Well, get out. Get out your worksheets number 36 and 37. Go ahead, you can start up here. All right, we're finishing up the book today. So chapter 36, concerning the fallacy of the irrelevant thesis. As he said, this is a catch-all category in the irrelevant fallacies, fallacies of relevance. And so if it doesn't fit one of the other categories that he has laid out here, remind you of the chart that is on page 182 and 183, very handy as you are going to be doing a review this coming week in preparation for the final. If you know this chart well and you're able to do the review sheets, then you should have no problem with the final. The final is basically going to be like the quizzes, just that it'll be pulling from all of the fallacies instead of just the chapters that each quiz has been on. So I will give you the review sheets this week. And for those of you who are in class and really like having a physical copy, I've printed off about 10 of them because there's 10 pages for each review packet. I didn't want to print off a bunch of extra pages. I'll email digitally the questions and answers as well. for the review. And so if you don't need a physical copy, don't take a physical copy. There's not that much more than 10 of us here, although the waiters are probably still on their way. But I can always make a few more copies if I need to. I just didn't want to have a bunch of copies left over. All right, so chapter 36, the catch-all category. Let's just dive in there to question number one. The people who believe in creation are mistaken. Most of them are Christians. So, is this a fallacy or not a fallacy? Yes, this is a fallacy. And so this is a fallacy of irrelevant thesis because that's the only one you have to worry about on this page. However, why? Can anybody explain to me why this is a fallacy? Yeah? Because being a Christian has something to do with it. Right, yeah. being Christian is not relevant to the discussion. There are creationists who are not Christians, and there are, even if it was only Christians who were creationists, it's still not relevant to the topic, because the topic is not about whether or not someone is a Christian, and this is more of an ad hominem type of attack. So, you know, when you're looking at the chart there, and you've got your fallacies and relevance, I'd maybe put this one in a circumstantial ad hominem, or maybe an abusive ad hominem. It would depend on the context. So even though this is a catch-all, irrelevant thesis, I thought, that kind of seems like an ad hominem relevance fallacy to me. Any questions on number one? Number two. The creationist says, why do you believe in neo-Darwinian evolution? Evolution says, because there's a great deal of scientific evidence in support of it. Is this a fallacy? No, this is not a fallacy. Now, of course, you'd have to support that statement, that there's a great deal of scientific evidence to support Neo-Darwinian evolution. Anybody know what Neo-Darwinian evolution is? You know what Darwinian evolution is? Darwin, Charles Darwin, came up with the theory of evolution. The theory has changed over the years, and so neo is the prefix for new, and so it's the newer form of Darwinian evolution, and we won't go into all of that. If you come across a word you don't know, that's why dictionaries are always handy. Using everything that you're learning to increase your vocabulary, and a dictionary is one of the most important tools in education. So in logic, in science, in history, English, all your classes, I recommend you have a dictionary nearby, or have it open on your device so that you can just look up a word, you come across whatever you need to. As a preacher, I'll often use a word, and then I'll go back and listen to the recording, and I'm like, did I use that word right? So I have to look it up, and I'm like, oh, I did use the word right. Or if I didn't use the word right, I'll cut that part out so it doesn't go on the recording. Nice to have a dictionary handy. Number three. The teacher says, Jimmy, it appears that you cheated on this exam. What do you have to say for yourself? And Jimmy responds, not like I committed murder or anything. Is this a fallacy of relevance? Yes, this is irrelevant. Whether or not he cheated on the exam is irrelevant to whether or not he committed murder. Basically, he's saying it's not a big deal. That's his argument. But whether or not he committed murder is irrelevant to how All right, number four. Timothy says, Dad, why can't I have a car when I turn 18? Dad responds, because Christmas falls on a Friday this year. I'd be interested to know a little bit more of the context here, because it seems completely nonsensical. But maybe it is, and the dad's just having fun with his son. So this is irrelevant. doesn't matter what day Christmas falls on, the discussion of when a young man is able to have his own car. And so I was thinking about how ridiculous this one was, that you've got the irrelevant statement by the dad in response. It reminded me of a movie that I enjoy, Emperor's New Groove. Raise your hand if you've seen Emperor's New Groove. Not that many of you. OK. Well, I recommend it. And in the movie, one of the characters is trying to make a moral decision. And so he gets his good angel on one shoulder and his bad angel on the other shoulder, trying to explain to him why he should do the bad thing or not do the bad thing. And so the evil angel, he says, I have three good reasons why you should just let that other person die. And first, he doesn't add harm against the good angel by pointing out that he's got a silly harp and a rope. And then he does some standing push-ups, where he's pushing up from the ground. And the character says, well, what does that have to do with anything? And so it's a fallacy of relevance. And it's