A number of scientists have commented on this problem of circularity.
"The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity."— *DavidM. Raup, "Geology and Creationism, " FieldMu-seum of Natural History Bulletin, March 1983, p. 21.
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."—*J.E. O 'Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism and Stratigraphy, " American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.
"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn't this a circular argument?"—*LarryAzar, "Biologists, Help!" BioScience, November 1978, p. 714.
The professor of paleobiology at Kansas State University wrote this:
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution, because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."—*RonaldR. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism," in Compass, May 1968, p. 216.
*Niles Eldredge, head of the Paleontology Department at the American Museum of Natural History, in Chicago, made this comment:
"And this poses something of a problem. If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?"—*Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution, 1985, p. 52.
The curator of zoological collections at Oxford University wrote this:
"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"—*Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist 108, December 5, 1985, p. 66.
A DOUBLE CIRCLE—Circular reasoning is the basis. not only of the fossil theory.—but of the whole theory of evolution!
First, reasoning in a circle is the basis of the "evidence" that evolution has occurred in the past. (The _ fossils are dated by the theory of strata dating; the strata are then dated by the _fossils).
Second, reasoning in a circle is the basis of the "mechanism" by which evolution is supposed to occurred any time. (The survivors survive. The fittest survive because they are fittest,—yet, according to that, all they do is survive! not evolve into something better!) (See chapter 9, Natural Selection).
Throughout this book, we shall find many other examples of strange logic on the part of the evolutionists: (1) Matter had to come from something. therefore it somehow came from nothing (chapter 2, The Big Bang and Stellar Evolution). (2) Living creatures had to come from something. therefore they somehow came from dirt that is not alive (chapter 7, The Primitive Environment).
By the use of circular reasoning. evolutionary theory attempts to separate itself from the laws of nature! Limiting factors of chemical, biological, and physical law forbid matter or living creatures from originating or evolving.
Actually. the entire theory of evolution is based on one vast circularity in reasoning! Because they accept the theory. evolutionists accept all the foolish ideas which attempt to prove it.
"But the danger of circularity is still present. For most biologists the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is their acceptance of some theory that entails it. There is another difficulty. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation, which necessarily presupposes the nonrepeatability of organic events in geologic history. There are various justifications for this assumption but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it rests upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis."—*DavidG. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory, " in Evolution, September 1974, p. 466.
FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS—As we study the fossil record, we come upon a variety of very serious problems which undermine the strata/fossil theory. Three of the most important are these: (1) At the very bottom of all the strata (the geologic column) is the Cambrian strata, which is filled with complex, multi-celled life. This is termed the "Cambrian explosion " of sudden life-forms all at once. (2) There are no transitional species throughout the column. This problem is also called fossil gaps or missing links. (3) Mixed-up and out-of-order strata are regularly found. Singly or together, they destroy the evolutionary argument from the rock strata. But there are many more problems.
Was this article helpful?