Jason Lisle and equivocation...

Ongoing self-parody Jason Lisle is trying to teach logic to creationists. Not our earth-logic, mind you, but some weird creationist logic. And, boy, is it awful!

Today, Jason is prattling on about equivocation, which, again, he completely fails to understand.

When debating on any topic, it is very important that we pay close attention to the meaning of words and how they are being used in the debate. Most words have more than one meaning, but only one of these meanings will properly fit the given context. When someone shifts from one meaning of a word to another within an argument, he or she has committed the fallacy of equivocation.

So, like every time a creationist says that evolution is "only a theory"? Fuckwit.

Here is a facetious example: “Doctors know a lot about medicine, and Dr. Lisle is a doctor. So, he must know a lot about medicine.” This short argument shifts from one meaning of the word doctor (medical doctor) to another (Ph.D.), making the argument fallacious. This use of equivocation is sometimes called a “bait and switch” fallacy because the listener is baited on one meaning of a word, and then the meaning is switched to draw a faulty conclusion.

How about this one, adapted from wikipedia:

All jackasses have long ears.
Jason Lisle is a jackass.
Ergo: Jason Lisle has long ears.

Evolutionists often commit the fallacy of equivocation on the word evolution. This word has a number of meanings. Evolution can mean “change” in a general sense, but it can also refer to the idea that organisms share a common ancestor. Either meaning is perfectly legitimate, but the two meanings should not be conflated within an argument. Many evolutionists seem to think that by demonstrating evolution in the sense of “change,” that it proves evolution in the sense of “common descent.”

You might hear them say something like, “Creationists are wrong because we can see evolution happening all the time. Organisms are constantly changing and adapting to their environment.” But, of course, the fact that animals change does not demonstrate that they share a common ancestor.

You are making a distinction where there is no difference. You are claiming that an evolutionist is saying something that they are not in fact saying. When they say, "the means by which bacteria develop new traits like antibiotic resistance" they are talking about the same mechanism by which "microbes become wombats." There is no difference. You are saying that when the offense runs a quarterback sneak, the team is not playing football. We can only see the game develop one play at a time, but it's still football, bitch.

Another word on which people sometimes equivocate is the word science. Science commonly refers to the procedures by which we explore the consistent and predictable behavior of the universe today—the scientific method. This is operational science. But science can also refer to a body of knowledge (e.g., the science of genetics). Furthermore, science can also refer to models regarding past events; this is origins science. Or it can refer to a specific model. When any of these meanings are switched within an argument, it is an instance of the fallacy of equivocation.

You are changing the meanings of words and using words to mean things that they simply do not mean. I ask my readers, is Lisle not pointing out definitions so that creationists can recognize new opportunities to equivocate? Does anyone know what this fallacy is, or even if it has a name? It's like a definitional straw man, as best I can tell.

HJ