Argumentation and fallacies in creationist writings against evolutionary theory

14 Pages·2014·0.61 MB·English

NieminenandMustonenEvolution:EducationandOutreach2014,7:11
http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11
RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access
Argumentation and fallacies in creationist
writings against evolutionary theory
Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1
Abstract
Background: The creationist–evolutionist conflict is perhaps themost significant example of a debate about a
well-supported scientific theory notreadily accepted by the public.
Methods: We analyzedcreationist texts according to type(young earth creationism,old earth creationism or
intelligent design) and context (with or without discussion of “scientific” data).
Results: The analysis revealed numerous fallacies including thedirect ad hominem—portraying evolutionists as
racists, unreliable or gullible—and the indirect ad hominem, where evolutionistsare accused of breaking the rules
ofdebatethat theythemselves have dictated. Poisoning the well fallacy stated thatevolutionists would notconsider
supernatural explanations inany situation due to their pre-existing refusal of theism. Appeals toconsequences and
guilt by association linked evolutionary theory to atrocities,and slippery slopes to abortion,euthanasia and genocide.
Falsedilemmas,hasty generalizations and strawman fallacies were also common. The prevalence ofthesefallacies
was equal inyoung earth creationism and intelligent design/old earth creationism.The direct and indirect ad
hominem were also prevalent inpro-evolutionary texts.
Conclusions: While thefallaciousarguments are irrelevant when discussing evolutionary theory from thescientific
point of view, they can be effectivefor thereception ofcreationist claims, especially iftheaudience has biases.
Thus, the recognition ofthese fallacies and their dismissal as irrelevant should be accompaniedby attemptsto
avoid counter-fallaciesand bytherecognitionof thecontext,in which the fallacies are presented.
Keywords: Argumentation scheme; Creationism; Evolution; Fallacies; Intelligent design
Background humans separate from other organisms and emphasize
The antagonism between religion and natural sciences is the literal interpretation of the Bible (Numbers 1982,
often a reflection of perceived contradictions between McGrath2010).
scientific data and (personal) interpretation of religious Traditionally, creationism has been classified into four
texts, especially the Bible (McGrath 2010). The accept- principal types (Scott 1997, McGrath 2010).Youngearth
ance of biological evolution by the public varies being creationism (YEC) states that the earth was created
the highest in Iceland (84.9%) and Denmark (82.2%) and 6000–8000 years ago and the flood of Noah occurred
the lowest, e.g., in the United States (39.7%) and Turkey exactly as written in the Old Testament. Old earth cre-
(26.0%) (Data360.org 2006; 34 countries sampled). The ationism (OEC) interprets the six-day creation story
theory of evolution since Wallace (1858) and Darwin symbolically to represent longer time periods to accom-
(1859) suggests that humans developed naturally over a modate the geological age of the earth. Intelligent design
very long period of time from other life forms. This is a (ID) requires supernatural intervention during the for-
challenge for some forms of religious faith that perceive mation of basic body plans and biological molecules by
trying to identify “irreducible complexity”, i.e., structures
that could not have evolved by natural processes only.
*Correspondence:[email protected]
1InstituteofBiomedicine/Anatomy,UniversityofEasternFinland,Facultyof Theistic evolution accepts biological evolution as a tool
HealthSciences,SchoolofMedicine,P.O.Box1627,FI-70211Kuopio,Finland ofadeitytoproducetheobservedbiodiversity(McGrath
2PhilosophicalFaculty,SchoolofTheology,UniversityofEasternFinland,P.O.
Box111,FI-80101Joensuu,Finland
©2014NieminenandMustonen;licenseeSpringer.ThisisanOpenAccessarticledistributedunderthetermsoftheCreative
CommonsAttributionLicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0),whichpermitsunrestricteduse,distribution,and
reproductioninanymedium,providedtheoriginalworkisproperlycited.
NieminenandMustonenEvolution:EducationandOutreach2014,7:11 Page2of14
http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11
2010) and, thus, it is “creationism” only in the broadest Durrett and Schmidt 2008, Panda’s Thumb 2013). These
sense. scientific rebuttals are not discussed in detail here. Cre-
YEC, OEC and ID mostly share a common notion of ationist writings present also repeated arguments that
“individually created kinds” (Hebrew ןימִ [min], “kind”; e. are not directly connected to the scientific proof of evo-
g., Genesis 1:11–25, 6:19–20; King James Bible 2013). lution. We used argumentation-oriented textual analysis
Creationists(especially YEC) considervariation and change to unravel prevalent practices that dominate the cre-
possible within the “kinds”; however, any change of a ationist–evolutionist debate. We hypothesized that dis-
“kind” into another or the appearance of new “kinds” cursive practices not based on debating observational
requires supernatural intervention (ID). While there is evidence per se would contain fallacious arguments that
disagreement on the classification of “kinds”, YEC, OEC could eventually affect the reception of the creationist
and ID state that the evolutionary concept of these taxa de- claimsbytheiraudience.
veloping as a result of natural processes is false (McGrath
2010). The creationist “kind” is not the same as the taxo- Methods
nomical species but corresponds often closely to biological Creationist authors and publications were chosen for
families(Numbers2011). analysis based on their visibility and impact in social
Creationist writings attempt to disprove biological media (Table 1). To assess the potential significance of
evolution (YEC, OEC and ID) and the age of the earth these English-language-derived creationist arguments lo-
(YEC) by various strategies. One approach is to present cally, highly-cited Finnish creationist authors were also
selected data from natural sciences as counter-evidence analyzed.Weincludeda sampleofrebuttalsbyevolution-
against evolution, which has produced also numerous ary proponents to analyze if similar fallacies could be ob-
rebuttals from evolutionary proponents (Young 1985, servedonbothsidesofthedebate.Theanalysisproceeded
Shermer 2002, Pennock 2003, Isaak 2006, Deming 2008, as follows: we determined the position of the writer
Table1Sourcesofprincipalsamplematerial
Institution/Author Format Type Source/Publisher
AnswersinGenesis Onlinearticles YEC http://www.answersingenesis.org/
CreationMinistriesInternational ●CreationMagazine YEC http://creation.com/
●JournalofCreation
CreationResearchSociety ●CreationMatters YEC http://www.creationresearch.org/index.