like, well, just because you can do impressive push-ups doesn't mean I should listen to you on moral issues. So you can look for fallacies everywhere. And that's one of the things that he talks about in the final chapter, chapter 38, is that you want to practice your fallacy detective skills And so little things like that, you can pick it up in the movies, and very irrelevant. People try to make arguments based upon them. All right, number five. Turn it over. The days of creation cannot be ordinary days, because the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. Now the answer that he's looking for here on this one is that this is a fallacy of irrelevant thesis. The argument that Jason Lau makes is that it is irrelevant whether or not the sun was created because the light was created on the first day and in order to have a day all you need is a cycle of light and darkness. So whether the light is coming from the sun or whether the light is coming from some other source during those first three days, they can still be ordinary days. If you said that this is not a fallacy, then I'm fine with that. Question? Well, just another little interesting point. When I was talking to Joseph, I said, actually, a day is determined by the rotation of the Earth on its axis. Right. That's the length of time. And so we think it has to do with light and dark, but does it really? Right. Like if you're at the North Pole or South Pole, you have really long days or really long nights, and people tend to think of them as long days and long nights rather than just a 24-hour period. But yeah, it's interesting to think about what does constitute a day. And that's really what is the question here. The days of creation cannot be ordinary days. And so the clarifying question would be, What is an ordinary day? And so you have to ask them what you define as an ordinary day. If you define an ordinary day as the sun, you know, where the earth is spinning and the sun going across the sky, well then, yeah, according to that definition, those first three days weren't ordinary days, but if you define it as a 24 hour period, does, there was light and there was darkness, then you could say that they were ordinary days. And why is this discussed? Why do people have arguments about whether or not the days in Genesis were ordinary days? Some people would like to argue that God created everything over millions of years, and therefore evolution and creation can both be true. Yeah, because a lot of scientific evidence, as people interpret it, is seen to support that the earth is millions of years old instead of thousands of years old, therefore people look for ways to say, well the Bible can still be taken as a true account and still fit with the millions of years that we have from science. And so it's just trying to bring together these two things that causes many to say, well, maybe the days of creation were long ages instead of just normal 24 hour days. But if you read it in its context, the Bible's pretty clear that it wants you to understand those first seven days as literal days. It numbers them, and it gives you a day-night cycle. And if you wanted to make clear that something was a literal day, I don't know how you would do it much more clearly than by numbering them and talking about a day-night cycle the way that the text does. So I don't think that's the right way of interpreting Genesis 1, that the days were millions of years or whatever. Alright, number six. Christians claim that morality is only justified in the Christian worldview. But I'm an atheist, and I am very moral. Alright, so this is a great example. I'm glad we included this one. It's a very common error. One of the arguments for the existence of God is that there's no object of morality apart from God's existence. And therefore, the atheist, in order to try to counter that argument, He will say, well, I don't believe in God, and I act according to your standard of morality. And so he is answering a question that is different from the one that we are proposing. We're proposing what is the basis, not whether or not people act according to morality. that people can act according to morality, even if they can't give a rational reason for that morality. Again, I'm a movie guy, so excuse me. There's another movie where the boy was trying to explain to the AI killing machine why he can't go around killing people. And the AI killing machine said, well, why not? And he just answered, I don't know. You just can't. And so he knew that it was wrong to kill people. But he couldn't explain it, he couldn't justify it. And that's what we're saying here as Christians, that everyone knows it's wrong to murder, but only the Christian worldview explains why it's wrong to murder and gives an objective basis for that. So God has written his law in everyone's hearts, and so everyone knows what is right and wrong, but for those who deny the existence of God, they have a really hard time explaining the objective basis of morality. So he's answering a different question than what's being asked. The question is not, only Christians can act morally. That's not what we're proposing. So it's kind of a straw man fallacy here. You could write straw man next to it. Yeah, I did in fact write straw man next to it. And so the strawman here is that Christians are saying that you'll only act morally if you can rationally justify morality objectively. And that's not true. People will act morally whether they know the reason for it or not, because we've been created as moral beings. So it comes down to the explanation, the why. And he's not answering the why morality, or how morality can be justified. Any questions on that one? Alright, number seven. Why is it that cars have rear view mirrors? Clearly the manufacturer wanted drivers to be able to see what