Skip to content

Today's Creation Moment

The Sun, Moon and Stars
Psalm 8:3-4
“When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man,...
What is the most awesome show of God’s power? It may not be what you think. In Psalm 8:3 4, the psalmist is led to exclaim, “When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and stars...

Logical Fallacies of Evolution 101: Argumentum Ad Populum

This blog entry begins a new series that takes a look at some of the logical fallacies used by evolutionists to promote a philosophy that masquerades as science. Creation Moments believes it is important that Christians recognize such fallacies in order to defend biblical truth.

How often have you heard evolutionists say: "There's really no disagreement among reputable scientists when it comes to evolution." Or: "Evolution is settled science." Creation Moments has heard such statements fall from the lips of Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott and many others, too numerous to mention.

Clearly these evolutionists are all working off the same page in their playbook. They're also showing that they aren't thinking clearly. Why? Because they are writing books, making films and giving speeches tearing down scientists who disagree with them. But wait - didn't they just say that there's no disagreement among reputable scientists and we're dealing with settled science?

By saying things like this, evolutionists believe that people can be easily fooled by one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book - the argumentum ad populum. As used by evolutionists, this fallacy can be stated like this: "Since all scientists believe in evolution, evolution must be scientifically correct."

Even if the first part of this assertion were true - which it isn't - the second part does not logically follow. It's like the child who tries to justify some undesirable behavior by saying, "It must be okay because all the kids are doing it." Besides, if scientific truth is determined by majority vote or by what most scientists believe at a certain point in time, then Darwinism itself would have been rejected when it was first proposed.

The argumentum ad populum is an illogical way for evolutionists to sway people to their position. Watch out for it whenever it's used by others ... and avoid using it yourself as you seek to defend biblical truth.


Evolutionists have to rely on logical fallacies, because there is no evidence supporting the theory that species produce offspring that are not of their species. Only by using logic errors can evolutionists generate a belief in something that has not occurred and is not occurring.

Begging the Question: This is circular logic. An assumption is used to validate a premise. Evolution is assumed to be factual; therefore, evolutionists dismiss outright fraud as being acceptable because it illustrates a true point. One popular form of this is, "Although it is mathematically impossible for life to have occurred by chance, we're here, so that proves it happened."

Hasty Generalization: A small sampling of data is used to “prove” a large conclusion. For example, evolutionists like to claim that evidence of people dwelling in caves in former times means humans came from a more primitive species. This is overgeneralizing at its extreme. In fact, humans are still dwelling in caves, and not because they are a primitive species.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: This tries to prove a point by creating a hypothesis that has already been disproved. For example, evolutionists state that theists are retarding science. This is contrary to fact. Many scientific advances were made and are being made by people who believe in God. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and Mendel, for example, all believed in God.

Misuse of Authority: A group of “experts” is used to prove a conclusion, even if that group does not actually agree with it. An example is "All educated people know evolution is a fact."

Chronological Snobbery: This fallacy says that the evidence is ancient, so it can't be verified by observation. Thus we have the "millions" of years timetable for evolutionists.

You will find that every argument in favor of evolution hinges on a logical fallacy. All the evidence clearly points to design, not accident, as the source of life.

To see the fallacy Hypothesis Contrary to Fact in full force merely read the literature of any evolutionist and note that the literature will have references such as: may or may have, must or must have, possibly,could or could have, should or should have, might or might be, etc.Then note that their conclusion demands to be recognized as scientific fact. Apparently evolutionists did not get instruction concerning scientific axioms and principles that demand that any conclusion that rests on these kinds of phrases can never be considered a valid theory or fact.

Copernicus was the proponent of the heelnciotic model, which was a departure from the system that prevailed in Western culture for centuries, placing Earth at the center of the Universe, and is often regarded as the launching point to modern astronomy and the Scientific Revolution. Actually, the Greek thinker, Aristarchus of Samos, developed the first heliocentric theory around 270 BCE, not Copernicus as many believe.During the Roman Catholic Inquisition, Galileo was imprisoned for his heretical beliefs of a heliocentric solar system and forced him, under threat of torture, to recant. In spite of his recantation, Galileo had to spend the rest of his life under house arrest. Science innovation reached a standstill during the Dark Ages at the height of Christian power and influence. The Renaissance and the period of the Enlightenment came as a result from people beginning to reject certain religious beliefs. The Age of Enlightenment (beginning around the 18th c.) represented the time when reason trumped religion as the primary source for thought.

