click here to learn more about being redeemed from sin and set free to serve God in spirit and in truth. click here to learn more about holiness click here to learn more about being changed into the same image click here to learn more about sowing and reaping click here to learn more about the free gift of righteousness. click here to learn more about how faith gives us access to grace and grace does the works. click here to learn more about faith and how it comes. click here to learn more about acknowledging Jesus click here to learn more about how God speaks Who will you listen to?  Click here to learn more. click here to learn more about the pattern of God. click here to learn more about the pattern of God for individuals, marriage, and family. click here to learn more about the pattern of God for the local church click here to learn more about the Church universal
 
SeekFind Logo Menu

Logical Fallacy of Shoehorning

 

Logical Fallacy of Shoehorning

Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regression, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. Without Divine revelation, neither logic nor math can be known. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Shoehorning is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma.

The logical fallacy of shoehorning occurs eithere when evidence is rationalized to support a conclusion or when a conclusion is rationalized to be supported by the evidence. In both cases, there is no real support. Other fallacies are generally uses to perform the shoehorning: selective evidence, half-truth, outright lies, or just about any fallacy can be used.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Shoehorning

Current Biology: "We studied hummingbird diversification by estimating a time-calibrated phylogeny for 284 hummingbird species, demonstrating that hummingbirds invaded South America by ∼22 million years ago, and subsequently diversified into nine principal clades… Using ancestral state reconstruction and diversification analyses, we (1) estimate the age of the crown-group hummingbird assemblage, (2) investigate the timing and patterns of lineage accumulation for hummingbirds overall and regionally, and (3) evaluate the role of Andean uplift in hummingbird speciation. Detailed analyses reveal disparate clade-specific processes that allowed for ongoing species diversification. One factor was significant variation among clades in diversification rates. For example, the nine principal clades of hummingbirds exhibit ∼15-fold variation in net diversification rates, with evidence for accelerated speciation of a clade that includes the Bee, Emerald, and Mountain Gem groups of hummingbirds. A second factor was colonization of key geographic regions, which opened up new ecological niches. For example, some clades diversified in the context of the uplift of the Andes Mountains, whereas others were affected by the formation of the Panamanian land bridge. Finally, although species accumulation is slowing in all groups of hummingbirds, several major clades maintain rapid rates of diversification on par with classical examples of rapid adaptive radiation."

This from CREV.info: "In short, evolution is slow except when it’s fast, it speeds up except when it slows down, and rules for one group don’t apply to other groups.  Diversification rates can change as much as 15-fold to keep the story in order.  Since these evolutionary biologists expected hummingbirds to evolve in the time allowed for them according to evolutionary theory, the whole exercise was a case of theory incest (see DIDO in the Darwin Dictionary).  There is no reference to fossils or other hard evidence independent of Darwinian assumptions.

The authors commit a logical flaw as well, confusing cause and effect.  They attribute mountains and land bridges as causes of diversification.  There’s nothing in a mountain that can force a bird to develop a specialized tongue to fit a flower, or to evolve a unique shoulder joint that permits hovering.  If that were a law of nature, why didn’t it happen to every bird?

The popular press, predictably, celebrated this wondrous confirmation of Darwin without any critique. . . ."

Science Daily: "The new, time-calibrated evolutionary tree shows that ancestral hummingbirds split from the swifts and treeswifts about 42 million years ago, probably in Eurasia. By about 22 million years ago, the ancestral species of all modern hummingbirds had made its way to South America, and that’s when things really took off."

In other words, their presumed ancestral home in Eurasia was left vacant.  Now, all hummingbirds inhabit the American hemisphere.  By “time-calibrated,” the sentence implies that data about hummingbirds were forced into evolutionary time.  That’s why the authors speculate that diversification rates varied so dramatically among different groups.  The Eurasian hummers presumably lived happily on the other side of the world for 20 million years, until by unexplained processes, one “made its way” to South America.  Then, they all migrated en masse or died out in the Old World.

Read the entire article on shoehorning hummingbirds into the molecules-to-man tale.

