People use logic to find truth.  The following is an example of the kind of logic evolutionists use:

If you are dancing on the moon,  

      then you are alive.

You are alive,

      therefore, you are dancing on the moon

There is something drastically wrong with that logic, and you know it--are you really dancing on the moon? However, evolutionists use it and claim to know the truth.  Please read on to see what I have learned about evolutionist logic and thinking.  

Any teenager knows that he or she is better able now than five years ago to design and make something useful and complex--why--because he or she is making better use of his or her intelligence.  So--they know something is drastically wrong with your thinking when you describe something as if it were a factory, yet claim that "factory" came into being by chance accidents. Unfortunately that is whatevolutionists do with this living cell description.

This drawing is one of my biology textbook's* representation of the various parts in an animal cell (as opposed to a plant cell)--the cell being the fundamental structural and functional unit of life.[128] The book further states that this cell resemble[s] [a] sprawling industrial complex.The organelles and other structures found in [these cells] are analogous [similar] to highly specialized buildings that act as factories, power stations, warehouses, transportation corridors, and administrative centers.(133)

Continued reading of their description of the cell's components will find words and phrases like "ribosomes are manufactured,  subunits are assembled. (133)  The Golgi Apparatus has organelles that receives products, which are processed and packaged for delivery and then ships them out toward the cell surface. (134)   Peroxisomes . . . are centers for oxidation reactions. (135) Each peroxisome is specialized for oxidizing particular compounds. (135) 

Page 139 of this textbook has a chart showing the cell's components, their structure and function.  The Cytoskeleton, for example, has the functions of structural support, Movement of Materials, In some species:movement of whole cell  Also, The Rough Endoplasmic Reticulum has the functions of Protein synthesis and processing

Now, I ask you, how in the world can something    described as resembling a sprawling industrial complex come about by chance or accident--as is claimed by evolutionists, which includes this author.

Surely those words and phrases belong in the description of a factory--something that requires intelligent design, purpose, not chance or accident. Beware—atheists/evolutionists would like for you to believe that mindless natural selection creates the incredibly complex factories and other intricacies found in nature. I hope my articles will show you that atheism/evolutionism simply goes hand-in-hand with bad thinking. The following explains one of their mistaken ways.

You and I, whether we realize it or not, use logic to decide what is true, what is the best thing to do, or what we actually will do in any given situation. Logicians have a very basic form of valid—good—logic that is accepted everywhere. In fact, you use this logic every day. The question is: Do you use it properly? Evolutionists—at least when they write about the "truth" of evolution—do not use good logic. Let me show you where evolutionists go wrong.

First, an explanation.

The following is a silly sample of good, every-day logic.

If I step on the cat's tail, then it will meow---

Thus, when I actually do step on the cat's tail-------

we know that the cat will meow-----

This basic form is called modus ponens, Latin for "in the mood of affirming."
(note: The following A and B represent conditions or happenings)

the form is—

ifAthenB--------------------------a truth that you are sure of

So, when we haveA----------------------------your finding, observation, fact (affirmation)

therefore, we know we also have B----------- your valid conclusion
NOTE--------if you already understand this aspect of logic, please scroll down to a bunch of large X's 

If we have A, then we will also have B.

Thus, whenA happens, is true, or is a fact

ThenB will also happen, be true, or a fact

The example again

If (A) I step on the cat's tail, then (B) it will meow------(True statement)

Thus, when (A) I actually do step on the cat's tail----------------(Fact, affirmation)

Therefore, we know that (B) The cat will meow---------------------------(True conclusion)


However-------we also know that the cat will meow for more reasons than just my stepping on its tail. So, there must be more than one A that will cause B. For example, the cat is fighting, grandma's rocker scrunched its tail, its tail gets caught in the door, and others—plus, we can't know everything, so there might be an unknown cause for it to meow. These possibilities extend the form of the logic to—

IfA, or A1, or A2, or A3, or A?, thenB —true statement

(if any one of the above A's happens, we can be sure that the cat will meow.)

