The creationist organization Answers in Genesis (AiG) is perhaps best known as the group that brought us the creation museum, an impending sense of doom for the future of humanity, and the world’s largest bucket of cognitive dissonance (only slightly smaller than the world’s largest ball of twine).  However, I was delighted to learn that AiG is apparently branching out from its expertise in stupidity; one of their authors has been writing a series of articles about logical fallacies!  Even better, the article will focus specifically on logical fallacies made by “evolutionists” (i.e., scientists).  Of course, creationists have been unintentionally writing about logical fallacies for ages, as their arguments are typically nothing more than lengthy strings of incomprehensible jibberish and invalid reasoning.  But now, after years of such indirect tutelage and so much direct experience in the art of idiotic arguments, the AiG now considers itself an expert in this field.  And if the old elementary school adage is correct—It takes one to know one!—then the creationists certainly have the advantage when it comes to logical fallacies.

Normally, one would think that watching a creationist explain logical fallacies would be like watching an old woman with osteoporosis explain powerlifting: both can explain the subject in the abstract, but as soon as they attempt to actually do it, they fall crumpled to the ground in helpless, quivering lumps after giving themselves a hernia and shitting their pants.  In reality, though, reading an AiG creationist’s thoughts about logic isn’t quite that bad.

It’s worse.  Reading AiG’s series of articles on logic is literally worse than an old lady herniating and shitting herself while sustaining a serious, life-threatening injury.  If the ethical theory of utilitarianism holds any merit whatsoever, then it would take at least 43 nearly-dead old ladies with shit-stained pants for their suffering to outweigh the untold horrors released upon the world by this ghastly and grossly incompetent treatment of logical fallacies.  Such is the unimaginable stupidity of these articles.

Now, of all the grease-painted mimes scrambling out of the clown car that is AiG, a young-Earth creationist astrophysicist named Jason Lisle has been given the daunting task of explaining logic.  He seems to be the perfect man for the job, as even his own credentials appear to be logically contradictory.  The guy studied astronomical objects that are measured in distances far exceeding a few thousand light years, in which case it took light from some of these objects millions and billions of years to reach us, and in spite of this believes the universe is a few thousand years old.  Either this guy thinks the speed of light is significantly faster than its currently accepted value, or else he thinks the universe is the size of a fucking shoebox.  Being a creationist astrophysicist is almost like being a historian who thinks the world was created just a few seconds ago.  (Incidentally, even getting a doctoral degree in the history of a few seconds ago is slightly more difficult than getting one for creation science, which generally requires little more than holding a Bible, refraining from drooling excessively, and paying $10,000 to Kent Hovind.)

According to his biography page, Lisle is interested in developing models of stellar aging and cosmology—that is, he wants to ignore current models of stellar aging because they contradict a literal reading of Genesis!  But the biography page continues by saying, “Creationist thinking in these areas is still very preliminary.”  If by “preliminary” you mean outlandish, idiotic, totally incompatible with the evidence, and bordering on insane, then I agree.

Needless to say, Jason Lisle is probably an expert in logical fallacies and contradiction, given his abundant personal experience and capacity to resolve a PhD in astrophysics with young-Earth creationism.  However, his introduction to the logical fallacy series is just a puff piece going over the basics of logic, so I won’t bother discussing it here, as this is no doubt familiar territory for those of you who have mastered the ability to use a toilet.  I will, however, briefly mock it.

To lead off, Lisle says:

I have often thought it would be fun to carry a little buzzer that I could push when someone makes a fundamental mistake in reasoning. Of course, that would be impolite. However, we should all become familiar with logical fallacies so that our mental buzzer goes off whenever we hear a mistake in reasoning.

Yes, and I have often thought it would be fun to throw my bloody feces in peoples’ faces whenever they make a fundamental mistake in reasoning.  Because this is impolite, though, I will refrain from doing so and will only throw mental feces covered in blood.  In fact, I will throw the greatest conceivable mental bloody feces, which will no doubt immediately pop into existence as soon as I mentally unleash it, owing to the validity of the ontological argument.  As such, I ask you, dear reader, to envision Jason Lisle’s face covered in the greatest conceivable bloody feces each time I rebut one of his horrid arguments.  Throughout the coming months, there will be many occasions for imagining his bloody, shit-faced visage, as I will regularly dissect and eviscerate each article in his series about logical fallacies.  Be on the lookout!  Coming up soon: the argument from reification.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009 at 12:01 AM and is filed under Blog, Creationism, Mathematics/Logic, Skepticism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.