In everday argumentation, people will not use arguments as clearly spelled out as shown in examples. They will state things less than precise and will assume that certain facts are understood. This is fine, but it is also acceptable for us to "translate" the argument into a more standard form - provided we preserve the meaning of it.
In many cases, people will not explicitly state one of the premises (or perhaps the conclusion) in their argument. They take it for granted that the missing proposition is understood by all. An argument with an unstated proposition is called an "enthymeme." Enthymemes are perfectly acceptable, but it is also acceptable for us to fill in and explicitly state the missing premise, to show why the argument is faulty.
Example: A critic may say, "Dinosaurs clearly did not live at the same time as people. After all, we do not find their fossils in the same rock layers."
To show why this enthymeme is faulty, we must "translate" into a full syllogism and supply the missing premise like this:
- If dinosaur fossils were found in the same rock layers as human fossils, then they lived at the same time. (This is the missing line.)
- They are not found in the same rock layer.
- Therefore they did not live at the same time.
It is now clear that this argument commits `the fallacy of denying the antecedent.' Since the argument is valid, the conclusion is unreliable. Of course, we could also refute this argument by logical analogy. We could say, "The argument is invalid. By that reasoning, the critic and I do not live at the same time. After all, our fossilized bodies are not found in the same rock layers!"
Sometimes when the enthymeme is converted into a standard syllogism, it turns out to be valid but unsound. More often than not, the false premise is precisely the premise that was left unstated.
Example: "There cannot be proof of God's existence. After all, there are many atheists in the world today."
By supplying the missing premise (1) we wind up with this syllogism:
- If there was a proof of God's existence, then there would not be any atheists.
- There are atheists.
- Therefore, it is not the case that there is proof of God's existence.
The argument is a perfectly valid Modus Tollens (denying the consequent), but it is unsound because the first premise (the very one left unstated by the critic) is false. Just because there is proof of something doesn't mean that everyone will accept it.
[A small Source Sample and a `Quick Glance Synopsis' of: Jason Lisle, `Ultimate Proof of Creation,' a recommended book. Purchase from `Answersingenesis.org.']
How Evolutionists Believe in Creation without knowing
Jason Lisle
Like all evolutionists, Darwin had to assume the truth of the Bible in order to argue against the truth of the Bible.
Evolutionists often attempt to use observational science—arguments from biology, paleontology, geology, or even astronomy—to support their belief. But the really interesting thing is that they base all their arguments on principles that ultimately come from biblical creation! As strange as it may sound, evolutionists must unwittingly assume that creation is true in order to argue against it. That means that Darwin was (in a sense) a "creationist." All evolutionists must borrow the principles of biblical creation in order to do science (even though they would deny this). Here is why.
The Bible Provides the Foundation for an Orderly Universe
To do science, certain things must be true. The universe must be logical and have some organization to it. Moreover, the human mind must be capable of rational thought—capable of considering the various alternatives and then choosing the best. But if evolution were true, then we would have no reason to expect either of these conditions. If this world were nothing but a cosmic accident, if our brains were nothing but rearranged pond scum, then why would they be able to understand the universe?
On the other hand, a biblical creationist has every reason to expect scientific inquiry to be possible. The Bible teaches that God made the universe and the human mind, so we would expect these two things to "go together." Moreover, since God gave Adam the responsibility to care for creation, it makes sense that He would have given Adam the ability to understand the natural world.
The Bible Is the Foundation for Logic
Logical reasoning itself only makes sense in a biblical worldview. To make a logical argument about anything, we have to use laws of logic. But if the universe is just matter in motion (as many evolutionists believe), laws of logic wouldn't exist since laws of logic are not made of matter. Laws of logic are "rules" that help us distinguish correct from incorrect forms of reasoning. But in an evolutionary universe, why should there be a standard for reasoning, and who is to say what that standard is? How could we ever really know for certain the laws of logic?
In the biblical creation worldview, however, laws of logic make sense. They reflect the thinking of God who upholds the entire universe by His power. God is our standard for correct thinking because all truth is in Him. We can know about laws of logic because God has made us in His image and has revealed some of His thoughts to us in His Word. We can expect laws of logic to be universally true and never change because they stem from the nature of God. So, when evolutionists such as Charles Darwin attempt to use science and logic, they reveal the fact that in their heart of hearts they know the God of creation.
The Bible Makes Sense of Rules of Behavior
Additionally, evolutionists believe in a moral code: a standard for how we should think and behave. But the idea of a moral code goes back to biblical creation. Since God has created us, He has the right to set the rules of behavior. In fact, the Bible tells us that the law is written on our hearts. However, if people were just complex chemicals and our decisions were just chemical reactions, then people wouldn't have any genuine choice in what they do. If we were not created by God, then any moral code invented by people would just be arbitrary opinion.
This doesn't mean that evolutionists don't act morally, but those who reject biblical creation have no ultimate basis  for their morality. So when evolutionists tell us how to think or behave, they are acting as if they believe in creation. Their actions reveal that they embrace an objective moral code, even though they have no basis for it in their professed worldview.
The fact that evolutionists believe in science, rationality, and morality is inconsistent with their professed belief in evolution. This shows that in their hearts, they really know the God whose Word they are attacking, even though they verbally deny this. They "suppress" the truth, as the Scripture teaches (Rom. 1:18-32).
From Darwin to Dawkins, all evolutionists have relied upon their suppressed knowledge of the God of creation—as evidenced by their belief in science, logic, and morality. As a result of their failure to honor God or thank Him, their thinking is reduced to futile speculations (Rom 1:21).
The notion of particles-to-people evolution is just one example of mankind's speculations. But people cannot consistently function rationally with such a futile way of thinking. In their effort to construct arguments against biblical creation, evolutionists must unwittingly rely on the concepts that can come only from biblical creation.
All knowledge is in Christ (Col. 2:3). So anyone who wants to be consistently rational and scientific must submit to Him first (Prov.1:7). Christians who understand and embrace this truth have a powerful tool for defending the Christian faith and reaching the unsaved with the gospel.
The next time someone tries to condemn the biblical view of origins using arguments from biology or other sciences, just remind him that scientific arguments make consistent, logical sense only when reality is understood from a biblical worldview, beginning with creation. Equipped with this powerful apologetics method, you can point out how all evolutionists must, in reality, assume that creation is true in order to attempt to logically argue against it.
Beginning your discussions on the Scripture's authority, you will stand on solid ground (Mt. 7:24-29).
|
Bible Topics
