Rebuttal

I wrote a paper rebutting an article that I found online. Underneath I have posted the link to the article that is rebutted. Warning: There is one crude statement in the article so I would advise parental permission before viewing it.

Evolution: It’s the law
October 13, 2011 by Doc Bradley
http://unlvrebelyell.com/2011/10/13/evolution-it%E2%80%99s-the-law/


My response:
Ever since the invention of the idea of Evolution, Creationists and Evolutionists have hotly debated these two ideas. Many fallacies fill this argument, the writer does not prove his points, and he firmly sets himself against the idea of creationism which the rebutting side believes as true. Obviously, the article supports the idea of evolution, but fallacies bubble to the surface, even to the untrained eye. No valid argument presents itself because of the fallacies present along with the many false-hoods. Some, well educated people believe in what this article says, but other, also well educated people believe otherwise. This author believes in the creation of the world by spontaneous generation.
Consequently, in this article, many fallacies present themselves. Ad populum fallacies and ad hominem fallacies show up. Briefly, an ad populum fallacy states that many people believe in an idea, therefore, it should accepted as true. If a debater uses the ad hominem fallacy, he attacks the person because of what he believes. In paragraph three, the writer says, “Evolution is now accepted as being true by the vast majority of the world’s educated population.” The writer actually commits two fallacies in saying that the vast majority of educated people accept the idea of evolution. When the writer says, “With the creation (pun intended) of the Scientific Law of Evolution we, as the educated majority, can finally end the debate that occupies our courts and schoolrooms about the origins of the species.” Scholars call the fallacy here an ad hominem fallacy. By saying that those who believe in Evolution have education, the writer implies that those who do not share in his beliefs cannot hold the label of educated. As a writer composes an opinion piece, he must avoid fallacies at all cost, because the commitment of a fallacy will cause his destruction.

Several examples in the chosen article lack proof for the points that the writer makes. Found in the eighth paragraph, the writer says a Scientific Theory should quell the debate between Creation and Evolution. Only if an idea has gone through abundant amounts of experimentation even after naming it a scientific theory can scientists consider it true. Dr. Jay L. Wile’s book, Exploring Creation with General Science, says, “A scientific law is a theory that has been tested by and is consistent with generations of data”. At another point in the article, the writer labels creationism as non-verifiable. One may ask where the back-up information for this statement lies. In order for an argument to become valid, proof and back-up information must present itself.
God created this earth for his own purpose. He meditated and thought about creating this world, chance had nothing to do with it. If an archaeologist finds a watch in the rubble of his work zone, would he immediately conclude that the watch appeared by a bunch of different molecules coming together? Or would he decide that someone designed and put it there? Second Peter chapter three verse three to four says, “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.” Evolutionists might say that one cannot prove the idea of Creationism, and that may ring true, but where can one find the firm evidence that proves Evolution? Both ideas involve faith. Intelligent people do now show fear in admitting that they believe in Creationism.

Creation scientists and evolutionists would admit that they look at the same evidence from a different point of view. This causes the sides to come up with different ideas. So desperate to deny the existence of a Creator, the writer runs to the Theory of Evolution. Providing no factual evidence, the writer also commits quite a few fallacies. Arguments can only become logical when evidence of the idea provides itself. Otherwise, the argument lacks validity. For scientists to consider an idea as sound, well-grounded corroboration must bubble to the surface.