Logic: Fallacies of Context

This is the third part of a four part series introducing logical fallacies commonly used by Neo-Darwinists, Evolutionists, and Atheists. To better understand why we should bother to know what these fallacies are, please read the introduction.

The fallacy of false alternative concerns the use of extremes. It attempts to make a case for something that could be stated like “if you’re not with us, you’re against us”, or, “the only possible choice is my choice.” In science, this completely ignores the fundamental goal of scientific inquiry. Those who study evolutionary biology (and believe in a common origin of all life) should be hungry for more data and hypotheses to consider in contrast or comparison with their own. Instead, they completely dismiss and ignore any possible alternative theories. It’s like they are saying, “well OK, we solved that problem, now we can relax”. When in fact the actual physical evidence for the origin of life only as Darwin theorized is completely lacking. Logically, you would think that a scientist whose passion is discovery would be enthusiastically open to new ideas with compelling arguments and evidence to back up those ideas. In the world of the Neo-Darwinist, there is no alternative—hence the false alternative. They make the case for evolution on a grand scale beginning with the extreme of a single progenitor, or common cellular ancestor for all living things. There is no room for consideration or even modification of that theory—which is still theory and based on philosophical conclusions; not scientific ones (since the process cannot be repeated in any type of experiment).

An example of a viable alternative is open dialogue that includes the study of change over time, which all scientists acknowledge, without the necessity of a single-cell ancestry of all life. That is a weak hinge-pin on which their whole case stands—one without hard data (you can’t reproduce history) and a “believe it or leave it” mentality. The Neo-Darwinist excludes anyone in disagreement with their atheistic worldview—not necessarily their science.

In stark contrast, scientists who pursue additional study in the realm of Intelligent Design come from a myriad of perspectives. They bring to the table (or the lab) a sense of exploration and discovery— with an openness to learn that anyone who pursues deeper knowledge must have. Only someone who is teachable can learn new things (duh). Once the Neo-Darwinists closed their minds to alternative theories, they stopped up the very process Darwin himself practiced to develop his theories.