SO--We observe that we do have one of  A, or A1, or A2, or A3, or A?, —a fact, observation

therefore, we have B —-a valid conclusion

Another form of good, valid logic is called modus tollens, or "denying mode." In this case, the cat does not meow, so we know that none of the As happened or is true—

This form (modus tollens, or "denying mode") looks like this—

IfA, A1, A2, . . . A?, thenB----a  true statement

we have NoB-----a fact, observation

Therefore, we have No A, A1, A2, or . . . A? valid conclusion.  In the case of the cat, no meow means grandma's rocker did not scrunch its tail, it did not get caught in the door, it is not in a fight, and so forth.

So-------------We now have modus ponens and modus tollens for good, valid logic.

Now a case of bad, invalid logic.

Suppose we are reliably told that the cat meowed but no one saw the cat. What can we say about why the cat meowed? Actually, we cannot make any solid claim about why the cat meowed, because we are not sure which A was the cause—You can come up with a false conclusion. This is called the fallacy of affirming the consequent (the consequent being the result B--the cat meowing).

This false, invalid, logic has form of—

IfA, thenB — true statement

B — fact, observation, affirmation

Therefore A-------------But this is Bad—INVALID—logic


The reason for "affirming the consequent" being invalid is: even though the statements "if A, then B; . . . B" may be true, the conclusion can be false.  Let me repeat the great example I borrowed from Dr.s Nolt, Rohatyn, and Varzi (1):

If (A) you are dancing on the moon, thenB you are alive------------a true statement

(B) You are alive -------------true

therefore, (A) You are dancing on the moon ---------------a false conclusion

We could insert any number of ways (A's) to indicate you are alive, but the observation "you are alive," by itself, does not identify which A—Thus, you can reach a false conclusion (a false A).

When applied to the cat meowing but no one observing why, we have—

If (A) step on tail, or (A1) rocker scrunches tail, or (A2) door pinches tail, or (A?), then (B) meow

We have (B) (meow—known result, affirmed)

Therefore, we have (A )or (A1) or (A2) or . . . (A?)

But which A? No one saw the cat, so selecting A2 (door pinching its tail) or any other A as the cause may be false.

So, what can be done to determine the truth—why did the cat meow? You must become a detective.  Find and inspect the cat—is it limping, licking its tail, or whatever; the list could go on. My point being that, since you did not see the cat--just as in most murder mysteries where the detective did not see the crime happen, your basic observation B (meow, dead body in case of a murder) cannot give you a valid conclusion—B only tells us that one or more of all of the possible causes A, A1, and so forth occurred or is true. Detectives face this and must study the situation using good (valid) logic.

A quick review-----

Our valid modus ponens logic ("if A, then B; A, therefore B"); valid modus tollens logic ("if A, then B; No B; therefore, No A") and the invalid "affirming the consequent" ("if A, then B; B, therefore, A") will serve to show evolutionists' errors in thinking.

First, an example with the detective-------
The detective is trained to know that certain kinds of actions will cause death—and leave unique kinds of evidence. He or she will examine or have the body examined for that evidence.—their valid (modus tollens) logic then becomes—

If (A) the person was stabbed to death,

then (B) the evidence will be a knife or some kind of puncture wound.—true statement

No (B) no knife or puncture wound found —fact, observation

Therefore, No (A), not stabbed to death —valid conclusion


The detective could continue with this valid logic by inserting known A's and B's that have a true "if A, then B" relationship until the cause of the dead body is found.

---------Notice--------The detective's logic would be invalid if he or she thought a puncture wound proved that the person was stabbed to death (affirmed the consequent B). Many puncture wounds would not cause death, and further investigation would be required since other possibilities [like poisoning] still exist--the detective could be making a false conclusion!

