Two fallacies are common when atheists discuss the thesis that god devised evolution and intentionally created fossils and species that became extinct such as dinosaurs, for instance. I’ve found two such fallacious arguments on a German atheist’s blog.
PET77 says: “Evolution has no plan as 99% of all species became extinct.
This is not a logical argument at all, as it is possible to plan extinction as well. Moreover, a good plan even includes destruction. For instance, construction workers use to build scaffolds and provisional escalators that will be finally removed.
A more serious point is made by Max Headroom. He challenges usefulness and parsimony, but he fails to rebut the thesis by making a logical conclusion because it is simply impossible to do so. You cannot disprove logically a thesis that is based on entirely different logical grounds.
For instance, lets take the most simple textbook example of a logical conclusion.
(1)If A includes all C and C includes all E then A also includes E.
But if you change your primary preposition you get an entirely different conclusion.
(2)If B includes all D and D includes all E then B also includes E.
(If you want more support to understand that this model exactly applies to the Creationism-Darvinism discussion, simply replace ‘B includes all D’ by ‘God is responsible for everything that happens in the universe’ and ‘D includes all E’ by ‘evolution is something that happens in the universe’, and you get it, the assertion that can never be rejected.) What makes the difference between these two argument is the logical ground, the primary preposition, which I call the axiomatic space. In each scientific discussion, we have to define the axiomatic space. Often we do this subconsciously and unknowingly. Anyway, a fallacious conclusion results such prepositions are mixed, for instance:
(3)If B includes all D and C includes all E then B cannot include E.
However, you still can reject such an assertion that is based on different logical grounds. You can do that by testing parsimony, for instance:
The assertion A includes E is easier to handle.
The assertion B includes E in not practicable at all.
Sometimes statistical considerations can be made, for instance:
The assertion A includes E is more likely.
No statistical estimate can be made for assertion B includes E.
A recent paper ‘Philosophical Foundations of Fauceir Evolutionary Theory’ addresses this problem, and it also explains why the same problem of distinct axiomatic grounds exists between traditional evolutionary biologists and fauceir theory. By even denying their forefather’s, Darwin’s, ideas, present day evolutionary biologists mostly deny progress. They do so as they cannot explain it. Ignoring progress is to avoid logical contradictions. In this respect, creationists that accept evolution are far more better off. So to say, naturalists desperately need fauceir theory to explain progress the natural way. Why do they prevent fauceir theory from publishing then?