Logical Fallacies and How to Spot Them In the Evolution vs. Creationism debate, it is important to be able to spot all the logical fallacies that Creationists tend to throw around. This essay covers many bare essentials of logical thinking, as well as ways to critically evaluate an argument. The logical fallacies listed here are the ones most often used by Creationists, although Creationists have, to date, used almost every single logical fallacy in existence to "prove" their case. Each fallacy will have its own little paragraph, describing it, why it is fallacious and how to counter it. Enjoy! THE STRAWMAN ATTACK: The strawman is, perhaps, the most heavily-employed tactic used by Creationists. The strawman attack's name comes from the idea of setting up a strawman and knocking it down. The strawman is a false man, metaphorically representing a false argument. The strawman attack is a very dishonest one. Creationists ruthlessly use this tactic to win public support. In essence, the strawman attack is putting words in your opponent's mouth and then attacking the resulting position, while simultaenously evading the real argument. EXAMPLE "Evolution is a ridiculous theory! Macro-evolution says that a fish can just evolve into a bird! Clearly this is preposterous!" This is an example of a strawman attack. Macro-evolution does not say that one species can "evolve" into another one. Macro-evolution is one species splitting into two species due to evolutionary changes. Clearly, this argument is a gross misrepresentation, at best, and a malicious lie, at worst. HOW TO SPOT Spotting a strawman attack isn't that hard. Just make sure that the opposition actually makes the claim that the attacker says he or she does. In evolution's case, just think to yourself: Would our foremost men and women of biology actually propose such a ridiculous concept? While you should always check to verify the attacker's statements about what the opposition is saying, you definitely do so when the attacker's statement begs such questions as, "How stupid can the opposition possibly be?" and arouses any kind of suspicion. For example, I read many web sites devoted to the Evolution vs. Creationism debate that displayed common Creationist arguments. I found it hard to believe that people were actually making the arguments I saw, because they were so easily shot down. So, I looked on Creationist websites and, lo and behold, they had, indeed, made such moronic claims as, "Evolution defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics!" HOW TO COUNTER Strawman attacks, once exposed for what they are, are not all that difficult to counter. SImply ask the attacker for a documented occasion in which his opposition made such a claim. If he cannot produce one, happily point out that the attacker is putting words in his opponent's mouth and attacking that position. Pointing out that this attack is a cowardly evasion might well help, depending on how high (or low)a regard you hold the attacker in. THE FALSE DILEMMA FALLACY: The false dilemma is at the heart of the Creationist argument. The false dilemma supposes that there are only two possible solutions to a problem (his and his opponent's), ignoring anything else. The idea behind the false dilemma is to set up a system in which a disproof of the opponent's argument is automatic proof and support for the attacker's argument. Obviously, this is a completely irrational line of thinking. Just because there may be some error in my measured height doesn't make me a kilometer tall. EXAMPLE "There are only two solutions for the question of how the Universe was created: the Big Bang, which says that the Universe was formed out of nothing from random chance, or Biblical Creation, which gives us a loving, awesome, caring God who wants us to...[continue with mindless religious yammering ad infinitum]." Obviously, Creationists love the false dilemma because it makes any hole they find in Evolutionary Theory an automatic proof of Biblical Creation. Of course, if we are to accept Biblical Creation as a viable view on how the Universe was created, then we must accept other religions' creation stories, as well. Creationists tend to ignore this fact, in favor of their quasi-masturbatory fantasies about a six-day creation timeframe and a Universe that is a paultry ten thousand years old. If you look carefully, you'll also notice the strawman attack. The Big Bang Theory doesn't state that the Universe was formed from nothing. This would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy. Also, there's nothing in the Big Bang Theory that suggests random chance. It simply happened. We don't know why, but it did. HOW TO SPOT Whenever the attacker arbitrarily cuts the number of possible solutions down to only two, you should ask him why he does this. If there is a logical reasoning behind it (for example, there are only two solutions to x2+4x+4), then this is not a false dilemma, but a true one. If he cannot give you a logical explanation, he is setting up a false dilemma. HOW TO COUNTER Once you spot a false dilemma, just make it clear that the attacker is artificially narrowing the choices down the choices and trying to decieve everyone. This will go quite a ways to shatter his credibility. THE APPEAL TO AUTHORITY: The appeal to authority is used when someone making an argument can't put any logical reasoning behind it. Instead of supporting an argument with evidence, the argument is supported by simply