Fallacious: Reification

I find it exceptionally charming that Answers in Genesis (AiG) writers are apparently attempting to put together a series on logical fallacies, much like I am doing on this blog!

The AiG writer (Dr. Jason Lisle) starts out with the fallacy of reification, so I figured that I may as well write up a post on reification to add to the Fallacious Files. I’ve actually written about reification before here  and fellow blogger Unbeguiled has written about it here, especially with respect to committing the fallacy of assuming that “nothingness” can be some sort of state or affairs.

The fallacy of reification is a fallacy that occurs when one attempts to treat an abstraction as if it were a concrete event or physical reality.

Dr. Lisle contends that, “It is very common for evolutionists to commit this fallacy” And attempts to show some examples:

“Sometimes in an argument, an evolutionist will say something like this: “Nature has designed some amazing creatures.” This sentence commits the fallacy of reification because nature does not have a mind and cannot literally design anything. By using the fallacy of reification, the evolutionist obscures the fact that the evolution worldview really cannot account for the design of living creatures. (Keep in mind that he may be doing this unintentionally). God can design creatures because God is a person. Nature is a concept and cannot design anything.”

If, in this case, the “evolutionist” really meant that nature literally designed something, as in nature consciously planned creatures and then executed that plan to create a living thing in a purposeful and inventive way, then the “evolutionist” would be committing the fallacy of reification, given that nature consists of the forces and processes that produce and control the phenomena in the material world.

But, this is not what an “evolutionist” is saying when she says, “nature has designed some amazing creatures”, and thus the “evolutionist” is not committing this fallacy. To prove my point, I will use Dr. Lisle’s own words:

“Of course, not all language should be taken literally. There is nothing wrong with reification as a figure of speech.”

When we say, “nature has designed some amazing creatures”, we are using a figure of speech. Now, if we use this as an actual argument, such as this:

P: The creatures in the universe were intentionally created by a person.
P: God does not exist.
P: Nature is all that exists.
P: Nature designed all of the creatures in the universe consciously.
C: God did not design all of the creatures in the universe.

Then we would be committing the fallacy of reification. Once again, I will use Dr. Lisle’s own words to drive home my point:

“However, when reification is used as part of a logical argument, it is a fallacy.”

Of course, when the Dr. accuses the “evolutionist” of using this fallacy to obscure the fact that the “evolution worldview” cannot account for the design of living creatures, he is committing the fallacy of equivocation. When we say, “nature has designed some amazing creatures” we mean that natural material processes have caused to occur living entities with amazing degrees of functional complexity. We do not mean that nature has consciously planned anything. Is Dr. Lisle also creating a strawman? I think so.

Moving on, the Dr. uses more examples as fallacies “evolutionists” make, forgetting their own caveat that reification is fine as a figure of speech but impermissible in a logical argument.

“Creationists say the world was created supernaturally, but science says otherwise.”
“The evidence speaks for itself.”
“Evolution figured out a way around these problems.”

All of these are examples of figures of speech, and I have never heard an “evolutionist” use these in a logical argument except as a figure of speech.  I can almost see it now…

“Evolutionist”: 15% of the population identifies themselves as nonreligious.
AiG: No. You’re the only person I know that is nonreligious. Everyone else I know is very religious. 15% has to be wrong. I’ll bet that only 1% of people are nonreligious.
“Evolutionist”: There have been many general population surveys taken that show you are incorrect in your assumption. I think evidence speaks for itself.
AiG: You just committed the fallacy of reification! Evidence can’t speak. Your arguments are fallacious.
“Evolutionist”: That’s a total red herring, and also commits the fallacy fallacy.

The last point Dr. Lisle attempts to make is that the phrase “natural selection” could be considered a fallacy if used in an argument because nature does not consciously choose. By “natural selection” people do not mean that evolution consciously chooses, it means that populations that are suited to their environment are more likely to reproduce than populations that are not. So, in this example, he once again equivocates “natural selection” with “nature consciously chooses” and then accuses an imaginary evolutionist of committing the fallacy of reification, when it only appears to be a fallacy of reification if he is equivocating.

Dr. Lisle claims that the phrase “natural selection” is used to obscure the fact that god consciously planned for the design of animals such that they would survive, and insists that natural selection explains why animals die, but god’s glorious planning explains why they live:

“If you think about it, natural selection does not actually explain why we find organisms suited to their environment. It only explains why we do not find organisms that are unsuited to their environment (i.e., because they die). It is God—not “nature”—who has given living beings the abilities they need to survive.”

Of course, if the writers of AiG really wanted their readers to understand reification, it would be wise of them to point out some of the arguments creationists use that commit the fallacy of reification. They do not, so I will do it for them:

Q: Why is there something rather than nothing?
P: Nothingness is a normal state of affairs
P: Somethingness is an abnormal state of affairs
C: Somethingness needs an explanation

P: The universe would not allow humans and all of our achievement to fade away
1: Something must exist to prevent humans and their achievements from fading away
C: This something is called god

Also, creationists use the same figures of speech as talking points:

“Evolutions says that the entire universe arose by blind chance.”
“The Bible speaks for itself. Jesus was without sin.”

It would be silly for me to stop the conversation and then accuse a creationist of committing the fallacy of reification if they made these statements, because I understand that these statements are figures of speech. If I did, that would be committing another fallacy – a Red Herring. Yet this is exactly what Dr. Listle does in his article. Reification is essentially a metaphor taken so far that abstractions are treated as concrete, and there is a difference between using a metaphor and using a metaphor incorrectly as part of a logical argument. Dr. Listle accuses “evolutionists” of doing this, but does not provide any examples in which this actually occurs.