AIG’s Logic: Prepare To Lose Your Mind

The article we’re writing about is probably the all-time worst. Really. No exaggeration. It’s found at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of young-earth creationist wisdom. AIG is the online ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the creationist Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia. He also brought you the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum.

AIG’s mind-warping essay is titled Circular Reasoning. Forewarning: They like circular reasoning. They use it. They recommend it. Their article begins with what they say is a question someone sent in to them:

[I]n a recent discussion with a non-Christian, where I was using presuppositional apologetics, I was accused of using circular reasoning to argue my case. He claims that it is invalid to assume God exists to argue that God exists. On the surface, this seems to make sense. But I still firmly believe that it’s valid to presuppose that God exists.

How should I respond to his claims that my arguments are invalid due to circular reasoning?

The questioner said he was relying on this article at AIG: What Is “Presuppositional” Apologetics? You can read that if you like, but in a nutshell, this is what it says:

[P]resuppositional apologetics is a reasoned defense of Christian beliefs based on recognizing our presuppositions. For instance, my presupposition is that God exists and He has given us His Word (the Bible) that is absolute truth. … If we start off believing the Bible is the Word of God [scripture omitted], then we use it as our axiom. An axiom (often used in logic) is a proposition that is not susceptible to proof or disproof; its truth is assumed. … The battle is not over evidence but over philosophical starting points: presuppositions.

So the question put to AIG is whether their “presuppositional apologetics” amounts to nothing more than circular reasoning. Good question. Your Curmudgeon’s answer is that presupposing the existence of God can be taken on faith and used as an axiom in one’s religion. But although the religion is based on the assumption of God’s existence, it doesn’t prove God’s existence — claiming otherwise would be circular reasoning. This is simple stuff.

But you didn’t come here for our thinking on the question. Here are some excerpts from AIG’s answer, with bold font added by us:

The common accusation that the presuppositionalist uses circular reasoning is actually true. In fact, everyone uses some degree of circular reasoning when defending his ultimate standard (though not everyone realizes this fact). Yet if used properly, this use of circular reasoning is not arbitrary and, therefore, not fallacious.

Aaaargh!! Circular reasoning is always fallacious, in the sense of starting with an axiom and then basing an argument upon it to “prove” that the axiom is true. Let’s read on:

Contrary to what your non-Christian friend said, circular reasoning is surprisingly a valid argument. The conclusion does follow from the premises.

Aaaargh!! Yes, the conclusion “follows from” the premises, but it doesn’t prove the premises. We continue:

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy only when it is arbitrary, proving nothing beyond what it assumes.

Well, okay. But that’s a sloppy definition of circular reasoning. Here’s more:

However, not all circular reasoning is fallacious. Certain standards must be assumed. Dr. Jason Lisle gave this example of a non-arbitrary use of circular reasoning:

Without laws of logic, we could not make an argument.
We can make an argument.
Therefore, there must be laws of logic.

Aaaargh!! That is nothing more than a demonstration (clumsily worded) that logic is an essential axiom, which must be posited (without proof) in order to proceed with any argument.

That ghastly syllogism has a footnote to something written by Jason. We’ve posted about a couple of his articles in which he describes his scriptural logic, and from those posts you’ll get the full flavor of how he thinks — if you really want to know. See Creationist Wisdom — Example 56 and also Creationism and Logic. Moving along, the article comments — erroneously — on Jason’s brilliant syllogism:

While this argument is circular, it is a non-fallacious use of circular reasoning. Since we couldn’t prove anything apart from the laws of logic, we must presuppose the laws of logic even to prove they exist. In fact, if someone were trying to disprove that laws of logic exist, he’d have to use the laws of logic in his attempt, thereby refuting himself. Your non-Christian friend must agree there are certain standards that can be proven with circular reasoning.

That’s just flat-out stupid. It’s entirely true that the laws of logic are an essential axiom (if they were not, they nevertheless would be, because only logic rules out contradictions). But logic is not self-proving via circular reasoning. Logic is an essential axiom (there are a few others) but it is not an example of “good” circular reasoning. There aren’t any of those. Another excerpt:

Your basic presupposition — God exists and has revealed Himself in His inerrant, authoritative Word — is the ultimate standard.

The ultimate standard for Christian theology he should say. One could just as arbitrarily posit the existence of the Olympian gods and proceed from there. On with the article:

Presupposing God exists to argue that God exists is a reasonable circular argument because without the God of the Bible, we have no basis for assuming the laws of logic and their properties, let alone absolute morality or the uniformity of nature.

Aaaargh!! The article goes on and on (building on that shaky foundation) so we’ll give you just one more excerpt as a sample of what awaits you when you click over there to read it all for yourself, without our benevolent guidance:

Science itself requires the biblical God. Without the uniformity of nature, which can only be explained by God consistently upholding the universe, science would be a guessing game.

