Fallacy?

Hidden theological premise

A scientific-sounding argument depends on an unstated claim about what God would or would not do.

Also called: Dysteleology argument · “God wouldn't do it that way”

The test

Remove the premise about God's intentions. Does the argument still work?

Historians and philosophers have noticed that some of the most persuasive arguments for evolution are, at bottom, arguments about God: “no designer would have made it like this.” Paul Nelson and Stephen Dilley have traced the pattern from Darwin's Origin to modern textbooks.

There is nothing wrong with theological arguments. This site makes some openly, and keeps them in the Theology & Genesis lens. The fallacy is in the hiding: a premise about God's purposes is carried inside an argument that is presented as purely scientific, so it is never examined.

Seen on both sides

In mainstream arguments
It would rest on a hidden theological premise to argue that a wise creator would not have wired the vertebrate retina this way, and conclude that the eye must have evolved.
In critical arguments
It would rest on a hidden theological premise to argue that God would never have used a process as slow or wasteful as natural selection, and conclude that it did not happen.
Not a fallacy when

The theological premise is stated openly and argued for. Then it is a theological argument, and should be judged as one.

Diagnosed on this site

Not yet diagnosed in any pillar or claim card.

Further reading

  1. Nelson PA. “The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning.” Biology and Philosophy 11:493–517 (1996).
  2. Dilley S. “Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species.” British Journal for the History of Science 45:29–56 (2012).