Evolutionists usually claim that the evidence for evolution is in a field which is not their field of expertise. Matthew Lowry (5/29), as a physicist, follows that pattern. What do scientists, whom I know, working in medicine say?
Dr. David Menton, a retired professor from the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, disagrees strongly with Matthew Lowry, the physicist. Dr. Menton asserts that he did not waste time teaching irrelevant evolution when he was instructing future doctors. It would have taken time away from teaching science.
Furthermore, Dr. Jerry Bergman, a consultant to scientists studying the connection between viruses and cancer, finds that the evolution concept is not helpful in that research either.
As for vaccines and antibiotics, they do not evolve. No evolution is involved unless one equivocates and calls the "microevolution" in viruses and bacteria "macroevolution." Both viruses and bacteria vary as viruses and bacteria respectively. Neither becomes a water flea or a slug. If that should happen, we could talk about them evolving.
Finally, Mr. Lowry also disagrees with a notable historical figure, Mr. Malone, one of Clarence Darrow's assistants. At the 1925 Scopes Trial, he argued, " ... give the next generation all the facts, all the available data, all the theories, all the information that learning, that study, that observation has produced ...". How about it?
Mr. Lowry says no and argues for indoctrination in evolution rather than education in the historical matter of origins. However, Arlene Sawicki (5/21) argues for academic freedom, just like Mr. Malone. She and Mr. Malone present a more reasonable position.