I believe you ean the heliocentric model.

Of course, you must view it from this standpoint: Was it Christianity or the Church? The Bible, the foundation of true Christianity, never stated the earth was the center of the universe. (It actually stated that it was round, and that it was suspended on nothing.) The Church did. It's merely one of those instances in which Humans caused the problem, not the religion.

For instance, the Jews of Jesus' time attached so many laws to their already strict religion, roughly eight laws had to be broken in order for him to be executed. Mankind has a knack for abusing religions.

Another example: Joseph Stalin was an Atheist. It doesn't necessarily mean that all atheists are communistic psychopaths who think of themselves as a god.

This is a common argument used by atheists. It goes like this: The Catholic Church = Christian Religion = Biblical Thought. Nothing could be further from the truth. The dark ages were the peak of the Catholic Church, not of the Christian Religion. The Catholic Church at that time and for many centuries did everything it could to keep people away from the bible because it had veered so very far away from it. If it had not, it could never have attained such worldly power.

The Renaissance and Enlightenment were preceded by the Reformation, which was a recovery and return to the bible. It was when people were emboldened to read the bible and interpret it themselves that they also became bold to think freely for themselves as well.

I do not concur with the basic argument here that God and the bible are against science and against scientific progress because the Catholic church was.

One hasty generalization is when micro-evolution (adaptation within a species) is used to support macro-evolution (the change of one species into a different one.) The first is merely normal. The second never occurs. Yet evolutionists say that because some bacteria are resistant to antibiotics, this difference within the species proves that species change into creatures that are not of their own kind. That's a hasty generalization for you.

Evolutionists are constantly begging the question. They base their extrapolations on assumptions. A good example of this is the rock record. Evolutionists say that slow, steady rate erosion created rock layers that were obviously caused in a cataclysm. Evolutionists ignore the real world of sudden disasters that dramatically and suddenly change the landscape, since that ruins their theory of slow, predictable change over millions of years.

The theory of evolution is often referred to as a tested and proven scientific fact, when evidence overwhelmingly is against it. In fact, the theory of evolution is based on conjecture, and from there assumptions are made that contradict observable fact. Evolutionary arguments cannot withstand objective, in-depth criticism because they are nothing but hot air.

By true scientific standards, evolution is not even a theory. A scientific theory is confirmed by observations and is falsifiable. There will be proof whether it is right or wrong.

Evolution cannot be put to a test, since it supposedly happened millions of years ago and we certainly never see it happening now. It can never be proved—either true or false. It has always been on speculation alone.

Because there is no actual evidence to support evolution, proponents resort to logical fallacies. Evolution puts forth a tautology, which is the circular argument that the fittest survive, and therefore those who survive are the fittest. See how one statement is used as proof of a repetition of the same argument. The fittest—those who leave the most offspring, evolutionists say— leave the most offspring. A hamster spinning in its cage could hardly go in more circles!

No your statement makes no prpeor parallels.Evolution or Creation have nothing to do with the question It is just a silly mind trick/trap tying you to a circular cycle and asking where it starts. One can apply its logic to any circular cycle.Plus, the true answer should be the Egg , since other animals laid eggs far before chickens existed , but that is not the point of the chicken/egg question anyways! The point is to make people realize the nature of cicular cycles Circular cycle conditions have no beginning or end (like a ring)! We assign beginnings and ends so we can have a starting point to describe them..that is all!

I believe you are confusing evidence and proof. Other than in the field of mathematics, no scientific field requires proof, which would in effect make all theories unfalsifiable. Theories contain predictions, these predictions are either supported by evidence gathered through observation or experiment. To suggest there is no evidence for evolution is to ignore decades of experimentation and observation that support the predictions of evolutionary theory. I could ask you what observations or experiments you, or other theists have made that support the existence of your deity. Ut would you be able to come up with such things?

Evolutionists like to say that natural selection is provable, so that means evolution occurs. What they do not say is that merely removing the "unfit" does not result in new characteristics within a species, nor does it create a new species. It does not explain anything to say that because some weak members of a species die, this proves that the surviving species itself will have offspring that do not belong to its species. Evolutionists are using circular logic. It's just another redundancy.

