What logical fallacy is committed when decay rates are used to "prove" evolution?
denying the antecedent, equivocation, post-hoc fallacy, or circular reasoning
None of the above. The argument based on decay rates supporting evolution is not a logical fallacy. It is a scientific observation and conclusion based on evidence.
The logical fallacy that is committed when decay rates are used to "prove" evolution is the post-hoc fallacy. The post-hoc fallacy, also known as the "false cause" fallacy, occurs when one assumes that because one event happened before another event, it must have caused it. In this case, using decay rates as evidence for evolution would be attributing the cause of the decay to evolution without considering other possible factors or explanations.
The logical fallacy that is typically committed when decay rates are used to "prove" evolution is a form of circular reasoning. Circular reasoning, also known as circular logic or begging the question, occurs when the conclusion of an argument is assumed or included in the premise.
In this case, using decay rates to "prove" evolution would involve assuming that the rates of decay of certain isotopes are accurate indicators of the age of the rocks or fossils being analyzed. This assumption is then used to support the conclusion that evolution is true. However, this is circular reasoning because the accuracy of decay rates is itself dependent on the assumption of geological evolution.
To properly evaluate the decay rates and their relationship to evolution, it is important to approach the topic using scientific methods and principles of inquiry. This involves gathering objective evidence, making testable predictions, and subjecting the ideas to rigorous scrutiny and peer review. It also requires considering alternative explanations and exploring potential sources of error or bias.