A Logic Lesson from AIG

This appears without an author’s byline at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. The title is “It’s Here, so It Must Have Evolved”. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

A conclusion does not prove the premises are true. That is, if the answer is “four,” we could arrive at that any number of ways: 2 + 2, 5 – 1, etc. In the same way, evolutionists often assume that since certain species or traits exist, this is proof of evolution because that’s how it must have happened.

Yes, that’s exactly how we all do it. But AIG thinks it’s flawed. They say:

This argument, however, is self-reflexive and useless. The Bible offers another (and more sound) framework for how those traits and species came to be.

Creationists are much more logical than we are. They tell us:

An evolutionist with this argument commits the fallacy of begging the question. Since he assumes what he is trying to prove — how we got here — he uses circular reasoning. The argument is fallacious because it’s arbitrary. A creationist could just as easily respond, “It’s here, so it must have been created.”

But isn’t that exactly what creationists do? AIG continues with a big quote from Jason Lisle. We’ve already posted about his method — see: Jason Lisle: The Logic of Faith, and also AIG’s Logic: Prepare To Lose Your Mind. Moving along:

Molecules-to-man evolution is built on anti-biblical assumptions. Therefore, creationists can challenge those assumptions and expose evolution as a philosophy made up by man as an alternative to the historical account of the Bible, which claims to be the Word of the Creator God.

No circular reasoning there! Let’s read on:

God is not pleased by the foolish unbelief of those who reject the ultimate standard of His Word [Skipping some bible stuff]. People cling to ideas like evolution because their hearts are hard, preferring their sin rather than submission to the Lord.

The rest of it is more bible quotes. So there you are, dear reader. All your logical fallacies have been exposed, and now you see that you have been a fool!

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

13 responses to “A Logic Lesson from AIG

  1. Michael Fugate

    That sounds like exactly the same argument in Robert Haggard’s book you noted yesterday – we should assume the Bible is true and work to fit the natural world into its assertions. For instance, God made light before stars, therefore light is independent of stars. The sun is only a marker for a day, it is not actually the source of daylight. If the sun were to disappear, there is no need to worry as God will continue providing light and heat as appropriate.
    Science is for those who don’t believe.

  2. Scientific articles which support evolution have been unduly influenced by listening to the serpent.

  3. Well count me as one of the fools. Evolution, with all the evidence for it from molecules to fossils, makes a lot more sense than contradictory ancient texts assembled as the history of a particular people. Tangible, verifiable evidence of special creation simply doesn’t exist. Guess that’s the problem.

  4. Michael Fugate

    “A creationist could just as easily respond, “It’s here, so it must have been created.””
    Which is all they ever do.

  5. According to baraminology, the Bible speaks of “kinds”, and there is no mention of species. Therefore, there is nothing about how species came to be.

  6. “A conclusion does not prove the premises are true.”
    Briljant! Now only if Ol’Hambo and all other creacrappers would apply this to their own favourite conclusions. For example when Ol’Hambo or one of his cronies writes

    “An evolutionist with this argument”
    he (she?) already violates it. No evolutionary biologist ever argued that the simple fact of species or traits existing prove Evolution Theory.

    “Molecules-to-man evolution is built on anti-biblical assumptions.”
    Yawn. Just another creacrap lie.

    @TomS once again makes the mistake of trying to catch a creacrapper while using logic: “Therefore, there is nothing about how species came to be.”
    Yeah. That’s why creacrappers accept hyperaccelerated microevolution and carefully avoid to specify what they mean with “kinds”. It’s the same trick that Haggard fool used, as pointed out by MichaelF.

  7. Yes, they accept accelerated microevolution, but that is without Scriptural or, by their standards, without logical basis. There are species of cats today, and argue that therefore there was microevolution of cats from the cat kind.
    Let me also point out that there is no Scriptural reference to man kind, let alone to a species of humans. The transition from molecules to man is observed in reproduction, embryology, growth and metabolism.

  8. “but that is without ….”
    As if any creacrapper cares. Gen.1:26 and Gen.6:19 is all he/she needs. Add a few lies and you get


    One of the first lies is

    “And frankly, the word species is difficult to define, whether one is a creationist or not!”
    It’s not difficult at all to define the word species. The problem is that it works most and not all of the time. Again – as if any creacrapper cares.

  9. Oh, plus the calculations of one Bishop Ussher of course, if the creacrapper is also a YECer.

  10. Bishop Ussher is not the only calculator of Biblical chronology. There are: the traditional Hebrew calendar, as well as others based on the Masoretic Text. And others based on the variant texts, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Greek Septuagint.

  11. I just read this headline from a major news source and had to share it. Whoever wrote the headline is clearly an advocate of AIG educational methods.
    “The Latest: Russia says 30,000 flea besieged east Ghouta”

  12. A conclusion does not prove the premises are true. That is, if the answer is “four,” we could arrive at that any number of ways: 2 + 2, 5 – 1, etc. In the same way, evolutionists often assume that since certain species or traits exist, this is proof of evolution because that’s how it must have happened.

    Well, to start with, two plus two does equal four, and the fact that you can get four by adding different numbers (or by subtraction) is irrelevant.

    As for evolution, Darwin started with observations, not with the “assumption” of evolution, and subsequent observations in many different fields have served to support his ideas. What creationists never acknowledge is that the scientific world started with an assumption that the Bible, and therefore Genesis, is true, and was persuaded by evidence, not by some supposed hostility to holy writ, to abandon that assumption. If evolution were easy to disprove, as creationists keep insisting it is, the theory would probably have been junked in the 1860s.

    The only reason creationism hasn’t been flushed down the toilet as it deserves is that in the end it doesn’t need real evidence, just faith in the Bible as the inerrant and literal Word of God, a premise inherently unfalsifiable and thus non-scientific.

  13. What we know about the world of nature are not proved. They are not necessary truths, like theorems in Euciidean geometry. The periodic table or thermodynamics are arrived at by a combination of observations and reasoning.
    They are not arrived at by imaginary interpretation of Scripture, to be sure.