html
●CRSQuarterly
InstituteforCreationResearch Onlinearticles YEC http://www.icr.org/
IntelligentDesignandEvolutionAwareness Onlinearticles ID/OEC http://www.ideacenter.org/
(IDEA)Center
IntelligentDesignnetwork Onlinearticles ID http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.
org/index.htm
UKApologetics Onlinearticles YEC http://www.ukapologetics.net/
Behe,MJ Theedgeofevolution.Thesearchforthelimitsof ID FreePress
Darwinism(2007)
Johnson,PE ●Darwinontrial(1993) ID/OEC http://www.talebooks.com
●Reasoninthebalance(1995) InterVarsityPress
Puolimatka,T(inFinnish) ●Faith,scienceandevolution(2009) ID/OEC UusiTie
●Atestforopennessinsciencediscussion(2010)
Reinikainen,P(inFinnish) ●TheforgottenGenesis(1991) YEC UusiTie
●TheenigmaofthedinosaursandtheBible(2003) KuvajaSana
●Darwinorintelligentdesign(2011) UusiTie
Davis,P,andKenyon,DH Ofpandasandpeople.Thecentralquestionof ID Haughton
biologicalorigins(1998)
Morris,HM Theremarkablebirthofplanetearth(1972) YEC BethanyFellowship
TalkOriginsarchive(manyauthors) Onlinearticles ET http://www.talkorigins.org/
Panda’sThumb(manyauthors) Onlinearticles ET http://www.pandasthumb.org/
Young,W Fallaciesofcreationism(1985) ET DetseligEnterprises
YEC=youngearthcreationism,OEC=oldearthcreationism,ID=intelligentdesign,ET=proponentsofevolutionarytheory.
NieminenandMustonenEvolution:EducationandOutreach2014,7:11 Page3of14
http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11
in the creationism–evolution conflict (pro-creationism, not met, with the Fisher’s exact test (SPSS v19 software
anti-creationism). The creationist texts were classified as package, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). The results are pre-
YEC, OEC or ID, but there was a lot of overlap between sented as percentage of texts within category (YEC, ID/
OECandID,whichisindicatedbyID/OEC.Weexcluded OEC or pro-evolutionary) that contained the fallacy.
theistic evolution, as it basically accepts biological evolu- Thepvalue<0.05wasconsideredstatisticallysignificant.
tion (International Theological Commission 2004). The
argumentswereanalyzedandclassifiedaccordingtoargu- Results
mentation theory with methods employed previously Adhominemfallacies
(Sahlane 2012). We also inspected the arguments accord- The direct ad hominem attempts to disqualify the
ingtothecontextofprovingordisprovingtheorieswithin opponent’s legitimacy in the issue (van Eemeren and
natural sciences, i.e., we documented if the texts, books, Grootendorst 1992,Sahlane 2012). In creationistwritings,
journal issues or Internet sites that contained fallacious ad hominem fallacies display Darwin as racist, sadist,
arguments also discussed the “scientific evidence” for psychotic and dishonest (Bergman 2004, 2005, Brace
creationism. 2004, 2006; Table 3). There are also ex silentio argu-
The relevance of the arguments as proof for or against ments accusing him indirectly of racism and genocide:
evolution was based on the methodology of biological re- “(He) failed to condemn the destruction of primitive
search. Very briefly, the process includes i) observations races” (Puolimatka2009).Anoft-repeatedargumentcon-
(such as the fossil record) and experimental data (e.g., cerns Haeckel, who is considered a racist and criticized
DNAsequences).ii)Thedataareanalyzedandinterpreted for forgery in his embryological drawings (Reinikainen
basedonexistingknowledgeandfinallyiii)thehypotheses 2003,Luskin2009,Puolimatka 2009, 2010). More recent
aretested,auxiliaryhypotheses,negativeandzerofindings proponents of evolutionary theory can be referred to as
considered and the manuscript is submitted to review, iv) “thepremieratheisticpopulistpropagandistforevolution”
scrutinized and rejectedor published. Themethod alsov) (Brace2004)oras“aMarxistatheist”(Reinikainen2011).
requires the data to be reproducible. Thus, evidence and Anotherformofdirectadhominemsuspectstheevolu-
not, e.g., personal characteristics of scientists, determines tionists’ qualifications or integrity (Table 3) by stating, for
the validity of a theory. We assessed the fallacies against instance,that“Darwinhimselfwasnotascientist…hewas
this background and discussed the findings with alterna- aone-timepreacherofthegospelwhowentastray…”and
tivehypotheses,i.e.,iftherearecaseswherethearguments “Darwinheavilyplagiarizedhistheory…andmanybelieve
would be valid and not fallacious in the context of dis- thatheseizeduponachancetoacquirefameandsecurity
proving/provingevolution. at least partially from the work of others” (Brace 2004).
Fallacies are “violations of rules for critical discussion” Direct ad hominem occurs also when scientists, whose
that undermine the efforts to reach a rational outcome words have been previously cited as supporting creation-
of a controversial issue (van Eemeren and Grootendorst ism, havepublishedmorerecenttextstakingthe opposite
1992). Fogelin and Duggan (1987) argue further that view.Forexample,thereisthewell-knownstatementby
fallacies are not simply “invalid argumentation”. They Popper on the concept of natural selection not being
can also be regarded as “…a general term for criticizing scientific (Johnson 1993, Puolimatka 2009), which he
any general procedure used for the fixation of beliefs later reformulated (Popper 1978). The change of opin-
that has an unacceptably high tendency to generate false ionisattackedbystatingthat“[Popper]wasbesiegedby
or unfounded beliefs”. The present study does not aim indignant Darwinist protests” (Johnson 1993, Puolimatka
to assess if the claims presented by creationists are 2009).Likewise,thereisacreationistreportcitingascien-
“true” or “false” but evaluates if some of the repeating tificpaperabouttheallegeddiscoveryof“dinosaurblood”
arguments used to validate creationism are improper in (Wieland 1997). When an author of the original report
scientificcontextandcanbedisregardedasproofsagainst (Schweitzer et al. 1997) refuted the YEC claim, she was
evolution. Fallacies were classified according to the criticizedfor“beingunderalotofpressureand,ofcourse,
schemeinTable2. hastriedtowriggleoutoftheseobservations…topreserve
To assess the prevalence of the analyzed fallacies in her credibility in the scientific community” (Reinikainen
the sample material, the presence of a particular fallacy 2003).
