[Ichneumon]

I ran across an example of this fallacy on FreeRepublic a couple of months ago. In one of the eternal creation/evolution debates, a poster posed a question that he felt was an obvious paradox: "The question: can a system devoid of design create design?"

I identified this as an example of the error of equivocation, and pointed out that he meant two different things by "design" in the same setence. What he was really asking was, "can a system without conscious planning bring about functional complexity?".

The question becomes a lot more ordinary, and less "self-contradictory" (and thus less "loaded") when restated more precisely.

The use of "create" in the original sentence was carrying a lot of baggage as well, since it carries strong connotations of intentional purpose (as does "design" itself).

[PatrickHenry]

One of the most frequently-encountered examples of the fallacy of equivocation: The laws of nature imply a law maker. That is, equating "law" [observable, predictable behavior] and "law" [product of a legislature]