Evolution stands or falls on the possibility of non-living matter being randomly transformed into organic living matter. This is sometimes referred to as chemical evolution or spontaneous generation.

Evolutionists like to say that they are studying mechanisms of change, not origins. That's because they know that life produces life. You don't get a living creature from nonliving rock except in fairy tales. And the theory of evolution depends on evolution of inorganic matter. Otherwise, there is no explanation for how the life got started in the first place, since evolutionists deny the existence of a Creator.

Talk about circular logic! How can life evolve if it never existed? The evolutionists have a hard time explaining that one.

Actually it is the hypothesis of abiogenesis that requires evidence that shows the transition from inorganic to organic matter, and then to self-replicating systems. Evolution only requires the existence of randomly varying, self-replicating systems. How those systems emerge is unimportant.

Even though the law of biogenesis, or life from life, is an established scientific law, evolutionists have tried for decades to find a way to show that nonliving matter can produce life. This failed, so in an effort to keep their dying theory alive, they have had to change the rules. If we never see life coming from nonliving matter on earth, then maybe it could happen in space, they say. This is the opposite attack that standard science would take. When a theory is disproven (such as life from nonlife), it is dismissed and another theory is considered. But not when you're an evolutionist! Instead of getting rid of a faulty theory, evolutionists just come up with new conjecture to cover up the lack of evidence supporting it. That's evolution in all its fallacious glory ... it's nothing but ever more unsupportable speculation.

There is a line of reasoning known as a "reductio ad absurdum" ("reducing to absurdity"). Evolutionists like to do this all the time. They try to show that belief in a Creator is false because it is absurd. "We cannot see the Creator, we cannot hear the Creator, and we cannot touch him," they say. "So we're supposed to believe this tripe?"

Meanwhile, we cannot see species turning into another species, but they expect us to believe that they do.

By the way, the whole premise that we cannot see, hear, or touch our Creator is wrong. Jesus Christ came down in person and was seen, heard, and touched. Indeed, he is the Good Shepherd. His sheep hear him today just as they did in times past.

If you claim you can't hear the Creator, you must be a goat, because the sheep know his voice.

It is not "mathematically impossible" for life to have occurred by chance, just highly improbable. This is acceptable for the evolutionist theory, however, because life beginning on Earth by chance only had to happen once in Earth's billions of years of existence. So impossible? No. Improbable? Yes. But something improbable over a course of billions of years has a chance of occurring, and has occurred, otherwise we wouldn't be here. How a creationist can argue evolution, but believe in something that, unless they were raised to believe it, would seem preposterous to a logically thinking mind, is totally beyond me.

So your argument is in a paraphrase, 'evolution occurred because we are here.', am I correct?
That argument is a logical fallacy, and you are just begging the question (circularity). If I said 'God created the universe and all life because I am here' then I would be doing the same, and you would debunk it. But we must submit some proof why that is the only logical theory and opposing theories are not at least equally logical.

Craig - not only are you wrong but you are using faulty logic. First of all, you are wrong because what you call the "highly improbable" event of life arising by chance is actually IMPOSSIBLE. Why? Because the universe would have to be a lot older than a few billion years for something like that to even have a chance of occurring.

Secondly, your logic is faulty, because you are saying that life arising by chance must be true because "otherwise we wouldn't be here." Why couldn't I say that biblical creation must be true because otherwise we wouldn't be here?

Furthermore, even if life arising from non-life by chance were possible, you are then saying that because it is "possible," over time it becomes "probable" and over a long-enough time it becomes "inevitable." Do you seriously expect any thinking person to accept that type of "reasoning"?

You say that creationists are believing in something that's preposterous. Well, given the Bible's track record of being absolutely correct about everything it contains, creationists are being very reasonable in believing what it says about creation. After all, the only eyewitness to creation was God, and since He wrote about creation in a totally trustworthy Bible, believing what He says is the most reasonable thing a thinking person can do.

" First of all, you are wrong because what you call the "highly improbable" event of life arising by chance is actually IMPOSSIBLE. Why? Because the universe would have to be a lot older than a few billion years for something like that to even have a chance of occurring."

Sometimes, I just have to laugh at the lack of introspection displayed by creationists.

