How can some live in a society with access to a wealth of information accessible in less than a second still believe the earth is flat? This question is easily answerable in one word: misinformation. Unsurprisingly, the answer to this question invariably raises other questions. However, rather than focusing on questions surrounding the qualifications of misinformation, perhaps a question that deals directly with misinformation’s nature should take center stage: “How is misinformation spread?” This question is most notably asked in scientific fields. By definition, a field devoted to discovering truth should not contain spokespeople that attempt to destroy the very foundation the field is founded upon by using logical fallacies to spread misinformation.
…show more content…
The first violation of this fallacy is in his attempt to refute the possibility of beneficial mutations acting in evolution. This violation occurs because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the Evolutionists’ arguments. Hovind states that “there’s never been one beneficial mutation” (Hovind, “Lies in The Textbooks” [1]). In one sense, Hovind is correct. However, throughout his discussion of mutations, he excludes the possibility of neutral mutations and strictly states that mutations are only harmful (Hovind[1]). In his exclusion, he misrepresents Evolutionists, as many do not believe in strictly harmful or helpful mutations. Rather, Evolutionists believe that mutations are a simple copy error in genes; the “helpfulness” of the mutation is solely dependent on an organism’s environment (Loewe, L., and W.G. Hill 1153-1167). Ultimately, because Hovind attempts to refute an argument that Evolutionists are not positing, he commits a …show more content…
While his strawman regarding Evolution is mostly due to misrepresentation of the scientists’ arguments, his strawman regarding Thermodynamics is founded upon a misunderstanding of the science, itself. Hovind does demonstrate a shallow understanding of thermodynamics through his use of analogy, however he does not demonstrate a proper, mathematical understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. This misunderstanding is seen in Hovind’s attempt to give the laws a “moral” application. Strictly speaking, thermodynamics and its laws refer to the study of heat transfer and energy within and among systems and does not directly speak on the subjective human experience, as Hovind would assert (Drake [1]). In addition to inappropriately broadening the scope of thermodynamics, Hovind asserts that “order cannot come from disorder”, a myth that has been disproven by using entropy to create “order” by sorting molecules by size(Hovind[1]; Han 1026-1029). Furthermore, Hovind demonstrates his ignorance towards thermodynamics when he states that thermodynamics proves that the universe is an open system. Scientific consensus does not prove that the universe is an open system; consensus proves that the earth is (Miller, James Grier, and Jessie L. 303-322). Overall, Hovind’s attempts to use thermodynamics to refute scientific consensus reveal a
The first violation of this fallacy is in his attempt to refute the possibility of beneficial mutations acting in evolution. This violation occurs because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the Evolutionists’ arguments. Hovind states that “there’s never been one beneficial mutation” (Hovind, “Lies in The Textbooks” [1]). In one sense, Hovind is correct. However, throughout his discussion of mutations, he excludes the possibility of neutral mutations and strictly states that mutations are only harmful (Hovind[1]). In his exclusion, he misrepresents Evolutionists, as many do not believe in strictly harmful or helpful mutations. Rather, Evolutionists believe that mutations are a simple copy error in genes; the “helpfulness” of the mutation is solely dependent on an organism’s environment (Loewe, L., and W.G. Hill 1153-1167). Ultimately, because Hovind attempts to refute an argument that Evolutionists are not positing, he commits a …show more content…
While his strawman regarding Evolution is mostly due to misrepresentation of the scientists’ arguments, his strawman regarding Thermodynamics is founded upon a misunderstanding of the science, itself. Hovind does demonstrate a shallow understanding of thermodynamics through his use of analogy, however he does not demonstrate a proper, mathematical understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. This misunderstanding is seen in Hovind’s attempt to give the laws a “moral” application. Strictly speaking, thermodynamics and its laws refer to the study of heat transfer and energy within and among systems and does not directly speak on the subjective human experience, as Hovind would assert (Drake [1]). In addition to inappropriately broadening the scope of thermodynamics, Hovind asserts that “order cannot come from disorder”, a myth that has been disproven by using entropy to create “order” by sorting molecules by size(Hovind[1]; Han 1026-1029). Furthermore, Hovind demonstrates his ignorance towards thermodynamics when he states that thermodynamics proves that the universe is an open system. Scientific consensus does not prove that the universe is an open system; consensus proves that the earth is (Miller, James Grier, and Jessie L. 303-322). Overall, Hovind’s attempts to use thermodynamics to refute scientific consensus reveal a