The Evolution of Morality

Full playlist:

Marc D. Hauser is an evolutionary biologist who teaches at the Psychology Department at Harvard University.

Bio . Lab .

Ignorant Creationist Tactics

One of the most beloved of all creationist fallacies is argumentum ad ignorantiam, also called the argument from ignorance. Creationists very often are ignorant of the theories that they are attacking in strawman arguments. Many American high schools have avoided teaching evolutionary theory, and matters are made worse by the deliberate misinformation on websites such as those run by the misnamed Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis.

However, argumentum ad ignorantiam is not about ignorance of the facts, per se. Instead it refers to the false dichotomy that is created by ignoring, or being ignorant of, the actual alternatives.

Strictly, the term proof applies only to mathematics and specially constructed logical syllogisms. However, since disproof is a legitimate term, I shall use proof – with air-quotes implied.

A proposition, or premise, is either true or false. Needless to say, there can be many more false propositions than true propositions.

A false premise can be either disproven, not yet disproven, or logically impossible to disprove.

A true premise can be either proven, not yet proven, or technically impossible to prove.

The argumentum ad ignorantiam erroneously assumes that failure of disproof indicates that a claim is true, or that failure of proof indicates that a claim is false. These combinations are included in the possibilities, but they are not the only possibilities.

The argumentum ad ignorantiam is frequently implied, rather than being explicitly stated, in common, fallacious strategies used by creationists.

Even though the underlying assumptions are not stated, creationist attacks on cosmology, abiogenesis, and biological evolution are all motivated by the deep-seated, theistic belief that only two alternatives obtain – namely current scientific understanding OR a creator.

I have most frequently encountered theistic demands that atheists must prove biological evolution. The fallacious implication is that failure to do so will prove creationism, and hence prove God’s existence. Since there is an enormous amount of evidence for evolution, this is a preposterous challenge – particularly in view of YouTube’s 500 character limit, and despite the possibility of uploading video after video after video.

There is no point in attempting to fulfill a patently ridiculous request, particularly when creationists will dismiss all explanations out of hand. Better, I think, to call the creationist on the fallacy and to refer him (possibly her) to particular videos on the science channels, to a museum, or to books, such as Dawkins’ latest.

The flip side of this challenge is the creationist assumption that denying or ridiculing evidence for evolution is equivalent to disproof of evolution, and hence proof of creationism, and thus of God’s existence. In making this assumption, the creationist reveals the depth of his or her ignorance of scientific method. Disproof of any scientific hypothesis entails experimental falsification. Ridicule does not count, although it is undoubtedly emotionally satisfying to those whose ignorance renders them unaware of the futility of the tactic.

Another fallacious challenge is that atheists must prove that god does not exist. The assumption is that failure to disprove god is equivalent to proving god.

Not so fast! First, this demand is shifting the burden of proof onto those who merely do not accept the positive claim for God’s existence.

Second, it is logically impossible to prove that something that does not exist does not, in fact, exist. I’ll make that simpler. It is logically impossible to prove a non-existence. It is for this reason that modern western courts assume innocence unless guilt can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

To prove the non-existence of the purported deity would require the scouring of every inch of the entire universe and beyond. As such, the all-too-familiar religionist taunt is utterly illogical.

Don’t take the bait! There are ample other reasons for doubting the existence of a creator deity. The most obvious is the fact that something powerful enough to create an entire universe should have left evidence that cannot be explained in any other way. It is the very lack of evidence that has caused more scientists, particularly eminent scientists, to be atheistic than any other group.

Every time that a creationist or religionist uses any of these arguments, or evokes an apologetic argument -- and all are refuted -- they are effectively admitting that they have no evidence for the existence of their mythical creator.