was behind them without turning around. Is this a fallacy? No, this answers the question. The question is why, and it answers the question why. Now, it's very similar to some of the ones about how did you survive the plane crash, or if I didn't survive I wouldn't be here to tell you about it. So it sounds kind of like one of those. But this one is actually not irrelevant. This is answering the question of why do the cars exist? The manufacturer. Now think about this. When you're getting into origins discussions and debates, the question as to why are animals so well suited to their environment, Well, it's because the manufacturer wanted them to be able to be suitable to their environment. Of course, the manufacturer, the designer, being got. And so this manufacturer-designer idea is one that is at the heart of the debate on origins. Is there a designer, or is there not a designer? Is there a mind that has created, or is it just a random process of chance? Here, point me out the manufacturer, it's very relevant. You can see the connection there between the manufacturer and the creator. Alright, number eight. Why? Everybody circle that why on there. Why do living creatures have so many complex parts that work together? The answer, because if they didn't, then the animal would have died. This is a very sneaky, irrelevant thesis. That the classic example again is like the one back up in number 6 about morality. This one is about design. And this is one that often fools Christians and non-Christians who hear this argument. And why is it irrelevant? If they didn't have so many complex parts that work together then they would have died. This is answering a question that they do have it, like, not why they have it. This would be the correct answer if I asked, do animals have correct parts? Like, complex moving parts. But that's not the question. The question is why. Right. So it's a question, like you said, that what he's answering is, why do animals that have survived have so many complex parts that work together? And he's assuming, so he's kind of begging the question here, he's assuming that all of the animals that didn't have complex parts that worked together well died because there was just this random process of complex parts coming together. So this is irrelevant because we're not asking why certain animals are still alive, we're asking how is it that they ever came to be in the first place. This is related to a concept called irreducible Have you heard that before? Raise your hand if you've heard that phrase before. Irreducible complexity. About half of you. So irreducible means it can't be reduced. That it's a complexity that has to be there for the thing to work in the beginning. Now there is such a thing as reducible complexity where you can have a system that grows more complex over time. It still worked in the beginning, but it grows more complex. For example, football players. When you first start learning your offense, there might be some complexity in the offense of where this running back is supposed to go, who's supposed to be blocked on the right side, who's in motion. And so you're developing the offense, and then you might add on to it as the team gets good at running that play, you might throw in some new wrinkles, and you might make it more complex in order to confuse the defense. But it still worked when it was initially complex, and it still works when you add more complexity to it. So that's a reducible complexity. Whereas an irreducible complexity is where it doesn't work at all unless all the parts are there. For example, flowers and bumblebees. That if the flower is there and it's producing the pollen, but there's no bumblebee in the environment in order to bring the pollen from one flower to another flower, well then that whole system, that complex system of reproduction doesn't work. You have to have both parts in place at the same time in order for that system to operate. And so you look around at the world and there's this irreducible complexity, not only in specific organisms, like the bacterial flagellum is the classic example that creationists have talked about, how complex the motor is on this simple cell bacteria, simple, right? It's irreducibly complex. for this organism to do what it's supposed to do and for the organism to survive. It's irreducibly complex. Environments can also be irreducibly complex. Which came first, the bumblebee or the flower? How is it that one of them arose and was there to feed the other one or help the other one reproduce? You see there's an irreducible complexity that is here. And so the question isn't, How do things that are complex continue surviving? That is, how do they come about in the first place when there's these complex parts that all have to be there working together? It's a question of origins, not a question of natural selection. So he's answering the wrong question. And a lot of people won't pick up on that, because it sounds like he's answering the question, but he's not. This is an irrelevant thesis. So the clarifying question here is, what do you mean by why? And why do living creatures? And so he's taking why in the wrong sense. He's taking it as, why do living creatures that we observe now have so many complex parts that work together? And really we're saying, how did they come to have all these complex parts that work together in the beginning? That's the question. So you're answering the wrong question. Number nine. The people who want to reduce the number of guns in the world are mistaken. After all, this will not solve all the world's problems. Oh, this is fun. This is great. So circle the word all on there, or underline. And think about this with any argument. You could say, the people who want to stop murder are greatly mistaken, because that's not going to solve all the world's problems. Well, nothing's going to solve all the world's problems except for God and Jesus Christ. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be solving some of the world's problems. Now, I think reducing the number of guns in the world is not going to solve some of the world's problems either. Guns are not the problem in the world, but that is a different rabbit hole we're not going to go down. So similar to number three, if you go back to number three, where Jimmy said, it's not like I committed murder or anything. Here, it's irrelevant in the same type of way, because Jimmy's comment was irrelevant as to whether or not it was going to be something that was wrong. And he just blows it up and says, the worst of all wrongs. And then here it's irrelevant because the discussion is not, is it going to solve all the world's problems? The question centers on, is it going to solve some of the world's problems? So this is something that people will do when they want to sidetrack the argument. This, again, is kind of a straw man because the opponent is not saying that reducing the number of kittens in the world is going to solve all the world's problems. So make sure that you don't do this yourself and make sure that you don't get fooled by it when other people do it. Number 10. Why is it wrong to steal? One man has no authority over another man's property. Isn't this a fallacy of relevance? This is relevant. It's not irrelevant. This is relevant. Now, you know, it could be explained a lot more but It's certainly on the topic. So put the correct number out of 10 at the top of your page. And Laurie, if you would do me the kindness of collecting and writing down those grades. Thank you. All right, let's pull out worksheet number 37. Worksheet number 37. I'm doing you the kindness of going over the worksheets before we take the quiz today, so you can be thankful for that. This is a review of all of the fallacies of relevance. And once again, I encourage you to make constant reference to this chart on page 182 and 183. It will be very helpful for you on these types of reviews. Number one. You should not trust any argument that is posted on the Biblical Science Institute website. This is a fallacy. Yeah, I'd say it's either genetic or ad hominem. Ad hominem is to the person, so since this is the Biblical Science Institute, that would be genetic. Am I correct on that? I believe that is the distinction that he made on there. Very similar to the ad hominem. Ad hominem is against the man. Genetic is against the group or the thing. So this is the genetic. Because, specifically, the word argument. Everybody underline that word argument there. Now, if it had said claim, don't trust any of the claims that are posted on the Biblical Science Institute website. That could be a biased statement. That could be a slanderous statement. But it wouldn't necessarily be a logical fallacy. What's the difference between an argument and a claim? Somebody over here. Yeah. An argument is when you're trying to prove something and a claim is just like you're announcing it. Yeah. So a claim, it does not involve any logical reasoning. Instead, it just involves a statement. Whereas an argument does involve logical reasoning. And so an argument stands or falls based upon its own internal codices, between the soundness of the logic that is being put forward, whereas the claim, is not something that is rationally argued for. If I claim that I have $10 million, well, you might doubt that claim, because I'm just a country pastor. But if I have an argument, then if I argue that if somebody has $10 million, and they put it in the bank, and they give a certain amount of interest, they get this much money a year, you just lay out the if this, then that. Well then, it doesn't depend upon the person who is making the argument, it just depends upon whether or not it's logically sound. So, where it says argument, then that is clearly the genetic fallacy, and we're not just disputing the claims, we're disputing the arguments, just because of who is making them, okay? We're not dealing with the logic. Number two. You don't need God to account for laws of logic. I don't even believe in God, and I use logic all the time. This is very similar to one that we just had in the previous chapter. So, therefore, this is the fallacy of... Come on, guys. Be brave. What is it? Yes, irrelevant thesis. The last chapter was on irrelevant thesis, and this one is just like the one for morality. You don't need God to account for the laws of morality. You don't need God to account for the laws of logic. These are both immaterial things that materialists still believe in, and so they have a hard time justifying why, as a materialist, as a philosophical naturalist, why are there invisible laws of logic? Why are there invisible laws of ethics, of morality? And so we don't, no Christian says that You have to be a Christian in order to think logically. That's not the thesis. The thesis is you need God to account for the laws of logic, to justify, to show where they come from. So, again, irrelevant thesis. Number three. You shouldn't believe in or teach creation here. You might get sued. This is a logical argument, but it's a fallacy We are afraid of that. But that doesn't mean we should allow fear to control us. We should do what is right. Also, as they appeal to fear, think about how this is getting an ought from an is. Is is getting sued. Ought is you shouldn't teach creation. Just because you might get sued doesn't mean you shouldn't do something. Because ought and is are only connected by God. If God says to do it, then you ought to do it. If someone else says to not do it, well that doesn't necessarily mean anything because God is the one who connects ought to is. So the shouldn't is an ought