Now--the logic of evolution

--------Humans, for thousands of years, have thought about how we and all that exists came to be
--------Scientists have studied, discussed, and debated
--------Religious people have studied, discussed, and debated
--------Evolutionists have also studied, discussed, and debated life, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------but the evolutionists have     failed as detectives

This is how evolutionists have gone wrong

Note: evolutionists are required to function as detectives, because, like not observing the cat when it meowed or not seeing the murder when it happened, no one has ever seen one living thing evolve into a different living thing!

The following paragraph is a quotation from one of my college biology textbooks related to the drawing on the left. (note: all bold emphases are mine).     

        Modern organisms are adapted to a wide variety            of habitats and lifestyles. The forelimbs of birds and        mammals, for example, are variously used for                   flying, swimming, running over several types of              terrain, and grasping objects such as branches and         tools. Despite this enormous diversity of function,            [B] the internal anatomy of all bird and mammal          forelimbs is remarkably similar (Fig. 14--8). It is            inconceivable that nearly the same bone                          arrangements could be ideal for such different                  functions, as we would expect if each animal had            been created separately. Such [B] similarity is                exactly what we would expect, however, if [A]               bird and mammal forelimbs were derived from a          common ancestor. "2

(Please note: common ancestor is what birds and mammals would have if evolution's method of operation—natural selection—were true)

--------a quick review of valid and invalid logic used in this paper--------

valid modus ponens logic ("if A, then B; A, therefore B");

valid modus tollens logic ("if A, then B; No B; therefore, No A")

and the invalid fallacy "affirming the consequent" ("if A, then B; B, therefore, A")


From the above quote I repeat the bold-print statements

[B] the internal anatomy of all bird and mammal          forelimbs is remarkably similar (Fig. 14--8). It is            inconceivable that nearly the same bone                          arrangements could be ideal for such different                  functions, as we would expect if each animal had            been created separately. Such [B] similarity is               exactly what we would expect, however, if [A]               bird and mammal forelimbs were derived from a         common ancestor. "2

We can see that this textbook uses the following logic—

If (A) bird and mammal forelimbs were derived from a common ancestor,

Then (B) similarity is exactly what we would expect.

We find (B) the internal anatomy of all bird and mammal forelimbs is remarkably similar.

Therefore, (A) bird and mammal forelimbs were derived from a common ancestor.

As you can see, evolutionists use the invalid logic of affirming the consequent.

If A, then B;     B       Therefore, A

So, their conclusion that bird and mammal forelimbs were derived from a common ancestor could be false--because they used invalid logic.

Also, since no one has seen living things develop similar forelimbs or anything else, this is like the cat who meowed but no one saw the cat, and the dead body whose murder was not witnessed--there are multiple A's. So the question is--which A? If evolution were possible, common ancestor is one A,---------- but an intelligent designer A1 could have decided to use similar forelimbs in birds and mammals----and since we can't know everything, there could be some unknown cause A?.)

---Note---No one argues against the similarity in bird and mammal forelimbs (and many other similarities in diverse things in nature), but if the biologist-evolutionist authors of this book—and  all other evolutionists--had used valid—good—logic, they would have come to a different conclusion. Let me show you how.

Using the valid form modus ponens, I write this logic

--If (A) birds and mammals have a common ancestor OR (A1) a common designer OR (A2) something unknown,  Then, birds and mammals could have similar forelimbs.


--We see No evidence of (A)--evolution--being true except by speculation & guesswork (see below)


we DO see much evidence of (A1) design;

and no one has come up with what (A2) might be.

(Note: I can claim an engineer could have designed and made birds and mammals with similar forelimbs (and other parts, of course), because our own intelligent engineers often use similar parts in different machines—just look at the many similar parts in different road building machines, for example: pistons, levers, means of moving--or ask any design engineer in any field.

So, what is the true answer—When looking at basic bone structures and other obvious characteristics of living things, humans, for a long time, have thought that most things in nature must have been designed (18th-century Wm. Paley  wrote that nature shows design just as well as a mechanical watch of his era did).

And,  today's highly advanced technology shows us the incredible complexity found in the living cell—which proves that Mr. Paley was right,

--Therefore, (A1) a common, intelligent designer--DESIGNER GOD is the reason for birds and mammals having similar forelimbs.

