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.

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.

• Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish
• Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish, Part 2
• Did Tiktaalik’s Pelvis Prepare Fish to Walk on Land?
• Fish Fins Are Not Fingers That Failed

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.