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.

Ray, Open Your Eyes

Ray said on his WDAY appearance that claiming there is no evidence of God is like trying to point out the Sun to a man who has his eyes closed.

Ray's blindness to evolution, though, is even more profound than the man who has his eyes closed to the Sun. The Sun is only visible for half a day. The evidence of evolution, though, is visible all day long via the Internet. No transitional fossils? No progress since Darwin? No observed instances of species-to-species transformation? Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution?

Ray, open your eyes! If you want to take the evidence of evolution and then continue to say evolution is false, go ahead and do that -- as you did with light being invisible. But at least take the evidence of evolution. Could you please point to the passage in the Bible that says it's not okay for someone to lie, unless his name is Ray Comfort? Or the passage that lying for Jesus isn't lying? Your credibility is destroyed by your countless documented instances of dishonesty.

And we're supposed to take your blog to be Atheist Central? While many atheists descend on it trying to inject truth and rationality, perhaps it is more aptly named Ignorance Central. It is your one stop shop for justifying ignorance. You creationists who lie and say there is no evidence for evolution and the big bang are no better than your fellow creationists who lie and say there is no evidence for the theory of relativity or the heliocentric model -- all because you have a book written by men who lived in a time millenia before the rise of modern science, much less classical antiquity.

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

Atheist Finsher Kit

I was going to post a response to the laudable laughable Atheist Starter Kit, but then realized my fellow atheists people who pretend there is no God already beat me to the punch, many times over:

• The Strawman Atheist Starter Kit by k3vin at Heathenz
• Response to Ray Comfort by Hessenroots at Atheist Nexus
• Ray Comfort's Atheist Starter Kit by thethyme at The Thyme's
• Atheist Starter Kit by Lance Christian Johnson at The Raytractors
• Fundamentalist Christian Starta Kit by Dale-possessed-by-the-Ranting-Student at The Raytractors
• How to be a mindless, bigoted, stereotypical christian - just like Ray Comfort. (A Rebuttal to "The Atheist Starter Kit.") by Maragon at The Raytractors

Perhaps, I'll do a Strawman Starter Kit and put it in the right hand side.

(See the time for this post? I think it's a sign from God.)

Epic Evidence of Ray's Dishonesty

You can now refer to DisComforting Ignorance's Annals of Ray's Dishonesty -- now with thirteen entries since this blog's inception.

A reader writes:

Ray, I'm sensing you were either too lazy or too scared to listen to Dr. Myers' turn on the radio.

If not why haven't you responded?

To this, Ray replies:

[REv...you mean the guy who was a no-show at the last moment. He was supposed to debate me. I wonder why he didn't show up? Do I smell chicken? Afraid of banana man :).]

This is regarding his and PZ's recent appearances on WDAY.

The Timeline
August 1: PZ announces that he and Ray will be debating intelligent design on WDAY.
August 4: PZ announces that the format of the show has been changed.
August 4: The producer comments on the change of format.
August 5: PZ posts a running commentary of Ray's appearance.
August 5: Ray appears on WDAY.
August 6: PZ appears on WDAY.
August 7: Ray claims PZ was a "chicken" and a "no-show at the last moment."

At first, I wanted to give Ray the benefit of the doubt... perhaps he wasn't informed that the producer changed the format to have PZ on the next day. Reason and evidence (those pesky things), however, reveal that's not the case.

The Reason
Let's assume Ray was not informed that the format of the show changes. He shows up or calls in to the station ahead of time to check in and waits to be brought on. Assuming the station had not notified him yet, are we to believe they didn't inform him then? Further, that he didn't make any comments to the station about the debate or about PZ's whereabouts?

Let's assume further, then, that neither of that took place. The station failed to notify him a day ahead of time -- even though they obviously notified PZ at least a day ahead of time -- and they failed to notify him when he showed up/called in and he did not make any comments about the debate or PZ which would have caused the station to reveal he was not there, and why. Okay, let's assume that's the case. Assuming that, are we then to believe that, during the course of the entire show, he didn't ask "Hey, where is PZ?" Assuming even that, are we to believe, further, that once the show was concluded, he didn't as "Hey, where was PZ?"

And, after all that, he did not even contact the station about it? Reason says: no.

The Evidence
#1: Towards the end of the show after hanging up with a paleontologist, the host says:

By the way we got another guy on tomorrow about this and he's gonna be talking about maybe the other side of it, so we'll have to see. (click here for excerpted audio portion)

So, the host announces PZ (or, at least, "the other side") on the show that Ray is on. Even if we were to assume that Ray had not even been informed yet, the host announces right then that he'd be on the next day.

But there's no reason even to assume that Ray had not been informed yet...

#2: We don't need to rely on reason here, though, as we have evidence of it. PZ was notified ahead of time. So, did they choose to notify PZ ahead of time and not Ray? The producer of the show commented on the change of plans: (emphasis added on selection)

Hello, this is the producer for Ben and Jim in the Morning, the show that was going to have the Ray Comfort/PZ Myers debate. After looking over the responses to Dr. Myers' announcement of the change of plans, I thought I would make a short post answering some of the questions.

Posts numbers 2&8: The decision to change formats from a debate to two separate segments was made this afternoon by myself and the hosts of the show, Ben and Jim. We decided that given the short time available, neither side would be able to construct much in the way of arguments for their respective positions, and it would ultimately be fairer to both sides to give them their own segment to make their case.

As for Mr. Comfort going first, Comfort has a very tight schedule, and Dr. Myers was able to re-schedule easier than Mr. Comfort was. Mr. Comfort will be on the show at ~10:06am CT Tues., Aug. 5th, and Dr. Myers will be on ~10:06am CT Weds., Aug. 6th, each for 20-30 minutes.

We apologize that plans were changed at the last minute, but we still invite you to listen to both Mr. Comfort's and Dr. Myers' respective segments.

Here he indicates that they gave them both the opportunity to re-schedule and PZ had the ability to.

#3: I have contacted the station with Ray Comfort's comments. If and when they reply back to the following message, I will make another post about it:

I understand the original format was to have them both on together (link). PZ informed us that the format had changed (Ray made no mention of it either way beforehand). Ray is now claiming on his blog that PZ Myers ducked out at the last moment on the day he was supposed to be there as he was a chicken. Ray said the following (link):

REv...you mean the guy [Dr. Myers] who was a no-show at the last moment. He was supposed to debate me. I wonder why he didn't show up? Do I smell chicken? Afraid of banana man :).

Could you please comment on this to clear it up? You informed PZ of the change at least a day ahead of time (link). Did you fail to inform Ray Comfort that you had changed the format of the show, or if you did inform him, when? He is apparently claiming that PZ chickened out at the last moment. Was Ray not informed at all, either before or after the show, or is he misrepresenting the truth?