We studied hummingbird diversification by estimating a time-calibrated phylogeny for 284 hummingbird species, demonstrating that hummingbirds invaded South America by ∼22 million years ago, and subsequently diversified into nine principal clades… Using ancestral state reconstruction and diversification analyses, we (1) estimate the age of the crown-group hummingbird assemblage, (2) investigate the timing and patterns of lineage accumulation for hummingbirds overall and regionally, and (3) evaluate the role of Andean uplift in hummingbird speciation. Detailed analyses reveal disparate clade-specific processes that allowed for ongoing species diversification. One factor was significant variation among clades in diversification rates. For example, the nine principal clades of hummingbirds exhibit ∼15-fold variation in net diversification rates, with evidence for accelerated speciation of a clade that includes the Bee, Emerald, and Mountain Gem groups of hummingbirds. A second factor was colonization of key geographic regions, which opened up new ecological niches. For example, some clades diversified in the context of the uplift of the Andes Mountains, whereas others were affected by the formation of the Panamanian land bridge. Finally, although species accumulation is slowing in all groups of hummingbirds, several major clades maintain rapid rates of diversification on par with classical examples of rapid adaptive radiation.

In short, evolution is slow except when it’s fast, it speeds up except when it slows down, and rules for one group don’t apply to other groups.  Diversification rates can change as much as 15-fold to keep the story in order.  Since these evolutionary biologists expected hummingbirds to evolve in the time allowed for them according to evolutionary theory, the whole exercise was a case of theory incest (see DIDO in the Darwin Dictionary).  There is no reference to fossils or other hard evidence independent of Darwinian assumptions.

The authors commit a logical flaw as well, confusing cause and effect.  They attribute mountains and land bridges as causes of diversification.  There’s nothing in a mountain that can force a bird to develop a specialized tongue to fit a flower, or to evolve a unique shoulder joint that permits hovering.  If that were a law of nature, why didn’t it happen to every bird?

The popular press, predictably, celebrated this wondrous confirmation of Darwin without any critique.  Science Daily quoted a smiling co-author Jimmie McGuire: “One of the really cool features of hummingbird evolution is that they all eat the same thing yet have diversified dramatically,” McGuire says. “It really is a big surprise that hummingbirds have divided the nectarivore niche so extensively.”

Live Science posted a photo gallery of hummingbirds of the world.  While they differ in terms of coloration and details of beak or wing shape, they are all clearly hummingbirds.  Science Daily, though, says that this “marvel of evolutionary engineering” (12/05/13) evolved from non-hummingbirds:

The new, time-calibrated evolutionary tree shows that ancestral hummingbirds split from the swifts and treeswifts about 42 million years ago, probably in Eurasia. By about 22 million years ago, the ancestral species of all modern hummingbirds had made its way to South America, and that’s when things really took off.

In other words, their presumed ancestral home in Eurasia was left vacant.  Now, all hummingbirds inhabit the American hemisphere.  By “time-calibrated,” the sentence implies that data about hummingbirds were forced into evolutionary time.  That’s why the authors speculate that diversification rates varied so dramatically among different groups.  The Eurasian hummers presumably lived happily on the other side of the world for 20 million years, until by unexplained processes, one “made its way” to South America.  Then, they all migrated en masse or died out in the Old World.

- See more at: http://crev.info/2014/04/bumming-herds-of-hummingbirds-into-evolution/?utm_source=crev+subscribers&utm_campaign=4866fa0490-CEH+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1c90520a6f-4866fa0490-81321925#sthash.G5slDZ4N.dpuf

Bill Nye in the creation/evolution debate with Ken Ham: "Tiktaalik, this fish-lizard guy. And they found several specimens. It wasn’t one individual. In other words, they made a prediction that this animal would be found and it was found."

This is a perfect example of shoehorning the evidence to fit the predication. What is the prediction? That intermediate forms will be found between kinds of living things (cat kind, dog/wolf kind, etc.) The search has been constant since Darwin. There should be millions of these intermediate forms in the fossil record, not just tons of fossils that show interesting variations of existing kinds. At any point in time, a few transitional forms claimed. When those are discredited, new ones pop up until they are discredited. So, Tiktaalik is Bill Nye's evidence that the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story makes predictions that work. Tiktaalik is a fish with bony fin rays rather than true finger or toe bones, and even evolutionists don't claim these to be homologous or related in any way to digits. The prediction was that a missing link to fill in a gap in the story of molecules-to-man, however, calling this a missing link would be a bare assertion, an unfounded notion, just like so many other so-called predictions that didn't pan out but were publicized as victories (declaring victory) anyway. It has already been debunked. Using such an unproved proposition as this as a premise to support molecules-to-man would be a hysteron proteron fallacy.

