CREATION-EVOLUTION ENCYCLOPEDIA

Circular reasoning (also called "reasoning in a circle") is the basis of two evolutionary concepts: "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest." Evolutionary theory is a myth. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

A "tautology" means the useless repetition of an idea in different words, or a statement that is true because it includes all possibilities. ("Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not.") So tautologous thinking is a related way to describe some of the logical flaws in circular reasoning.

CONTENTS: Circular Reasoning, Its Own Proof

Page numbers without book references refer to the book, NATURAL SELECTION, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on

, only 164 statements are by creationists.

You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Natural Selection.

Nature selected and produced each species. The proof is that it did it. How do we know it did it? Because it did it.

"Thus we have a question: `Why do some multiply while others remain suitable, dwindle, or die out?' to which is offered an answer: `Because some multiply while others remain stable, dwindle, or die out.

"The two sides of the equation are the same. We have a tautology. The definition is meaningless."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 47.

"I tend to agree with those who have viewed natural selection as a tautology rather than a true theory."—*Steven Stanley, Macroevolution (1979), p. 193.

"It leads to the justifiable criticism that the concept of natural selection is scientifically superficial. T.H. Morgan, famous American geneticist, said that the idea of natural selection is a tautology, a case of circular reasoning. It goes something like this: If something cannot succeed, it will not succeed. Or, to put it another way, those things which have succeeded were able to succeed."—Lester J. McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (1986), p. 49.

"[George Gaylord Simpson says:] I . . define selection, a technical term in evolutionary studies, as anything tending to produce systematic, heritable change in population between one generation and the next." [G.C. Simpson, Major Features of Evolution (1953), p. 138]. But is such a broad definition of any use? We are trying to explain what produces change. Simpson's explanation is natural selection, which he defines as what produces change. Both sides of the equation are again the same; again we have a tautology . . If selection is anything tending to produce change, he is merely saying that change is caused by what causes change . . The net explanation is nil."—Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 49.

"This is extremely misleading. `There is no harm in stating the same truth in two different ways,' if one shows what one is doing by connecting the two statements with a phrase, such as in other words. But if one connects them with because, which is the earmark of the tautology, one deceives either the reader or oneself or both; and there is ample harm in this.

"The simplest case, where one is informed that a cat is black because it is black, may be harmless, though irritating and useless; but the actual cases [in statements of evolutionary theory] are always harder to detect than this, and may darken counsel for a long time."—Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 63.

"Survival of the fittest" is a synonym used by evolutionists for their so-called "natural selection." But it also is "circle thinking." The fittest survive, therefore they are fittest and survive. (By the way, survival is not evolution!)

"Of one thing, however, I am certain, and that is that `natural selection' affords no explanation of mimicry or of any other form of evolution. It means nothing more than `the survivors survive.' Why do certain individuals survive? Because they are the fittest. How do we know they are the fittest? Because they survive."—*E.W. MacBride, Nature, May 11, 1929, p. 713.

"The phrase, `survival of the fittest,' is something of a tautology . . There is no harm in stating the same truth in two different ways."—*J.B.S. Haldane, "Darwinism Under Revision," in Rationalist Annual (1935), p. 24.

"Darwin proposed no criterion of fitness other than that of survival itself . . It follows that `the survival of the fittest' is not a testable theory, but a tautology. Which one survives? The fittest. Who are they? Those that survive."—*T. Bethell, "Darwin's Mistake," Harper's Magazine, February 1976, p. 72.

"Someone asked how we determine who are the fittest. The answer came back that we determine this by the test of survival; there is no other criterion. But thismeans that a species survives because it is the fittest and is the fittest be cause it survives, which is circular reasoning and equivalent to saying that whatever is, is fit. The gist is that some survive and some die, but we knew this at the onset. Nothing has been explained."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 47.

"At key points, Darwin's theory boiled down to empty tautologies and unproven assumptions."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), p. 101.

"The real problem with Darwin's selection theory, however, is that it can explain everything and therefore, nothing, By logical necessity what survives (or what produces more offspring) is more fit than what doesn't. What is more, it is therefore better adapted, and what is better adapted is therefore `selected for' (or in other words, survives). Of course selection is successful in explaining nature, since the characteristic of tautologies is that they explain everything. And, of course, that is the true measure of selection's appeal."—*D. Rosen, "Darwin's Demon," in Systematic Zoology 27 (1978), p. 371.

There is more to this circular foolishness than is first perceived. Another major evolutionary foundation consists of two assumptions which the evolutionists dare not state together. Here they are: We are able to assign dates to all sedimentary rock strata, because of the so-called "index fossils" in them. We know when the index fossils lived, because of the rock strata they are in. —For more on this, go to Fossils and Strata . The truth is that the theoretical dates were dreamed up first. Then they were assigned to the fossils which exclusively appeared in certain strata levels,

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

To the next topic in this series: