Illogic

I am all in favor of the use of logical arguments, especially in the political arena, but the logic has to flow naturally one to the next. Try this bit of logic from Gilbert Omenn of the University of Michigan:

"The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming," University of Michigan professor Gilbert Omenn told reporters at the launch of a book on evolution by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

"I would worry that a president who didn't believe in the evolution arguments wouldn't believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin," added Omenn, who was part of a panel of experts at the launch of "Science, Evolution and Creationism."

Or, put another way:

If evolution occured, then smoking is bad and energy should conserved. If evolution did not occur, then smoking is good and energy should be wasted.

That seems to be quite a stretch and it seems to say that those who do not accept the theory of evolution (I wonder who's version of it he means) are simpletons and fools, which doesn't seem to follow, either.

The article contains a few other lapses in logic, as well, but I haven't time to go into those this morning.

I do not intend this post to turn into a debate about evolution or creationism, as if they were mutually exclusive, but simply as a way to put the great use of illogic running rampant in the media today.

Be careful of what you read, and THINK.