Is there a name for this type of fallacy

[mr friendly guy]

Basically the line of "reasoning" assumes that alternative views are automatically valid (or at least have something to contribute).


For example

Why are evolutionists afraid of having an opposing view thought in school.

He refuses to accept any other views but his own. How arrogant. (Implication this is of course some weakness in his argument).

There are also other explanations besides evolution, all rational as well.

[brianeyci]

Um, Golden Mean?

Brian

[Zero]

I wouldn't imagine there would be a name for such a fallacy. It only comes up when discussing things that the majority of people aren't in agreement about. Typically, if someone claims that murder is good, and another claims that murder is good, nobody defends the murder position simply because it exists. Although it may be a kind of appeal to popularity...

This only happens with popular subjects, such as intelligent design vs. evolution, or perhaps pro-life vs. pro-choice.

[DPDarkPrimus]

The first statment is a red herring. It has nothing to do with scientists being opposed to an alternate theory being taught- it's the fact that ID is not science, much less a scientificd theory, and therefore has no place in the science classroom.

Second one is the Golden Mean fallacy, aka Middle Ground fallacy.

The third statement is not a fallacy at all; it is simply lying. Intelligent Design/creationism are not rational, because they involve irrational beliefs. (Religious beliefs are irrational, after all.) And that's all he could be talking about, because there is no scientific theory that contests evolution.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

THe second one kinda sounds like an appeal to motive fallacy. They are assuming that the reason why the scientists aren't supporting the other theories is that they aren't their own.


You are only denying them because they aren't your own!

That sounds like a motive accusation to me.

[mr friendly guy]

Now that I had a better think about it, the argument essential boils down to "my opinion is just as valid as yours" (presumably they think the nature of an opinion is such that it automatically validates itself).

[Darth Wong]

Why are evolutionists afraid of having an opposing view thought in school.

Appeal to Motive fallacy. He tries to refute arguments against creationism in the classroom by darkly alluding to hidden fears on the part of the people making these arguments. Also known as the "attack the messenger, not the message" fallacy.

He refuses to accept any other views but his own. How arrogant. (Implication this is of course some weakness in his argument).

Once again, this is a form of ad-hominem fallacy: attempting to change the subject from the scientific merits of creationism (or lack thereof) to his opponent's character.

There are also other explanations besides evolution, all rational as well.

That's not an argument. It's a bald-faced claim: one for which he bears a very high burden of proof since he is contradicting the overwhelming (we're talking >99%) majority of qualified scientists. And it's also a lie, since "intelligent design" is specifically predicated upon the belief that there is no rational explanation, hence we must rely on some kind of super-powerful being who can do things without any testable physical mechanism.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Why are evolutionists afraid of having an opposing view thought in school.

He refuses to accept any other views but his own. How arrogant. (Implication this is of course some weakness in his argument).

Both of these sound like examples of extreme cultural relativism. By "extreme cultural relativism", I mean the sort of people who have trouble condemning belief in psychic powers, honor killing and Nazism because all cultures/belief systems are equal; some even refuse to admit the objectivity of mathematics. Such people absolutely deny that a right, objective answer exists; therefore ( for example ) creationism is just as good as evolution "if my culture says so".