The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. It is not a hypothesis, a guess, or a hope. As a theory, it has attained the highest status an explanatory concept in science can reach. It has been consistently verified by observation and consistently predicted future observations. This theory is put to practical use in a wide variety of fields, from biology to medicine to computer science and many others.
The consensus on acceptance of this theory is extremely widespread among educated professionals in the relevant fields. There are no peer-reviewed scientific works published in reputable journals which question the validity of this theory, nor any which offer an alternative. Mr. Brecheen, natural selection and genetic changes do produce speciation.
This is the fact of evolution, and it is simply not disputed, not even by you. The theory of evolution is an explanation of the mechanism of this fact, and it is equally well accepted.
The suggestion that evolution is a religion and requires faith is without basis. Faith is a belief held in absence of or in spite of evidence. A religion is a set of beliefs which involve epistemology, spirituality, and the supernatural. It is irrelevant to science, which is purely evidence-driven. Evolution is a widely accepted scientific theory. If Mr. Brecheen wishes to dispute this, he will have to present evidence to support his argument. He did not do this in his article.
Mr. Brecheen repeatedly states that there is no evidence for evolution and that no species has been observed evolving into another species. I would suggest he start with Google on this matter, since there are thousands of peer-reviewed articles discussing these topics, and many lay articles he may read as well. He might start with “evidence of speciation” as a search phrase.
The suggestion is made that “both sides” of this issue should be taught in the classroom. This implies that the evidence for evolution and the evidence against evolution are equal, or at least nearly so, and that it could just as easily be incorrect as correct.
This is not the case. His suggestion is equivalent to suggesting that phrenology should be taught alongside neurology, or that astrology should be taught alongside astronomy. There is no credible argument which may be presented as another “side” against evolution. So-called “intelligent design” failed its first and only foray as a theory when its proponents would not even support it under oath. It was declared unconstitutional and recognized as the unscientific idea that it is.
Please, Mr. Brecheen, do not do as you promised and introduce legislation that you already know is unconstitutional. It's a waste of time and resources.
Darwin's “tree of life” is neither as Mr. Brecheen describes it (a monkey turning into a suit) nor a valid model of scientific evolution. It's a drawing. You can discredit all the 200-year-old drawings you like, evolution will still happen.
The author goes on to, it seems, criticize the Cambrian explosion as somehow discrediting evolution. I would first suggest that if such a well-known event were strong evidence against evolution, scientists would have picked up on this by now. I would then point out that it is, in fact, consistent with what evolution predicts would occur when multicellular life first appears on earth. This is a complex and interesting subject about which the author clearly has little knowledge.
As Mr. Brecheen complains that adaptation is not the same as evolution, I would ask him to check any dictionary or encyclopedia. He will find out that it is part of evolutionary theory. He misunderstands evolution as being change of a species from one phylum to another.
That is not what evolution is, however it does happen. It happens slowly, though, over long periods of time. Insects do not “transform” into mammals. They do share a common ancestor with mammals, but it was not some half-insect, half-mammal creature. It was a much more primitive form with descendants which diverged over a great deal of time.
This is why, for example, humans have small bony tails at the end of their spine, and why chickens have genes for teeth which are never used. These are just two of literally billions of examples of evidence of common ancestry among extant species.
As the author points out, we do have fossil evidence “spawning,” or perhaps spanning the ages. Whether or not the creatures in these fossils tens, hundreds, and thousands of millions years old are “fully formed” is not a real question.
They all lived and reproduced according to their own genome. Whether they represent common ancestors of modern and divergent species and clearly describe a process by which environmental pressures, gene recombination, and mutations caused speciation which eventually led to the modern living population is a real question, and it has been answered by evidence: They did.
In closing, Mr. Brecheen, before you presume to determine that a widely accepted scientific theory should not be taught, please learn about it yourself.