class="mine">This link was sent by a friend. A little heady, but lots ‘o links from here to fallacious creationist claims. mjh
Argument from incredulity – EvoWiki
There are two types of
this fallacy [an appeal to ignorance], depending on whether it’s the arguer’s own incredulity:
* “This is unexplainable”
(meaning, of course, “I can’t explain this”). This is the argument from personal incredulity, and it contains the unwritten assumption
that the speaker is a superhuman genius who should be able to understand everything unless he is missing an assumption. So the superhuman
genius concludes that some assumption (God, aliens, psi, whatever) is true.
* “Scientists cannot explain this” (meaning, of
course, “as far as I know, science can’t explain this”). This variation contains the unwritten assumption that scientists are superhuman
geniuses and should be able to understand everything unless they are missing an assumption. This undue veneration of scientists is a form
of scientism, or using science as an ersatz religion. On top of that, it is simply not true in many cases – scientists do have an
explanation, and the speaker just doesn’t know it.