DisComforting Logic: Straw Man

I have proposed a new Raytractors project over at our blog. The goal of this series is to educate people on various logical fallacies using some argument or statement by Ray Comfort as the example. I have chosen this one as it is, yet another, one listed in Ray's new Atheist Starter Kit.

Logical Fallacy: Straw Man
Type: Informal
Source: WDAY Interview
Definition:

Straw man is a very common logical fallacy where you make a version of your opponent's argument which superficially resembles it -- often as an overstatement or a caricature -- and then attribute it to your opponent. You then refute the created straw man argument in place of your opponent's argument.

Ray's Statement/Argument

Click on the Source above to listen to the clip of this transcript.
Everything has to start with something. Evolutionists say there was nothing that created everything. Well that can't be. That's scientifically ludicrous. In the beginning there had to be something, and I say that something was the spirit of God who was immaterial. HE created material. He created this creation.

Summary of Statement/Argument

Evolution states that nothing created everything.
Nothing which is now in existence which wasn't in existence at one point could not have come into existence by itself.
Therefore, evolution is false.

This is an extreme caricature of evolution. In fact, it has nothing at all to do with evolution. Evolution, as it relates to the history of life, states that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor/gene pool. While the origin of life is, obviously, a necessary precursor for evolution, evolutionary theory deals with how the organisms which appeared developed over time. Origin of life is abiogenesis.

Ray's argument seems a more straw for the big bang model; however, here he has attributed it to evolution. If he truly is speaking of the evolution of the universe (which, since the topic was intelligent design, it is unlikely), this is also a straw man. The big bang does not describe anything "before" the big bang. It is a well supported cosmological model of the universe which describes the "evolution" of the universe from an initial condition of infinite density and temperature. It does not state that something was created from nothing, nor "in the beginning, there was nothing, and then it exploded."

Example of Similar Straw Man

Ray argues that first there was nothing, and then God created himself so that he could create creation. But that's ludicrous! You can't have nothing and then have something -- namely an infinite something. That's scientifically impossible.

While this satisfies a straw man argument, I will elaborate even further on this, though, just to make it more interesting (a modified excerpt of The Theist Test). This is about as big of a caricature of creationism as Ray's "nothing created everything" is a caricature of evolutionary theory.

Ray argues that:
Six to ten thousand years ago a human named Jesus popped into existence from nothing and opened a human being factory. The skin and internal meaty parts, including the organs, were made in a laboratory in the back where giant vats were filled to the brim with dust. On the first part of the manufacturing line, a plastic torso mold was lined with skin and filled with the meaty parts for the abdomen and torso. Once that solidified, it passed down to where the legs were bolted to my torso as well as the arms. The head was then fastened to the neck and the head meaty parts were filled in. Once it all solidified, my personality software was loaded in and out I came.

That's ludicrous! I was born over two decades ago after my parents had sexual intercourse which resulted in my biologically growing in my mother's womb for nine months.

Summary of Similar Logical Fallacy

Creationism states that God created himself.
Nothing which is now in existence which wasn't in existence at one point could not have come into existence by itself.
Therefore, creationism is false.

DisComforting Logic: Circular Reasoning

I have proposed a new Raytractors project over at our blog. The goal of this series is to educate people on various logical fallacies using some argument or statement by Ray Comfort as the example. I have chosen this one as it is one listed in Ray's new Atheist Starter Kit.

Logical Fallacy: Circular Reasoning aka Begging the Question
Type: Informal
Source: WDAY Interview
Definition:

Begging the question is an argument where a conclusion is based on a premise which needs as much to be proved as the conclusion itself. Moreover, in circular logic the proposition you are attempting to prove is assumed somewhere in the premises for the conclusion.

Ray's Statement/Argument

Click on the Source above to listen to the clip of this transcript.
You talked about there not being proof [for Intelligent Design creationism]. I think there is absolute scientific 100% evidence for Intelligent Design. Absolutely. And that is you cannot, it is impossible, to have a Creation without a Creator. And I've seen atheists and evolutionists backslide, change their beliefs with this one thought:

I say, "When you look at a painting, how do you know absolutely that there was a painter?" Well, you'll say, "The painting exists. Paintings don't happen by themselves."

When you look at a building, how do you know 100% that there was a builder? Well, the building is absolute proof there was a builder. You cannot have a building without a builder.

And Creation is 100% absolute proof that there was a Creator. You cannot have a Creation without a Creator.

Summary of Statement/Argument

Creation implies a Creator.
Suppose the universe was created.
Therefore there was a Creator.

At face value, there is no problem with his logic. Buildings imply builders; paintings imply painters; creations imply creators. However, the circular logic occurs when he tries to conclude that the universe was created.