inasinglearticle,bookoronlinetextwaslisted.However, In the sampled creationist writings, the indirect ad
theTalkOrigins archive’s general homepage was excluded hominem (tu quoque) occurs most often in two forms
as it is mostly an index and does not contain text per se. (Table 3). The first type accuses evolutionary proponents
Multiple occurrences were not recorded due to the vast of using arguments that they themselves condemn when
differences in text length. The distribution of the fallacies usedbycreationists.Typically,creationistscriticizeevo-
between YEC, ID/OEC and pro-evolutionary texts was lutionists of introducing religious arguments while de-
analyzedwiththeχ2-testor,incasethetestcriteriawere manding that religion should not be allowed to enter
NieminenandMustonenEvolution:EducationandOutreach2014,7:11 Page4of14
http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11
Table2Definitionsandgeneralexamplesofcommonlyoccurringargumentativefallaciesincreationistwritings
Definition Reference(s) Example(s)
Adhominem Attackinganopponent’scharacterinsteadofevidence. VanEemerenand Evolutionistsportrayed,forexample,asracist,
Grootendorst sadist,psychoticorplagiarist.
1992,Yap2013
Circumstantial Insteadofevidence,anopponent’spastactions,words Sahlane2012 Scientists“admitting”lackofevidencefor
adhominem ormotivesareputundersuspicion. evolution,suchastransitionalfossils.
(=tuquoque)
Poisoningthewell Claimingthattheopponentcannothelpbeing Walton2006 Claimsofthetype:“Evolutionistsrefuseto
opposedtoanargumentand,thus,theopponent considersupernaturalexplanations”.
canbediscountedinadvance.
Appealtoauthority Theargumentisrightbecauseanauthority Jovičić2004 Historicalandcontemporaryscientistsquotedas
andadpopulum (ormajority)saysitisright. believingincreation.Out-of-contextcitations
ofscientists“doubting”evolution.Referralsto
majorityofcitizensbelievingincreation.
Appealto Insteadofevidence,atheoryisrejectedbasedonits VanEemerenand Evolutionarytheoryassociatedto,forinstance,
consequencesand allegedconsequencesorlinkingtheopponent’s Grootendorst Nazism,abortions,adulteryandeugenics.
guiltbyassociation viewpointtodistastefulandevilphenomena. 1992,Curtis2001
Slipperyslope Appealingtoanundesirablesequenceofeventsin VanEemerenand Evolutionarytheoryallegedlytriggersachainof
ordertoopposeanargument. Grootendorst1992 eventsfrom,e.g.,racismandeugenicstomass
murder.
Strawman Theopponentdistortstheargumentsattackingthe AikinandCasey Overemphasizingaspectsof“chance”in
distortion. 2011 evolution.
Falsedilemma Acomplexcaseissimplifiedintotoofewchoicesand Curtis2001, Creationisthe“onlyalternative”toalleged
achoicemadeamongthisshortenedmenu. Dowden2010, problemsofevolutionarytheory.
Tomić2013
Hasty Conclusionsarebasedonlimitedevidenceand/or Walton1999a Oneproblemwithascientificmethodcauses
generalization someevidenceissuppressed. thewholeconceptofevolutiontocollapse
(e.g.,regardingradiometricdating).
Argumentfrom Attackingapropositionbasedonlackofdefinite Dawkins1986, “Itishardtoimaginethat[anaspectof
incredulityand evidence;accusingatheoryofbeingirrationalwithout Walton1999b, evolutionarytheory]wouldbetrue.”
adignorantiam presentingactualevidence. Curtis2001
Equivocation Misusingwordsinanambiguousmanner. VanEemerenand E.g.,evolutionarytheory≈Darwinism≈social
Grootendorst1992 Darwinism.
Appealtofearand Insteadofdiscussingevidence,theopponentis VanEemerenand DisbeliefinliteralGenesis(i.e.,acceptanceof
force threatenedwithsanctions. Grootendorst biologicalevolution)leadsto“grave
1992,Woods1998 consequences”.
Appealtopityor Emotionalappealinsteadofpresentingactual Curtis2001 “Supportersofcreationismarediscriminatedby
ridicule evidence. evolutionists.”
scientificdiscussions(Johnson1993,Puolimatka2009).The (2009): “When discussing with dogmatic naturalists it can
second type deals with quotes of evolutionary proponents be futile to raise the question about the truth of evolu-
allegedly affirming, for instance, that the fossil record tionary theory, because from their religious [naturalism
would be seriously deficient. These citations can also be taken as religion] viewpoint this question cannot be
considered quote mining, out-of-context citations used to even posed in a meaningful manner” and “The atheist or
promote an argument (Young 1985, Pieret 2006). Opin- agnostic approaches are the only alternatives accepted in
ions of scientists can obviously be based on research but thediscussion”.
proof does not depend on the person but only on the ac-
tualevidenceitself.Intheabovecases,theargumentsalso Appealstoauthority
approachthetwowrongsmakearightfallacy,whereapo- Appealstoauthorityarefallacies,wherethe claimispre-
tentially wrong action (introducing religion into natural sented as right because an expert or an authoritative
sciencesbyacreationist)isdefendedbypointingtosimilar power says it is right (van Eemeren and Grootendorst
actionsbythoseoftheoppositeopinion. 1992). In the sample material, the authoritativity of the
In creationist texts, the poisoning the well fallacy often authorsreferredtoisoftenaugmented byincludingtheir
takes the form of indicating evolutionary proponents as meritsand(religious)affiliationswhencited.Forexample,
having too strong naturalistic biases, which prevent criticism for naturalistic abiogenesis is accompanied by
them from considering supernatural hypotheses (Harris statingthataninfluentialcriticofthetheory(“cellscannot
andCalvert2003).ThisisclearlyformulatedbyPuolimatka bebornoutofinorganicsubstanceinrealityorintheory”)
NieminenandMustonenEvolution:EducationandOutreach2014,7:11 Page5of14
http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11
Table3Examplesofadhominemargumentsincreationistwritings
Type Portrayalorcitation Type Sciencecontent Source
Demonization “OnesideofDarwinrarelydiscussedinpopularandscientificliteraturewas YEC No Bergman2005
hispowerfulsadisticbent.”
”…theeditorsanddefendersofDarwinhavedoneasuperbjobinhiding YEC Yes Brace2006
Darwin’sclearracism…”
Disqualification “…althoughevolutionistscontinuetodemolishoneanother’shypotheses, YEC Yes Doyle2007
theyfailtocometotermswiththeunderlyingproblemoftheirfossil
investigations—thematerialistworldview.”
“WasCharlesDarwinpsychotic?Astudyofhismentalhealth” YEC Yes Bergman2004
“Anyonewhohasnotstudiedinorganicchemistryandbiochemistryat YEC Yes Reinikainen2013b
universitylevel,shouldnottakestandontheconceptofchemical
evolution,i.e.,emergenceofthefirstcell.”
Dishonesty (Darwinwasabsentfromapublicdebate)“…istherejustasuspicionof YEC Yes Brace2006
cowardicetingedwithguilthere?”
Punctuatedequilibriummodelsdescribedasanadhocescapefromlack ID/OEC Yes Johnson1993,44;
ofevidenceonevolutionarytheory. Puolimatka2009,421;
Puolimatka2010,381
“…ifevolutionistsreallybelievewhattheysayoriftheyarepurposively YEC Yes Morris2013
tryingtomislead.Isuspecttherearesomeofboth.”
Gullibility “…mostevolutionistsareevolutionistsbecausetheyarevictimsofthe YEC Yes Morris2013
wrongteachingofothers.”
Circumstantial “Mostevolutionists…willfreelyadmitthatthereareno‘missinglinks’ YEC Yes Brace2004
adhominem althoughtherehavebeenseveralmissinglinkhoaxes!”
Naturalistsareaccusedofdiscussingreligionalthoughtheyclaimthat ID/OEC Yes Puolimatka2009,235–271
religionshouldbeleftoutofscientificdiscussions.
Citationsofevolutionarybiologistsallegedlyaffirmingthelackofevidence ID/OEC Yes DavisandKenyon1998,23;
forevolution. Puolimatka2009,419–422;
Puolimatka2010,366–384
YEC=youngearthcreationism,OEC=oldearthcreationism,ID=intelligentdesign.“Sciencecontent”signifieswhethertheargumentsarepresentedinthe
contextofdebateaboutthescientificdetailsofevolutionarytheory.
is “an atheistic Nobel-prize winner” (Reinikainen 2011). guidance of evolution (82–87%) is introduced when justi-
Thus, it is implicated that even atheists agree with crea- fyingteachingIDtopupils(HarrisandCalvert2003).Ob-
tionists. Historically authoritative figures of natural sci- viously, the validity of a theory does not depend on the
ences (e.g., Newton, Maxwell, Linné) are also numberofitsfollowers.
introduced to give testimonials of their Christian faith
(Reinikainen 1991, Puolimatka 2009). Appeals to au-
thorities can also occur as out-of-context citations of Appealstoconsequences,guiltbyassociation,slippery
scientists allegedly stating that there would be serious slopesandstrawmen
flaws with evolutionary theory (ibid.). Also influential Appeals to consequences typically link evolutionary the-
“converts into theism” are presented, for example, the ory to renouncement of theism, which would inevitably
“former atheist” Antony Flew who converted “to the- lead to immorality (Morris 1972) thus denying moral
ism” (in reality, into some kind of deism; Carrier 2004) autonomy (Mackie 1982, Brink 2007; Table 4). For in-
afterhavingencounteredallegedproblemsinevolution- stance, creationists can claim that naturalist Darwinism
arytheory(Reinikainen2011). “provides aviewpoint, which takes themass destruction
Creationistsoftenappealtonumerousunknownauthor- of living creatures as a positive endpoint” (Puolimatka
ities who oppose evolutionary theory. This takes the form 2010). Guilt by association fallacy links the opposing
of“largeand/or growingnumbersofscientistswho doubt viewpoint to phenomena or groups deemed unreliable or
orrenounceevolutionarytheory”(Morris1972,Davisand evil without concentrating on the actual evidence (Curtis
Kenyon 1998, Luskin and Gage 2008, Puolimatka 2009, 2001).Numerousexampleslinkevolutionarytheorytothe
Reinikainen 2011). These are also ad populum fallacies, Holocaustorotherhistoricalevents.Creationists(Johnson
where “the claim is supposed to be right because every- 1995, Puolimatka 2009, Grigg 2010) also associate the
body thinks it is right” (van Eemeren and Grootendorst acceptance of evolutionary theory to the screening of
1992). In these cases, the proportion of a population, e.g., fetal disorders and mistreatment of disabled people. Ex-
U.S. citizens, that believes in special creation or divine amples also include connecting evolutionary theory to
NieminenandMustonenEvolution:EducationandOutreach2014,7:11 Page6of14
http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11
Table4Examplesofadconsequentiamandguiltbyassociationargumentsincreationistwritings
Portrayalorcitation Type Sciencecontent Source
“IfDarwinismistrue,Hitlerwasoursaviorandwehavecrucifiedhim.” YEC Yes Bergman1999
“…thekillingofsomanymillionsofpeople,letalonetheonslaughtondefencelessunbornbabies… YEC Yes Grigg2005
suchactionistotallyconsistentwithevolutionaryteaching.”
