How To Be Illogical, A Study.

An Exploration Of False Dilemma.

A post by +Rodney Mulraney on Google+

Evolution is not really real ;

1. If "evolution" then we understand a process to create intelligent entities, from simple ones via a simple process.
2 . evolution.
C. We understand a process to create intelligent entities, from simple ones via a simple process.

So C is false, so the argument is valid, therefore either;
A. We dont have a real "proper" "scientific" "evolution" theory. AND / OR
B. Evolution is not a process that creates intelligient/more complex/ entities, from simpler ones.

So evolution is defined as the process that creates more compex/intelligent entities from simpler ones.

Therefore B is false, and A must be true :

Evolution is not really real
----------
From a comment I made in a discussion from a post by +Bart Verveen , Cheers Bart :)
Thought others might like this anyway... What do you all think ?
---repost so I can share.... (grrr Google)

So, why am I posting this?

Primarily, to highlight the fact that the OP (Rodney) claims to be logically sound, and has through Ad-hom attacks and general lunacy, attracted my attention.

While I am not an acclaimed 'authority' on the matter, nor do I consider that my own views are any more relevant, I do find myself compelled to highlight when people are being intentionally misleading and intellectually dishonest. I have dubbed this presentation the 'moronological argument'.

And now, let's explore his post,

First up, and most importantly, when posing a "what if" argument, he's presented only a small selection of possible outcomes, the very basis of false dichotomy, and as such has (and seemingly is) completely oblivious to or wilfully ignorant of alternative responses to the 'what if' question at hand.

1. If "evolution" then we understand a process to create intelligent entities, from simple ones via a simple process.

Well, the opening to his premise is just poor English, but let us look beyond the grammatical malfunctions.

The question clearly pertains to the validity of the evolutionary process, one which has been established for some time and is accepted to be the single most valid form of explaining the variation and complexity of life on Earth.

I would go as far as to agree somewhat with this opening statement, we do "understand the process" we can even harness it to our own whim, creating modified crops, altering genetic traits to create breeds of horses and dogs that we find desirable, create effective medicines and more recently scientists have been approaching the very complex idea of pre-cell division interruptive alteration of DNA to eliminate genetic traits which we as a species consider harmful or disadvantageous. So it is fair to say that we know to a very fine level of detail the process of evolution.

However, this first presumptive point that evolution 'creates' intelligent life is slightly erroneous, evolution of intelligence occurs because intelligence prospers, the process of evolution is blind to the results it causes.

2 . evolution.

point number 2 .. um, yes.. evolution, so lets move onto point number C (and no... I'm not joking, this is how it was written)

C. We understand a process to create intelligent entities, from simple ones via a simple process.

well, Rodney, you just re-worded point 1, that we have a very good knowledge of evolution.

So C is false, so the argument is valid, therefore either;

And why exactly is C false? what object of interaction has brought you to this conclusion?

This is a statement without backing, not a conclusion to the premise of your post ( for the audience sake, I'm not entirely sure what the premise of argument actually is...)

I'm not sure what 'argument' is valid, there is no argument presented, merely an inconsistent structure of poorly formed presumptive details.

To state a conclusion without any mention of methodology is outright illogical.

A. We dont have a real "proper" "scientific" "evolution" theory. 

By your own admission (in both points 1 and C) you have stated that we do have a good knowledge of evolution, how have you now passed argument against your own primary statement? This is not only illogical, but close to idiocy. Here's how they look together:

We understand a process to create intelligent entities, from simple ones via a simple process. 
We dont have a real "proper" "scientific" "evolution" theory.

Rodney, If you're reading this, read those last two lines aloud, If you're having trouble making it sound consistent it's because it is not consistent, but these are your words, unaltered.

let's now look more closely at point A. What points of detail have led you to the conclusion we do not have an adequate explanation of diversity of life? what studies have you found that directly fly in the face of all knowledge on the subject of biological diversification, otherwise known as the evolutionary process.

By all means contact me on Google+ to make your citations.

Can I be so forthcoming as to assume that you have none? and that your point A is in fact a personal ideology presented as fact disregarding the small detail that facts cannot simply be made up at will?

So far no coherent statement has been made (which you have not conflicted yourself) but I will continue to explore the irrelevancy of what you have presented.

B. Evolution is not a process that creates intelligient/more complex/ entities, from simpler ones.

Well, that is simply nonsense, here is a dictionary definition of 'evolution':

• The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Your statement in point B is quite frankly utterly irrelevant and yet again contradicts your previous statements of points 1 and C.

So evolution is defined as the process that creates more compex/intelligent entities from simpler ones.

Yet again, in this section you are making your own presumptive statement which attempts to redefine what 'evolution' is, but there is already a well established definition of what it is. So, much like most other English speaking people let's use the words that we already understand the meanings of.

If I could point back up to the dictionary definition to help you understand what evolution is. Once again this highlights that you are simply making up nonsense, it's not even an appeal to any particular fallacy, it's very simply called lying.

Therefore B is false, and A must be true :

And here we finally are, the false dichotomy at the root of your argument. While I would ask why B is given the property of being false beyond the fact that essentially you have drawn up a strawman (fallacy) of what evolution is by your own interpretation or assertion of misinformation.

Because B is false, does not automatically qualify that A is valid (non sequitur fallacy). Indeed, once again, by your own assertions we do have a good understanding of what evolution is, and thus would logically conclude assertion A to be false.

B is false, because you've made it up. (strawman)
A is false, because it does not match the observable details. (non sequitur)

Evolution is not really real

This is your own conclusion, constructed by two main fallacies of logical failure leading to a third logical failure: composition fallacy, and as such I would state that your conclusion is erroneous.

Rodney Mulraney you have proven nothing, other that your own ineptitude at presenting coherent argument.