Fallacy of Opposition

The Fallacy of Opposition occurs when it is asserted that anyone who disagrees is not credible—the fact that they disagree is proof of that fact.

Examples of the Fallacy of Opposition

Sandra: “Show me one article written by a PhD scientist that refutes evolution [meaning the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story].”

Roxanne: “You can go to Creation.com, AnswersinGenesis.org, or ICR.org. There are thousands of articles if that’s what you’re looking for."

Sandra: “I refuse to look at anything on those sites. They are not credible. If they knew anything, they would be supporting science [meaning the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story].

Roxanne: "If evolution is true, there is no need for Christ. We know, from what God is saying through Scripture, that sin is the cause of death. Christ is the cure. Molecules-to-man evolution puts death before sin. Evolution, as it is believed by some to have happened, is a cruel process where only the meanest and toughest survive and the weak are exterminated. That is not what my God tells me through Scripture."

Sandra: "That's ridiculously hypocritical. It also means you don't know a thing about evolution. Christian Evolutionists believe God used evolution to create the Earth and guided evolution [meaning molecules to man] along. It has nothing to do with Christ."

Roxanne: "You are assuming that I don't know about evolutionism's claims just because I don't believe the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood story.”

This is the essence of the fallacy of opposition. "You disagree with me. Therefore, you know nothing."

Fallacy Abuse

EvoWiki, giving a bogus example of the Fallacy of Opposition: “The only reasons for excluding intelligent design from science are self-serving ones. Philosophers of science who remain fully committed to evolutionary theory, but know the difference between a good and a bad argument admit as much.' In other words, people that do not consider ID to be scientific are themselves using wrong argumentation according to William Dembski.” [This was given as an example of the fallacy of opposition]

The thing that exposes EvoWiki's misunderstanding of this fallacy is that William Dembski didn’t say they were wrong because they oppose ID. He pointed out their reasoning is not rational but based on self-serving biases. That is quite different from the straw man that EvoWiki decided to print. There is no fallacy of opposition involved in pointing out that someone else is using a fallacy. EvoWiki, in this case, is committing fallacy abuse. The problem is that the people who go to a site like EvoWiki and read a definition of a fallacy that is written like this may get the erroneous impression that they are reading something that is supposed to be rational. While they can't understand it, they think that they are supposed to, so they shoehorn it into their worldview and end up losing the ability to know the difference between reality and make-believe.