There is absolutely no justification for claiming brainless evolution did the work of design and denying an absolutely, supremely intelligent Creator. Evolutionists (atheists) are fooling themselves; don't let them fool you.

If you think I am jesting when I say evolutionists-atheists are fooling themselves, please consider the following quotation of probably the world's most known atheist-evolutionist--Richard Dawkins, from his book The Blind Watchmaker--an attempt to prove Mr. Paley wrong (see 4 paragraphs above).

     I want to . . . [emphasize] the magnitude of the

     problem that our [evolutionists'] explanation faces,

     the sheer hugeness of biological complexity and the

     beauty and elegance of biological design.(3)

Mr. Dawkins is also impressed with DNA (the formula that tells how every living thing is to be made).  In fact, he is so impressed that he has to use words that indicate an intelligent designer, yet he still manages to deny any intelligence being involved.  Instead, Mr. Dawkins credits the hero of evolution—brainless natural selection.  In his book The Selfish Gene he writes about DNA:

     It is as though, in every room of a gigantic building,

     there was a book case containing the architect's

     plans for the entire building. . . . The architect's plans

     run to 46 volumes in a man--

He continues with

     Incidentally, there is of course no 'architect'. The

     DNA instructions have been assembled by natural


I now add Mr. Dawkins' description of natural selection, his legendary creature that supposedly did the hugely intelligent deed of assembling the DNA instructions. This is from his book The Blind Watchmaker:


     Natural selection, the blind, unconscious automatic

     process which Darwin discovered, and which we

     now know is the explanation for the existence . . . of

     all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and

     no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has

     no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. . . . (5)

How is it that a highly intelligent, educated person can admit to "hugeness . . . complexity . . . beauty . . . elegance . . . design" and then credit mindless, blind natural selection with the creation of living things? Can something with no mind assemble "DNA instructions"?—I suggest this only occurs in Mr. Dawkins' and other atheists' imaginations.

The problem is that Richard Dawkins and his fellow atheists (humanists are atheists, by the way) are determined to say anything—anything that will seemingly help them to deny the existence of God. Their trust in brainless natural selection to do design work has forced them to use their wildest imaginations--imaginations because there isn't any brainless thing or process that has ever designed anything—nothing!  Be warned, Mr. or Miss Teenager of America: any description or image of evolution doing anything more complex than changing the size of a bird's beak or modifying the color of a moth (examples of standard, simple changes that all living things make) is purely imaginary!

If evolutionists would use valid logic—and not insist on playing "let's imagine (pretend)," they would follow a pattern something like this—

If (A) you see design and complexity in a living thing,
then (B) a mind must have designed and made living things —a true statement

Check your dictionaries for the definitions of design, every one will require a mind!

We (including Mr. Dawkins) see (A) design and complexity in living things—fact, observation

Therefore, (B) a mind must have designed and made living things —a valid conclusion

Then, from that conclusion, your next valid modus ponensargument form becomes

If (A) a mind must have designed and made living things,

Then (B) that mind must have been God (certainly not mindless natural selection)

Today's technology shows (A) a mind designed living things to be true (a true observation)

Therefore, (B) God, not evolution, must have made living things


Your problem, Mr. or Miss Teenager of America, is that belief in evolution--besides causing you to waste your time studying a fairy tale—leads you into trying to use atheists' bad logic and denying what you admit to seeing in other parts of your life. You can expect more than your share of unpleasant surprises if you make decisions in the manner that atheists do with evolution.

Some of you have probably already applied atheism to your life by accepting the silly (self-defeating) idea that "There is no absolute truth"—which defeats itself because the statement itself cannot be true if there is no absolute truth--and logic requires true statements.

Do you know that Adolph Hitler liked evolution and thought he was helping improve the human race by killing Jews and disabled/handicapped people?  Please consider this: If there is no absolute truth, then no one can really say that Hitler or anyone else was/is wrong for killing another human. What else besides murder do you consider to be wrong?—are you "absolutely" sure?—

--My point being that atheists (evolutionists) like to distort word meanings so they can make rules they prefer to live by—they  want to be their own god. That is what they are doing when they deny what they admit to seeing.