saying, "Because so-and-so said so." The argument may be correct, but the logic is still fallacious. For example, if someone said that the Earth's gravitational acceleration was 9.8m/s2 because physicists said so, the information would be correct, but they'd be basing it on false logic. Creationists especially love this type of fallacy because they have an authority that they can appeal to for anything that they want: God. Since God knows everything, anything they say can be "proven" correct by appealing to God. The other authority that they like to appeal to is the Bible. "Because Genesis said so, and Genesis was written by men inspired by God," it must be correct. This is known as a Biblical appeal to authority, while the former is known as a deistic appeal to authority. Either way, if there's no reasoning behind the argument, it is fradulant and illogical. EXAMPLE "Isaac Newton was a believer in Creation. He is one of the most legendary physicists of all time. Surely, you're not going to argue with him." Exactly the kind of thing Creationists tend to say. Not only is this an appeal to authority, it is an appeal to an irrelevant authority. Newton was a physicist, which has nothing to do with biology, and he has been dead for a long time. He was not confronted with all the evidence for Evolution, thus his opinion is irrelevant. Even if a living biologist were cited as an authority, the argument would still be an appeal to authority and, thus, fallacious. HOW TO SPOT This one's not hard. When someone cites someone else as an authority and gives no argument, they are engaging in an appeal to authority. HOW TO COUNTER Simply point out the fallacy that the attacker is engaging in and demand that the argument be backed up by logic. THE APPEAL TO FEAR: Creationists love this one. They like to make it seem that, if you don't accept their point of view, bad things will happen. This one is relatively simple. On a side note, this logical fallacy is, perhaps, the largest reason for the spread of Christianity. People didn't accept Christianity willfully, in the beginning. It was forced upon them, either with real threats ("If you don't convert, you'll be beheaded.") or imagined ones ("If you don't convert, you'll go to Hell."). Fear is no basis with which to accept an argument. The Catholic Church routinely engages in this fallacy by hammering the fear of God into youngsters at Sunday School and Catholic school. This becomes the driving force behind beliefs and actions, and it is a flawed one. EXAMPLE "To deny the truth of Creationism is to deny the Word of God Himself. If you don't accept God, you will be condemned to Hell to suffer for eternity." No logic. No argument. No reason. No intelligence. Just bigotry and self-righteousness. HOW TO SPOT When someone threatens you with the dangerous consequences of not accepting their point of view, they are engaging in an appeal to fear. This is not a hard one to spot. HOW TO COUNTER Simply point out that your opponent is engaging in a logical fallacy, and obviously has no other recourse but to try and scare everyone into his point of view. THE APPEAL TO THE MASSES: One is commiting this fallacy when he tries to justify a belief or action by the support base behind that action. Saying that Christianity is the right religion because it has a billion followers is an appeal to the masses. As with other logical fallacies, there is no logic behind this, just ignorance. EXAMPLE "There are more and more people converting to Creationism everyday. Even astrophysicists and biologists are seeing the light. This is God's work!" Creationists often engage in an appeal to the masses in tandem with the appeal to authority, as you can see here. In this case, they use the appeal to an anonymous authority with the appeal to the masses. If all the physicists in the world suddenly said that they Earth pulled down at 1,000m/s2 without any proof, they'd still be wrong. If all the Creationists in the world jumped off a kilometer-high bridge, would you? If you said, "Yes," please proceed to the nearest bridge. HOW TO SPOT This is just like peer pressure. When someone mentions what everyone else thinks as evidence of his argument, he's appealing to the masses. HOW TO COUNTER Simply point out that the attacker is engaging in a logical fallacy. If it helps, give examples of where the masses have been wrong. Like the Spanish Inquisition, or the Crusades or the Holocaust. THE ACHILLES' HEAL FALLACY: This is the belief that if you poke one hole in your opponent's argument, or find one thing wrong with it, that the entire argument is invalidated. Creationists love this one, because they like finding isolated incidents where, on the surface, it looks like evolution can't explain what happened. They also like to use it to invalidate carbon dating by citing isolated incidents in which carbon dating has been shown to be wrong (without pointing out the scientific explanations for these incidents). This can also be called the fallacy of hast generalization. EXAMPLE "They carbon-dated a snail and it turned out to be 25,000 years old! Carbon dating is totally unreliable!" There are plenty of explanations for why this happened. Snails tend to abdorb minerals that they slide across. The snail in question probably picked up a 25,000 year-old piece of gravel. Furthermore, this doesn't address the fact that other, different dating methods (lke isochronic dating) confirm the majority of carbon-dating estimates. You