Abstract
The creationist–evolutionist conflict is perhaps the most significant example of a debate about a well-supported scientific theory not readily accepted by the public. We analyzed creationist texts according to type (young earth creationism, old earth creationism or intelligent design) and context (with or without discussion of “scientific” data). The analysis revealed numerous fallacies including the direct ad hominem—portraying evolutionists as racists, unreliable or gullible—and the indirect ad hominem, where evolutionists are accused of breaking the rules of debate that they themselves have dictated. Poisoning the well fallacy stated that evolutionists would not consider supernatural explanations in any situation due to their pre-existing refusal of theism. Appeals to consequences and guilt by association linked evolutionary theory to atrocities, and slippery slopes to abortion, euthanasia and genocide. False dilemmas, hasty generalizations and straw man fallacies were also common. The prevalence of these fallacies was equal in young earth creationism and intelligent design/old earth creationism. The direct and indirect ad hominem were also prevalent in pro-evolutionary texts. While the fallacious arguments are irrelevant when discussing evolutionary theory from the scientific point of view, they can be effective for the reception of creationist claims, especially if the audience has biases. Thus, the recognition of these fallacies and their dismissal as irrelevant should be accompanied by attempts to avoid counter-fallacies and by the recognition of the context, in which the fallacies are presented.
Highlights
The creationist–evolutionist conflict is perhaps the most significant example of a debate about a well-supported scientific theory not readily accepted by the public
Old earth creationism (OEC) interprets the six-day creation story symbolically to represent longer time periods to accommodate the geological age of the earth
More recent proponents of evolutionary theory can be referred to as “the premier atheistic populist propagandist for evolution” (Brace 2004) or as “a Marxist atheist” (Reinikainen 2011). Another form of direct ad hominem suspects the evolutionists’ qualifications or integrity (Table 3) by stating, for instance, that “Darwin himself was not a scientist... he was a one-time preacher of the gospel who went astray...” and “Darwin heavily plagiarized his theory... and many believe that he seized upon a chance to acquire fame and security at least partially from the work of others” (Brace 2004)
Summary
The creationist–evolutionist conflict is perhaps the most significant example of a debate about a well-supported scientific theory not readily accepted by the public. The antagonism between religion and natural sciences is often a reflection of perceived contradictions between scientific data and (personal) interpretation of religious texts, especially the Bible (McGrath 2010). The acceptance of biological evolution by the public varies being the highest in Iceland (84.9%) and Denmark (82.2%) and the lowest, e.g., in the United States (39.7%) and Turkey (26.0%) (Data360.org 2006; 34 countries sampled). The theory of evolution since Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) suggests that humans developed naturally over a very long period of time from other life forms. This is a challenge for some forms of religious faith that perceive. Theistic evolution accepts biological evolution as a tool of a deity to produce the observed biodiversity
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
