One of my colleagues, a Ph.D. in philosophy who has been reluctant to speak out publicly against evolution, privately expressed his concern. He said, "Evolution is a dogma and not a science." This is a very serious charge because there are a great many disciples of Darwin in the scientific community. I believe, however, that a critical analysis of the literature on evolution justifies his statement. A scientific fallacy in evolution may be seen by noting that its whole superstructure is built upon extralogical considerations. Extralogical considerations are the extensions of a proposition beyond the scope of true logic. In evolution, an extralogical error occurs when phenomena with observable limits are cited as evidence in support of an unbounded proposition. A recent speaker on our campus defined evolution as "change." He then said, "Change is fact; therefore evolution is fact." It soon became evident that the evolution he adheres to is far more than an observable change. He committed the extralogical error of defining evolution as observable and employing it as an unlimited process. Fabrications upon that kind of premise are nothing more than figments of imagination. The failure to give an adequate definition of evolution is a common failing among evolutionists; definitions implying observables are employed to frame speculative propositions. It is not uncommon, however, to find these same adherents of evolution charging that the remaining scientific community ignores the observable evidence. No scientist questions the validity of variety, change, and development within groups of living things. The works of Luther Burbank, Walter Lammerts, and others in California have made it obvious that it is possible to breed new forms differing from parent forms. But it is also observable that this type of breeding is limited and invariably shows bounds beyond which it cannot go. One would say in mathematics that the curves of these real processes have asymptotes which never cross finite boundaries. Evolutionists ignore those asymptotes. After more than a hundred years of research in biology, evolution remains without a solid foundation. Dr. G. A. Kerkut (1960, p. 157) states it this way: "The evidence that supports it [general evolution] is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it anything more than a working hypothesis." It is amazing that after all these decades of toil by scientists in numerous disciplines that evolution is still a mere hypothesis and not a law! By now it should be clear that the evolutionary hypothesis is neither necessary nor sufficient. There are scientific laws that are much more successful in specifying the processes of nature. These laws can be checked by experiment and may profitably be employed as guides to invention and progress. I therefore invite your attention to a scientific alternative to evolution, an alternative that has present processes that follow the basic laws of science.