The logical fallacy of special pleading is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regression, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. Without Divine revelation, neither logic nor math can be known. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma.

The logical fallacy of special pleading occurs when standards, principles, and/or rules are not applied universally.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Special Pleading

Robert Asher: “At a finer scale, the story is of course more complex. Paleontologists are generally not under the illusion that we’re out to identify the literal, direct ancestor of modern groups. Nor do modern paleontologists claim that geologically older fossils always represent ancestral organisms. In fact, many fierce debates exist about the extent to which the fossil record accurately records the first appearance of a given group, and paleontologists realize that a first appearance in the rock record is an underestimate of the actual first appearance of that species on our planet”

So, the positions of fossils in the rocks show the age of the fossils and when they first appeared in time if it fits in with the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story, but if they don't fit the story, then their positions in the rocks mean nothing. That is selective evidence and special pleading.

 “Evolution qualifies as science even though it isn’t directly observable, repeatable, or testable, because inferences from observations. Creation doesn’t qualify as science because it isn’t directly observable, repeatable, or testable, but is based on inferences from observations.”

If one side must be directly observable, repeatable, or testable, then the other side must also be. Both sides of this argument use science to analyze what can be observed in the present, and that science is directly observable, repeatable, or testable. However, from that point, evolution rests on stories that rest on a worldview. And from that point, creation rests on revelation from God.

“Creationists are not willing to give up the Bible as an interpretive framework for science.”

Since this was brought as an accusation by an evolutionist who is not willing to give up Naturalism/Materialism/Evolutionism as an interpretive framework for science, this is an example of the fallacy of special pleading.

“Creation is not scientifically testable; therefore God didn’t create the Universe.”

Evolution is not scientifically testable either. In fact, science doesn’t test the past very well at all. So, this is a case of special pleading where the evolutionists want to use one set of rules to evaluate their own claims and another set of rules to evaluate anyone else’s claims. (Although, Jesus Christ is testable since everyone who seeks Him finds Him. And we know that God created the Heavens and the Earth in six days by revelation, because God reveals this fact to us through the Bible.

Rocky: "No one has ever seen evolution occur. How can you then call it science?"

 

Sandy: "Scientific conclusions are not limited to direct observation but often depend on inferences that are made by applying reason to observations."

 

Rocky: "You stated, and I quote, 'But science cannot test supernatural possibilities. ... Because such appeals to the supernatural are not testable using the rules and processes of scientific inquiry, they cannot be a part of science.' Isn't that inconsistent?"

 

Sandy: "No. Evolution is an exception to that rule."

 

Rocky: "What makes you think it's an exception? This seems like special pleading."

And it is special pleading hiding behind fallacy abuse of the according to the rules fallacy. This example is actually adapted from a book, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, which is critiqued by http://evolutiondismantled.com/special-pleading.