An important article regarding debate of evolution

[Zzyzx]

.
Following is the introduction of a long, very informative, well referenced article.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.118 ... ltext.html

Argumentation and fallacies in creationist writings against evolutionary theory

Petteri Nieminen 
, Anne-Mari Mustonen

Abstract
Background
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.
Methods
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).
Results
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.
Conclusions
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.
Keywords
Argumentation scheme Creationism Evolution Fallacies Intelligent design
Abbreviations
ID
Intelligent design
OEC
Old earth creationism
YEC
Young earth creationism
Background
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 humans separate from other organisms and emphasize the literal interpretation of the Bible (Numbers 1982, McGrath 2010).
Traditionally, creationism has been classified into four principal types (Scott 1997, McGrath 2010). Young earth creationism (YEC) states that the earth was created 6000–8000 years ago and the flood of Noah occurred exactly as written in the Old Testament. Old earth creationism (OEC) interprets the six-day creation story symbolically to represent longer time periods to accommodate the geological age of the earth. Intelligent design (ID) requires supernatural intervention during the formation of basic body plans and biological molecules by trying to identify “irreducible complexity�, i.e., structures that could not have evolved by natural processes only. Theistic evolution accepts biological evolution as a tool of a deity to produce the observed biodiversity (McGrath 2010) and, thus, it is “creationism� only in the broadest sense.
YEC, OEC and ID mostly share a common notion of “individually created kinds� (Hebrew מִין [min], “kind�; e.g., Genesis 1:11–25, 6:19–20; King James Bible 2013). Creationists (especially YEC) consider variation and change possible within the “kinds�; however, any change of a “kind� into another or the appearance of new “kinds� requires supernatural intervention (ID). While there is disagreement on the classification of “kinds�, YEC, OEC and ID state that the evolutionary concept of these taxa developing as a result of natural processes is false (McGrath 2010). The creationist “kind� is not the same as the taxonomical species but corresponds often closely to biological families (Numbers 2011).
Creationist writings attempt to disprove biological evolution (YEC, OEC and ID) and the age of the earth (YEC) by various strategies. One approach is to present selected data from natural sciences as counter-evidence against evolution, which has produced also numerous rebuttals from evolutionary proponents (Young 1985, Shermer 2002, Pennock 2003, Isaak 2006, Deming 2008, Durrett and Schmidt 2008, Panda’s Thumb 2013). These scientific rebuttals are not discussed in detail here. Creationist writings present also repeated arguments that are not directly connected to the scientific proof of evolution. We used argumentation-oriented textual analysis to unravel prevalent practices that dominate the creationist–evolutionist debate. We hypothesized that discursive practices not based on debating observational evidence per se would contain fallacious arguments that could eventually affect the reception of the creationist claims by their audience.
Methods
Creationist authors and publications were chosen for analysis based on their visibility and impact in social media (Table 1). To assess the potential significance of these English-language-derived creationist arguments locally, highly-cited Finnish creationist authors were also analyzed. We included a sample of rebuttals by evolutionary proponents to analyze if similar fallacies could be observed on both sides of the debate. The analysis proceeded as follows: we determined the position of the writer in the creationism–evolution conflict (pro-creationism, anti-creationism). The creationist texts were classified as YEC, OEC or ID, but there was a lot of overlap between OEC and ID, which is indicated by ID/OEC. We excluded theistic evolution, as it basically accepts biological evolution (International Theological Commission 2004). The arguments were analyzed and classified according to argumentation theory with methods employed previously (Sahlane 2012). We also inspected the arguments according to the context of proving or disproving theories within natural sciences, i.e., we documented if the texts, books, journal issues or Internet sites that contained fallacious arguments also discussed the “scientific evidence� for creationism.

If this sounds interesting, you might want to read the entire article at URL listed above.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Thanks Z.
I think it is helpful to just look at the abstract:

Results

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.

Conclusions

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. [emphasis applied]
http://link.springer.com/article/10.118 ... ltext.html

It will be fun to simply point to this, and specify which of the logical fallacies are employed when the next Creationist thread rears its illogical head here on the forum.

[Danmark]

To these well known fallacies should be added another category, which in general can be associated with 'quote mining.' This one is more subtle and can be difficult to expose because it relies on one or more of the following:

1. It may contain a long and very detailed, tho' fragmented argument setting out alleged facts, misinformation, trivia and false premises that can only be exposed effectively by a research chemist, geneticist, or biologist and may require expert knowledge in all those disciplines if not more.

2. The ultimate source of the "quote" is hidden. Frequently this is accomplished by lifting something wholesale from a 'creationist site' where it was copied from other sites who copied from others who copied ad nauseum . Ultimately the nonsense either never existed, was entirely made up, or comes from out of print sources at least 50 years old that were debunked many years ago or which failed to consider recent discoveries.

3. The non expert 'expert' occasionally drops by to explain that since he "teaches science" his word is definitive. This 'testimonial' or reverse ad hominem approach is never accompanied by a verifiable cv and tho' it invites personal examination of the "expert's" credentials, any such attempt is met with complaints of "personal attack."

[Ancient of Years]

I recall years back on another site someone providing a 'quote' from Darwin supposedly showing what a horrible monster he was. The quote included an ellipsis (...) indicating an omitted section. When checking out the original quote, the omitted section turned out to very short and included the word 'not'.

[Danmark]

I recall years back on another site someone providing a 'quote' from Darwin supposedly showing what a horrible monster he was. The quote included an ellipsis (...) indicating an omitted section. When checking out the original quote, the omitted section turned out to very short and included the word 'not'.

We had a debater here who repeatedly did this sort of thing. He'd find a paragraph from an article and post it to show some problem with evolution. He'd leave out the introduction and the conclusion, which respectively were along the lines of:

Another example of a fallacy argued is . . . .
....
Therefore [the opposite of what the creationist claimed] has definitively been shown....

He at least was good enough [sometimes] to provide the proper URL from which discovering his fraud and publishing the refutation was easy. This sort of thing, and the rules which don't provide for warnings and banishment for repeated efforts of this kind, led me to resigning as a moderator here.