He has defined the universe to be creation. Creation is "something that is or has been created." From this, he concludes God exists, because he created the universe... which he had just asserted to be created.

This is the essence of circular logic. His premise, that the universe was created, requires as much proof as proving there is a Creator. The conclusion that there is a Creator, in this argument, is contingent on the universe being created, which he simply asserted as a premise.

Q: "How do you know there is a God?"
A: "Because he created the universe."
Q: "How do you know he created the universe?"
A: "Because universe is creation [something that has been created]." "
Q: "How do you know the universe was created?"
A: "Because God created it. Creation requires a creator!"

Example of Similar Circular Reasoning

You talked about there not being proof for evolution. I think there is absolute scientific 100% evidence for evolution -- without even needing to crack open the volumes of science literature on it. Absolutely. And that is you cannot, it is impossible, to have evolved beings without an evolutionary process. And I've seen Christians and creationists backslide, change their beliefs with this one thought:

I say, "When you look at a painting, how do you know absolutely that there was a painting process?" Well, you'll say, "The painting exists. Paintings don't happen by themselves."

When you look at a building, how do you know 100% that there was a building process? Well, the building is absolute proof there was a building process. You cannot have a building without a building process.

And evolved beings are 100% absolute proof that there was an evolutionary process. You cannot have evolved beings without evolution.

Summary of Similar Logical Fallacy

Evolved beings imply a evolution.
Suppose the beings evolved.
Therefore there was evolution.

See Also
Ray Proved Evolution
Potential Law Skirt
An Eternal Farce

DisComforting Logic: False Analogy

I have proposed a new Raytractors project over at our blog. This will be the prospective post in the DisComforting Logic series -- albeit a lazy one as it is based on my Theist Test. The goal of this series is to educate people on various logical fallacies using some argument or statement by Ray Comfort as the example.

Logical Fallacy: False Analogy
Type: Informal
Source: The Atheist Test
Definition:

An analogy is when you have two proposed things, A and B, similar in some respect(s) and argue that since A has property X, B must also have property X as A and B are assumed similar. A false analogy occurs when they are similar in one respect but do not share the X as a common property.

Ray's Statement/Argument

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."

Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.

Summary of Statement/Argument

Coke cans are like biological organisms.
Coke cans could not have evolved.
Therefore biological organisms could not have evolved.

The false analogy occurs as Coke cans may be similar in some respects (they exist and have functioning components), but that does not warrant the assumption that they had the same origins. Biological organisms are subject to biological processes whereas Coke cans are subject to manufacturing processes.

Example of Similar False Analogy -- "Fallacy of the Pepsi Can"

Decades ago, two Pepsi cans were in close proximity to one another. One's tab grew erect, perpendicular to its can, and penetrated the perforated opening to the second can. In the process, some of the first can's liquid shot through the small opening at the base of the tab into the opening of the second can. Nine months later a miniature Pepsi can was produced. Over time, it grew into a regular sized can and arrived in your hand.

Of course, my theory is an insult to your intelligence. Only a fool would believe in sexual reproduction if sexual reproduction doesn't work for Pepsi cans!

Summary of Similar Logical Fallacy

Pepsi cans are like biological organisms (they exist and have functioning components).
Pepsi cans could not have been sexually reproduced.
Therefore biological organisms could not have been sexually reproduced.

Potential Law Skirt

"I saw your bumper sticker, NATIONAL CREATIONIST DAY APRIL 1ST on a car here in City of Bellflower. I asked the owner if he really believed in the sticker, and he said 'yes.' I told him that I am an creationist, and have been one all my life. He said he would never vote for a creationist for any office, nor trust any creationist. Now, I would like your evolutionary ministry of darkness to give me a good reason for me not filing a lawsuit against you for telling people lies. I am not a fool." -- Ray "Straw Man" DisComfort

Ray,

Thank you for your email. I would love you to file a lawsuit. Here's how I would build my defense:

First, I would say that I can prove that anyone who looks at a building and says that he doesn't believe that there was a building process, is a fool. This is because a building is absolute proof that there was a building process. Buildings don't appear from a magical puff of smoke, from nothing. Only a fool would believe that.

Second, I would say that anyone who looks at a painting and believes that there was no painting process, is a fool. The painting is absolute proof that there as a painting process. Paintings don't appear from a magical puff of smoke, from nothing. Only a fool would believe that.

Then I would say that evolved beings are absolute 100% scientific proof that there was an evolutionary process. An evolved being cannot create itself, from nothing. But that's what the creationist believes--that a magical puff of smoke created everything from nothing. That's a scientific impossibility, and only a fool would believe that.

