is implied that the boot did not take millions of years to fossilize effectively answering the claim.

11. Personal Incredulity: While the video clip does not explain the full complexity of the bacterial flagellum, the form of locomotion at the bacterial level observed by a biochemist, his book devotes one of the most painful chapters to read about the irreducibly complex system of the flagellum. It is easy to claim fallacies are being used when one uses 30 seconds of a clip as examples.

12. Argument from Ignorance: Interesting that this is titles Top 25 Fallacies when I have really only seen two credible Intelligent Design proponents. Note: Intelligent Design is not synonymous with Creationists. Intelligent Design is a much broader form of origins that isn't even Christianity specific. I question the example's credibility and authority when she is referenced as the "Orange Lady"; her established identity is based upon her tint on the video...

13. Violation of the Philosophy of Science: This is follows the hijacked definition of science being synonymous with materialism i.e. the supernatural does not exist. Scientifically speaking because the supernatural cannot be observed, tested, and repeated, which are the points required for the scientific method, science indeed cannot prove the supernatural. However, the scientific method cannot disprove the supernatural because if an event can be observed, tested, and repeated then it would be classified under the scientific method of natural order. Isn't that a Straw Man? As noted in the Billions and Billions of Demons excerpt, materialism is an a priori belief. Lee Strobel is simplifying Paley's teleological argument. Essentially by observing complex machines occurring in the natural world one can logically deduce that an intelligent being caused those machines.

12. Equivocation: I would agree many people confuse theory by definition of the scientific method versus definition of the American language. Theory is the result of supposed multiple tests and just before it is established as law. However, Theory maintains a fair amount of gray area still based upon the experiments that formed the hypothesis and eventually became the theory. I would also like to point out the unidentified Islamic gentlemen is not what I would consider to be one of the Top 25 Creationists.

13. False Dichotomy: The character presenting one of the theological arguments is exactly right. By the contradiction of circumstances such as sin and then death or death and then sin it does come down to one or the other. However, I advise this argument to only be used with other Christians because the authority of Scripture must be agreed upon.

14. Begging the Question: I have heard Begging the Question being more like Straw Man than circular reasoning, but let's have it. The example questioned is the astronomical first cause, much related to the Big Bang. The theological advantage of the Big Bang is that it proves that there was a first cause. While the Intelligent Design adherent can credit the Designer with causing the bang, the atheist/evolutionist cannot. They are stuck with nothing blew up into everything. The example was not begging the question but implied reasoning.

15: Tautology: The claim is that without gravity no complex atomic structures would exist. This is a butchered version of fine tuning in which there are something like 300+ independent extremely precise constants found in the world, be it the exact rotational axis of the Earth, its rotational speed, distance from the sun, at the planetary level, down to the molecular characteristics that water's solid state floats and hydrogen's extraordinary strong bonding force. The examples of fine tuning get much larger and smaller than planetary and molecular scales. The significance behind fine tuning is that if a single one of the independent variables was off by a slight fraction then no life at all would have been possible on earth. It is a more complex form of the Teleological Argument on the largest and smallest scales.

16. False Premise: The evidence that the Universe had a beginning comes from the Big Bang. The argument that the universe ever "not existed" claims that the universe is in the same state as it has always been. The counter to the claim is exemplified by the expanding universe, the burning of stars and such. Suggesting that the universe has always existed argues for infinite existence, which is not observable, measurable, testable, or repeatable. Often arguing for infinite existence is attempted by the philosophers not the astronomers. The only issue with infinite existence is that infinity does not exist in reality.

17. Ad Hoc Reasoning: Sadly Kent Hovind is skilled with Ad Hoc; however the Canopy Theory is established as part of the Hovind Theory. Before Kent Hovind introduces his theory he explains it is out on a limb. The Canopy Theory is such a long shot because it attempts to answer why scripturally it did not rain until the Flood, how people lived so much longer, or how many factors of the pre-Flood world were very different from the world we have today. To possibly accept the Canopy Theory one cannot honestly follow the scientific method because it is used as a means to explain the pre-Flood world, which has not been critically examined beyond the creationist community.

18. Slippery Slope: A less eloquent way of logically deducing purpose provided by the renowned VenomX. Understandable argument but does not belong as support for creationism; it is an unsympathetic explanation of human psychology.

19. Correlation Implies Causation: ummm yea, the causation is in his 5th or 6th DVD presentation which does not address creation. Actually as I recall that DVD is titled "The Evil of Evolution", I own a copy, while interesting conspiracy theory and more developed form of the Slippery Slope argument, not effective in arguing for creation, used as a scare tactic against evolution. The variables mentioned are far too broad over far too much time to effectively or scientifically connect the dots.

20. Creative Math: Random is described as an unguided process following no order, correct me if I am wrong but if Natural Selection is an intelligent process wouldn't that be Intelligent Design? The evolutionary version of natural selection is blindfolded; if not then it is an active force of an unknown intelligence. Random mutations are just that, random.

21. Moving The Goalposts: While I know there are many unsatisfied people out there that think they have met the Kent Hovind challenge they are not the ones that made the rules. It is a rather lofty challenge the Kent Hovind setup, but the criterion for attaining the 250k is impossible to reach from his standard. The real issue at hand is that Kent requires evidence that proves evolution to be true in its present form not providing examples and arguments because any argument can be refuted. The Ali G example as his character ought not to be taken seriously and it also falls under the Correlation Implies Causation fallacy.

22. Just Plain Nonsense: When the heading is Ad Hominem in nature it cannot be refuted or rebutted because no argument has been presented. While I disagree with much of Kent Hovind's styles and attitudes the evidence he offers is unparalleled for some of his arguments, such as that dinosaurs are still living on earth today.

23. Outright Lie: If one has studied the curve in the recent 15 years there has been growing dissention with evolution and a growing popularity of ID theory. Calling the change in views an outright lie is more propagandist and suppressionist than any ID theorist I have seen. For a claiming Christian to lie about something they know to be false requires them to be especially evil because the foundations of the belief is founded on Truth and honesty. If one needs to lie to believe in their faith their faith is worthless.

I was almost audibly laughing the way the video ends with "make up your own mind". The video maker clearly did not approach the project with an open mind nor did he attempt to understand the positions or arguments of creationists. This was proven from the first minute of pure attacks upon creationists. The video maker never produced counter arguments or evidence just attempted poor rhetoric to poor examples of creationism. When I started this blog I was expecting some notable figures and arguments, there were two points, one Ken Ham and the other Michael Behe, however, Michael Behe is not a proclaimed creationist he is an ID advocate. This is yet another example of a poor response to creation theory.