The enemy of truth hinders others from seeing the truth by making impressive use of three key logical fallacies. These logical
fallacies are taught to be avoided in mathematics. The greatest Mathematician
provided this knowledge so people remember there is a right way and a wrong
way. Unfortunately, many professors in the universities and seminaries today
are using logical fallacies to mislead those they were hired to educate. Upon
recognizing people commonly have their worldview formed by logical fallacies,
one understands how the majority can be wrong, even amongst the smartest of
people.
Regardless of how one feels about the truth,
the majority are often wrong, for they have not taken the initiative to conduct
a proper investigation. An appeal to ignorance is often used to shift
the burden of proof and has proven successful at manipulating millions,
considering Darwinism is still taught as scientific truth in biology,[1] and form criticism method is taught as
relevant in biblical studies.[2] Appeal
to ignorance is when one believes or disbelieves in something while not
considering possible evidence against their view. Perhaps their conclusion resulted
from insufficient research, resulting in insufficient information. Whereas
appeal to emotions is focused on manipulating the
emotions of another and disregards any evidence. One may argue against a
certain idea or worldview by appealing to the emotions of the audience. People
often express their view beginning with “it just feels right to me,” or “it
doesn’t feel right to me.” This fallacy results in self-centered people who
care more about their wants than caring for the truth. For those desperate for acceptance, truth becomes a secondary issue, if
even considered at all, for people tend to gather around those likeminded.
Hence, appeal to popularity is believing if the majority supports a
view, it must be true. People may want to accept what the majority believes out
of fear of being treated as an outcast. Companies make use of this deception to
sell their products with clever marketing through the media. Social and
political figures win the approval of others by claiming to support whatever
belief or idea is trending. Sadly, appeal to popularity is commonly used to
indoctrinate young minds. Readers
must accept even the most knowledgeable people can be the most wrong.[3]
[1] The founders of the supposed Lucy ancestor confessed to being biased and admitted this ape should not be in our family tree; Donald C. Johanson, and Maitland A. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, (New York: NY, Simon & Schuster, 1981), 257-258. The insistence of atheistic evolution being true is not based on solid observable evidence, and even if some form of naturalistic evolution is true theology and science are not in conflict. A growing number of theologians, apologists and secular scientists alike have recently united to offer their mutual support for the hypothesis presented by Doctor S. Joshua Swamidass in his book titled The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry. In this book Swamidass presents a logical, scientific, and biblically supported argument unifying evolutionary causes for creation with the biblical account; S. Joshua Swamidass, The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry, (Downers Grove: IL, IVP Academic, 2019), 174-178.
The belief in random mutations accounting for the existence of complex
living organisms has been scientifically proven false. Because of
advanced methods used in laboratories today, one can examine molecular life and
find clear evidence against atheistic evolution. Regarding the recent
discoveries in science, micro-biologist Michael Behe writes, “…one higher
category cannot descend from another by means of an unplanned process such
as Darwin’s mechanism,” thus, “Random mutation and natural selection cannot
build a brain or even coherently modify one.”; Michael Behe, Darwin Devolves,
(Broadway, NY: HarperOne, 2019), 157, 282. Macro-evolution does not happen, devolution happens, as
observed with all the different dog breeds. The cute fluffy dog is not as exceptional
as the wolf, and certainly not as smart. The uncomfortable truth is Adam and
Eve may have been two rather hairy and likely short human beings, but these two
were human, and were certainly smarter than the average human living today. If
the similarity between a chimp and human were a remaining obstacle one must
accept DNA similarities is not evidence in support of atheistic evolution and
is certainly not evidence against God. When examining DNA people are trying to
understand complex information designed by the most advanced mind. One should
simply humbly accept DNA is evidence for God, and the
human mind can comprehend this much to be true. The discovery of DNA is so
amazing the faithful Darwinist who rejects intelligent design is guilty of
trying to make this conflicting truth support their presupposed view. This is
like a stubborn child trying to fit a square into the circle space on a shape
sorter toy. Moreland addresses the obvious elephant in a room filled with
scientists who reject God, stating “Indeed, the amount of information in the
genetic code of a human being is more than all the information in all the books
in the Library of Congress combined!”; J.P., Moreland, Love the Lord Your God with all Your Mind, (Colorado
Springs, CO: NavPress, 2012). Information must come from an intelligent
mind, so it just seems absurd to argue for atheistic evolution being true
starting with supposed DNA evidence. The honest atheist
is in an awkward place when having to accept a person is 90% related to a cat, 99%
percent related to a mouse, and 70% related to the chimp; Jefferey P. Tomkins, “Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee
and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%,” (Answers Research
Journal 6, 2013), 64; Joan U. Pontius, James C. Mullikin, Douglas R. Smith,
Agencourt Sequencing Team, Kerstin Lindblad-Toh, Sante Gnerre, Michele Clamp et
al, "Initial sequence and comparative analysis of the cat
genome," Genome research 17, no. 11 (2007), 1678-1680;
Chris Gunter, and Ritu Dhand, “Human Biology by Proxy,” Nature 420,
no. 6915 (2002), 509; J. Cohen, “EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY:
Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%,” (Science 316, no. 5833, June
7, 2007), 1836; Tom Wolfe, The Kingdom of Speech, (New York, NY:
Little, Brown and Company, 2016).
[2] Form Criticism slipped in during a time when there were few scholars caring to work in New Testament scholarship, perhaps the lie of Darwinism was a contributing factor. A few sceptics took advantage of this opportunity, one key figure being Rudolf Bultmann, and they exercised a dominance in the field of biblical study during this time in history. Form Criticism is insistent that none of the key eyewitnesses to Christ life, death, and resurrection helped in the forming of the New Testament cannon. Despite contrary evidence, this view teaches on how the NT canon was formed by followers of Jesus who never knew Him, to present ideas considered useful for encouraging their community. For more details on the history of this method rooted in logically fallacious reasoning read, Darrell, L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 182-185. For all the evidence against this logically fallacious idea, developed by sceptics with the sole purpose of misinforming students, please read the following; Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2006), Chapter 21 “The End of Form Criticism (Confirmed),” 590-615; Andreas J. Kostenberger, Darrell L. Bock, Josh D. Chatraw, Truth in a Culture of Doubt, (Nashville TN: B&H Publishing, 2009); Darrell L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing, 2002); Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 2009); M.F. Bird, The Gospel of the Lord: How the Early Church Wrote the Story of Jesus, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014), 113-24; J. Warner, Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels, (Colorado, CO: David C. Cook, 2013), 112, 175, 250-252.
[3] An example in recent history which
proved how easily large groups of people can be fooled was during the O.J.
Simpson trial. All the evidence showed O.J. Simpson was the murderer. The
defense lawyers appealed to each of these logical fallacies and proved large
groups of people can be easily manipulated. A trial for the murder of two
innocent people became focused on racism and corrupt police officers. The
defense lawyers successfully convinced the jury and thousands, perhaps millions
of viewers, racism was the true reason Simpson was being accused of murder. The
jury found Simpson innocent of all charges and multitudes cheered when the
verdict was given. The simple truth is people are easily influenced and quick
to believe misinformation presented by authoritative figures. Even the renowned
scholar and sceptic Bart D. Ehrman was troubled to learn the majority living in
Sweden were educated to believe Jesus was never real, seeing Him to be a
fabricated character like the Easter bunny; Bart D.
Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2009), 139-140.
The clear lesson from history is all people are vulnerable to being fooled,
especially in large numbers, as evidenced in Nazi Germany during WWII, or
observed during the O.J. Simpson trial. An entire nation can be fooled into
believing a lie.
No comments:
Post a Comment