What Your Science Teacher Got Wrong
That’s a pretty strong statement… am I saying that a science teacher or a science textbook could be wrong? Absolutely. They’ve been wrong in the past & will be wrong again in the future.
What did they get wrong? Simply this…
Ernst Mayr (leading evolutionary biologist in the 20th century) – “No educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact.”
He’s wrong (as are others) on 2 fronts:
1. Educated people do question the theory
2. Evolution is not a “simple fact” & the evidence for it is weak (according to almost 1,000 Ph.D.’s who have signed a document “dissenting from Darwin”)
Let’s begin with some definitions. When people talk about evolution today, they are usually not referring to “micro-evolution” or “change over time.” That’s uncontroversial & easily shown.
What they are referring to is “macro-evolution” or radical, dramatic, changes among species that produce completely new species (speciation). That’s what’s controversial.
Many science teachers/textbooks would say that the process that brought all organisms into existence from a common ancestor (macro-evolution) is natural selection acting on random variations. They would say that this process operates by chance & necessity, apart from ANY EVIDENT INTENTION OR DIRECT DESIGN. That’s Darwin’s proposition & that’s a problem.
How do you know that macro-evolution is what the science teachers are referring to? I’ll give you a localized example. Dr. Michael Dini, professor of Biology at Texas Tech University, says, “The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to all species.” Your science teacher isn’t just advocating “change over time” purely within a species.
Why question this if its the consensus view? Because the consensus has been wrong in the past.
Dr. William Dembski shared with us at Experience Life that there’s a better explanation. It’s often called Intelligent Design (ID). ID’s main claim is that nature exhibits patterns that are best explained as the products of an intelligent cause (design) rather than an undirected material process (chance & necessity). Examples would be DNA, bacterial flagellum, complexities in the cell, fine-tuning of our universe, etc. Unlike Darwinists, ID proponents believe that certain aspects of science point to an ultimate intelligence or designer.
Dr. Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist & athest) says, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
So, he admits that things appear to be designed, but instead of accepting that fact, he argues that it’s just an appearance.
My question would be, “If it barks like a dog, wags its tail like a dog, & eats like a dog, wouldn’t the burden of proof be on the person who claims it’s not a dog?” Instead the Darwinists think the burden of proof is on the Intelligent Design proponent who sees design in nature.
Dr. Jonathan Wells (embryologist) says, “The outcome of this scientific revolution will be decided by young people who have the courage to question dogmatism and follow the evidence wherever it leads.”
Be informed. Question dogmatism. Follow the evidence wherever it leads. Be a hero!





