Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Origins science and avoiding historical fallacies

In terms of the creation vs. evolution debate, it is important to recognize that origins science best fits in the category of historical science rather than the category of operational science. This is a notable distinction in terms of understanding the issue and Dr. Don Batten has an excellent article on this subject which I encourage you to examine: ‘It’s not science’

Historical science and avoiding logical fallacies

In 1970, the historian David Hackett Fischer wrote a noteworthy book entitled  Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought. 

An excellent review of Fischer's book declared:
In only approximately 300 pages, Fischer surveys an immense amount of background historical literature to point out a comprehensive variety of analytical errors that many, if not most, historians commit. Fischer points out specific examples of faulty or sloppy reasoning in the work of even the most prominent historians, making it a useful book for beginning students of history. While this book presumably did not make Fischer popular with many of his peers, it should be noted that his contributions as a historian have not been limited simply to criticizing the work of others; since 1976, he has published a number of well-received books on other historical topics.
 In his book Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, David Hackett Fischer presents 7 rules of thumb for historians that will help you when examining the historical evidence relating to origins science.

Fischer's 7 rules of thumb for historians:

1. The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.

2. Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question.

3. An historian must not merely provide good evidence, but the best evidence. And the best evidence, all other things being equal, is the evidence which is most nearly immediate to the event itself.

4.  Evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is no evidence at all. (In other words,absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence)

5.  The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from.

6. An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants.

7. All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic.

(source: Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, page 674, 1999, Mark MCGarry, Texas Type and Book Works, Dallas, TX, ISBN 0-7852-4219-8)


  1. There are several good reasons to learn about logical fallacies. One is to avoid making them ourselves. Another is to realize that when atheists attack like piranhas, they do not have reason on their side. Rather, they abuse it. Atheism is an incoherent, inconsistent worldview that lacks the necessary preconditions of intelligibility; antitheism presupposes theism because they cannot account for logic, morality, uniformity in nature and so on. So, when they rail against the Creator, they are actually borrowing from the biblical worldview because theirs fails. Ironic, innit?

  2. The ironies never cease when it comes to the "arguments" of evolutionists/atheists/agnostics.

  3. http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/09/researchers-track-evolution-through-snapshots-of-40000-generations/

    1. Goldfish,

      No doubt this is merely evolutionist speculation that can easily rebutted. Evolutionists have put forth a lot of speculation over the past 150 plus years which has later been rejected even by themselves.

      Do you feel confident this is bona fide evidence for macroevolution?

      Are you willing to debate the issue of the
      15 questions for evolutionists
      via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

      If you are confident, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua.

    2. no doubt you cannot rebut the evidence set in the published work. nice dodge. you're missing some very key points. in the article link given by goldfish, there is affirmative evidence for evolution. the evidence is not only the bacteria but the genes contained therein. if you actually read the paper (somehow i doubt it), you'll even see creationists favorite straw man become crushed, the creation of (gasp!) new information in the course of mutations.

      it's not enough to say that your hypothesis fits a particular set of facts. the hypothesis must be able to make predictions, which in this case the theory of evolution clearly does.

      creation "science" is actually nothing of the sort. it's simply a conclusion (god exists and created), followed by interpretation of the facts to support it. nothing else. complete dogma.

    3. Giovanni,

      Please read these resources concerning Lenski's experiment and its implications in terms of the macrovolutionary hypothesis:





      Next, are you willing to have a debate centered around the
      15 questions for evolutionists
      via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

      If you are confident that your evolutionary beliefs can withstand cross-examination, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua.

      If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua

    4. the links you posted, as well as all the links you've posted which you demand people read, are full of the same unscientific clap-trap as before. none of it can be verified. none of it makes predictions. in the face of positive evidence for evolution (fossils, dna, et. al.), all you can come up with is "be prepared to debate".

      notice the difference with the lenski paper against any of the behe articles you point to.

      instead of starting with a hypothesis based on observation, creating an experiment and generating data, and finally publishing the results, all you have is "read and become familiar with a bunch of creation 'science', then be prepared to debate a creationist, moderated by other creationists, on a creationist website." that's all you've got. of course, you can't create an experiment and publish so the world can see and replicate. all you have is "god-did-it, trust me, but be prepared to debate."

    5. Giovanni,

      I find your excuse making re: dodging a debate offer very telling. You didn't contact Shockofgod or VivaYehshua and offer a counter debate proposal with mutually agreed upon moderators either.

      Another evolutionist who evolved into a chicken!


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.