Logic: Immune To Evolution If logic were not absolute, and entirely immune to change including potential change over any given period of time, it would be impossible to know anything for certain... If logic were even susceptible to change, we would not be able to depend on its validity in order to determine truth and certainty; logic is only dependable (and possible!) because it is 100% immune to change... And if it were impossible to know things for certain, knowledge would be an illusion. But of course, truth and knowledge are a reality. We all "know that we know" certain things are absolutely and universally true and factual. For example, it would be absurd to claim that you aren't 100% certain of your own existence, or that you aren't 100% certain you're not being slowly consumed by an invisible duck; our reasoning and intuition tells us that we know such things for certain. Consider... If a brain mutation (a change in brain matter) were to cause a person to think that 1+1=3, or that ducks are cows, would we conclude that such a person is thinking logically? Of course not! We know that despite what that person's thinking may be telling them, logic says otherwise. This is perhaps the most simple way to demonstrate that logic is absolute and unchanging, and that it transcends brain matter. If logic were subject to potential change, it would mean that everything we hold to be true would be subject to potential change as well; human thought would be entirely subjective. So it is simply not possible for logic to be subjective. That which is "logical and true" is never open to change or interpretation despite unique neural connections from brain to brain, or supposed changing brain matter over time... A thought is either logical and true, or it is not. There is no "halfway there" with logic and truth, and therefore a logical thought process is linear and constant, as opposed to subjective thinking... This brings us to the fatal problem for Darwinian evolution: According to evolution theory, thought processes of every kind were and are the result of changing physical (brain) matter... Evolutionists believe that our brains are still evolving to this day, which would mean that thought processes are still changing, or are minimally subject to change over any given period of time including the present. And therefore: All thought processes should be subjective, according to the evolutionary worldview. Changing brain matter provides no absolute standard by which to say that one thought is "logical and true" while another is not. ...This can be demonstrated with a simple question: "How do you know that your logic is valid and reliable according to the Darwinian worldview?" Darwinists have no viable answer to this question; they are unable to offer any rational explanation for how they could possibly know that logic is valid (from within their own materialistic worldview). This fact often leads them into committing viciously circular / fallacious arguments (i.e., "My logic is valid because my logic is valid!"). Some Darwinists suggest that perhaps we have reached a point in the (supposed) "evolutionary timeline" where we happen to be thinking logically at the moment, but that things could change in the future. However, this is not a viable solution for two simple reasons: 1. It fails to provide a standard of logical thought, which is what enables us to distinguish something as being logical and true in the first place! ...If one supposed "ancient human ancestor" were capable of distinguishing logic, but not another, what factor made the difference between the two ancestors? 2. It fails to address that the standard of thought must at its core be absolute and unchanging, or all thinking would remain subjective! ...Truth and (true) knowledge would not exist. The Absolute Standard... In order to actually explain how we "know that we know" logic is valid, there must necessarily be an absolute and unchanging standard by which we're able to be cognizant of its validity - to the point that we all have the universal ability to be completely certain of various facts and truths... This can be likened to how we would be completely unable to conceptualize that 9 is closer to 10 than 2, without a standard numerical order. Now, the absolute standard cannot be a mindless material thing, because material objects do not enable thought processes, or assist us in confirming that we've reached a logically sound (and therefore true) conclusion. Rather, it is entirely our thought processes which confirm that we are correct about the material world (reality)... The moment we even begin to process that a given observation of material reality is logical and true, our minds instantly employ logic and reasoning to make it happen. That is to say, observation requires logic rather than enabling it. Furthermore, we can think logically about abstract (and imaginary) things, such as pure mathematics, where physical properties are not part of the thought process whatsoever. ...So there must necessarily be an absolute and unchanging mind that enables (or has enabled) an absolute standard of logic and truth in the minds of all human beings... Interestingly, the Bible says in John 14:6 that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that nobody comes to the Father and has eternal life but through belief and trust in Him. Thus, the Bible clearly reveals that Jesus, the logos in John 1:1 and our all powerful Creator, is the source of all truth. ...How amazing! In Conclusion... To claim that absolute and unchanging logic is the product of continuous or even potential change (evolution), is a black and white contradiction. Consider... How can something that is completely immune to all change, be the subjective product of change? In order to accept unchangeable logic (which is the only means by which to acquire true knowledge, and likewise the only explanation for a reality where it is obviously possible to know some things with absolute certainty), one must clearly reject the Darwinian, naturalistic worldview. Click here for more.