The Fallacy of Equivocation

equivocationAlso called ‘bait-and-switch’, the fallacy of equivocation occurs when the definition of a word is changed to another part-way through an argument. For example, someone might say “Why do you deny the science of evolution, but you do not deny the science that creates cars, phones, or rockets?” In this case, two different definitions of science are used. Evolution is part ofhistorical science (happened in the past and cannot be observed), while modern technology is part of emperical science (science which we can do in the present). The debater changed his definition of science part-way through the argument, and so commits equivocation.

Another common example occurs when one claims “Evolution is a fact because we see it happening all the time in bacteria”. The first time evolution is used, it takes the meaning of ‘the theory that all life has evolved from a common ancestor’. The second ‘evolution’ describes changes caused by losses or recombination of genetic information. But all life cannot evolve from a common ancestor by a process which recombines or loses information! Entirely new information must arise (in the same way that new information must arise in a small book for it to ‘evolve’ into the British Library).

Equivocation is extremely common among the ‘proofs’ for evolution. Every example used by evolutionists to demonstrate microbes-to-man evolution actually occurred by a loss or recombination of previously existing information. No-one has ever proven that new genetic information was added to a creature. Therefore, evolutionists commit the fallacy of equivocation whenever they present examples of ‘evolution in action’.

comments powered by Disqus