“ThecoreideaofDarwinismisselection.TheNazisbelievedthattheymustdirecttheprocessof YEC No1 Grigg2005
selectiontoadvancetheGermanrace.”
“Science,divestedofthemoralcompassofbiblicalChristianity,playedasignificantrolein YEC No1 Harker2011
establishingthepoliticalandsocialconditionsinGermanythatledtothehorrorsofNazism.”
“…iflifeisanaccident(Darwinistworldview)…whynotmakehumanclones?Whynotabort ID Yes HarrisandCalvert
unwantedchildren?Whynoteuthanizethe’useless’aged?…Whynot‘steal,kill,anddestroy’?” 2003
“Modernracismhasalwaysfounditsstrongestandmostviciousexpressionamongdoctrinaire YEC Yes Morris1972
evolutionists—mensuchasKarlMarx,AdolfHitler…”
“Genocide,ofcourse,ismerelyashockingnamefortheprocessofnaturalselection…” ID Yes Johnson1995,
144
“EvolutionarytheorywasappliedintopracticebyStalinanditcausedthelossoftensofmillions YEC Yes Reinikainen1991,
oflives.” 10
DarwinismassociatedtoStalinismandLysenkoism2,socialDarwinism,eugenics,Nazism,immorality, ID/OEC Yes Puolimatka2010,
abortionsandeuthanasia. 151–201,462–477
YEC=youngearthcreationism,OEC=oldearthcreationism,ID=intelligentdesign.“Sciencecontent”signifieswhethertheargumentsarepresentedinthe
contextofdebateaboutthescientificdetailsofevolutionarytheory.
1Citationsarefromarticlesofthejournals“Creation”and“JournalofCreation”.Whilethearticlespersedonotcontainscientificissues,creationistinterpretations
ofscientificdataarepresentedasproofsforcreationinthesameissues.2ItisveryproblematictouseLysenkoismasabranchof“Darwinism”as,contraryto
evolutionarytheoryoftheera,Lysenkobelievedintheheritabilityofacquiredcharacteristics,whichwasencouragedbycommunistindoctrination(Dawkins
1986,292).
mass murders in welfare states (Hodge 2007, Puolimatka arguments disprove evolution, the association is present
2010,Bergman2012). and, ashypothesized by Yap (2013), these arguments can
Brace (2006), Puolimatka (2009) and Bergman (2012) be very effective for those observing the evolution–
have also claimed that the general acceptance of evolu- creationism debate.
tionary theory would initiate a chain of events “going Creationist straw man fallacies commonly deal with
from bad to worse” including eugenics, discrimination simplificationsofevolutionarytheory,suchasoverempha-
and violation of human rights, forced sterilization and sis on random mutations or misunderstanding transitory
genocide. This is the slippery slope fallacy (van Eemeren forms, molecular differences between taxa and the origin
and Grootendorst 1992; Table 5). For the slippery slope of the universe (“…according to evolutionists a hydrogen
argument not to be fallacious, the disclaimer should be atom formed by the Big Bang created the whole universe
able to present logical causal relationships between the andlife”;Reinikainen2011).Wedonotdiscussthesefalla-
consecutive steps to the outcome. However, in the case ciesin detail hereas theyhave been refutedonnumerous
of disproving evolutionary theory, this would not be suf- occasions(e.g.,Young1985,Isaak2006).
ficient, as the validity of a theory in the natural sciences
is determined by evidence and not by its alleged applica- Falsedilemmaandhastygeneralization
tions. Even when the creationist writers do not directly In creationist texts it is usual to assume that there are
claim that the slippery slope (or ad consequentiam) only two choices: “Thereare only two alternatives: either
Table5Examplesofslipperyslopeargumentsincreationistwritings
Citation Type Sciencecontent Source
“…rejectionofthebiblicalrecord,especiallythedoctrinethatallhumansdescendedfromthefirstman YEC Yes Bergman2012
andwoman,AdamandEve,leadstoDarwinism,andevolutionleadstoracismandeugenics.”
“(Darwinism)directlyledtotheriseofEugenics…Eugenicshasbeenusedasajustificationofcoercive YEC Yes Brace2006
state-sponsoreddiscriminationandhumanrightsviolations,suchasforcedsterilizationofpersonswith
geneticdefects,thekillingoftheinstitutionalizedand,insomecases,genocide…”
“TheextensionoftheDarwinisttheoryintomoralitycanleadtomorallyquestionableconsequences, ID/OEC Yes Puolimatka
suchasfetaldiagnosticsaimingtoeliminatethehandicapped,abandoninghandicappedpeople,or 2009,477
eventogenocide‘asapartoftherealizationofnaturalselection’.”
YEC=youngearthcreationism,OEC=oldearthcreationism,ID=intelligentdesign.“Sciencecontent”signifieswhethertheargumentsarepresentedinthe
contextofdebateaboutthescientificdetailsofevolutionarytheory.
NieminenandMustonenEvolution:EducationandOutreach2014,7:11 Page7of14
http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11
the world receives its order from an outside source or toothermethodsindicatingtotheancientageoftheearth
the order is innate without any order given from the (Wiens2002).
outside” (Leisola 2012; Table 6). This false dilemma
appears also when considering unresolved issues in evo- Othercreationistfallacies
lution or abiogenesis (“The RNA world did not resolve Utilizing the appeal to ignorance, creationists refer to
this problem. Thus, only creation is left as an option”; unresolved questions as proofs of fatal weaknesses in
Reinikainen 2011) or when discussing the potential moral evolutionary theory or as indications that the theory is
dimensions of evolutionary theory. Obviously, the RNA abouttocollapse(Morris1972,Johnson1993,Reinikainen
world is not the only possible explanation to abiogenesis 2003,Behe2007,Puolimatka2009,Reinikainen2011).For
(e.g., Gilbert 1986, TalkOrigins archive 2013a) and there instance, Behe (2007) claims that there would be “a total
areseveralrationalargumentspresentedfortheautonomy lack of serious Darwinian explanations” regarding cilia. A
ofmorality(Brink2007). form of the argument from ignorance is the argument
Hasty generalization involves making conclusions that from incredulity (Dawkins 1986), in which an author
are based on limited sources or evidence (Walton 1999a). simplystatesthatatheoryisinconceivable orirrational.