So, please, go ahead and file the lawsuit, and make it against me personally. My name is Jonathan Thomas, and I live in Dallas, Texas. I freely admit that I am the creator of the bumper sticker. But be warned, at the last minute I may say that the bumper sticker appeared out of a magical puff of smoke, from nothing . . . and appropriately plead insanity.

I await your reply.

......

............

Oh, wait, you mean that I can't simply define things as "evolved beings" and use that to prove there was evolution? Wait... you mean I must first prove that they are evolved beings? That's not what Ray Comfort taught me. He taught me that you can simply define things as "creation" and use that to prove there was a Creator. You mean... he has to first prove that they are creation? Hogwash! And here's why...

An imagined conversation with Ray Comfort, gleaned from his tracts, debates, and interviews

Ray: Creation proves that there was a Creator.
Me: How do you know that it is creation?
Ray: Because the Creator created it.
Me: How do you know there was a Creator, then?
Ray: Because creation is 100% scientific proof that there was a Creator!
Me: But you just used creation to prove there was a Creator to prove there was creation to prove there was a Creator? Isn't that circular logic?
Ray: You fool, atheist! Creation is 100% scientific proof that there was a Creator, just like the fact that we can't see visible light is 100% scientific proof that it is invisible! Read the Bible! Genesis 1 and 2 is proved there was a Creator long before the modern scientific proof of the existence of creation; 1 John 1:5, Revelation 21:23, Colossians 1:15, 1 Timothy 1:17 proved visible light was invisible long before the modern scientific proof of the eye not seeing the "essence" of light.

Others on this topic
* Silent Dave at the Raytractors.

See also
* Ray Proved Evolution

Primates and Tablecloths

While I do not have television at home, I have been enjoying it where I am staying on my trip. I noticed the Kirk Cameron show on some Christian network. I flip to it and thought I'd share the first minute I just watched.

Ray and Kirk are sitting in a restaurant with an orangutan at a table. Apparently they were trying to do some skit where they eat and have a conversation with it. They were unable to as it kept sucking on the tablecloth.

It cuts to Ray and Kirk discussing the problem. Ray goes on something along the following: (purely paraphrasing here)

It reinforced the fact that the primate lacks something unique to humans, such as reason and understanding. This is why we don't see them forming orchestras, or gathering together in a court system to adjudicate disputes. This is because they are not simply a pre-historic, lesser evolved human; they are a different species.

It then cut to Kirk quote-mining the Origin of Species to paint Darwin as a misogynist racist (as if that would at all discredit the scientific theory of evolution...), at which point I changed the channel.

Don't Quote Psalms 14:1

If there is one theist argument or statement that you never had to hear again, what would it be? What is something that is just so shockingly idiotic, ignorant, or asinine that it causes you physical pain; something so wrong and logically flawed that it makes you wonder if they are all parroting from the same source. What would it be? Pascal's Wager? Morals from religion? Arguments from design? Arguments from authority? Atheists claim to know there is no God? Which would you eliminate from the laundry list of statements which induce a head throbbing pain?

I would eliminate Psalms 14:1. If you could find an atheist in America who has never read even a single verse of the Bible, I bet they could recite Psalms 14:1, word-for-word. It is a favorite of Ray's which he brings up at least once a week, as he did in his latest post. It goes something like this:

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

What is going through the minds of people like Ray who quote this at atheists? What conversation do they imagine in their heads?

Atheist: I don't believe there is a God or the Bible being true.
Theist: The Bible says in Psalms 14:1: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
Atheist: What? Really? The Bible says that? It must be true, then. Well, I don't want to be a fool, so I'd better believe the Bible is true and that the Christian God exists.

The inanity is breathtaking.

---

Other Blogs on This Topic

About.com Atheism/Agnosticism (my choice falls under #4)

Ray Proved Evolution

Ray is my hero. His intellect knows no bounds. After all, he came up with a bulletproof argument which proves God:

If there is a building, that proves there was a builder since the building necessitates a builder.
If there is a painting, that proves there was a painter since the painting necessitates a painter.
If there is a car, that proves there was a car maker since the car necessitates a car maker.
Therefore, if there is creation, that proves there was a Creator since the creation necessitates a Creator.

Spot on! Creation necessitates a creator. You have proven it beyond contestation. See, this is why Ray is my hero, being such a source of infallible arguments. As such, I have emulated my hero by using his wise, bulletproof argument to prove evolution. Observe:

If there is a building, that proves there was a building process since the building necessitates a building process.
If there is a painting, that proves there was a painting process since the painting necessitates a painting process.
If there is a car, that proves there was a car making process since the car necessitates a car making process.
Therefore, if there are evolved beings, that proves there was evolution since evolved beings necessitates evolution.

QED.