statement. Get sued is an is statement. So what fallacy is it when your conclusion has an ought and it's based upon an is? So naturalistic means you're taking nature, what is, and then you're concluding what ought. Naturalistic fallacy. Moralistic fallacy is you're taking what ought to be and you're assuming that's what is. Nobody would ever tell a lie. That would be wrong. People do tell lies. Just because something ought to be a certain way doesn't mean it is that way. That's the moralistic fallacy. Whereas this is the naturalistic fallacy. All right, number four. Clearly, it is not wrong to abort babies. People have been doing it for thousands of years. Which fallacy is this? Naturalistic. Yeah, naturalistic. It's like we were talking about. Just because somebody has been doing it, the is, doesn't mean it ought to be done. Now, if you're not familiar with the history of abortion, it does go back thousands of years. And even in pre-Christian times, you go back to ancient Greece, They have writings that refer to certain potions that they would use in order to terminate pregnancies all the way back then. So we think that chemical abortions are something new. They did chemical abortions all the way back in the B.C. era. Abortion hasn't been around for a long time. Number five. If evolution is not true, then why do so many scientists accept it? Now, I have a question here as to whether this is a faulty appeal to authority or not. What do you think? Why or why not is this a faulty appeal? It is an appeal to authority. But remember, not all appeals to authority are bad. Aiden? Oh, OK. So I put mine as appeal to a majority because he was like so many scientists. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Isn't that like a subset of the appeal to the authority? Yeah. Appeal to authority. We don't have an appeal to majority on the chart, but I think that would be a subset of the appeal to authority. So I'll go ahead and accept that. Yeah? He didn't clarify what scientists he was arguing to. Good. I like that. That's a good explanation. Well, he's not really asserting a claim. He's asking a question. Right. Yeah. I think that's very important to understand. So if he really is asking a question, and it's not just a rhetorical question, because he's actually asking. And then you can answer the question. And we want to try to assume the best about people. So if you're not sure, if you're in a conversation and somebody says something like this, and you're not sure whether they're saying, well, if evolution is not true, then why do so many scientists believe it? Clearly he's making a claim if he says it like that. But if he says it like, you know, if evolution isn't true, why do so many scientists accept it? Well, it might be a genuine question. and it's somewhere in between and you don't know whether it's a genuine question or whether it's an argument, then you can either ask or you can just assume the best. Assume that he's open-minded and answer the question. Explain, well, here's why so many scientists accept evolution even though it isn't true. So, you want to not always just be jumping down people's throats and calling them fallacy factories, but instead, Number six. Well, of course Dr. Dave is going to argue for a young girl. He's paid to do that, so you shouldn't accept his argument. What kind of fallacy is this? But it hasn't answered yet. What do you think? Yeah, it's close to a genetic fallacy. Now the genetic has more to do with the group, like if he was working for a creation science institute or something like that. But when you're dealing with the person, it is the ad hominem, it's to the man. And what kind of ad hominem is this on the chart? You've got circumstantial ad hominem or abusive ad hominem. is an idiot is saying he is biased and his circumstances that he is working for a creation science institute or whatever is motivating him to do this. So when you are dealing about his motivations that is a circumstantial one, attacking the motives. Number 7, of course creation cannot be true, science is limited to the study of the natural world, but creation involves the supernatural. So it's kind of confusing, at least it was for me, as to what kind of fallacy it is. And that's why it is the fallacy of their irrelevant thesis. If you're looking at one and you're like, I know it's a fallacy but I can't really pin it down as an appeal to consequences or a straw man or a genetic fallacy. If you know it's not relevant, but you can't really figure out how it's not relevant, likely it's just the fallacy of the irrelevant thesis. Remember that's the catch all. So let's try to look at it a little bit more closely and see if we can understand exactly why it's fallacious. The fallacy of the irrelevant thesis. He says creation cannot be true. Science is limited to the study of the natural world, but creation involves the Why is this a fallacy? What's fallacious here? Yeah? What they're trying to do is make science the only thing that determines anything and science cannot tell us what happened in the past because we can't observe that. Yeah, so science has its limits as a tool. That would not really be a fallacy of relevance, that's more of a fallacy of I would think. Yeah. Let's go ahead and move on. Number eight. The org cloud clearly must exist. No one has any proof that it doesn't. This is a repeat of one that we've already talked about, so you should all know this is a... What? Yeah. Right. Appeal to ignorance. Just because you don't have proof that it doesn't exist doesn't mean that it does exist. I also like to say an appeal to ignorance. Christians will also get accused of the appeal to ignorance when we say, well, God must exist because you can't prove that he doesn't. That's an appeal to ignorance. And so be careful that you don't do the