I apologise if this has been done before, but I looked and looked but couldn't see. Maybe it is an old topic, so need to be gone over again.
In
Message 29 in my thread on
Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory, AnswersInGenitals suggested a list of arguments that should not be used, comparable to AiG (that's Genesis, not Genitals) with its list for unhelpful creationist arguments. So, I'm creating what could be considered the antithesis of that other thread of mine (or perhaps the antithesis would be "compelling evidence for creation"...).
In evaluating what a "bad evolutionist argument" is, I propose that it must meet at least one of the following criteria:
- Is not logical
- Is based on false premises
- Is easily refuted by creationists ( or at least enough attempted refutations exist and are well known, thus making the argument unusable)
- Leads to a greater misunderstanding of evolution, rather than elucidating the theory
For example, using a false fossil, such as Piltdown Man, or asserting anything resembling Haekel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" approach.
For a less obvious example, using vestigial pelvic girdles in snakes as evidence of evolution is not a good argument against creationists, because they believe that snakes once had legs (and ate food other than dust) - Gen 3:14.
So, got any lousy, useless or confusing arguments for evolution? Perhaps you once tried to use one, but it ended up confusing things, or, even worse, were you were proven wrong?
If we get a good list, I might see if I can upload them to the EvoWiki (with all of your permission of course).
Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!
™ Version 4.2