My Favorite Martian Fallacy
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
What is the attraction to Mars? Maybe people want to go there because the place has atmosphere. Well, there one possibility. Well, it's very thin and mostly carbon dioxide, so that's not it. Maybe it's the long romantic notion of going there. Wild stories about a lady standing on the surface of Mars get people's imaginations a mite agitated. Besides, Venus is so hot and acidic, it melts space probes, so people aren't getting serious notions of visiting there.
When people develop a skill in spotting logical fallacies, they can find them in many situations. (Someone must have noticed the fallacy of ambiguity when I equivocated on the word "atmosphere" just above.) I was watching a rerun of My Favorite Martian. It was originally aired in October 1963, and called "Man or Amoeba". You can watch it here if you have a mind to. If so, go ahead and come on back because I'm going to use spoilers.
Decades ago, scientists had ruled out the possibility of advanced life forms living on Mars, but that didn't stop television, books, movies and such from presenting stories about Martians. In the aforementioned episode, the Martian was stranded on Earth and pretending to be Tim O'Hara's "Uncle Martin". He's lived hundreds of Earth years, has special powers, and great intelligence.
Martin offered to help the landlady's daughter write a report for school. They were going to refute the claims of a local scientist who said that any life on Mars could not possibly be more advanced than an amoeba (which was insulting to a space-travelling Martian). The girl received the lowest grade in the class. The main reason was that she went against the scientific consensus, the popular view of "no life on Mars", and the popularity of the local scientist. When Uncle Martin spoke to the teacher, she demanded his credentials before she would discuss the material in the paper.
In all this, I saw appeal to authority, the genetic fallacy, appeal to popular opinion, personal bias — but examining the paper for what it was worth was not going to happen. Later, when the scientist changed his views, suddenly the girl's paper received the highest grade in the class. When the prevailing view shifts, the ones who agree with those in authority seem to be suddenly welcomed.
What happened when Mark Armitage presented scientific evidence that showed soft tissues in dinosaur bones? He got fired. Evolutionist Mary Schweitzer who found dinosaur soft tissues has been ostracized by the scientific community, and evidence is suppressed. Can't rightly challenge the dogma, now, can we? I reckon not!
Secular humanism (read: atheism in disguise) is the unofficial state religion in America and other Western countries, and evolution is foundational to it. Humanism is protected through legislation, rogue activist judges (who violate the Constitution and erode liberties of speech and religion), the leftist media, Darwinistas (who promote evolutionism through trolling, intimidation, ridicule, and other logical fallacies), and more. "Discoveries" for evolution are also motivated by money — which has resulted in many cases of bad science and fraud. You can't rightly get mucho dinero in grants and awards by threatening evolutionism, now, can you?
Fortunately, there are still some of us who stand on our principles. People still exist who have some critical thinking skills, and are not buffaloed by ridicule and other logical fallacies. There are scientists with integrity who are not intimidated by the prevailing evolutionary worldview, and many will show how the scientific evidence refutes evolution and affirms creation. Most importantly, there are still people who stand on the authority of the Word of God.
What is the attraction to Mars? Maybe people want to go there because the place has atmosphere. Well, there one possibility. Well, it's very thin and mostly carbon dioxide, so that's not it. Maybe it's the long romantic notion of going there. Wild stories about a lady standing on the surface of Mars get people's imaginations a mite agitated. Besides, Venus is so hot and acidic, it melts space probes, so people aren't getting serious notions of visiting there.
 |
| Panoramic view from Curiosity Mars Rover / Image Credit: NASA, JPL-Caltech, MSSS |
When people develop a skill in spotting logical fallacies, they can find them in many situations. (Someone must have noticed the fallacy of ambiguity when I equivocated on the word "atmosphere" just above.) I was watching a rerun of My Favorite Martian. It was originally aired in October 1963, and called "Man or Amoeba". You can watch it here if you have a mind to. If so, go ahead and come on back because I'm going to use spoilers.
Decades ago, scientists had ruled out the possibility of advanced life forms living on Mars, but that didn't stop television, books, movies and such from presenting stories about Martians. In the aforementioned episode, the Martian was stranded on Earth and pretending to be Tim O'Hara's "Uncle Martin". He's lived hundreds of Earth years, has special powers, and great intelligence.
 |
| Ray Walston as Uncle Martin in My Favorite Martian / 1963 / CBS Television / Public Domain and Fair Use. |
Martin offered to help the landlady's daughter write a report for school. They were going to refute the claims of a local scientist who said that any life on Mars could not possibly be more advanced than an amoeba (which was insulting to a space-travelling Martian). The girl received the lowest grade in the class. The main reason was that she went against the scientific consensus, the popular view of "no life on Mars", and the popularity of the local scientist. When Uncle Martin spoke to the teacher, she demanded his credentials before she would discuss the material in the paper.
In all this, I saw appeal to authority, the genetic fallacy, appeal to popular opinion, personal bias — but examining the paper for what it was worth was not going to happen. Later, when the scientist changed his views, suddenly the girl's paper received the highest grade in the class. When the prevailing view shifts, the ones who agree with those in authority seem to be suddenly welcomed.
What happened when Mark Armitage presented scientific evidence that showed soft tissues in dinosaur bones? He got fired. Evolutionist Mary Schweitzer who found dinosaur soft tissues has been ostracized by the scientific community, and evidence is suppressed. Can't rightly challenge the dogma, now, can we? I reckon not!
Secular humanism (read: atheism in disguise) is the unofficial state religion in America and other Western countries, and evolution is foundational to it. Humanism is protected through legislation, rogue activist judges (who violate the Constitution and erode liberties of speech and religion), the leftist media, Darwinistas (who promote evolutionism through trolling, intimidation, ridicule, and other logical fallacies), and more. "Discoveries" for evolution are also motivated by money — which has resulted in many cases of bad science and fraud. You can't rightly get mucho dinero in grants and awards by threatening evolutionism, now, can you?
Fortunately, there are still some of us who stand on our principles. People still exist who have some critical thinking skills, and are not buffaloed by ridicule and other logical fallacies. There are scientists with integrity who are not intimidated by the prevailing evolutionary worldview, and many will show how the scientific evidence refutes evolution and affirms creation. Most importantly, there are still people who stand on the authority of the Word of God.