appeal to ignorance yourself. Number nine, creationists are morons. Don't be fooled by their arguments. Well, if they were such morons, then their arguments wouldn't fool anybody. So this is a contradiction in itself. However, the real fallacy of relevance here is the abusive ad hominem. Creationists are morons. This is just attacking the people. and in an abusive way. So, at least no foul language was used. Number 10. Creationists do not believe in the scientific method. They simply look to the Bible for all the answers. Which kind of fallacy is this, Clarissa? Strongman? Yep, strongman. Creationists do not say that the Bible has all the answers for all scientific matters. Creationists say that whatever the Bible does talk about is scientifically true and authoritative, but that God has given us other means of knowing about the natural world, and that God expects us to use the scientific method to study the creation and to learn things about his creation. So, to say that we look to the Bible for all the answers That is a straw man. No creationist that I know of states that. Alright, so put the correct number out of ten at the top and hand those in. If you have one left, just write in a guess and then exchange it with someone else. So all these are fallacies of relevance, as it says at the top of the quiz. And it was nice enough to list out the different fallacies of relevance that are options. Would have been a harder quiz if they hadn't put that up at the top, or if you didn't notice it. Number one, everybody's exchanged? Number one, my new theory is more likely to be true than natural selection because it does not involve the death of the unfit. Just because somebody prefers something doesn't mean that it's likely to be true. So which fallacy is this? Yeah? No, not quite. This is the appeal to? No. Close. This is the appeal to consequences. Yeah, this is the appeal to consequences. So, consequences is also an appeal to preference. I like to connect those two together. Instead of appeal to consequences, to me it makes sense to call it the appeal to preference. I prefer this, or I would like this, therefore it must be truce. Here's somebody who doesn't want the deaths of nice cute animals, and therefore has a new theory that makes it so that the nice cute animals don't have to die. However, do you want to make an argument for a different answer? Me? I was going to say, could it also be a appeal to pity or emotion, just since it's like saying it doesn't involve the death of the animal? Okay, I'll take that. I'll take the appeal to pity or emotion. I think it also could be a fallacy of the irrelevant thesis, because whether or not the animals die has nothing to do with whether it's true or not. Yeah. Well, the irrelevant thesis is kind of a catch-all. But I'll give you half. Alright, number two. Evolution is perfectly compatible with God. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Which fallacy is this? I don't know, I called it anyway. Which finalist did you write down? I wrote Irrelevant Thesis. Irrelevant Thesis? Uh-huh. Not quite. What did you have? Straw Man. Oh, Straw Man. I don't see the Straw Man. You'd have to point it out to me. Naomi? Faulty Appeal to Authority. Yes. Faulty Appeal to Authority. Now, these are appealing to scientists and theologians. These are authorities, and they are saying that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence of evolution. And so this is appeal to evolutionary creationists, who believe in creation, they believe in evolution, they think that they can have both, that God created through the processes of evolution. And there's many evolutionary creationists in the world. But just because there are theologians who are scientists who hold this position, that is an appeal to authority, doesn't make it true. Now, why is this a faulty appeal to authority? This is an appeal to authority, definitely. But is it a faulty appeal to authority? Obviously, Dr. Lyle thinks so. That's why he put it in here in the fallacies. But what do you think? Is this a faulty appeal to authority? Well, it's faulty just because it's still based on human reasoning and logic, and so if you base all of your beliefs on just what humans believe, it's going to be faulty. Right, so there's no argument that's being presented here. So it is an appeal to authority without saying, well, why or how do scientists and Christian theologians, who are Christian theologians, bring together their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. So there definitely could be more argumentation put here. But as an argument in and of itself, it is just an appeal to authority. And I have a question as to whether or not this is a faulty appeal to authority. It's definitely an appeal to authority. So if you put appeal to authority, that's great. But I would make an argument that this is not faulty, and that if you were having a discussion, a debate, between a young earth creationist and an old earth evolutionary creationist, I wouldn't mind if they made this point. I think that's a valid point, that there's a large number of people who hold that position. But then we'd have to get into more of the details of why do they hold that position, and is there good evidence for that position? Because there's also authorities who don't take that position. So when I get into the appeal to authority, it can be difficult to know when it's faulty and when it's not faulty. And I think I just want to urge caution that you don't jump to the conclusion that it's a faulty appeal to authority, but try to give people the benefit of the doubt that maybe it is a worthwhile argument to appeal to some authorities in this case. OK? Number three. God does not exist. After all, he kills innocent children. Clearly, that's not right. So before we do number three, any