You could say there is no God and “therefore” evolution, just is.
The thing is that events still occur the same way.
By saying there is no God, it does not change the fact that people work to improve themselves and others? Even those, who are Atheist, follow this same design.
You can call this design XYZ and seek to prove it does or does not exist, with the same result.
Again, I mentioned that we label forces in the world whose only notice are there effects, on other things.
Whether you start with God exist or God does not exist, the same result occurs.
That is not a Tautological argument, it’s called Scientific Reasoning. I apologize, if I insulted anyone but I myself have been insulted.
That just goes to show you, “no good deed goes unpunished”.
How to Think © Copyright 1999, Charles King
Is the argument tautological?
A tautological argument is otherwise known as a circular argument, that is, one that begins by assuming the very thing that is meant to be proven by the argument itself. Tautological arguments are not really arguments at all; they appear to be, but they are really no more than a long drive that brings you right back to where you started. There may be lots of “therefores” and “thuses,”but they are only there to cover up the cracks in the reasoning. Look at this example: Why do welfare programs not work? Welfare programs simply produce continued dependence on the state, rather than encouraging individuals to take responsibility for their own lives. Entire generations of welfare-sponsored families have lived on federal hand-outs, producing communities that have forgotten how to encourage the kind of civic responsibility crucial to a vibrant democracy. Hence, areas with large numbers of welfare recipient are a continual drain on government resources and encourage a pattern of continued dependence. Therefore, welfare programs clearly do not work. This appears to be a legitimate argument, but if we take it apart, there is not much substance there. The first question—“Why do welfare programs not work?”—simply assumes that they do not, rather than asking “Do welfare programs work, and if not, why not?” Then, the author continues by simply restating, using different wording, the assertion contained within the question, that is, that welfare programs simply do not work. Notwithstanding the use of “hence” and “therefore,” this form of argument is no argument at all—it simply says that a state of affairs is the way it is because it is the way it is. Not a recipe for building a strong argument.
The Development of Scientific Reasoning Skills: What Psychologists Contribute to an Understanding of Elementary Science Learning
Final Draft of a Report to the National Research Council Committee on Science Learning Kindergarten through Eighth Grade
Corinne Zimmerman Illinois State University
Scientific reasoning, by definition, involves both conceptual understanding and inquiry skills. Sufficient research has been compiled to corroborate the claim that in the context of investigation, domain-specific knowledge and domain-general strategies “bootstrap” one another, such that there is an interdependent relationship between these two types of knowledge. However, there is evidence that as is the case of intellectual skills in general, the development of the component skills of scientific reasoning “cannot be counted on to routinely develop” (Kuhn & Franklin, 2006, p. 47ms). That is, young children have many requisite skills needed to engage in scientific thinking, but there are also ways in which even adults do not show full proficiency in investigative and inference tasks. Although all students do not pursue careers in science, the thinking skills used in scientific inquiry can be related to other formal and informal thinking skills (Kuhn, 1991; 1993a; 1993b; 2002; Kuhn & Pearsall, 2000). Research efforts, therefore, have been focused on how such skills can be promoted by determining which types of educational interventions (e.g., amount of structure, amount of support, emphasis on strategic or metastrategic skills) will contribute most learning, retention and transfer, and which types of interventions are best suited to different students. There is a developing picture of what children are capable of with minimal support, and research is moving in the direction of ascertaining what children are capable of, and when, under conditions of practice, instruction and scaffolding so that it may one day be possible to tailor educational opportunities that neither under- or overestimate their ability to extract meaningful experiences from inquiry-based science classes.
I still want me beer, and blackjack, and wait...kids might read this, lol!
If, you have watched Futurama, the episode on the Moon, then you will know what that last word was suppose to be. I love Mexican robots.
- 1 unverified comment
Thank you for your contribution.Flag this as inappropriate
- Follow Johnanthonylara