Logic Fallacies: Examples in Evolution teaching
The biology classroom in particular is filled with illogical arguments and logically offensive statements in support of “Evolution”.  All designed to deceive the student into believing that Evolution is a science when that is far from the truth. An astrophysicists named Dr Jason Lisle has outlined the errors in evolutionary arguments in “Discerning Truth”, Master Books July 2010 in which I have excerpted below by permission.

​

The following are examples of statements Dr Lisle selected that are errors in logic often presented in support of so-called “evolutionary science”:

1. Formal Fallacies of Equivocation (Switching from one meaning of a word to another within an argument in error)  “We can see evolution happening all the time. Organisms are constantly changing and adapting to their environment”. [ the fact that animals adapt does not demonstrate they have a common ancestor.] 
2. The Strawman Fallacy of irrelevant thesis (misrepresenting an opponent’s position and proceeding to refute the misrepresentation rather than what the opponent actually claims)”The creationists teach that God created all the species we see on earth as they are now and in their current locations.  But scientists have discovered that species have diversified and lived in different locations in the past.”  
3. Faulty appeal to authority (endorsing a claim simply based on the person making it) “Dr. Bill, who has a Ph.D. in biology, taught us that these animals evolved from a simple one-celled creature”.  Biologists have knowledge about how organisms function today. However, how things came to be, is a history question. He has not made direct observations of the ancient past anymore than anyone else. That makes his position an opinion.  
4. Ad Hominem Fallacy (directing the argument against the person making the claim rather than the claim itself) “Creationists are really uneducated; you shouldn’t bother listening to their arguments.”  
5. Fallacy of Bifurcation (claiming there are only two mutually exclusive possibilities when there may actually be three or more options) “Do you believe the universe is governed by natural laws, or do you believe it is upheld by the hand of God?”  
6. Reification errors (Attributing a concrete characteristic to something abstract.) ie.”Nature has designed some amazing creatures.” Nature does not have a mind and therefore cannot design anything. 
7.Begging the question. petition principia  (Circular Reasoning, merely assuming what one is attempting to prove)”We actually don’t need evidence for evolution because it is a fact.”  
8.  Question-Begging Epithet :”…creationism vs. evolution” [subtle attempt to label creation as a mere belief while evolution as not.] 
9. Complex Question Fallacy: plurium interrogationum (attempting to persuade by asking a loaded question) “How did life arise from random chemicals and diversify into all the species we see on earth today?”  
Additional Errors of Logic
a.    The Genetic Fallacy (Dismissing an argument because one objects to the source of the argument) Disregard the source as unreliable only if that can be established.  
b.    The Fallacy of Composition (arguing that what is true of the parts must also be true of the whole, or what is true of the members of a group is also true of the group) “Everything within the universe has a cause. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.”  
c.    Begging the Question.”The creation of a new species from a pre-existing species generally requires thousands of years, so over a lifetime a single human usually can witness only a tiny part of the speciation process.” “It doesn’t occur to the author that perhaps the reason we do not observe evolution (in the particles-to-people sense) today is because it is not true.  Instead, he argues that this must be because evolution happens far too slowly to be observed today. He has assumed evolution in his argument for evolution.  
d.    The Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent (Formal Deductive error where the second premise affirms the consequent of the first premise) and Begging the Question. “For example,….. comparisons of the differences in DNA sequences among organisms provides evidence for many evolutionary events that cannot be found in the fossil record.” “That the similarities in DNA are due to evolution rather than a common creator/common purpose is the very claim at issue.  In standard form, this argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.”  .
e.    Special Pleading, Irrelevant Thesis, and Appeal to Authority.”Because creationism is based on specific sets of religious convictions, teaching it in science classes would mean imposing a particular religious view on students and thus is unconstitutional according to several major rulings in federal district courts and the Supreme Court of the United States.” “Whether or not creation is based on religious beliefs or is unconstitutional are both irrelevant to the truth of the position---so this is an irrelevant thesis.  Also, evolution is also based on a religious/philosophical view: naturalism.  So the author has exempted himself from the same standard (special pleading).  The reference to the Supreme Court is an irrelevant appeal to authority.” .

The No True Scotsman Fallacy (when an arguer defines a term in a biased way to protect his arguments from rebuttals) “No real scientist believes that God created everything in six days.”