questions on number two? Anybody have a different answer they want to make a case for? This is a fallacy of irrelevant thesis, although it's kind of, again, that's the catch-all. So you look at this and you're like, well, which one is it? I don't really know. So it's the fallacy of irrelevant thesis. However, I also thought, what did you think? I thought it was the appeal to emotion or the appeal to pity. Okay. Yeah? What's the difference between the appeal to emotion and the appeal to pity? Appeal to pity is normally for the person who's arguing it. Like, you should believe me because it's like this. Or it's like, appeal to emotion is more broad. It can be like, you shouldn't believe this because it's terrible. If this was going to be one of those, it would probably be the appeal to emotion. The moralistic kind never accept that. I get that this is different. And I realize that now because it says that's not right, instead of that's not unpleasant. But I had to feel the consequences. Oh, sure. I don't know if that answers your question. Yeah, the appeal to consequences in the moralistic fallacy are very similar. One is a preference, and one is a moral issue. And those can be debated as to what is a preference and what is a moral issue. Sometimes that line gets a little hazy. But I'll give you half credit. Are you accepting the moralistic? Yes. Okay, cool. Alright, any other questions on that one? Yes. What about the naturalistic? Would that be accepted too? Because this is how nature is, therefore this is what should be. No, I don't think so. I don't see it. Number four. You shouldn't believe in or teach creation here. You might get sued. Well, that sounds familiar. We just did that one. So that was the appeal to fear or force. Rather than making a rational argument, the threat of legal action is used to persuade. And that is not logical. That is the appeal to force. Number five. Look, pirating movies from the internet can't be wrong. Everyone does it. Which fallacy is that? Now we're on the naturalistic fallacy, right? Just because people do it doesn't mean that it's right. When you're going from what happens in nature to what ought to be, or what is right or what is wrong, then that's the naturalistic fallacy. Whereas if you're going from what ought to be to what must happen in nature, that's the moralistic fallacy. Good to learn those distinctions. Yeah, I'm not going to accept that, but I can see where they're coming from. Number six, creationists reject such scientific facts in part because they do not accept evidence drawn from natural processes that they consider to be at odds with the Bible. Now this is a tricky one. This is one that I put a little notation next to as being a tricky one. What answer did you have down here? Okay. No, I don't think so. I had straw man fallacy. Yes, straw man is the correct answer according to the study guide. Now, let's look at it a little bit more closely. Creationists reject scientific facts in part. So, the straw man is that creationists reject scientific facts. Creationists do not reject scientific facts. However, let me explain why the naturalist says this or why he thinks this. He thinks that we reject scientific facts because his worldview is operating on the basis of materialism or philosophical naturalism. And in a materialistic or philosophical natural worldview, everything has to be explained by natural causes. And therefore, If it is true that everything has to be explained by natural causes, then the only way to explain the existence of the world is through the Big Bang and through evolution. They can't think of any other way to explain it through natural causes. And therefore, they think that these things are facts. But the fact that they think that they're facts is only based upon their presupposition that it has to come about through purely natural causes. You follow me? So they're labeling things as scientific facts that are not scientific facts. They're only scientific facts if philosophical naturalism is true. So this is really a begging the question fallacy of what is a scientific fact. However, since we're not in that section of fallacies, what category of fallacy does begging the question go under? Good. So there's presumptions, there's relevance, and there's ambiguity. Those are the three major categories. So here there's a presumption that naturalism is true, and therefore the only way naturalists can think of things coming about is through this evolutionary process, and therefore they think it's a fact. But it's only a fact, it's only true if their presupposition is true. So you can understand why they would do this strawman, But it's a straw man because that's not what we believe. He's taking something that he believes and imposing it on us and assuming that we're thinking like he does, and then we're just saying, well yeah, these are facts, but we reject them because they are at odds with the Bible. We don't reject them because they're at odds with the Bible, we reject them because they're built upon ideas that are faulty. All right, so. And because they're an opposite flag. There is some truth in that. That we do reject these scientific facts because we believe in the authority of scripture. Interesting example. Number seven. Isn't evolution wonderful? The majesty of the eagle, the incredible speed of the cheetah, the ingenious color-changing ability of the chameleon, and the splendor of a peacock feather. are all glorious outcomes of one of nature's most amazing and intricate processes. Now, there's not really an argument here, but in the context, it's in a debate, and so it is being used as an argument. And so if this is being used in a debate and it's an argument for the truth of evolution, then what kind of fallacy is this? It's a fallacy of relevance. Which fallacy of relevance