Creationists can claim that a single piece of data would In the sample material, there are frequent appearances
be sufficient to disprove the whole theory of evolution. of this fallacy (e.g., Morris 1972). Some examples are as
Reinikainen(2013a)writesthat“thisfinding[‘unfossilized’ follows: “There is not even one reasonable suggestion
Tyrannosaurus rex bone] is a deathly blow to evolu- on how life could have emerged from inorganic matter”
tionary theory”. Hasty generalization is also present and “…it is hard to imagine that chance and natural
when extrapolating the results of one study after cre- selection could explain the emergence of these types of
ationist re-interpretation. For example, Carter (2010) systems”(Puolimatka2009).
citesHughes et al. (2010), who statethat the difference Sometimes the supposed lack of evidence becomes a
between selected human and chimpanzee Y chromo- statement with no references in a repeated ad nauseam
some DNA sequences is 30%. Creationists generalize pattern,e.g.,whendiscussingtheallegedlackoftransitional
this to be the case also in other parts of the genome. fossils in the form of “no transitional forms have been
Carter (2010) continues: “…we now know that the old foundinthefossilrecord”(Puolimatka2009).Thesameap-
‘humans and chimps are 99% identical’ canard is pearsinYahya(2006),whostatesrepeatedly(16occasions)
passé”, although the writers of the original paper make based on similarities between fossils and modern species
note of the fact that the other parts of the genome that living beings “did not evolve, but were created”. Many
show 98% similarity. There are also instances of of the claims presented and refuted in the early 1970’s are
generalization, when alleged isolated problems with also continuously repeated (often without citations) ad
evolutionary theory or related disciplines are consid- nauseam in later creationist texts. For instance, the argu-
ered adequate to disprove the theory in its entirety. An mentsconnectingDarwinismtoatrocitieshavere-appeared
example of this is the creationist approach to radiometric fordecades(Morris1972,Bergman1999,Brace2004,2006,
dating:anyallegedinaccuracyisseenasarefutationofthe Puolimatka2010,Reinikainen2011).
whole radiodating method (Swenson 2001), while geolo- Equivocation misuses words in a manner that creates
gistspointtotheoverwhelmingamountofevidencebased ambiguousness (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1992).
on various radiometric procedures and their comparison In the sample material, it is common to link “social
Table6Examplesoffalsedilemmasincreationistwritings
Portrayalorcitation Type Sciencecontent Source
“IfthebiblicalnarrativeontheoriginofmanasalivingsoulcreatedintheimageofGodisnot YEC Yes Reinikainen2013b
true,thewholeBibleandChristianitylosetheirsignificance.”
“Theideaofpurechance…mustbeshelteredfromallcriticism.Allotheralternativesare ID/OEC Yes Puolimatka2010,
unthinkable…Thecentralanduniquepositionofideaofpurechancecannotbequestionedin 272
theatheistframework…Theatheistormaterialisticapproachtriestoreducethewholerealityinto
itsphysicalpartsandpurechance.Thetheistbuildshisscientificexplanationontheassumption
thattheorderoftheuniversebasicallyoriginatesfromGod.”
“IfpeoplearecreatedintheimageofGod,theyhavetobetreatedaccordingly…Ifthereisno YEC Yes Reinikainen1991,56
creator,everybodyisfreetodowhateverhefeelsaccordingtohisowndiscretion.”
Fortheatheist,evolutionarytheoryistheonlypossibleexplanationandtheonlyalternativeisthat ID/OEC Yes Puolimatka2009,
theworldwascreatedbyGod. 142–143,157
YEC=youngearthcreationism,OEC=oldearthcreationism,ID=intelligentdesign.“Sciencecontent”signifieswhethertheargumentsarepresentedinthe
contextofdebateaboutthescientificdetailsofevolutionarytheory.
NieminenandMustonenEvolution:EducationandOutreach2014,7:11 Page8of14
http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11
Darwinism” to evolutionary theory (Bergman 1999, biologists that are outside the scope of actual science.
Puolimatka 2010, Bergman 2012). Another example is For instance, they can interpret an opinion or a popular-
the use of the word “selfish” in the concept “selfish ized rebuttal of an evolutionist as evolutionary science
gene” (Dawkins 1989a). While creationist authors may per se and utilize these texts as evidence for evolution
acknowledge that evolutionists do not necessarily use being the only allowed doctrine in the scientific commu-
the word “selfish” in its everyday meaning, they still nity. Anexample is the appeal toabiologist“S.C. Todd”,
claim that evolutionists are saying that genes are “ruth- who refuted any possibility of considering supernatural
lessly immoral” and that genes “created us, our bodies explanations in the “scientific paper Nature” (“Even if all
and our minds” and add an ad ridiculum comment: “a the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypoth-
collection of chemicals would hardly be experiencing esis is excluded from science because it is not naturalis-
anyvainself-satisfactionfrommerelybeingabletocopy tic”, cited by, e.g., Morris 2001 and Puolimatka 2009, see
themselves” (Puolimatka 2009). In addition to direct theactual textinTodd1999).Theoriginaltextwaspub-
equivocations, there are also conceptual equivocations: lished as “Correspondence” and not as a peer-reviewed
creationists interpret concepts differently from scien- scientificpaper.
