179 Logical Fallacies and the Ham vs. Nye debate
A Twitter Battle
And all I did was Tweet “#Design of a biochemical circuit” in response to a paper on design in yeast cells. Okay, so I also included two anti-creationism hysteria groups, TFN and NCSE, in the Tweet, but, even for followers of irrational groups like these, I was a bit surprised at the sheer number of logical fallacies that followed for the next month and a half.
My original Tweet was back in October, 2013. The first to respond was one of the paper’s co-authors, Volkan Sevim, who Tweeted “This is not the kind of #Design you have in mind.” So, right at the start, the “Twitter battle” began with the ambiguity logical fallacy. Something expected of politicians, not scientists, Volkan pretended that design in a biochemical circuit could mean something other than “to devise for a specific function or end.”
After Volkan’s tweet, atheists and secular humanists picked up on the thread. People with Twitter handles like “Debunking Stupidity,” “Logical Lass,” “God Free World,” etc., started to engage. And not with weapons of logic, but with a maelstrom of logical fallacies. The following is a ranking of the types of logical fallacies used. And 179 is a conservative estimate of the actual number of logical errors released from ASH’s quiver (ASH = Atheist Secular Humanist):
- Ambiguity (67). Equating science with history, rather than clearly distinguishing scientific research from natural history research.
- Strawman (59). Primarily “Creationists are against science,” and/or “science deniers.”
- Ad hominem (25). Cursing, but also threats of murder, including mass murder of Christians.
- Genetic (12). Even though someone has a PhD in science, their research “doesn’t count” if they are a biblical creationist.
- Appeal to authority (6). Several appeals to “scientific consensus,” even though that’s not how science is done.
- Circular reasoning (2).
- Law of non-contradiction (2).
- Bandwagon (1).
- Black or white (1).
- Tu quoque (1).
- Moving the goalposts (1). One commenter said that if the earth is young, why haven’t we found dinosaur DNA? When I showed him we have, he conveniently “moved the goalposts.”
- Loaded question (1).
- False cause (1).
I really shouldn’t have been surprised by atheists and humanists attempting to “prove” themselves using foolish statements, because that is exactly what Scripture says will happen in Psalm 14:1, Romans 1:18-26, I Corinthians 2:14, and many other places.
The Ham vs. Nye Origins Debate
So what does this have to do with the upcoming origins debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye? Well, my recent “Twitter battle” provides a glimpse into how Bill Nye, a secular humanist, will debate. Many media outlets have reported on the debate already, and Mr. Nye has portrayed himself as the debate’s “reasonable man.” But rather than using reason, Mr. Nye will attempt to “prove” his version of history with a gusher of logical fallacies. He will try to claim that Christians are against science, confusing scientific research with natural history research. He will fail (or be willfully ignorant of) to see the obvious fact that everyone has access to the same scientific data, so this can’t possibly be a debate about science vs. anti-science. It is a debate about origins, which means it is a debate about how to interpret history. Nye thinks he is battling against anti-science zealots. What I hope Mr. Ham makes crystal clear for viewers though, is the fact that Mr. Nye is debating a straw man, not Mr. Ham.
Pray that God will use this debate to turn the hearts of unbelievers like Bill Nye to Jesus Christ. It is easier to argue using logical fallacies when hiding behind a Twitter handle, YouTube video, etc., but much more difficult to do in a live debate. Pray also for Christians who are confused by naturalism, or who attempt to unwisely mingle Christianity with naturalism, committing the “middle ground” fallacy.Creation/Evolution
Tags: ad hominem, ambiguity, anti-science, biblical authority, biblical history, Bill Nye, consensus science, creationism, debate, debatlive, design, evolution, evolutionism, Jesus Christ, Ken Ham, logical fallacy, naturalism, origins, straw man, unwisely mingleBoth comments and pings are currently closed.
One Comment on “179 Logical Fallacies and the Ham vs. Nye debate”
Comments are closed.