home | what's new | other sitescontact | about

 

 

Word Gems 

exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity


 

Circular Reasoning, Part II 

 


 

return to "Evolution " main-page

 

We’ve already looked at the issue of circular reasoning, but there’s another aspect to consider. Let’s recap and then add to our findings:

 

Circular Reasoning, Begging the Question

In the “Clear Thinking” article we discussed one of the tricks employed by those who cannot win on the merits of their case; as a cloaking device for lack of substance, they will use “circular reasoning” or “begging the question.” Here’s a definition from the article:

“Circular reasoning” or “begging the question” happens when the topic under review is spoken of in terms suggesting that it's already been verified.

For example, if one were to enter into debate about the infallibility of the Bible, comments such as "holy" scripture would not be admissible as this term assumes that which is being contested.

A case in point, as reported by Dr. Sheldrake, at times he’s asked to participate in a televised debate. Typically, he will send information to his opponent concerning his research. Later, at the debate, Dr. Sheldrake will ask if the material has been read. So often, the reply becomes, to the effect,

“No, I didn’t read it because I already know that my side is the correct view, and I don’t want to waste my time with your pie-in-the-sky theories, a lot of hocus-pocus.”

In different guises, in various forms, you will find this sort of circular-reasoning response from Dr. Sheldrake’s critics:

We already know we’re right. Materialism is the only possible answer to these questions. Why waste our time on a wild goose-chase?”

However, in this vein, it is put forward as self-evident that there is such a thing as evolution. We are not to doubt this, they say.

Let’s be clear. We all know that “microevolution” is a fact. That's why we have hundreds or thousands of different kinds of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc., etc. from thousands of years of managing the mating process to produce certain traits. Microevolution is variation within a species, and it happens all the time.

the Cambrian Explosion

Macroevolution is something different. Its proponents assert that new species come from earlier species through random mutation and natural selection. But there is no proof for macroevolution, despite the protestations of Darwinists.

Instead, the evidence from the fossil record indicates that new species, in their vast numbers, suddenly appeared “out of nowhere,” without intermediaries, 530 million years ago. We call it the “Cambrian Explosion.”

the Joker is wild

We find no intermediate species in the fossil record; rather, each life-form is well suited to its environment. If it weren’t, it might not survive a day. The notion of “intermediate species” is something Darwinists, as per "the Joker is wild" principle, are required to invent and believe in, that credence might be lent to a tortured theory. If there were such a thing as intermediate species, we’d find them in their millions all over the fossil record. But the larder is bare.

There are a small handful of creatures which -- if that's what you want to believe -- seem to incorporate a mix of traits from other life-forms. But, this apparent “composite” structuring is not proof of intermediate species.

no make-over required

These mix-and-match animals are well adapted to their environments, do not require a make-over, are not on their way to something else, and could just as easily be offered as evidence for Intelligent Design or morphic fields which could employ, and re-employ, certain basic design features in a generalized “blueprint” for many life-forms.

And yet, we find Darwinists, in a riot of circular reasoning, wanting to declare victory for their theory with the coming of this small handful of what is deemed to be “intermediate species.”

This issue of similarity is found all through the plant and animal kingdoms. For example, it is well known that many species, at the earliest stages of development, resemble each other. But this comparative embryology, again, is no conclusive winning argument for Darwinism. These similarities do not prove that one life-form came from another, because the repeating patterns can just as easily be offered as evidence for Intelligent Design or morphic fields.

The structural similarities - contrary to Darwinists’ claims that, resultantly, their theory “must be true” - represent one more foray into circular reasoning and do not compel us to conclude that one species drifted, over much time, across its boundaries into another.

 

 

Editor's last word: