Genetic Fallacy AGAIN, Plus a Cascade of Carping

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Edited 11-11-2015

The Genetic Fallacy is, in simplest terms, rejecting something because someone does not like the source. For example:

The text in the image shows not only that the commenter does not like ICR, but includes other fallacies as well, including the ever-popular ad hominem. And he wonders why he was banned from the Facebook Page? Seriously?

Virginia Heffernan formerly wrote technology and culture for the New York Times. She admitted recently that she is a creationist. Well, what kind of creationist, I'm not certain. (If she wants to discuss these things, biblical creationists will be glad to assist her.) What matters to her detractors is that she rejects evolution.

This led to a slew of ridicule. Hamilton Nolan of "Gawker" said:

"We are not saying you're a bad person, Virginia, but you should probably expect that, from now on, when people read your musings on, say, the future of internet communications, they might stop, in a moment of gathering doubt, and recall that you are a science-phobic angel-believing climate change skeptic, and that therefore your dedication to facts is somewhat in question."

Let's see... Genetic Fallacy, Poisoning the Well, ad hominems, unargued philosophical bias, Straw Man and simple bigotry for starters. Nolan is demonstrating that he is uninformed about the nature of science, since Heffernan's views of origins have nothing to do with observational science and technology. (Did I detect some appeal to authority there as well? Not sure.) Ironically, Nolan calls Heffernan "science-phobic" for denying evolution, but evolution itself is not scientific.

By the way, the genetic fallacy can work in the affirmative, approving of something because of the source. People listen to Bill Nye the Anti-Science Guy, so when he speaks with his "authority" on a topic, it must be so, right? Check out this article on Nye's pro-abortion Check out this article on Nye's pro-abortion "science" stuff.

Later, Nolan snarked, "This could, and should, erode your credibility, in the eyes of those elitist readers who value things that are based on 'evidence.' So kudos to you for being brave enough to admit to your own hilarious prejudices again common sense". What, she's supposed to cater to "elitist readers instead of all of them?

Evolution flies in the face of common sense from the get-go. Too bad we're not supposed to think for ourselves. When people start with their evolutionary worldview, they defend it with logical fallacies and ridicule. Like certain snack foods, you can't have just one.

Hamilton Nolan, I'm not saying you're a bad person. But when you demonstrate your bigotry, resort to insults, show a lack of knowledge of the nature of science, use multiple logical fallacies in one paragraph — well, people may be reading your material and realize that your dedication to facts (and civility) is somewhat in question.