The following argument appeared in the draft of a bill before the Louisiana State Legislature in 2001:
Whereas, the writings of Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, promoted the justification of racism, and his books On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man postulate a hierarchy of superior and inferior races… Therefore, be it resolved that the legislature of Louisiana does hereby deplore all instances and all ideologies of racism, does hereby reject the core concepts of Darwinist ideology that certain races and classes of humans are inherently superior to others, and does hereby condemn the extent to which these philosophies have been used to justify and approve racist practices.
Is the there a fallacy of relevance in this argument? Explain.
Yes.
Darwin's work did not claim a hierarchy of races.
This confuses Darwin's work with something called "Social Darwinism" which was popular in the late 19th century (and still with us today in some minds) that the "survival of the fittest" justified the concept of some races being inferior to others, or some social classes being inferior, etc. "Social Darwinism" was an attempt to apply Darwin's theories in ways he never intended, and to which they do not apply.
Yes, there is a fallacy of relevance in this argument. The fallacy of relevance occurs when an argument includes irrelevant premises or points that do not logically support the conclusion. In this case, the argument attempts to discredit the theory of evolution by linking it to racism, but this is an irrelevant point when it comes to evaluating the scientific validity of the theory.
The argument makes a claim about Charles Darwin and his writings promoting the justification of racism. However, even if we accept this claim as true, it does not logically follow that the theory of evolution itself is flawed or invalid. Whether or not the person who proposed a theory held objectionable beliefs is separate from evaluating the truth or falsity of the theory itself.
To address this fallacy, it is important to focus on the scientific evidence and arguments supporting or refuting the theory of evolution, rather than making arguments based on unrelated and irrelevant factors. In this case, the argument tries to discredit the theory by attacking the character of one of its proponents, but this does not contribute to a logical evaluation of the theory's validity.