Seen on SOLO:
A blogger named Xray writes:
Circular reasoning is a fairly frequent fallacy in discussions with ideologists and those holding onto cherished beliefs (both non-secular and secular).
Quite so. Circular reasoning lies at the very foundation of the Darwinian paradigm; a fact criticized numerous times by skeptics of the hypothesis, as well as cited approvingly by its advocates. The difference is that the former believe it undercuts the rest of the hypothesis while the latter believe it's simply "repeating the obvious." As the saying goes, "It's not a bug; it's a feature!"
If for example you ask a devout believer "What can you provide as evidence that your "holy scripture" is the word of God?" , and the believer replies: "In the first chapter of the holy scripture, it says verbatim: "All that is written here is the word of God", it is circular reasoning because that which the questioner wanted to subject to critical examination (the alleged "truths" in the scripture) is fallaciously presented by the believer as the truth.
Another example would be if we ask a devout Darwinist "Why did some species survive" and the believer replies "Because they were fit!" And if we further inquire, "Fit? What do you mean by 'fit'? What is the criterion of 'fitness' and by what means can you discern whether or not a given species is, indeed, 'fit'?" If the Faithful Darwinist replies "I know a given species is 'fit' because it survived," then that would be another example of circular reasoning: "survival" is explained by reference to "fitness" and "fitness" is explained by reference to "survival."
Its not a bug, it's a feature! The Darwinian Faithful believe their circular reasoning is justified; their circular reasoning is better than someone else's circular reasoning. But, of course, A is A; circular reasoning is circular reasoning. If such reasoning renders vacuous a claim made on behalf of religion, it renders vacuous a claim made on behalf of Darwinism.