tists.Boudryet al.(2010b) havepointedto equivocation Theno true Scotsman fallacy (Dowden 2010) occurs as
intheconcept“information”inID,withitsscientificinter- a device to redirect accusations from creationists when
pretationof“ameasureofrandomness”beingreplacedby the discussion has reached a state of repeated tu quoque
its colloquial use of “meaningful message” thus making it arguments, such as in a debate on the “Darwinist” or
morepersuasivetorefertoDNAsequencesas“designed”. “Christian” roots of Nazism. Creationists eliminate any
We present here two other conceptual equivocations in possibility of them taking part in atrocities by stating
the sampled texts. The first one deals with the confusion that in case religious people are involved in violence,
of transitional forms and fossils. It occurs when crea- they are not “true” Christians. “We have often demon-
tionistspresentgeneticcomparisonsasevidenceagainst stratedthattheoccasionalatrocitiescommittedbyprofes-
evolution.Theyacknowledgethatthedifferencesinper- sing Christians were completely contrary to the teachings
centage between the DNA sequences of different life of Christ, while the atrocities of 20th century Nazis and
forms compared to humans form a sequence, in which Communists were totally consistent with evolutionary
mammals are the most similar followed by reptiles, am- teaching (original emphasis)” (Sarfati 2007). In the same
phibians, fish, various invertebrates, fungi, plants and way,a scientistrefutedtheuseof herfindingstopromote
prokaryotes. However, when creationists subsequently YEC and identified herself as “an evangelical Christian”.
compare the sequences to prokaryotes, they notice that Thishasbeendenouncedbystatingthatshewouldnotbe
all the other life forms differ from bacteria by the same a “true” evangelical: “[The scientist’s] attitude to Scripture
percentage. They surmise this to be counter-evidence actually reflectsa liberal, ratherthan evangelical approach
against evolution (Reinikainen 1991, Johnson 1993, totheBible”(CatchpooleandSarfati2006).
DavisandKenyon1998).Creationistsclaimthat,asam- Appeal to fear or force (ad baculum) threatens the
phibians are supposedly half-way between bacteria and other partywithsanctions(vanEemerenandGrootendorst
humans,theirgenesshould alsobemoresimilartobac- 1992, Woods 1998). Direct threats are relatively rare in
teriathanthoseof humans.Heretheconceptsoftransi- the sample material, but the above-mentioned associ-
tional forms and ancestors are confused with the ation of evolutionary theory to atrocities can also be
descendants of these ancestors. Actually, comparisons seen as an appeal to fear. While the sampled texts do
from the human point of view reflect the time that has not directly threaten those who accept evolution with
passed since our common ancestor with the above- supernatural punishment, the authors associate the loss
mentioned life-forms lived. Thus, our last common of faith in the literal interpretation of Biblical creation
ancestor with other mammals is more recent than that anditssubstitutionwithevolutionwithdamnation.“There
ofmammalsandfish(Purvesetal.2006),asobservedin isaclearconnectionbetweencreationand…theresurrec-
the sequences. But from the point of view of bacteria, tion of the believers” (Reinikainen 1991).Adbaculum ap-
the last common ancestor with humans, fish, inverte- pears also when discussing the alleged fate of creationist
brates and plants is the same and all these other forms ortheisticscientists,iftheypublishmaterialagainstevolu-
have had exactly the same time to develop since these tion. “Those believing in creation are forced to silence in
taxa branched off from that of prokaryotes. Thus, crea- fear of losing their jobs or positions” (Reinikainen 2011).
tionists equivocate, e.g., ancestral amphibians with There are repeated anecdotal stories of mistreated cre-
modern amphibians and ancestral transitional forms ationist scientists unable to publish or forced to resign
withtheinexistent“moderntransitionalforms”. because of their opinions (Harris and Calvert 2003,
The second case of conceptual equivocation appears Puolimatka 2009, 2010). These instances could also be
when creationists discuss statements of evolutionary classified as appeals to pity (ad misericordiam). The
NieminenandMustonenEvolution:EducationandOutreach2014,7:11 Page9of14
http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11
validity of the examples could, of course, be verified or In the sample material, evolutionists usually present
disproved and there could exist a bias among scientists the ad hominem arguments in the context of defending
to prevent YEC and ID/OEC from being published. In evolutionary figures from demonization and they could
the context of evolutionary science, these stories are also be classified as tu quoque (Table 7). In fact, claims
basically irrelevant, but in the context of potential pre- of evolutionary racism or Nazism are often rebutted by
existing biases in the creationist–evolutionist debate, pointing to similar cases by creationists as follows: “The
theseargumentswouldnotnecessarilybefallacious. Bible Belt in the southern United States fought hardest
tomaintainslavery”,“HenryMorris…hasinthepastread
Fallaciesinpro-evolutionarytexts racism into his interpretation of the Bible” (TalkOrigins
Direct ad hominem attacks by evolutionary proponents archive 2013b). When creationists claim that “scientists
on creationists are quite similar to the fallacious argu- find what they expect to find”, the naturalistic rebuttal
ments of creationists (Table 7). Perhaps the most notori- endswiththe tuquoque “creationistsfind whattheywant
ous one states that “Itis absolutely safe to say that if you to find” (TalkOrigins archive 2013f). Evolutionary propo-
meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, nentsalsoutilizeappealstoconsequences.Ithasbeensaid
that person is ignorant, stupid or insane…” (Dawkins that humankind is on the brink for “either a marvelous
1989b).Furthermore,evolutionistshavestatedinresponse future, or disaster. Ignorance [creationism] will almost
to accusations of Darwin’s racism that “Price, who is to certainly lead to the latter” (Young 1985). This is also
young-earthcreationismwhat Darwinistoevolution,was an example of a false dilemma (“marvelous future–dis-
much more racist than Darwin” (TalkOrigins archive aster”). However, fallacies are sometimes recognized in
2013b). Other personal attacks include characterization, evolutionary rebuttals. For instance, the irrelevancy of
such as “deplorable deceiver” (Buchanan 2010) or “Their ad hominem or ad consequentiam is indicated when
lack of integrity maywell driveany educated personaway discussing potential evolutionary racism by stating “None
from consideration of the truth-claims of Jesus Christ” of this matters to the science of evolution” (TalkOrigins
(Buchanan2012). archive2013b).
