answering one fallacy with another

Creationists attack evolution with a hydra of bad faith arguments and logical fallacies. Trying to counter them using the bandwagon fallacy is only playing into their hands.





Today, if you come across an idea or an opinion held by at least a few thousand people, chances are it has at least one blog, an official website with talking points, and a Facebook page dedicated to it. Actually, in a world where hundreds of millions of people use the web to learn and communicate, if your opinion isn’t floating out in the social media realm, it’s irrelevant as far as the public is concerned. That’s exactly why growing numbers of creationist groups have been taking to the web and creating pages asking social media users to support their cause by joining their group and showing that the voice of creationism is strong to all those evolutionist heathens.

And oddly enough, plenty of scientifically minded web users fell for this trick and decided to start a page that counters one bandwagon fallacy with another. But just like trying to chop off the mythical Hydra’s head only results in two more mouthfuls of fangs, playing the creationists’ games isn’t going to help prove the validity of evolution to those who want to deny the science which sends them into hysterical bouts of fear…

Let’s remember that when it comes to science, facts are facts. They live independently of public opinion. A very good example of just how irrelevant public agreement on those facts is, was presented by Penn and Teller on their show during an episode in which they took votes on the gender of rabbits. Male rabbits will be male and female rabbits will be female no matter how many times they would’ve voted. This is why any argument which bases popular support as its main piece of supporting evidence is inherently flawed. Creationists could count their numbers until next Friday and gloat about how many people have doubts with the validity of evolution to a roar of supportive crowds. That doesn’t mean creationism is valid and never will.

But hold on a second, don’t scientists talk about a scientific consensus and use that as evidence for evolutionary theories? Yes, but when we’re talking about a scientific consensus, things are very different. Going back to the Penn and Teller’s rabbit example, the only way to find out who’s male and who’s female is to take a look, and the same idea applies to every field of scientific study. To come up with a consensus on the facts, someone has to find out what those facts actually are and document them for peer review and debate based on the findings of others.

And this is what scientists do, take a look and let the colleagues do the same. When enough scientists take a good, long look, debate, and come to an agreement that all of them saw the same thing and until someone is going to collect compelling evidence proving them wrong, the matter is settled and their conclusions could be made official. Compare that to creationists posturing about how many people share their beliefs or doubt the scientific conclusion that evolution is a very good theory based on a solid, factual framework. Can they offer a testable, workable alternative to today’s evolutionary biology?

Considering that many vocal creationists can’t even get a few rudimentary scientific basics straight, I wouldn’t hold my breath about that. And this is exactly why the last thing the scientific minded should do is give in to creationist games and reply to their fallacy with an identical one, especially when they’re the ones in a position which can use real, tangible evidence to make their case instead of relying on pointless popularity contests. If you really want to prove something creationist zealots, you’re certainly not going to do it by making important science a social media competition.

Besides, even if creationists blogs and pages had a hundredth of the popularity of their scientific counterparts, would those who equate Darwin with Hitler consider their cause lost and accept they may be wrong? Maybe, but those who did would be the exception rather than the rule. The vast majority of creationists would do what that always do when their arguments fall flat and move the goalposts, decrying that so many could ascribe to the “corrupt, atheistic, and morally bankrupt evil that is evolution” and keep insisting that they have a monopoly on the truth since they have Bibles.

After all, creationists already believe that they’re right and everyone whose scientific and religious views don’t match theirs is wrong solely for having a different worldview. The details of how they assert their self-assumed correctness to the god-hating heathens of the outside world is something creationists usually tend to consider a matter of semantics…