The following is an email an Ohio public school teacher (and AiG supporter) sent to the director of his department. It is self-explanatory and has been edited to protect identities.

We are thankful that there are more and more public schoolteachers who display this kind of courage, not only with their colleagues, but also with their students, who can then become better at critically analyzing evolution (which teachers have the constitutional freedom to do).1


Dear AiG,

Buddy Davis [AiG speaker, dinosaur sculptor, and singer] wrote a song about young David willing to face and fight the giant, Goliath. Using your website, I can “go down to the stream” and find some smooth stones—faith and facts—to meet and defeat the giant “evolution” with its bold claims.

I am a public high school teacher in a large urban district. The director of math and science recently sent out a newsletter boasting evolution’s overwhelming evidence (comparing it to the law of gravity), while belittling creationists—comparing us with flat earthers who reject the overwhelming evidence.

In the spirit of David vs. Goliath, I decided to face and fight the giant—evolution—using information from your website. The following is my response to the director’s newsletter:

Dr. XXXXX,

With your latest newsletter, you seemed to have taken the offensive, boasting evolution’s overwhelming evidence and belittling anyone who would question it—hardly the inquiry-learning approach you promote. So I have done my own inquiry, and ask you to do the same, by considering the following:

Evolution–Ignoring the Overwhelming Evidence

Evolutionists are making an ever-increasing use of the terms “overwhelming evidence” to support their theory.

Well, making use of today’s technology (the internet), I have examined, for myself, the best of this overwhelming evidence. I have also attended lectures at the world’s most prestigious universities to hear the evidence educators are being taught to pass on to their students. I have visited the world’s finest museums to see what the newest exhibits are using as evidence to support evolution. I traveled to the Galapagos [Islands] and Patagonia to witness exotic animals and the latest fossil finds used as evidence for evolution. And I have read the most up-to-date books by today’s top evolutionary scientists to see the evidence they are using to support their theory. And this is what I found.

Much of the claimed overwhelming evidence being used to support the theory of evolution is hardly overwhelming. Consider transitional forms.

As you know, a transitional form is an organism somewhere in-between one kind of organism and another. For example, a transitional form between a reptile and a bird should have characters somewhere in-between—having a structure in-between scales and feathers—which has not been observed but is believed by evolutionists to have existed. In fact, Darwin believed that a huge number of transitional forms would be discovered—a prediction of his theory. [For more information on the alleged transitional forms, see Get Answers: Fossils.]

However, consider some of the best evidence being offered as transitional forms—evidence of evolution. We are told that a land mammal evolved over millions of years and returned to the oceans as a whale. A picture of [one] transitional form used to support this idea looks half land-mammal and half whale, with short legs and broad tail, clumsy on land but a good swimmer. But the actual evidence includes only a portion of the skull—that’s it. From a portion of a skull, evolutionists created (through an artist’s drawing) the perfect transitional form. Their picture, based on a fraction of a skull, can hardly be considered a piece of the overwhelming evidence. [For more about so-called whale evolution, Walking Whales, Nested Hierarchies, and Chimeras: Do They Exist?.]

Much of the claimed overwhelming evidence being used to support the theory of evolution actually shows the opposite of evolution. Consider vestigial organs.

As you know, a vestigial organ is considered a left-over from an evolutionary ancestor—still there, but no longer functional or necessary. For example, the human appendix is used still today as evidence of evolution. The appendix, however, does have some known functions, especially in the very young. But consider, even if the appendix, or any other vestigial organ, is truly useless now, it does not support the concept of evolution. It is evidence of just the opposite.

True evidence for evolution should be showing new organs being formed (or evolved). To go from the first single-celled organism to a human being requires an incredibly huge amount of increase. Bones, lungs, brains, skin, and even appendices should be seen evolving over time. No amount of loss (vestigial organs) could possibly be used to support the huge increase. The appendix is actually the opposite of the overwhelming evidence necessary to support evolution. [For more on alleged vestigial organs, go to Do Any Vestigial Organs Exist in Humans?]

Much of the claimed overwhelming evidence being used to support the theory of evolution has nothing to do with evolution. Consider the field of medicine.

We are told, as you know, that evolution is key to the study of modern medicine. Evolutionists use the study of “evolving” bacteria in fighting infection to support this idea. But consider what they are truly studying. Bacteria, like other organisms, experience mutation and selection. If an antibiotic is used to fight infection, some bacteria are resistant ([perhaps] because of a mutation), and survive (selection) to reproduce. If a doctor uses a weak dose of antibiotic, the resistant strain will only increase, making the infection worse. Is this truly an application of evolutionary theory?

Evolution, from the first single-celled organism to a human being requires a huge increase in genetic information. New information needs to evolve to produce bones, lungs, brains, and skin, etc. Evidence for evolution should show this increase. But the bacteria example does not show an increase—it only shows a sorting and a loss of information. In fact, any observed genetic change has shown a sorting or a loss of information—but no increase. The study and application of bacterial resistance is a simple matter of the study [of] mutation and selection. It has nothing to do with the overwhelming evidence to support evolution. [For more information on bacterial resistance, see Get Answers: Mutations.]

So, I ask, where is this overwhelming evidence? I have searched for the best, and this is what I have found.

Who is ignoring the overwhelming evidence? Who is asking us to accept evolution regardless of the evidence? Who is asking us to believe it, even in spite of the evidence? From examining the best of the claimed “overwhelming” evidence from around the world, I can only conclude that evolution simply does not belong in the science classroom!

You can disagree. You can laugh and scoff. You can imply (with your published statements) that I am ignorant. But I challenge you to present evidence to the contrary.

Yes, I am challenging evolution!

Sincerely and with respect,

John XXXXX, Ohio

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.

Footnotes

  1. Contrary to widely held belief, the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision (in Edwards v. Aguillard) regarding the teaching of creation in public schools does not forbid criticizing evolution; moreover, the decision does not even forbid public school instructors from teaching creation. The Court’s decision prohibits schools from mandating that creation be taught. Instructors have the freedom to teach creation from a scientific perspective, for the Court ruled that teachers are “free to teach any and all facets of this subject” of all scientific theories about the origins of humankind (p. 9; a PDF of the Court’s 1987 ruling is available here). In today’s hostile climate, however, many schoolteachers are simply bringing up the problems with evolution with their students rather than teaching creation outright. Back