Fallacious: Strawman

When I first noticed that Dr. Lisle of Answers in Genesis had published an article on the strawman fallacy, I started snickering before I even read it – mostly because Lisle has committed repeated strawman fallacies in nearly all of his  other  fallacy  articles.

I will readily agree that some people are guilty of strawmanning the theist position. Sometimes it occurs in the context of the argument, and sometimes not. I think one of the biggest mistakes atheist commit is assuming that if you’re taking to a self-identified Christian, that they believe a certain thing (such as the existence of hell, for example). Since Christians believe a huge variety of things, it’s really important not to strawman your opponent by assuming they believe in even the most basic Christian doctrine – they might not.

So here we go my analysis of Dr. Lisles treatment of the strawman

The straw-man fallacy is when a person misrepresents his opponent’s position and then proceeds to refute that misrepresentation (i.e., the “straw man”) rather than what his opponent actually claims.
Here’s an example:

“Creationists do not believe that animals change. But clearly, animals do change. So, creationists are mistaken.”

I have never actually heard anyone say this. It appears that Dr. Lisle is creating a strawman of strawman arguments!

Such a misrepresentation could be unintentional; it could be that a particular evolutionist simply misunderstands what a creationist is teaching. Or the fallacy could be quite deliberate. That, of course, is a dishonest approach, yet it is quite common in origins debates.

It could also mean that the creationist misunderstand what the evolutionist is saying. Really, I’ve never heard an evolutionist claim this. Lisle says this is quite common, so I sure wish he would back up his claim that evolutionists actually claim this with a link. If I said, “creationists often strawman the atheist position by claiming ‘atheists want to kill god with guns, but clearly you cannot kill what you do not believe in’” I would be making a strawman creationist strawman. Nice.

Even in cases where the misrepresentation is unintentional, there is still a degree of liability. After all, the arguer should have done sufficient research and studied what it is the opponent actually teaches. We would certainly be willing to overlook minor misunderstandings, particularly where a position is complex or nuanced (though the critic should still be corrected on the issue). However, there are a number of cases where the creationist position is so clear that misrepresentations by evolutionists are simply inexcusable. The following are a few examples.

Creationists believe in a lot of different things, so I am not entirely sure that the creationist position is “so clear”.

If an evolutionist were to claim, “Creationists don’t believe in science,” this would be a straw-man fallacy. Creationists do believe in science. There are several full-time Ph.D. scientists on the Answers in Genesis staff. I’ve argued on this website, as in my book, that biblical creation is what makes science possible.

There is a footnote here: “It could also be an example of equivocation if the evolutionist conflates operational science with origins science or science with evolution.”

It could also be an example of equivocation to equivocate the AiG “scientists” with real scientists. Sorry, but evolution is a science. I’d explain why this is the case for the umpteenth time,but I trust that my readers are intelligent enough to find reputable sources or search my site for an explanation. Suffice to say, Lisle offers no explanation as to why evolution is not science – instead, he simply asserts that it isn’t and that an evolutionist is equivocating by saying it is. If evolution is a science, and creationists do not believe in evolution, than creationists do not believe in science with regard to evolution. It is a strawman to say that creationists do not believe in any science, but to take the words of someone making the claim “creationists do not believe in science” to mean literally that they do not believe in any science whatsoever is another strawman of strawmans.

Someone may claim, “Creationists believe in the fixity of species.” However, this is certainly not the mainstream biblical creationist position. There may be a few individuals that hold to such a concept, but it is not the position advocated by most creationists. Thus, the generalization “creationists believe . . .” is false.

Okay, fair enough. It is better to say, “some creationists believe…” but we can at least say, “creationists believe in creation” without being false.

Likewise, the claim, “Creationists say there are no good mutations” is not representative of what biblical creationists teach. Generally, we say that mutations do not add brand-new, creative information to the genome and are thus in the “wrong direction” to make evolution happen. But we do believe that mutations can result in traits that increase survival value under certain conditions.

I’d really like some evidence that this is the entire claim being made. Who says these things? Without that information, this is yet another example of a strawman strawman.

“Answers in Genesis is pushing to get creation to be taught in public schools alongside evolution.”

