Wednesday, 1 August 2007

Good practice for "Spot the Logical Fallacy" fans

Anderson hasn't put up one of his own arguments this time. Perhaps this is after I demolished his previous ones? Or is his hesitancy just wishful thinking on my part? I hope he comes out with his stock "its not possible for the eye to have evolved" one, or perhaps his rather plaintive sounding "look at SETI right, you see, right, that proves god, right." one? Perhaps he is working on a new one - oh yes please that would be best.

Instead this time he links us to a monster of a post with dozens and dozens of logical fallacies scattered all over it. Perhaps he is trying to wear me out? It's not working, I am currently sitting on a sun drenched patio in southern France sipping a cuppa and having a browse, taking a break from one forum where an intellectual colleague of Anderson's is quoting Einstein at me to prove god exists, I will take the time to leave you with this gem from Anderson's recommended read.

Luckily enough this post itself provides a key to its own destruction within the introduction;

Let's be clear about the rules of evidence. It isn't enough to adduce evidence consistent with evolution. Rather, the Darwinian must adduce evidence that implicates evolution. Evidence that singles out evolution as the correct explanation. For Ridley, Kitcher, and Futuyma all appeal to the evidence for Darwinism in contrast to creationism. Therefore, they need to come up with evidence that distinguishes evolution from creation. That is where they themselves have set the bar.
So there you go folks, you can't win. I mean, can you imagine any kind of evidence which the "shazzam", "abracadabra", or the "God Did It" folks can't claim as their own? Is there anything their god can't do?

Er, no. They claim that their god can do anything.


By the way I think there are some things that they should be claiming their god can't do. How about childhood cancer, starvation, parasitic diseases, tsunami's, earthquakes, floods . . .

Get the idea?

On a more directly evolutionary front how about glasses, why do we need them if the eye is so perfect? What about the appendix? Luckily we got my youngest son's out just in time, but one hundred years ago it would have killed him. The wonders of modern biological science eh?

Get the idea?

1 comment:

  1. I thought you'd respond to this! Here, in his uncritical praise for Steve Hays, Anderson confuses quality with quantity. At least, though, Triablogue allows comments, and this post has provoked a lot.

    Hayes is another example of a Creationist who demands much higher standards of evidence from his opponents than he demands from himself.