Fortunately, neither you, Mr. Dawkins, nor I can be God, and we will all be better off if we acknowledge the true God for Who He is—the supremely intelligent Creator of you, me, and the rest of the universe—AND the Savior of those who turn to Jesus! We will then have a better understanding of life and appreciation of God's rules.

In a nutshell, the conclusions you should have are that

***design demands intelligence---a mind---God


           --distort (weaken) their thinking in any manner

              they deem necessary to deny God;
           --use imagination and bad logic to make

           --have a big problem with God—may He have

              mercy on their souls!

You, Teenager of America, protect your own soul. SOMEBODY MUST DIE FOR YOUR SINS!
Reject evolution's denial of God and turn to Jesus!

P.S. You really need to ask--insist—that your parents and teachers have all references to evolution removed from your textbooks—so much of evolution's imaginary ideas are mixed in with the facts of biology that it is hard to tell the difference.  Think of the time you will save by not having to study imaginary evolution—and those biology textbooks (and some other textbooks, too) will lose a lot of weight when they shed evolution!).

Besides, You will want to take time to learn to know God--Here's how to get started.

​God’s grace, mercy, salvation, and corrections are available to every one of us—but ONLY through His Son Jesus Christ! You should know that He is just a sincere confession, repentance, and belief away. Find a Bible and look up Romans chapter 3: verses 10, 23; 6:23a; 5:8; 6:23b; 10:9, 10, 13; then Luke 13:3; and Acts 7:55, 56; and John 14:15—20! Then start by confessing to Jesus that you—like me and everyone else—are a sinner who deserves our holy God's consequences for sin—death. Tell Jesus that you repent of your sins—you want to change your ways, sin no more. Tell Jesus that you believe He died on that Cross to take YOUR DEATH PENALTY—AND—He defeated death by rising from the dead and is now at the right hand of God the Father. Then thank Jesus and ask Him to give you a new life—come into your heart and live through you. If you were truly sincere—from your heart, you have just begun a fantastic journey with God.  

End Notes:

*Freeman, Scott, Biological Science, 2nd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, A.D. 2005, 132.

1. Nolt, John, Ph.D., Dennis Rohatyn, Ph.D, and Achille Varzi, Ph.D., Schaum's Outline of Theory and Problems of Logic, Second Edition. New York: McGrawiHill, A.D. 1998, 47.

2. Audesirk, Teresa and Gerald Audesirk, Biology: Life on Earth, 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall, A.D.1999, 264
(The evolutionist authors of this biology textbook apparently recognize design as a possibility, but they think a designer would have done things differently.  In the next to last sentence of the quote from page 264, they declare (my paraphrase) that they cannot imagine why a designer would use the same bone arrangements for different functions (human arm, bat's wing, whale's flipper, etc.) if the creatures were created separately.  However, what they are doing is claiming to know more about engineering (designing) living things than the original designer. Who wants to challenge an engineer intelligent and powerful enough to design and create birds and mammals and all the rest of the universe?  Not me.  Evolutionists should put some extra thought concerning Whom they are criticizing!)

3. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker. (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., A.D.1986, 15.

4. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene. (New York: Oxford University Press, A.D.1976, 22, 23.

5. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 5.


How people talk (write) tells a lot. My style of writing and choice of words tell you that I have a strong dislike for the idea of evolution—I have tried to come up with something positive to say about evolutionists' claims, but there really is not anything good about atheism or evolution.  If all of the universe and life really happened by chance and accident, evolution's supporters would not have to describe living things with words that signify the need for intelligence—thus, atheists/evolutionists contradict themselves.  That is why they have to "stomp their feet, pound their fists, and scowl, growl, and howl" to make their claims seem authoritative.

Evolution Conditions Your Mind To Use Bad Logic>>Poor Thinking