Archive for the ‘logical fallacies in arguments for evolution’ Category

Everything we value — from sugar and sex and money to music and love and religion — we value for reasons

December 16, 2009

Everything we value — from sugar and sex and money to music and love and religion — we value for reasons. Lying behind, and distinct from, our reasons are evolutionary reasons, free-floating rationales that have been endorsed by natural selection.

Daniel Dennett

In other words, all beliefs are held because they have, or had, survival value. Well, not ALL beliefs of course, because, strange to say, Dennett will ensure his beliefs (about beliefs) are safe from this reductionist critique. That is to say if I asked him of his beliefs about evolution are not true but merely enabled our ancestors to survive he would grant immunity for this privileged belief.

If the idea of evolution is another of those ‘evolutionary reasons’ – then why believe it?

Fallacious Reasoning for Evolution

August 17, 2009

In defending natural selection, for example, the well-known molecular biologist Francis Crick repeats Richard Dawkins’s argument that we have through selective breeding produced, in a relatively short period of time, many new varieties of dogs. Why, then, asks Crick, couldn’t the even richer diversity of living beings have come about from a similar process over a period of hundreds of millions of years? Johnson quickly exposes the fallacy here: “Was Crick aware that domestic animal breeding requires a preexisting, purposeful intelligence?” He points to a similar error in the way another scientist defends natural selection by pointing to the process of “evolutionary refinement” that led to the present version of the Corvette. “Of course,” Johnson observes, “every one of those Corvettes was designed by engineers.”

Richard Mouw, reviewing Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, by Phillip E. Johnson (InterVarsity, 132 pp.; $15.99, hardcover; $9.99, paper). Reviewed by Richard J. Mouw, president, Fuller Theological Seminary.