YOUR Curmudgeon once again brings you the view from Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of creationist wisdom. They have recently posted a bizarre article at their website: Feedback: Not Sound Logic?
The article is by Jason Lisle, whose creationist writings are familiar to our readers. He’s described at AIG’s website as a Creationist Astrophysicist — whatever that is. As we’ve noted before, AIG has an entire page devoted to information about this amazing man: Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D. Note that a reference to his doctorate appears both before and after his name. That is how we shall refer to him.
This latest article by Dr. Lisle, Ph.D. presents us with a challenging task, because it’s the most contorted articles that are the most difficult to write about. It begins with a letter Lisle claims to have received, which seems to us to make a good point. We added the bold font:
I normally enjoy Answers In Genesis, and I definitely appreciate your ministry. However, I do have one pet peeve. From the latest feedback:
“Logic, truth, morality, knowledge, and science all stem from a biblical worldview, and only a biblical worldview. This does not mean that one must believe the Bible in order to believe in these things, but it does mean that the Bible must be true in order for one to use these things.”
This just doesn’t make sense, and frankly, it makes us look bad.
Specifically, I have a problem with saying: “the Bible must be true in order for one to use these things.”
Here are a few excerpts from the answer given by Dr. Lisle, Ph.D., with bold font added by us:
[N]one of these things have rational justification apart from the biblical worldview. God Himself has indicated in His Word that knowledge begins with Him (Proverbs 1:7) [The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction] and is not possible apart from Him (Colossians 2:3) [in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge].
Okay, that settles it. Right? Regarding the comment that “it makes us look bad,” Dr. Lisle, Ph.D. says:
We shouldn’t really be too concerned about “looking bad” to the world. Rather we should be concerned about teaching what is true, and acting in obedience to the Word of God. Besides, to date, no evolutionist has been able to refute this argument. They can mock all they want. But they cannot argue against the biblical worldview.
Responding to the questioner’s statement that he has a problem with saying: “the Bible must be true in order for one to use these things,” Dr. Lisle, Ph.D. says:
Actually, it is sound. It is valid (the form of the argument is correct — usually phrased as a modus tollens), and the premises are true. 1. If the Bible were not true, logic would not be meaningful. 2. Logic is meaningful. 3. Therefore, the Bible is true. The first premise is usually further defended by illustrations of the impossibility of the contrary.
Whoa! To begin with, that is not the form of a modus tollens argument. Wikipedia gives the proper form:
If P, then Q.
¬Q
Therefore, ¬P
As Wikipedia correctly explains it:
The argument has two premises. The first premise is the conditional “if-then” statement, namely that P implies Q. The second premise is that Q is false. From these two premises, it can be logically concluded that P must be false.
A typical classroom example, fleshing out the Ps and Qs, is this:
If it’s raining, then the streets will be wet. (If P, then Q.)
The streets are not wet. (Not Q)
Therefore, it’s not raining. (Therefore, not P.)
If the premises are true in an argument of this form, then so is the conclusion.
Ignoring the invalid form of Dr. Lisle, Ph.D.’s argument, consider his first premise — which he asserts is true. “If the Bible were not true, logic would not be meaningful.” Putting that in more graceful language, it’s this: “If the Bible were false, logic would not be meaningful.” Is that premise true?
Of course not! Logic functions independently of scripture. Aristotle was the first to describe the laws of logic, and there’s no evidence that he relied on the scriptures of a far-away people in the Persian empire. Even if the form of Lisle’s argument were valid, a false premise makes the conclusion worthless. The conclusion in Lisle’s syllogism is: “Therefore, the Bible is true.”
Further, because Dr. Lisle, Ph.D. blithely asserts the truth of his premise (“If the Bible were not true, logic would not be meaningful.”) why does he even bother to construct his shoddy syllogism? He’s already assumed what he purports to prove.
Finally, Dr. Lisle, Ph.D. claims: “The first premise is usually further defended by illustrations of the impossibility of the contrary.”
