Are there any arguments supporting creationism which aren either logical fallacies or based on the Bible?
I am sure there are many theories of the creation of the universe that don’t involve the Bible. But any ideas that are not speculation and that don’t consist of the words ‘I don’t know’ are by definition logical fallacies. If you are talking about evolution, you have only to look at the threads on here where you have people attacking the idea of natural selection on the basis of the most profound ignorance. Any intellectually rigorous examination of natural selection will conclude that while there might be areas that in the future might be improved, in general it is a pretty good explanation of what we see around us. The ideas put forward by creationists, such as that of ‘irreducible complexity’ have been shown to be threadbare and flawed. Only in a country in which superstition holds most of the population in thrall could creationism be taught in schools.
1. That would depend upon what you mean by Creationism. The Deistic view on creation, for example, is decidely different than the Providentialist view, and both are quite at odds with the views of 6-day, Young Earth, Special Creationists. 2. Even many of the dyed-in-the-wool Young Earthers’ arguments do NOT involve logical fallacies. They are merely based on faulty premises gleaned from bad secondary sources, and a misunderstanding of the science involved. (They also misinterpret the Bible on these points, but that’s another matter.) A logical fallacy is an error in the FORM of an argument. For example, the argument: A) All pigs fly. B) Bob is a pig. C) Therefore, Bob flies. contains not a single logical fallacy. It is a VALID argument. It, however, is false because the first premise is clearly false. (The 2nd premise may be false too, but unless we identify Bob, we can’t know for sure.) Contrast that with this argument: A) All pigs are quadripeds. B) Michael Moore (yes, the infamous f
