Most of the arguments we have in favor of human evolution are based on logical fallacies. In other words, if we were really thinking properly we wouldn’t be evolutionists.
- What is logic?
- What is an argument?
- What are the aspects of an argument?
- What is a logical fallacy?
- There are 2 different kinds of reasoning:
Deductive (formal): the conclusion is definitely true if the premises are true
Inductive (informal): the conclusion is likely to be true if the premises are true
- Most evolutionists’ reasoning fallacies fall into the inductive reasoning category.
- What are some of these informal inductive fallacies?
Fallacies of ambiguity: when something in unclear
Fallacies of presumption: when something is assumed without evidence
Fallacies of relevance: when the conclusion isn’t strongly related to the premises
- What is bifurcation?
- What is a question-begging epithet?
- What is an ad hominem?
- What is an irrelevant thesis?
- What is a straw-man?
- What are faulty appeals?
Fact is, science doesn’t say anything, scientists do. And evidence always needs an interpreter. Without the laws of logic (and the laws of nature) science isn’t possible, so, if you don’t get your logic right, how can you possibly arrive at any kind of scientific truth?