is it? Yeah. I'd appeal to emotion. Yeah, yeah. This is the appeal to emotion. So, you know, just kind of poetic language about the beauty of nature, and so you're supposed to get caught up in the emotion of creation, as we call it, and not really pay attention to the argument itself. You could just replace evolution here with creation. Isn't creation wonderful? The majesty of the eagle and so on. The glorious outcomes of God's amazing and intricate creation. So we might do this as well. Now if a creationist does this, it actually makes a little bit more sense than an evolutionist doing it. Because creationists have a reason to believe in beauty. Whereas the evolutionists appealing to emotion and beauty, well, their whole system is built on naturalism, which is unfeeling, which is not something that is emotion based, it's just based on random chance and survival of the fittest. And so actually this appeal to emotion fits much better. for creationists to make this kind of argument. Yeah? Could it be the appeal to consequences? Because the saying, evolution is wonderful and subtle, therefore it was caused by nature's amazing process. Appeal to, what did you say? Consequences. Consequences? No, I don't think so. You could try, though. Now, this is kind of a begging question, is what it really is. They're begging the question as to how did the color-changing ability of the chameleon come about? Was it evolution? Was it not evolution? So if you're going to put something that wasn't in the category of relevance, this is another begging the question fallacy. But you see how you can have multiple fallacies built into one statement. All right, any other questions? Number eight. Many teachers are under considerable pressure from policy makers, school administrators, parents, and students to downplay or eliminate the teaching of evolution. This is an appeal to? 80 people. OK, good. This is one we haven't seen yet, so it could be challenging. He put some of these new ones on here. So we're supposed to feel sorry for these poor teachers who just want to enlighten their students about the truth of evolution, but have all this legal and political pressure put on them. Which they could say is an appeal to force or appeal to fear. They could say, well, you're putting this appeal to fear on these teachers from the policymakers and the parents. But what they're doing, then, is an appeal to pity. You should pity us. And so, again, it's just not on the subject of what is true. It's not making a rational argument for evolution. But this is the fallacy of appeal to pity. Now there's a time for pity, and there's a time for force. Not that it's ever wrong to use force, or it's ever wrong to feel pity. But what we're talking about here is, is it a rational argument? It is not. All right, number nine. The environmentalists make all these arguments that we should save the environment, but they are so wrong. Think about it. They use plastic bags at the grocery store, buy gas guzzling vehicles, and most of them don't even recycle. Fallacy is this, extra points if you pronounce it correctly. Tu quoque. Good, extra points, yeah. Tu quoque. Give a plus one there to your answer for a good pronunciation. Tu quoque, and what does tu quoque mean in Latin? You also. You also, yes. Well, you do it. So anytime somebody does the well you do it argument, you know that's a logical fallacy. Now, is there a time to point out that people are hypocrites? Sure. Is there a time to point out that people are hypocrites? But that's not the same thing as making a rational argument. Yeah? I have a question. Did I get, like, plus 10, or did I get plus 1? On my grade, will it say, like, 81%? OK, let's do the plus 1. Number 10. No evolutionists. No, evolutionists are not lying about all the evidence for evolution. After all, that would be immoral. This is the fallacy of? Caroline? What did you have? Moralistic? Yeah. This is the moralistic fallacy. Just because something is immoral doesn't mean that people won't do it. Put the number correct out of 10 at the top of the page. And then hand that to the center. Yes? Could it also be a field of consequences? Because it's like, no evolution in our line, that would be immoral. Like, that would be moral. Yeah, consequences and the moralistic fallacy are very similar. So I'll give you half credit. I handed out for you the review sheets. Not everybody got one. I'm going to have to share with a family member. There's 10 review pages. I will not be collecting them. I will not be grading them. They are just for your use in order to prepare for the final exam. I recommend that you use them. But if you choose not to, that's your choice. And I will also email them out so you'll have a digital copy of those review pages if you lose it or if you're And then we'll also play another game of Jeopardy, like we did before, and have some prizes to give out for various things. This morning, if you have assignments that we need to write down your grade for, some of you haven't been here much recently, that we, Jamie and I will be here, and we can write down your grades for any of the worksheets that you have not yet handed in. Any questions about any assignments or worksheets that you don't know if you've got handed in or written down? Everything that I've received is in the clipboard that Vinny has. So you can check with Vinny, check with me, so we can look at the clipboard and make sure that we have all of your assignments. Also, if you have the extra credit assignment, that's due today. hand in the paragraph that has all of the logical fallacies on it, and then I will grade those and determine how much extra credit you get for your particular paragraph. All right. Any questions? If not? And you already said this, but please stick around if you have homework to hand out.