Thursday, June 28, 2012

Picking Out Errors in Evolutionary Arguments

Both Christians and atheists find evolution highly problematic and troublesome. The inconsistencies and errors are so profound and obvious that those who promote the worldview are forced to hide behind a mirage of rhetoric while they depend on the inability (and unwillingness!) of their audience to see the fallacy behind the facade.

With this in mind, I have found a few books on logic to be extremely helpful, not only in pointing out the fallacies in evolutionary and atheistic arguments, but also in my own.

The first book is Biblical Logic: In Theory and Practice by Joel McDurmon. This is the more thorough of the two as it gives a richer context to logic and right thinking.

The second book is Discerning Truth: Exposing Errors in Evolutionary Arguments by Dr. Jason Lisle. This is a small and easy read. I suggest this book for those who have little time and who are relatively unfamiliar with philosophical language and work.

The one fallacy that I come across most often is the fallacy of reification. Reification is attributing a concrete characteristic to something abstract. Not a few times have I heard someone say, "Science says..." or "The evidence says evolution is true." Evidence and Science are abstract entities that are unable to speak. They do not have an authoritative voice but are subject to the presuppositions, viewpoints, biases and agendas of those who do.

Science does not say anything, scientists do. And most who say that science says this or that, have never really conducted the science themselves, but are merely reading the written words of scientists. They are trusting the words of another.

See any irony here?

By pointing out the fallacy of reification, their position is reduced to a matter of faith. But can the object of their faith be ultimately and absolutely trusted? I will take Christ over Dawkins any day.


No comments:

Post a Comment