FALLACY: ARGUMENT FROM ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES

Type of Fallacy:

Argument from adverse consequences

Definition:

Saying that because of the implications of a statement being true would create negative results, it must not be true.

Example:

“If we allow people to believe the evolutionist doctrine that they are nothing but animals, human civilization will be destroyed in a tidal wave of immorality.”

When I originally posted this I included the following: I really hope this is rationalwiki overstatement. If it’s not, the idea that I will be ‘allowed” to believe anything, especially to do with science, in this country is way beyond the pale. Unfortunately I have run across too many comments on too many posts that pretty much make that statement. 

 And frankly most "animals" are better behaved than some human beings I've met. The average wolf doesn't usually go tearing through the pack killing all the other pack members. If it does it probably has rabies or a similar disease. 

There is evidence that when a new dominant male lion takes over a pride with small cubs the cubs are killed. This forces the females into estrus and the next generation are his descendants. It seems to be a programmed response. Too bad we hear about humans doing the same thing. Gal is a single parent. Takes up with a new guy and the next thing you hear is the death or abuse of the children by another father. The lions appear to be programmed to act this way. What is the human's excuse? Believing in evolution probably isn't the problem. After all we're supposed to be "rational" human beings. 

 A similar argument is the “if gays can marry traditional marriage is doomed.” Which of course it isn’t.  If you have a problem with your marriage work it out with your spouse and the rest of your family. It doesn't matter if your neighbors have been married for one year or fifty.