This didn't all start with Darwin though, as I've mentioned elsewhere. For example, the scientific names for species that we have to this day were originated by Linnaeus. He also observed variation and classified it accordingly. This was about a hundred years before Darwin. This is one piece in a larger puzzle, which fits together quite well under the theory of evolution. If we observe evidence such as this, and posit that evolution explains it best, then I cannot see how a claim of circular reasoning could stick because it necessitates that you have evolution in mind in the first place and are tyring to fit or force all the facts to match.

Let's look at this from another angle. Let's say that hypothetically you were right and evolutionary science was begging the question. This would mean that if evolution were a false premise to begin with, it should be easy to spot where the scientists have manipulated, ignored, or lied about the facts in order to shoe-horn them into their theory. (We'll ignore, for now, the conspiracy-of-scientists idea which would also be involved here.) Why don't we talk about some of your ideas on this?

I'd also like to hear your ideas about genetics. In another thread maybe. A lack of genetic bottlenecks at the time that the global flood presumably happened, appears to be strong evidence that the global flood did not happen. I'd like to hear your reasons for why you think that genetics falsifies evolution.