Thank you to Brandon Shundoff for his Feb. 20 response to evolutionary theory. The year Gavin de Beer disproved homologous structures and embryonic development was 1958 rather than 1985. Thanks for pointing it out, but no confusion with von Baer either. The fact remains, common ancestry is not supported.

Evolution has many meanings. One refers to microevolution and the genetic changes occurring within a species. Darwin’s finches show this, the peppered-moth study in England as well as antibiotic-resistant bacteria. However, with all of the changes in which they undergo, the finches remain finches, the moths remain moths and the bacteria are still bacteria. There is no observable evidence to show a mechanism for changing from one species to another: macroevolution. Only speculation.

Regardless of Haeckel and Lamarckism, Darwin still used Haeckel’s faked drawings to develop his theory regarding common ancestry and embryology.

I am not offering opinions but information anyone can find online. There are thousands of reputable scientists who are skeptical of the claims of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Yet our biology books list these items as evidence for the changes in life that cause new species to arise from another: a deliberate misrepresentation. The books also promote the idea that life can possibly come from non-life, again unproven speculation.

People avoid talking about evolution because it is controversial — afraid it will lead to discussions of other theories or, perhaps, the truth. If Darwin’s theory can’t explain the source of life and how new species arise, could the answer be beyond what science alone can explain? Can logic and reason help point to the truth? Our students will never know if exposed only to forced orthodoxy and closed-mindedness. Science teachers, take the time to present the opposing scientific arguments regarding Darwin’s “icons for evolution,” a great recipe for good science and excellent class discussions

Load comments