In a discussion about how evolutionists use logical fallacies, I see a couple being used by this creationist in just 2 sentences.


People have done the calculations and agree it is impossible for life to have occurred by chance. I'm not just talking about creationists either.

Improbable is having your number come up 17 times in a row on a roulette wheel. The people who run the casino, however, would probably disagree and call it impossible as well - and arrest you for cheating. Impossible is your set of six numbers winning the grand prize in the New York lottery three times in a row, as evidenced again by the authorities arresting you for cheating - likely on the second week, not even the third.

The probability of having life occur by chance on a planet in our universe even once in billions of years is far longer odds even yet. This is why some people came up with the multiverse theory (for which there is absolutely no evidence, I might add) - so that the probability numbers could be stacked so as to make it seem at least possible that somehow, somewhere, life could have occurred by chance. As for me, I'll go with the authorities and call that cheating.

Winning the lottery 3 times in a row is not impossible, just very very very improbable. And as I said, the idea that life on Earth began by chance is also very improbable. But there are known to be billions of planets in our universe. Look at it this way: if the odds of life beginning on Earth by chance are 1:1 billion, and there are a billion planets that can sustain life, then statistically, one of those planets would, by chance, have life on it. By no means am I saying that this is exactly what happened, and I'm not a scientist with years of research to back me up.

As far as "the Bible's track record of being absolutely correct" goes, I'm not sure where that is coming from. Just because you believe and have faith in what the Bible says, that does not make it true.

I'm all about doubt. And it's easier for me, using logic, to doubt that there is an all-powerful, all-intelligent being who can watch me, listen to my prayers, and who created the Earth, than it is to doubt that the Earth gained life by chance.

I'd also like to add that, unlike most Christians, I am not afraid to say, "Hey, maybe I'm wrong." But let's look at probability again. There are many religions in the world, all with different stories, and all claiming to have the answers. Christianity is a mere one of them. When looking at all these religions and all the other possibilities of answers to life and why we are here, I'd say Christianity is just another face in the crowd.

To end, I'd like for you all to think about this quote from Stephen Roberts: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Let's just **suppose** you are right. Then, using that exact same logic you would have to say "it is not mathematically impossible for the MANY fulilled prophecies in the Bible to have occurred, just highly improbable.
We creationists could probably also say that creation is not mathematically impossible because the vastly immense universe God has created could hold all the numbers needed for the answer to the calculation.

I'd just like to point out here that the mathematical improbability of the earth even being able to support life without design is in the trillions of trillions to the negative power. So if you want to say that something that unlikely happened by chance, you can, but only if you want to be backing what amounts to a mathematical impossibility.

Many astrophysicists are convinced that the tilt of the earth, its correct distance from the sun, its position in the solar system, and our solar system's position in the universe are so ideal as to make the question of whether there is a designer moot. Astrophysical fine tuning is so great that the mathematical probability of it happening by chance is so unlikely as to boggle the mind.

Do the math. How many trillions to the negative does a number have to be before you admit that the evidence points toward design?

Evolution is simply garbage. If it were true that everything evolved, where did the first initial water come from that is essential to support life in its simplest form? You can't get something from nothing and that is fact. Which came first: the amoeba or the algae? Can plant life produce animal life and vice-versa? Evolution is not logical and is scientifically an impossibility. Enough said.

Craig says that it is "not 'mathematically impossible' for life to have occurred by chance". Let's consider the probability of just one average protein of say 200 amino acids to be formed by chance. For each amino acid in a protein there are 20 different amino acids to choose from. Therefore, the probability to form this 200 amino acid protein would be 1/20th to the 200th power, or 1 in 10 to the 260th power. If 1 in 10 to the 50th power is considered impossible by probabilistic mathematicians, then with just one average protein we have far exceeded this limit. Now with over two million proteins in the human body, it takes blind faith to believe that life formed by chance.

I like the comment that if you can't hear Jesus, you must be a goat as His sheep hear Him and obey Him.

You've asserted that certain statements, which you claim have been made by certain supporters of the theory of evolution support your other claim that such people have fallen foul of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. But you fail to provide reliable, supporting sources that can be independently verified.

Now if I were to claim that theists then to fall foul of the same logical fallacy by saying "If gd doesn't exist, why do so many people believe in him?", wouldn't you want me to provide reliable, supporting sources for my argument as well?