Bill Nye in the creation/evolution debate with Ken Ham: "Inherent in this worldview is that, somehow, (pause for drama) Noah and his family (pause for drama) were able to build a wooden ship that would house 14,000 individual [animals] . . . and these people were unskilled. As far an anybody knows they had never built a wooden ship before. Furthermore, they had to get all these animals on there, and they had to feed them, and I understand that Ken Ham has some explanations for that which I frankly find extraordinary, but, this is the premise of the ‘bit,’ and we can then run a test, a scientific test. People in the 1800s built an extraordinary large wooden ship, the Wyoming. It was a six-masted scooner, the largest one ever built. It had a motor on it for winching cables and stuff. But this boat had a great difficulty. It was not as big as the Titanic, but it was a very long ship. It would twist in the sea. It would twist this way, this way and this way. (moving his hands to illustrate exaggerated twisting in four directions while making extreme facial expressions). And in all that twisting, it leaked. It leaked like crazy. The crew could not keep the ship dry. And indeed it eventually foundered and sank—loss of all 14 hands. So there were 14 crewmen aboard a ship that was built by very, very skilled shipwrights in New England. These guys were the best in the world at wooden ship building (pause) and they couldn’t build a boat as big as the Ark is claimed to have been. Is that reasonable? Is that possible that the best shipbuilders in the world couldn’t do what eight unskilled people, men and their wives, were able to do?"

  1. To conclude that it would be unlikely that Noah could have built the Ark as stated in the historical record is definitely a case of shoehorning data to fit a conclusion when the data doesn't fit the conclusion.
  2. "Inherent in this worldview is that, somehow, (pause for drama) Noah and his family (pause for drama) were able to build a wooden ship that would house 14,000 individual [animals] . . . and these people were unskilled." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Inserting the word, "somehow." is a way of implying impossibility, which is question-begging, since this is what Bill Nye is trying to prove. It is the logical fallacy of the question-begging epithet. We don't know how many animals were on the ark, but 14,000 is probably high. However, the arc could have handled the animals. (article that explains how) He is assuming evolution (the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story) to prove evolution (the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story). His assumption is that we are evolving, so we are becoming more skilled, so these people would be unskilled. If, however, these people were close to God and all wisdom and knowledge comes from God, and if this wisdom and knowledge increases with age and Noah was probably around 500 years old when he started building and 600 years old when he finished, then he would not be unskilled.
  3. "As far an anybody knows they had never built a wooden ship before." This is a suggestion that no one had ever built a wooden ship previously, which would be a pure assertion without evidence. We do know that God Himself designed the ship.
  4. "Furthermore, they had to get all these animals on there, and they had to feed them, and I understand that Ken Ham has some explanations for that which I frankly find extraordinary," Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of personal incredulity. The mindset of Bill Nye has no effect on realty.
  5. "this is the premise of the ‘bit,’" The word, bit, here implies a comedy bit. This is the logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule.
  6. "we can then run a test, a scientific test . . ." Bill Nye followed this with a history of a ship that was built that was large and that sunk. If he thinks this is a scientific test that proves that a large ship cannot be built, then we can wonder about his understanding of science. This is the logical fallacy of questionable criteria. If one person fails at something this doesn't prove that no one else can succeed.
  7. "These guys were the best in the world at wooden ship building (pause) and they couldn’t build a boat as big as the Ark is claimed to have been." Bill Nye is using a twist on the logical fallacy of presentism, assuming that the skills of people who are living now can be projected into the past, in this case, assuming less and less skill going back in time.
  8. "Is that possible that the best shipbuilders in the world couldn’t do what eight unskilled people, men and their wives, were able to do?" We are just supposed to take Bill Nye's word that Noah and his family worked alone on the Ark and that they were unskilled. Bill Nye is assuming that Noah didn't hire the best shipbuilders of his own day. Bill Nye is assuming that God didn't design the ship. It is likely that God did build the ship through Noah and his family, and there is nothing that challenges belief in that, except that it violates the no-God worldveiw/fake-reality. It is clear that Noah was on speaking terms with God and that God was directing Him, leading him, and blessing his work. Bill is using the logical fallacy of appeal to naturalism, which is a type of hysteron proteron fallacy. The ship took about 100 years to build, so there would be a fair amount of craftsmanship involved. One of the things that skeptics who love to argue against the Bible do is to make assumptions that would make the thing that they are busy arguing against impossible--only if the assumptions were true. In order to use a hypothetical approach to try to prove that something could not possibly have happened, if there is any assumption that could be made that would make the thing possible, then it is not impossible.
  9. We know, by Divine revelation, that the Genesis happened. God predicted that there would be a day when some evil people would deny this. Bill Nye is denying it, but, not surprisingly, he cannot deny the truth without being irrational.

