(Note: All colored print is my emphasis)


     su-per-sti-tion . . . n. 1. A belief held in spite

    of evidence to the contrary. 2. a. A  belief,

    practice, or rite resulting from ignorance

    of the laws of nature or from faith in magic

    or chance. b. A fearful or abject state of

    mindresulting from such ignorance

     or irrationality. . . . ([1] all definitions)

     fear-ful . . .adj. 1. . . .3. Feeling anxious or

     apprehensive. . . . 5. Indicating anxiety, fear

     or terror.

     ab-ject . . . adj.  1. . . . 2. Of the most

     miserable kind; wretched

     ir-ra-tion-al . . . adj. 1a. Not endowed with

     reason. b. .. . contrary to reason; illogical: 

     an irrational dislike. . . . 

The great Roman orator, statesman, and philosopher Cicero (106-43 BC) is quoted as saying "There is in superstition a senseless fear of God."2. The fear of God is likely the truth about evolutionists/atheists and the reason they so forcefully deny His existence and deceive themselves into being superstitious.

Also, please note that design and chance are not to be mixed.  Refer to the synonyms of the word chance.>>>>>>>>>>to the right>>>>>> 

Also, Logic has a fundamental law- the law of non-contradiction- that a statement and its denial cannot both be true at the same time. 

One biology textbookhas a picture of a large spider and its web. What they say about it illustrates the violation of logic's "law of non-contradiction that I have found in every evolution-promoting-book that I have read--which is many.

     This intricate spider web is strong,

     lightweight, hard to detect, and 

     ruthlessly effective at capturing passing

     insects.  It's a marvel of efficient

     design, "but its "designer" is the simple    

     mindless process of natural selection. 3

Their illogical contradiction works out this way:
     To get a
design requires a mind              

                                 (see definition>>>>).

  Evolution says design does not require a

  mind (see above Spider web example).

  They both cannot be true.
     Good reasoning, judgment, and the English

     dictionary--our standard--says design

     must be from a mind. Therefore, evolution

     is contrary to reason and illogical, which

     makes it irrational--which makes it a


Your misguided evolutionist friends are admitting they see design but insist that nature's critters and humans came into existence by chance (See "Natural Selection">>>)WHAT MIND TOLD THE TRANSFORMATIONS WHAT STEPS TO TAKE? Therefore, they are being illogical and contrary to reason (claiming chance can design)which is irrational,which is being superstitious as  per superstition definition 2b above.  

In the following quotation, the same (spider) authors admit to seeing design by claiming the forelimbs shown  are not "ideal" (see drawing to the right>>) Notice the words (next paragraph) "It is inconceivable that nearly the same bone arrangements could be ideal."  This supposedly gives them reason to claim that mindless evolution (chance) must have done it. But that is contrary to reason (illogical)because they are saying the design they see is inferior (inferior to their minds, anyway), which is admitting to seeing design! 

They say: 

     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, 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 [to their

     minds these are less than perfect        

     designs] for such different functions, as we

     would expect if each animal had been

     created separately. Such similarity is exactly

     what we would expect, however, if bird and

     mammal forelimbs were derived from

     a common ancestor. " 4

​​North Carolina public schools, we citizens will help you by amending this state's constitution and freeing you from your bondage to teaching children to use bad logic, because
evolution is bad logic, which is irrational, which is superstition! 


1. The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition., 1982.
2. Henry, Lewis C. Ed., Best Quotations for All Occasions. (U.S.A.: Fawcett Premier Books, 1945) 223.

3. Teresa Audesirk and Gerald Audesirk,  Biology:Life on Earth, 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1999) 272.
​4. Ibid. 264

5. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker.  (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., A.D.1986) 14.






Synonyms: chance, random, casual, haphazard, . . .These adjectives apply to what lacks purposefulness or method. Chance implies total absence of design or predictability:my chance meeting with a friend  . . . 

log-ic . . n. . . .2. a.  A system of reasoning . . .c. The formal,guiding principles of a discipline, school, orscience.  . . 1

NOTE--Science has a guiding principle that says any claim must be capable of being falsified--proven wrong.  So--I say that you can prove me wrong if you can show me any living thing that does not appear to be designed--have purposeful (specified) complexity--when closely inspected. Atheists and humanists, please get yourself to a Bible-believing church!-----Every living thing looks to be designed because it is designed!

De-sign . . .1. To conceive in the mind; invent: . . .  2. To form a plan for: …1
       Please note—these and all other
       definitions of design require a mind—

               (check any dictionary!)

Natural Selection
I quote evolution's most noted spokesperson: Who says on page 14 of his book The Blind Watchmaker: "natural selection works by “gradual, cumulative, step-by-steptransformations. . . sufficiently simple to havecome about by chance. . . . "


il-log-i-cal . . .adj.1. Contradicting or disregarding the principles of logic. 2. Without logic;senseless. . . 1

con-tra-dic-to-ry . . . logic. Either of two propositions related in such a way that it is impossible for both to be true . . . 1