But he doesn’t give us any illustrations. We doubt that he has any. Or if he does, they are undoubtedly of the same quality as his syllogism.
Thus, the entire AIG article is pseudo-logical gobbledegook, which is exactly what we expect of creationists.
Update: See Creationism and Logic, Part 2.
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
Well, the logic part is a bit of a non sequiter, isn’t it? The Bible and logic have almost nothing to do with each other. Might as well say, ” If cats are not hairless, then toast isn’t crunchy. Since toast is crunchy, then cats have hair.” It makes as much sense. Why is it that whenever a creationist tries his hand at logic, he inevitably gets the form correct but nothing else?
Albanaeon says: “Well, the logic part is a bit of a non sequiter, isn’t it?”
Creationists love to claim the prestige of science and logic. But all the while they’re striving to destroy both.
Don’t you just love it when Creationists try to use logic?
1. If evolution was not true, logic would not be meaningful. 2. Logic is meaningful. 3. Therefore, evolution is true.
1. If the Bible were not true, evolution would not be meaningful. 2. Evolution is meaningful. 3. Therefore, the Bible is true.
1. If atheism was not true, logic would not be meaningful. 2. Logic is meaningful. 3. Therefore, atheism is true.
Gee! One can plug in all sorts of stuff into Dr. Lisle, Ph.D.’s construct and come up with any conclusion one wants.
RogerE says: “One can plug in all sorts of stuff into Dr. Lisle, Ph.D.’s construct and come up with any conclusion one wants.”
Dr. Lisle, Ph.D. wouldn’t know a syllogism from a detergent jingle.
The point to be drawn from Roger’s post, I think, isn’t about “creationist logic” but about logic itself. Correctness of logical form (i.e. validity) tells us nothing about the truth of the premises. Constructing a valid argument is easy. Lisle’s error lies in perpetuating the illusion that logic can do more than what it can do.
Logic, by definition, is not meaningful.
It’s a set of rules for manipulating statements.
Since logic is not meaningful, the Bible isn’t true, according to Dr Lisle Ph.D logic.
All this is giving me a headache. Let’s just agree they’re nuts, and let it go at that.
Gabriel Hanna said: “Logic, by definition, is not meaningful.”
Not according to some of these clowns. I had a day long argument with a guy who was convinced that logic was the ultimate truth to the universe, and that implied an ultimate logician. That logic was more of a useful construct for us than some ultimate meaning was completely beyond him.
Answers in Genesis is a reservoir of pathetic stupidity. Doctor Jason Lisle, Ph.D. is their poster child.
But, they make a nice income fleecing the army of pasty-faced and brainless fundies that somehow make their way to the AiG website each day.
retiredsciguy: “All this is giving me a headache. Let’s just agree they’re nuts, and let it go at that.”
They may be nuts, but that must have a selective advantage. What I see are intelligent critics taking them seriously, painstakingly dissecting their “logic,” and yet letting them get way with the worst part. “The Bible is true” itself is completely meaningless unless those who claim that can agree on what it means – but they do not. AiG’s “heliocentric YEC” is a compromise, specifically designed to get geocentrists and OECs to change some of their opinion so that all Biblical literalists could have one story and stick to it. But the strategy failed because many literalists refused to budge. So they went to plan B, and that’s working beautifully.
I often force myself to view these “debates” in the eyes of someone with little knowledge or interest in science, but not one who is not hopelessly convinced that evolution is wrong. IOW I imagine myself as roughly half of adult Americans. When I do that I see this “tech talk” that only lends credibility to the what appears to be a single, contradictory “theory.” I can understand, if not approve of, how so many people still think it’s “fair” to teach “both sides.”
I’d like to hear much more of “So please elaborate on how those other creationists who claim that the Bible is true are just as wrong as we ‘Darwinists’ are.”