 



Author/Compiler
Last updated: Sep, 2014
 
 




Bread Crumbs

 
Home     >   Meaning     >   Christian Witness     >   Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies     >   Flawed Evidence     >   Shoehorning

Main

Foundations

Home

Meaning

Bible

Dictionary

History

Toons & Vids

Quotations

Similar

Logical Fallacy of Proof by Fallacy

Proof Surrogate / Evidence Surrogate

Error in Observation

Misrepresenting the Facts Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Distorted Evidence

Logical Fallacy of Unverified Evidence

Logical Fallacy of Hysteron Proteron

The Logical Fallacy of Unsubstantiated Inference

Assuming Facts Not In Evidence

Logical Fallacy of Wishful Thinking

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Worldview / Appeal to Fake-Reality / Appeal to Paradigm / Appeal to Confirmation Bias

Logical Fallacy of Slippery Slope

Logical Fallacy of Limited Scope

Logical Fallacy of Mind Reading

Logical Fallacy of Shoehorning

Logical Fallacy of Confirmation Bias

Sacred Cow Fallacy

Fantasy Projection / Worldview Projection / Fake-Reality Projection / Paradigm Projection / Context Projection

Group Think Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Context Imposition

Psychologist's Fallacy

The Logical Fallacy ofAmazing Familiarity

Stolen Concept Fallacy / Smuggled Concept Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Weak Inference

Logical Fallacy of Proof by Theoretical Stories

The Logical Fallacy of Anecdotal Evidence Presented as Scientific Evidence / Personal Testimony Presented as Scientific Evidence

Logical Fallacy of Dismissing All Personal Testimony

Logical Fallacy of Rewriting History / Have it Your Way

Logical Fallacy of Proof by Model

Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assumption

Logical Fallacy of Argument from Personal Incredulity / Personal Belief / Personal Conviction

Logical Fallacy of Argument by Lack of Imagination

Logical Fallacy of Argument by Imagination

The Logical Fallacy of Capturing the Naive / Argumentum ad Captandum / Argumentum ad Captandum Vulgus

Logical Fallacy of Argument from Personal Astonishment

Logical Fallacy of Special Pleading

Logical Fallacy of Variant Imagization

Logical Fallacy of Self-Exclusion

Logical Fallacy of Unintended Self-Inclusion

Ad Personam Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion / Proof by Repeated Assertion

Logical Fallacy of Cherishing the Zombie

Logical Fallacy of Argumentum Ad Lapidem

Logical Fallacy of Proof by Understatement / Misunderstanding by Understatement

Logical Fallacy of Proof by Logical Tautology

Logical Fallacy of Proof by False Declaration of Victory

Logical Fallacy of Assumption Correction Assumption

False Criteria Fallacy / Fallacy of Questionable Criteria

Logical Fallacy of Cutting Off Discussion / Summary Dismissal

Logical Fallacy of Thought-Terminating Cliche / ClicheThinking

Logical Fallacy of Truism

Logical Fallacy of the Perfect Solution / Nirvana Fallacy / Perfect Solution Fallacy / Perfectionist Fallacy

Just In Case Fallacy / Worst Case Scenario Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Unwarranted Extrapolation

Logical Fallacy of Untestability

Logical Fallacy of Subjectivity / Relativist Fallacy / Subjectivist Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Bizarre Hypothesis/Theory / Far-Fetched Hypothesis/Theory