Table7Examplesoffallaciesinanti-creationistwritingsbyevolutionarytheoryproponents
Typeoffallacy Portrayalorcitation Sciencecontent Source
Adhominem “Distortingrealscientificresearchtofurthertheiragendaisobviouslynothingnewforthe Yes Panda’sThumb
ICR(InstituteforCreationResearch)…” archive2013
“Manycreationistshavealiterallyholier-than-thouattitude.Forexample,they(falsely)claim No1 TalkOrigins
thatbelieversofevolutionareatheisticandevil.Youcannotgetanymoresnobbishorelitist archive2013d
thanthat.“
“Allthree(creationists)areopenChristianapologetics,andthereforecannotseriouslybe No Pigliucci
consideredtobeideologicallyunbiased…Noneofthemarequalifiedtocommenton etal.2004
evolutionforthesimplereasonthattheirdegreesarenotinanyoftheorganismalbiological
sciences.”
Tuquoque “TheNaziPartyingeneralrejectedDarwinismandsupportedChristianity.” Yes TalkOrigins
archive2013c
“Perhapswhencreationistsclaimthatscientistsareoperatingunderulteriormotives,theyare Yes TalkOrigins
merelyprojectinghowtheythemselvesoperate.” archive2013g
“WhenPiltdownwasexposed,itstoppedbeingusedasevidence.Thecreationisthoaxes, Yes TalkOrigins
however,canstillbefoundcitedasiftheywerereal.Piltdownhasbeenoveranddonewith archive2013i
fordecades,butthedishonestyofcreationisthoaxescontinues.“
“Thelessonsofhistoryleavenodoubtthatwars,campaignsofpersecution,torture,murder, Yes Young1985,33
andallmannerofatrocitiesareaslikelytobecommittedinthenameofGod…asinhis
absence.”
Adconsequentiam “…theclosed-mindedpropagandaoftheCreationistscouldalsothreatenourfreedom Yes Young1985,
ofinquiry.” 272
“…bothgroupswantthecountryrecastasaChristianfundamentalistnation.Andtheyboth No Zimmerman
abhortheconceptofevolutionandwantscienceredefined.” 2010
Appealsto “Agovernmentalrequirementforteachingintelligentdesignorotherso-calledalternatives Yes TalkOrigins
authority toevolutionwouldlikelybefoundunconstitutional…” archive2013e
“Evolutionasreligionhasbeenrejectedbythecourts.” Yes TalkOrigins
archive2013h
1ScientificclaimsdiscussedonthesameInternetsite.
NieminenandMustonenEvolution:EducationandOutreach2014,7:11 Page10of14
http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11
Detailed refutations to creationist claims that are out evolutionary texts (Figure 1). The prevalence of direct
of scientific context and thus fallacious could be treated ad hominem did not differ between the classifications
as counter-fallacies. The first type is the rebuttal of a (YEC, ID/OEC or pro-evolutionary); regarding most of
fallacy with a response that contains the same fallacy as the other fallacies, the prevalence was lower in pro-
the original claim (very often leading to tu quoque). This evolutionary texts. The prevalence of ad ridiculum was
seems to cause a vicious circle of fallacies and counter- higherinID/OECcomparedtotheothertexttypes.
fallacies that can eventually dominate the discussion.
The other type of counter-fallacy is the ignoratio elenchi Discussion and conclusions
or irrelevant argumentation fallacy (van Eemeren and The creationist–evolutionist discussionfocuses on scien-
Grootendorst1992).Inthiscase,theopponentproducesa tific dispute on the evidence regarding evolutionary the-
detailed and carefully formulated response to a fallacious ory but, in reality, creationist texts contain numerous
argument, such as the association of evolutionary theory fallacious arguments not directly if at all related to the
to Nazism. The response (e.g.,TalkOrigins archive 2013c) issue of science. A large part of scientific rebuttals con-
includes cited examples of the Nazi party being opposed centrates on these fallacious claims and eventually leads
to evolutionary theory, Hitler’s Christian background and to counter-fallacies. Ad hominem and tu quoque argu-
a well-balanced conclusion that “of course, this does not ments were especially prevalent in all forms of creation-
mean that Hitler’s ideas were based on creationism any ist and pro-evolutionary texts. However, it must be
more than they were based on evolution. Hitler’s ideas emphasized that the analyzed texts were not selected
were a perversion of both religion and biology.” It can randomly but based on visibility and impact. Thus, the
certainly be useful to discuss and unravel the motiva- results on the prevalence of fallacies in the creationist–
tions and historical background of Nazism but, at this evolutionist debate do not necessarily reflect a general
point, the debate has left the context of evolutionary pattern. Still, we can tentatively surmise that most of the
evidence and the original fallacious ad consequentiam examined types of fallacies commonly occur in the ana-
argument is treated as if it were relevant to the discussion lyzed forms of creationism. Creationist claims are often
ofevolutionaryproof. based on criticizing evolutionary theory by using selected
dataderivedfromscientists.Inaddition,alsoopinionsand
popularizedbooksofevolutionaryproponentsareequivo-
Prevalenceoffallacies cated torepresent the actualevolutionary theory. Theuse
All above-mentioned fallacies were present in the sam- of these, often out-of-context pieces of data, leads to
pled texts with the highest prevalence being 100% for rebuttals and it is often these refutations that contain
tu quoque in ID/OEC, 88% for appeals to authority in the counter-fallacies of evolutionary proponents. Still,
YEC and 56% for ad hominem and tu quoque in pro- participation in the debate in a rational manner would
100 YEC, n = 25
ID/OEC, n = 10 †
EVO, n = 16
%) 80
ple material ( 60 *
m
nce in sa 40 *
vale
Pre 20 * *
*
* * * *
* * *
0
Ad hominem Tu quoque Appeal to authority Ad consequentiam Guilt by association Straw man False dilemma Hasty generalization Ad ignorantiam Equivocation Ad baculum Ad misericordiam Slippery slope Ad ridiculum
Figure1Prevalences(%)oftheanalyzedfallaciesintextsrelatedtothecreationist–evolutionistdebate.YEC=youngearthcreationism,
ID/OEC=intelligentdesign/oldearthcreationism,EVO=pro-evolutionarytexts.*=DifferencebetweenEVOandtheothertexttypes(p<0.05;
χ2test,Fisher’sexacttest),†=differencebetweenID/OECandtheothertexttypes(p<0.001;Fisher’sexacttest).