We’ve got to stop. Besides, we discussed that sort of thing in the second of our two earlier posts on Jason’s logic, to which we linked above. We don’t want to go through that again. Creationists should never lecture us on logic. It’s utterly alien to their nature.

Okay now, if you decide to read the whole AIG essay, you do so at your own risk. We’ll close with a bit of our own circular reasoning:

Self-Proving Truth Certificate

Everything written by the Curmudgeon in this blog is true. The presence of this Certificate is your proof. Our logic is undeniable.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Texas’s 2011 Creationism Bill: Probably Dead

Creationist bill, road kill

We are boldly making this prediction a couple of days early. This is Friday, 27 May. The Texas legislature is scheduled to adjourn on Monday, 30 May. There’s not much time for anything to happen that might affect the bill that concerns us.

We’re talking about what we first reported here: Texas’s First Creationism Bill for 2011. It’s Bill Zedler‘s handiwork, HB 2454 . It was filed on 08 March 2011, and nothing has happened since it was assigned to the Higher Education Committee on 14 March. No hearings, no votes, no co-sponsors — nothing. Nor is there a companion bill in the state Senate.

Well, let’s be fair. Zedler’s bill did get some support — from WorldNetDaily. See: WND Supports Zedler’s Bill. And he got some press coverage on the subject. See: Is Bill Zedler the Dumbest Man in Texas?

In case you’ve forgotten, Zedler’s tragically misguided bill provided:

An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member’s or student’s conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.

As we said in our first post about it:

Zedler’s bill isn’t one of those sneaky “academic freedom” jobs that claim to promote “critical thinking” by teaching the “strengths and [alleged] weaknesses” of evolution. No, this bill is a splendid example of straightforward, full-frontal idiocy. It forthrightly says exactly what it means — and nobody needs to lie about the bill’s purpose. For that, Zedler is to be commended. He is one of the rarest of all creatures on this earth — an honest creationist politician. He’s also hopelessly ignorant and possibly insane, but at least he isn’t trying to fool anyone.

That’s still our opinion. And if Zedler is back in the legislature next year, he’ll probably introduce the same bill again. That’s how it is with creationists. Their ignorance is incurable.

We could be wrong, but we feel we’re on safe ground in predicting that Zedler’s silly bill is dead — for this session. If we’re correct, Texas will join several other states that have failed to pass creationism bills this year.

Such bills have died in Florida, in Kentucky, in Missouri, in New Mexico, in Tennessee, and probably in Oklahoma (that was Kern’s bill, although two others are still pending; but the legislature is scheduled to adjourn today, 27 May).

No other creationism bills are pending in any other states. Not everything has gone our way this year, but we take pleasure in reporting that, on balance, it’s been a very bad year for the creationists.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Discovery Institute: Ecstasy Over Louisiana #2

Our title was selected to remind you of what we posted three years ago: Discovery Institute — Ecstasy Over Louisiana (now Part 1).

We posted that in 2008 when Louisiana became the only state in the US to pass an anti-science, anti-evolution, pro-creationism “Academic Freedom” law modeled after the Academic Freedom Act promoted by the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).

That law was misleadingly named the Louisiana Science Education Act (the “LSEA”). The legislature passed it almost unanimously — a fine example of bi-partisan ignorance. The bill was promoted in that state by the Discoveroids’ accomplices, the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), run by Rev. Gene Mills, and it was signed by the state’s ambition-crazed governor, Bobby Jindal, the Exorcist.

Many of you remember how the Discoveroids went into a wild frenzy of celebration when the LSEA was passed in Louisiana. They posted at least five celebratory articles at their creationist blog. They’re all linked in “Part 1″ which we mentioned at the start of this post. The LSEA was the jewel in the the Discoveroids’ crown. Aside from a few pseudo-science books and creationist documentaries, it was all they had to show for the millions they had spent promoting their theocratic wedge strategy.

Bear in mind that the LSEA is far more important to the Discoveroids than, say, Ken Ham’s Creation Museum is to ol’ Hambo. That goofy museum, after all, is merely a privately-owned attraction for fools. Louisiana is a state! Think about that. They have police and prisons, they collect taxes, they have all the coercive apparatus of government at their command — and those instruments are in the hands of creationists. Hambo has his silly amusement park, but that requires voluntary visitors; the Discoveroids are tantalizingly close to ruling a Tenth Century fiefdom.

They almost lost it when some particularly unrestrained morons on the school board in Livingston Parish publicly declared their intention to use their power under the LSEA to teach raw creationism in science class, (see: Bruce Chapman’s Louisiana Damage Control), but the Discoveroids were able to calm things down while staying in the background.

