Creationist Equivocation

[Objectivist]

Hello all,

I'm not new here, although I haven't posted in a long time.  

I want to discuss the fact that creationists are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation.  They pack two different meanings into the concept of 'creation' and don't seem to think that this is a problem for them.  

When someone creates something, they take existing materials and rearrange them into a new combination or form such as when a tree is cut into lumber to build a house, stones are mortared together to make a wall, or sap from a rubber tree is made into a tire.  This is the objective meaning of the concept 'create' that is informed by countless examples that we can observe.  

When creationists use the concept 'create' they mean something very different.  They mean that a supernatural consciousness brings something into existence from nothing by essentially wishing it into existence.  I think this is an insurmountable problem for them because they ignore the fact that their worldview forces them to pack a duplicitous meaning into the concept.  The watchmaker argument is a classic example of this.  

I want to know what evidence they have for this double meaning.  When I pick up a piece of rhyolite in my backyard, what evidence or reason is there to suppose that it was wished into existence by a supernatural consciousness?  Can the creationist provide a single example of something being created out of nothing by conscious will alone?  If they can't then they have no rational warrant to use the concept 'create' as they do.

That's not the fallacy of equivocation, which means assigning different meanings to the same word in different parts of the same argument. There is nothing wrong with how creationists are using the word 'create', there's no double meaning involved.

In any case, I'm not sure that pointing out supposed logical fallacies is the way to attack creationism. I support the much more direct method of hitting them over the head with bags of fossils (metaphorically speaking) (sort of).

Boru

OK, maybe package dealing is a better description, which I think is also a fallacy. Packing two different and contradictory meanings into a concept is certainly a breach of logic and completely destroys the purpose of concepts in the first place, isolating all concretes of a certain type from others and uniting them as one as means of cognition.