Creationist Equivocation

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

I think you’re unnecessarily hung up on the word ‘create’ (or at least on the creationists’ use of it). There is nothing about the word that requires that creation must occur using pre-existing materials. Create simply means ‘to bring something into existence’.

The chief trouble with creationists isn’t that they’re misusing a word, but that they wish to account for existence in a manner that is wholly unsupported by evidence or valid reasoning.

Boru