Replies

"I finally got curious enough to look up this fallacy you cite so often. And it seems to me that it could apply to the entire scientific method, if you want it to."

Depends on how you define 'scientific method', I suppose. But I don't see how justifying fallacious lines of reasoning lends any support to 'science'. If 'science' is truly based on fallacy, it's still fallacy and 'science' is discredited on that basis alone.

"The method is based on forming a hypothesis, making a prediction based on it, and testing the prediction. Successful predictions are usually considered evidence in favor of the hypothesis. It is true that the method calls for trying to disprove the prediction rather than confirm it, so strictly speaking it would be fallacious to say "gravity predicts this ball will fall if I let go of it, the ball fell, so gravity is confirmed.""

The fallacy applies wherever the antecedent is unobserved yet is claimed to be true because the consequent is observed. If that applies to broad sections of what you consider 'science', then it points to a problem w/ your understanding of what science is and is not.

"But unless you can show that biology or paleontology does that kind of thing more than other sciences, you have no basis for your statement."

This is known as the 'burden of proof' fallacy but it also demonstrates a curious behavior that evolutionists typically display. When confronted w/ evidence that their beliefs are based on fallacy, they will go to great lengths to justify fallacy rather than reject their beliefs.

To summarize. So far we have seen the following fallacies in defense of evolution: reverse ad hominem, equivocation, affirming the consequent, single cause and now burden of proof.

The evidence continues to accumulate in support of my statement that, ""Once again we see the multiplication of logical fallacies surrounding evolution. It is simply a consequence of and quite necessary to support that belief."

Way to dance around my points. You have not demonstrated that "the antecedent is unobserved yet is claimed to be true because the consequent is observed" is any more true of scientists studying evolution than it is of scientists studying anything else. People discussing events casually might fall into the error often--as in my example of gravity being proven because something fell, a proposition I expect most people would see nothing wrong with--but if you're going to single out "evolutionists" for criticism, you need to show they deserve being singled out. You haven't.

This is known as the 'burden of proof' fallacy

I can find two definitions for this fallacy: one, that it is setting the criterion for proof too high; and two, that it is shifting the burden of proof to the wrong party. I haven't done either of those things. You've made a claim that evolution relies on affirming the consequent. Asking you to support that claim is neither unreasonable nor misplaced.