Although it pains me to say it, I believe that the Curmudgeon has overegged the pudding in his criticism of Lisle’s syllogism. It seems to me that the syllogism is in fact valid. The valid argument form known as modus tollens can be set forth thus: (1) If P then Q; (2) it is not the case that Q; (3) therefore it is not the case that P. Let P be “the Bible is not true” and Q be “logic is not meaningful”. Plugging those into the modus tollens form we get: (1’) If the Bible is not true then logic is not meaningful; (2’) it is not the case that logic is not meaningful; (3’) therefore it is not the case that the Bible is not true.
Premiss (1’) is in effect Lisle’s first premiss. Because the nots cancel out, premiss (2’) is equivalent to “logic is meaningful”, which is Lisle’s second premiss. Likewise, the conclusion (3’) is equivalent to “the Bible is true”, which is Lisle’s conclusion.
However, formal validity is not enough: in order to be sound an argument must also have true premisses. Fortunately for our peace of mind, Lisle’s first premiss is false, which renders his argument unsound. Lisle appears to have studied some elementary logic and is plainly intelligent enough to understand the basics thereof, but his insistence on viewing the world through the distorting lenses of his peculiar brand of “Biblical glasses” commits him to uttering arrant nonsense.
MikeTheObscure says: “… I believe that the Curmudgeon has overegged the pudding in his criticism of Lisle’s syllogism.”
You’re right; Lisle’s syllogism can be reduced to proper form if we let his “nots” cancel out. It’s possible that the convoluted structure of his argument wasn’t the product of incompetence; it may have been deliberate. Had he written things more simply, the absurdity of his position would have been immediately apparent. Stripped of the double negatives, his syllogism is this:
1. If the bible is false then logic is worthless.
2. Logic is not worthless.
3. Therefore the bible isn’t false.
That is modus tollens, but it still has a false premise, so it’s nothing but a creationist mantra.
Addendum: I still maintain that Lisle’s syllogism wasn’t in proper form, because in modus tollens, the second premise negates the conclusion of the first “If P then Q” premise.
If cows do not produce gin, then the moon does not orbit the earth.
The moon orbits the earth.
Therefore, cows produce gin.
In terms of logic, this argument is “logically valid”. However, the first premise is false. So the argument is not a sound argument. (It’s a trivial matter to generate logically valid arguments that are false because the first argument asserts an implication that is false.)
Lisle has merely asserted that “If the Bible were not true, logic would not be meaningful.” Of course, since – using the example of Lisle’s own background belief (that the Bible teaches that the universe and the earth have not been in existence for more than several thousand years) – the Bible is not true. And we also know that logic is meaningful. So we know that the first premise is false, using Lisle’s own presuppositions.
Now, you would think that a man like Jason Lisle would know something as simple as this (that logical validity is prerequisite for soundness, but not sufficient to establish the truth of the argument), but apparently not. Note that the literature of fundamentalist Christian is permeated with puffing themselves up with this kind of rhetoric, trying to make themselves feel good about their beliefs being so intelligent in a society that looks down on such fundamentalist beliefs for not being very intelligent. Which is why it’s ironic, in how the very act of trying to appear intelligent demonstrates that they are incompetent in trying to use rationality to justify their religious beliefs.
Steve Greene says:
That’s one of the reasons I urge people never to get into live debates with creationists. Either they don’t have what it takes, or they do but they’re willing to lie. Either way, debate is ridiculous. I’s worth the effort to debunk their arguments, but not face-to-face.
Curmudgeon: “It’s worth the effort to debunk their arguments, but not face-to-face.”
Sure, but it’s also worth the effort to remind others for whom it is not trivially obvious (as it is to those of us who pay close attention to creationist antics) that, even if they were right that evolution fails or that some designer did something, nothing about that supports any of the mutually contradictory creationist positions. Ane even if it did support one it would be only one. All the rest would still be dead as door nails.
What ought to (but doesn’t) add insult to their injury is that there’s absolutely nothing special aboyt the helocentric YEC compromise that would make it the best candidate by any stretch of the imagination. It is merely the most sucessful meme, and wasn’t even that a century ago.