This is definitely false. Answers in Genesis as a ministry is not about political or legal change. Rather, we are about defending the Bible from the very first verse and teaching other Christians to do the same. Although this may eventually result in a changed political and legal situation, we do not (as a ministry) attempt to change laws or get involved in politics.

What? If you desire for creation to be taught in public schools, and you write articles explaining why creation should get taught in public schools, and you advocate in print and on the radio for creation to be taught in public schools, then you are pushing to get creation taught in public schools! This wordsmithing is blindingly transparent. When someone says, “X is pushing for Y” they are not necessarily saying, “X attempts to change laws of get involved in politics of Y”. Once again, Dr. Lisle strawmans a strawman –poorly, I might add. It must be false that I am pushing for a rational examination of religion and alternative medicine because I am not about political or legal change – I have not attempted to change laws or get involved in politics either.

“The Bible teaches that the earth has literal pillars and corners and cannot be moved. It is clearly wrong.”

This is a misrepresentation of Scripture and therefore constitutes a straw-man fallacy. The Bible uses figures of speech (just as we do when we say, “Tim is a pillar of the community”) and poetic language at times. Referring to the cardinal directions as “corners” or the stability of the earth as not able to “be moved”
is not an error. It is entirely inappropriate for a critic to take the poetic sections of the Bible as literal—or the literal historical sections as poetic. Many objections against Scripture turn out to be straw-man fallacies.

The problem with this is that scripture can be represented in whichever way one sees fit. In order to claim that a given argument is a misrepresentation, one has to establish first that it is a misrepresentation rather than simply claiming it is so. Typically when people mention oddball Bible passages, it is not to show that the Bible is utterly wrong – it is to show that some of the Bible is metaphorical, some of it is literal, and people pretty much pick and choose which is which. Most of Biblical interpretation is a tautology – it means what it means when you want it to mean what it means, and means something else when you want to mean something else. I am reminded of a horoscope: it fits because you want it to fit, or it fits because you make it fit, or it does not fit and that is because it is metaphorical or was meant for three weeks ago or forgot to take into account your moon sign or when it said you’d be getting a lot of money it really meant your roommates were going to fill your dorm room with 10,000 sheets of crumpled up newspaper.

The claims that creationists believe in a flat earth, that we deny laws of nature, or that we take every verse of the Bible in a wooden literal sense are all baseless assertions.

Assertions that intelligent people who are arguing against creation do not typically make. I really wish Lisle would use an example of a strawman that is actually common.

Nonetheless, claiming that creationists believe in such things makes the creation position easier to discredit—but it is not a rationally cogent way to debate.

Claiming that evolutionists make such arguments makes the evolutionist position easier to discredit – but it is not a rationally cogent way to debate.

Creationists must also stay educated on both sides of the issue so that we do not commit the very same fallacy. Watch for misrepresentations of creation or other Christian teachings and be ready to point out that such straw-man arguments are fallacious; yet always do so with gentleness and respect.

Footnote: “This doesn’t seem to be quite as much of an issue, perhaps because our culture is so saturated with the notion of particles-to-people evolution. Evolution is taught in virtually all public schools in the United States (and usually biblical creation is not); so, most creationists are aware of the evolution position. We should also note that all Christians have at one point been non-Christians; so, we can understand how the unbeliever thinks about things. However, non-Christians have difficulty thinking like Christians (even if they were brought up in the church) because the crucial issues require the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the unbeliever cannot understand spiritual issues apart from God’s power”

I think that some Christians who do not accept evolution understand evolution, but I have been to several creationist seminars in which the speaker clearly did not understand evolution – such as the case with people like Ray comfort or Brad Harrub, who believe evolution means a “dog can change into a fern”. AiG has repeatedly demonstrated that they do not understand inference or value the scientific method – given that they have repeatedly claimed evolution is not a science.

Perhaps this last bit would be slightly truer if all Christians, while being non-Christian, were adults who were familiar with argumentation and apologetics. Most Christians, however, are Christians from an extremely young age – when their capacity to reason is not fully developed. The fact that all Christians were once non-Christians does not support the conclusion that Christians generally can understand how unbelievers think. Lisle leaves us with tautology – we don’t get it because we don’t believe. My arguments for rationality would not be stronger if I said, “Christians have difficulty thinking like rationalists because the crucial issues require the enlightening of rationality.“