Logical Fallacy of Least Plausible Hypothesis

Logical Fallacy of Extravagant Hypothesis / Complex Hypothesis Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Privileging the Hypothesis

Logical Fallacy of Canceling Hypotheses

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to False Faith

Logical Fallacy of False Appeal to Heaven / Appeal to Heaven / Gott Mit Uns / Manfest Destiny / Special Covenant

Logical Fallacy of Inaccurate Models

Logical Fallacy of Hedging / Having Your Cake / Failure to Assert / Diminished Claim / Failure to Choose Sides / Talking out of Both Sides of Your Mouth / If by Whiskey

Preacher's "We" / Salesman's "We" / Politician's "We" Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Nature

Logical Fallacy of Experimenter Bias

Fallacy of the Crucial Experiment

Logical Fallacy of Argument from Hearsay / Telephone Game / Chinese Whispers / Anecdotal Evidence / Volvo Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Ad Hoc Rescue / Ad Hoc Hypothesis

The Logical Fallacy of Hindsight Bias / Knew-it-all-Along Effect / Creeping Determinism

Logical Fallacy of Continuum / Argument of the Beard / Fallacy of the Beard / Heap Fallacy / Heap Paradox Fallacy / Bald Man Fallacy / Continuum Fallacy / Line Drawing Fallacy / Sorites Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Argument from Fallacy / Argumentum Ad Logicam

Logical Fallacy of Inflation of Conflict

Logical Fallacy of Infinite Regress / Homunculus Argument

The Logical Fallacy of Reification / Anti-Conceptual Mentality Fallacy / Attributing Concreteness to the Abstract / Concretism / Hypostatization Fallacy / Objectification

Logical Fallacy of Reification / Personification

Logical Fallacy Slothful Induction

Logical Fallacy of Superstitious Thinking / Magical Thinking

Logical Fallacy of Meaningless Question

Logical Fallacy of Proving Non-Existence

Argumentum ad Imaginibus

Statement of Conversion Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Outdated Information

Logical Fallacy of Argument by Laziness

Alien Fallacy

Quantum Physics Fallacy

Fallacious Abstraction Fallacy

Appeal to the Untested / Appeal to the Unknown Fallacy

Grasping at Straws

Appeal to Pragmatism Fallacy / Pragmatic Fallacy / Appeal to Convenience / Pragmatism / Appeal to Utility / Argumentum Ad Convenientiam

Appeal to Fake Hope

Appeal to Intuition Fallacy

Appeal to Mystery Fallacy

Argument from Design Fallacy

Untestability Fallacy

Fallacy of Imaginary Evidence

Monopolizing the Question / Hypophora

Fallacy of Antecedent / Fallacy of Time

Faulty Sign / Faulty Predictor Fallacy

Pretentious Antecedent

Logical Fallacy of Pretentious Premise


Recent

Home

Answer to Critic

Appeal to Possibility

Circular Reasoning

Argument to the Future

Insignificant Cause

Word Magic

Love Between a Man and Woman

Author/Compiler

Colossians 2

Righteousness & Holiness

Don't Compromise

Sin

Proof by Atheism

Scriptures About Marriage

Genuine Authority

The Reason for Rejecting Truth

Witness on the Internet

Flaky Human Reasoning

How Do You Know?



Featured


The Real Purpose of the Church

The Real Purpose of Life

From Glory to Glory

REAL Faith--What it IS & IS NOT

REAL Love--What it IS & IS NOT

How to be Led by God

How to Witness

Wisdom: Righteousness & Reality

Holiness & Mind/Soul

Redemption: Free From Sin

Real Reality

Stories Versus Revelation

Understanding Logic

Logical Fallacies

Circular Reasoning-Who is Guilty?

How Can We Know Anything?

God's Word

God's Process

God's Pattern

Mind Designed to Relate to God

Answers for the Confused

Fossil Record Says: "Creation"

Avoid These Pitfalls

Public School's Religion

Twisting Science

Evolutionism

Public School Failures

Twisting History


How can we know anything about anything? That's the real question

more info: mouseover or click

The complexity of Gods Way understood in a single diagram
Obey your flesh and descend into darkness