Their glorious achievement was again threatened by Zachary Kopplin, a high school senior, with his Campaign to Repeal Louisiana’s Creationism Law, but the Discoveroids’ discipline has once again paid off. As you now know, yesterday the Louisiana Creationism Repeal Failed in Committee.

With that background, we can appreciate what has just been posted at the Discoveroids’ blog: Louisiana Preserves Science Education Act That Encourages Academic Freedom to Discuss Criticisms of Darwinism. To our delight it’s by Casey Luskin, everyone’s favorite creationist, and apparently the only one who is not a Discoveroid “fellow.” Casey says, with bold font added by us:

Yesterday the Louisiana State Senate Education Committee voted 5-1 to kill SB 70, a bill intended to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA). … It is the first Academic Freedom law passed in the nation to protect public school teachers who teach students to think critically (read: scientifically) on controversial scientific topics like Darwinian evolution.

Yes, it’s “the first Academic Freedom law passed in the nation.” Where will the madness strike next? Let’s read on:

Before voting down SB 70 the Committee heard testimony from both sides. Predictably, opponents of the LSEA who wanted it repealed repeatedly talked about “creationism,” “creationism,” and also “creationism.” [Links omitted.] LSEA-critics didn’t quote from the law, and completely ignored the fact that the law prohibits any advancement of religion in the science classroom.

Casey refers to the transparently disingenuous Section 7 of the Discoveroids’ model Academic Freedom Act, which is found in the LSEA. Some version of that is in all the similar laws introduced (so far unsuccessfully) in various state legislatures. We’ve commented on it before, saying that if such bills really had a secular scientific purpose, the Discoveroids and their useful idiots in various legislatures wouldn’t be promoting them. We also said:

The “cloaking device” clause is nonsensical, self-referential language that attempts to tell the courts how to construe the bill. … The ridiculous “Hey, Judge: Here’s how to construe this law” section of such bills is comparable to a suicide-bomber’s explosive-laden vest being sewn with a tag saying: “Attention Bomb Squad Coroner: The deceased wearer of this garment should not be construed to be a suicide bomber.”

What else does Casey tell us? He recites some of the testimony of the creationist witnesses, which we imagine was scripted in Seattle. Thrilling stuff. Then he concludes with this:

LSEA critics are living proof why we need the law, because they refuse to admit that there is a scientific debate one evolution, and instead denigrate and deny the existence of those who are scientific skeptics of neo-Darwinism.

Thankfully, Louisiana legislators saw through the talking points of the Louisiana Darwin lobby and realized that the LSEA is necessary to protect sound science education.

So there you are, dear reader. Louisiana remains firmly in Discoveroid hands, and there is rejoicing in Seattle. It’s pretty much what we expected.

Oh wait — just as we were about to hit the “Publish” button we spotted yet another Discoveroid post on the same subject. This one is by John West: Scientists Issue Letter Supporting Louisiana Science Education Act. Check it out and look at the list of distinguished signatories. Geniuses all!

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Louisiana Creationism Repeal Fails in Committee

We have bad news. You can read about it in the Advocate, the major newspaper in Louisiana’s capitol city of Baton Rouge.

Their story is titled: Senate panel refuses rollback of evolution law The headline pretty much tells the tale. Here are some excerpts:

A state Senate committee Thursday afternoon rejected a bill that would repeal a 2008 law that critics say could change the way evolution is taught in public school classrooms. The measure, Senate Bill 70, failed in the Senate Education Committee. The vote was one for the repeal and five opposed after nearly two hours of discussion.

[...]

State Sen. Karen Peterson, D-New Orleans and sponsor of the bill, said the law allows the replacement of accepted scientific theories “with fiction and conjecture” and hurts Louisiana’s academic and business reputation. “It is fundamentally embarrassing to have the law on the books,” Peterson told the committee in closing comments just before the vote.

[...]

The lone “yes” vote for the repeal bill was state Sen. Yvonne Dorsey, D-Baton Rouge. Those voting “no” were state Sens. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa and chairman of the committee; Conrad Appel, R-Metairie; Julie Quinn, R-Metairie; Jack Dona-hue, R-Mandeville and Gerald Long, R-Winnfield. The bill was then shelved without objection.

That’s the way it goes. For background on all of this, see: 41 Nobel Laureates for Repeal. But who cares about Nobel Prize winners? Teach the controversy!

Louisiana retains its standing as the most ignorantly-governed state in the US.

To the supporters of the repeal bill, especially Zack Kopplin, we say it was a good cause and you gave it a good try. But there’s a lesson to be learned here: Politicians don’t know and don’t care about science; they’re motivated only by votes and money. Always remember: Don’t bring a slide rule to a knife fight.

Update: See Discovery Institute: Ecstasy Over Louisiana #2.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article