"...the existence of even one intelligently designed feature in living things (at least prior to human beings) would overturn the Darwinian theory of evolution that currently dominates Western biology."
Ah. I see. One example of a biological feature unexplainable by modern Darwinian theories is no basis for rejection of present theories, but one example of biological claim you believe to be fallacious is enough to discard the entire essay which contains it. Nope, no hypocrisy here.
Btw, even if that assertion is wrong, it is not set up as a logical fallacy. Things which are incorrect are not de facto logical fallacies. Using one unrelated argument to "disprove" something else, however, is. Just for your consideration...
Oh please. Life is way too short for me to waste my time on such shoddy thinking. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else. Reality is what it is.
Otherwise, that statement is at bare minimum a Fallacy of Exclusion, probably a Converse Accident Statistical Syllogism, possibly a False Dilemma, arguably Denying the Antecedent, and perhaps (depending on how it's interpreted) a Complex Question Fallacy of Distraction, a Hasty Generalization, a Slothful Induction, Post Hoc Error, Equivocation, and a Composition Error.
As a matter of fact, it's a wonderful exemplar of precisely the kind of logical contortions necessary to attribute even a modicum of credibility to ID fantasies.
Correct, for reasons I laid out in post #13. And additionally, such a discovery would hardly make vanish all of the mountains of evidence which indicate that Darwinian evolution *has* and *does* occur. At most such a single example indicate that something *more* was involved, not that a wholesale "rejection of present theories" was called for. In a like manner, classical/Newtonian physics was not "invalidated" by the discoveries of quantum physics and relativity, instead they were expanded upon. And classical physics is *still* valid in the domain for which it was developed.
but one example of biological claim you believe to be fallacious is enough to discard the entire essay which contains it.
I concur. It's an example of the rule that I like to call, "if they can't get even the easy stuff right, how can we trust them on the hard issues?" In this case, the error being made is elementary, and shows such a fundamental lack of logical reasoning ability due to True Believerism(tm), that I really doubt the author(s) will be able to produce any worthwhile insights.
Nope, no hypocrisy here.
None at all. But thanks for trying to make force such a grossly apples-and-oranges comparison into some sort of cheesy claim of "it's the same thing, but you're treating them inconsistently, you hypocrite". I think you owe the man an apology.
Btw, even if that assertion is wrong, it is not set up as a logical fallacy.
Sure it is.
Things which are incorrect are not de facto logical fallacies.
Neither are they de facto *not* logical fallacies. You sort of "forgot" to indicate why you're under the mistaken impression that it isn't one. Simply waving your hands about "incorrect things are not automatically logical fallacies" (thank you, Mr. Obvious) does nothing to support your implication, son.
The reason it *is* a logical fallacy is because it's an example of the False Dilemma Fallacy". The author relies on the notion that life must be the result of either wholly design OR wholly evolution, and thus concludes that if a speck of design is found, evolution would be "overturned" because they *both* can't be true to some degree. In fact, they both *can* be, as I showed in my prior post, which is just one of the the many ways in which both Darwinian evolution *and* intelligent design could be compatible.
There's also more than a bit of the Complex Cause Fallacy in the author's error.
Using one unrelated argument to "disprove" something else, however, is. Just for your consideration...
Believe me, I've given your post more consideration than it was worth.