can't just take one example and run with it. HOW TO SPOT If a widely-accepted practice is disputed by your opponent based on one or two examples, he is probably engaging in the Achilles' Heal fallacy. This may not be the case, though. It all depends on the scenario. If your someone attacks forensic evidence results by saying that the bullet tested was not the same type as the bullet used, then this is not a fallacy. Using a different type of bullet for the purpose of verification would skew the results of the tests. This is pointing out an error in the process which would affect the outcome. The Achilles' Heal fallacy is pointing out an error in merely one of many conclusions. The person would be guilty of the Achilles' Heal fallacy if he said that, because one forensic test turned out wrong, that all other tests must be wrong, as well. HOW TO COUNTER Once you know, for sure, that your opponent is engaging in an Achilles' Heal attack, simply demand that he explain why the majority of incidents which give correct outcomes should be ignored. For added fun, demand that he explain why, if the procedure in question is unreliable, a good deal of correct results were yielded. THE AD HOMINEM ATTACK: The ad hominem simply means attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument, itself. It is the last resort of Creationists whose arguments have been systematically annihilated. When used by a Creationist, these attacks will often incorporate religious bigotry and are almost always used with an appeal to fear. EXAMPLE "You have been blinded by Satan, and you are a creature of the devil. Neither you nor what you say can be trusted. You will rot in Hell for your ways." Very simple. Notice the inclusion of the threat of Hell with the ad hominem. As said above, when a Creationist starts spouting crap like this, you know that you've won. HOW TO SPOT It is important to note the difference between an ad hominem and an insult. An ad hominem seeks to counter an argument based on the the person making it. An insult simply seeks to belittle someone. Insult can be added to a refutation, however. While impolite, the logic preceding the insult may be entirely true. Here is an example of an insult used with logical refutation: TYPICAL CREATIONIST MORON (TCM): The Earth is only 6,500 years old.

ME: No, it's billions of years old [cites evidence]. Oh, and by the way, you smell of kitty litter, and your mother was a female dog of poor breeding. See the difference? I cited evidence, made an argument, and then insulted the TCM. Of course, I'm not saying that insulting is right, but sometimes you just can't help calling a moron a moron. HOW TO COUNTER Inform any observers that your opponent is obviously at a loss to counter your arguments, and happily accept his concession on the point at hand. SHIFTING THE ONUS OF PROOF: This is when your opponent makes a claim, provides no evidence for it, and then expects you to find evidence of it. Your opponent is making the claim, so he should logically have to provide evidence. Shifting the onus (or burden) of proof to you is a fallacy and a very low tactic to engage in. Often, a Creationist will make phantom claims and, then, act like they are common knowledge and he shouldn't have to back them up. EXAMPLE "The Earth was created in seven days by our loving father"

"Evidence?"

"Oh, come on! Everyone knows this, go look it up, if you don't." That is an example of shifting the onus of proof. The opponent wrongfully forces you to do his research for him. He is obviously too lazy to do it, himself. HOW TO SPOT When your opponent starts treating a claim that isn't common knowledge like it is something everyone should know, and you demand proof, only to have him put that task on you, you are having the onus of proof unjustly handed off to you. HOW TO COUNTER Point out that your opponent is the one making the claim, not you. Demand that he provide evidence or conceed the point on the basis of zero evidence provided. THE RED HERRING: This isn't so much a fallacy as it is an evasion tactic. The red herring is similar to a "wild goose chase." When someone leads the debate off on a red herring, they are trying to divert attention away from a particular argument, and toward some inconsequential statement that you may have made, or inventing some tangent to go off on. Creationists often use this when they attack the Big Bang Theory to try and prove evolution wrong. The Big Bang and evolution are completely separate theories, and are not mutually inclusive. The Creationist trying to debate the Big Bang is a red herring. EXAMPLE "Evolution is impossible because the Big Bang is a totally unacceptable theory because it defies the word of our loving Creator, He who sent His only Son, our Lord to...[continue with mindless religious yammering ad infinitum]." The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. If it was proven wrong tomorrow, it wouldn't change the fact that organisms evolve to adapt to their environment, or they die. HOW TO SPOT This one can often be tricky to spot, because your first instinct is to correct the moron's ranting about the Big Bang. Don't let him lead you off on his tangent. Make sure that your opponent has directly addressed your point before proceeding. HOW TO COUNTER Demand that your opponent address your argument. Inform him and all those watching that his response is a simple red herring, meant to divert attention away from arguments that he can't counter.