✴Analyzing an Evolutionist Misconception✴

~The Argument~

“Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up.”

-Rennie, J. (2024, February 20). 15 answers to creationist nonsense. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

~The Analysis~

The argument cited above is the subtitle of an article published in Scientific American, a popular science magazine. The article is titled 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. I have read through the entire 16-page-long article, and there are many, many logical fallacies of all kinds throughout it, but I have selected the above statement to analyze.

Firstly, I will note something that people often don’t. The writer of this article says “Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism…” The writer here is committing the question-begging epithet because by adding that “ism” to the creation position, but not to the evolution position, he is making it appear that “creationism” is just a belief, while “evolution” is a fact.

The next logical fallacy the writer commits is found in the phrase “...tearing down real science…” This is a no true Scotsman fallacy. The writer is trying to make it appear that his position is scientific and the creationist position is not, essentially by redefining “true science” as that which corresponds to his beliefs. But this rhetorical trick has no rational weight in an argument, because I could just as well say, “creation science is real science” and the critic would not accept that…just as I shouldn’t accept his definition of “real science” with no support.

The third and most underlying fallacy in the statement being analyzed is the Strawman fallacy. Again, the critic says, “Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up.” The writer is clearly claiming that creationists are against science. However, this simply is not true. He is misrepresenting creationists, making them appear against science, and then arguing against that position when in reality we are not against science! Actually, science and knowledge and laws of logic and uniformity of nature make no sense if everything was just a chemical accident and not purposefully designed by a powerful Creator with a mind and a plan. The biblical worldview is the basis for doing science, so it’s absurd to argue that creationists are against it. There are countless examples of people who hold to what Genesis says as true and literal, who have spent years in graduate school to earn a Ph.D. in a field of scientific study and have done great things for the world, just a few of which are the great Isaac Newton, Johann Kepler, Dr. Jason Lisle, Dr. Andrew Snelling, Dr. Georgia Purdom, Dr. Danny Faulkner, and many others.

Creation is not contrary to science; rather, it is the very basis for it.