Christian Teacher in Ohio Battles Tyrannical Evolution Pushers

Listen to the Christian Patriot Politicast of this column

Install Microsoft Silverlight

Members of the anti-Christian, communist Left are obsessed with banishing the presence of Christian expression from all areas of the public square.  They are probably the most fervent in this crusade in the government-run public school classrooms, where teachers are persecuted for displaying even a hint of Christianity.

I have written before about a California teacher, Brad Johnson, who is fighting back against a tyrannical school district that ordered him to remove patriotic banners from his classroom walls—banners that simply included the name of God in their sayings.  These banners had long been hanging in his classroom, but the God-hating tyrants in his school district decided they could no longer abide even the written mention of the name of the Lord in that classroom.  How very like Satan that is!

Ted Cruz 2016


Mr. Johnson’s appeal is still pending in the courts, and the Thomas More Law Center has vowed to take it to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

There is another American teacher being persecuted for his Christian faith.  This is a case out of Mount Vernon, Ohio.

As reported at the Rutherford Institute website, which is handling the case,

Woodrow Wilcox


“The Rutherford Institute has appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of John Freshwater, a Christian teacher who was fired for keeping religious articles in his classroom and for using teaching methods that encourage public school students to think critically about the school’s science curriculum, particularly as it relates to evolution theories. Freshwater, a 24-year veteran in the classroom, was suspended by the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education in 2008 and officially terminated in January 2011. The School Board justified its actions by accusing Freshwater of improperly injecting religion into the classroom by giving students ‘reason to doubt the accuracy and/or veracity of scientists, science textbooks and/or science in general.’ The Board also claimed that Freshwater failed to remove ‘all religious articles’ from his classroom, including a Bible.”

Here we have the case of a Christian teacher encouraging his students to approach the unproven, unobserved theory of evolution with the skeptical eye it deserves.  The anti-Christian crusaders in our world are so viciously against any teachings that declare God is the Author of the universe and all that is in it that they will fiercely defend a terribly flimsy theory—or hypothesis, rather—that seeks to explain the origins of life in this amazing world in which we live.  The hypothesis of evolution—which is not even a plausible explanation, with its gaping, fossil record holes and fantasy mechanisms—is the best the godless among us have come up with, and they cling to it with a fanatical fervor.

The fact that this school district even cited Mr. Freshwater for having a Bible in his classroom is also chilling and disgusting.  We must remember that our God-given rights do not end just because we become teachers in the public school system.  There is no such thing as the fabled “separation of church and state” as the Left insists.  The only constitutional mandates are against the federal government establishing an official national religion in America, which it has never done, and interfering with Americans’ freedom to practice their faith, which it is doing more and more each year.

The bizarre beginning of this case was back in 2008, as reported in Mr. Freshwater’s Appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, filed last Friday by the Rutherford Institute,

“Despite objective evidence demonstrating Freshwater’s consistent excellence as an eighth-grade science teacher for over 20 years, and despite his immaculate employment record, Freshwater came under intense scrutiny following a 2008 incident in which a common classroom science experiment with a Tesla coil used safely by other teachers for over 20 years allegedly produced a cross-shaped mark on one student’s arm.

While the Referee who investigated this incident ultimately determined that ‘speculation and imagination had pushed reality aside,’… community hysteria resulting from rumors about Freshwater and the incident prompted the [School] Board to launch a full-scale inquisition into Freshwater’s teaching methods and performance.  This sweeping critique focused entirely on trace evidence of Freshwater’s religious faith which allegedly appeared in the classroom.  On January 10, 2011, the Board adopted a Resolution terminating Freshwater’s employment contract based upon a recommendation issued by Referee R. Lee Shepherd, Esq., on January 7, 2011 that Freshwater be terminated for ‘good and just cause.’”

The supposed “good and just cause” was Mr. Freshwater’s allowing his students to examine both sides of the evolution debate and teaching them to recognize issues in printed materials that could be questioned or debated; in other words, he was teaching his students critical thinking!  The godless School Board also found offense in the fact that some of Mr. Freshwater’s counterpoints to the hypothesis of evolution involved—GASP!—arguments for Creationism or Intelligent Design.  Oh, the horror!

According to the School Board, this “good and just cause” amounted to “Failure to Adhere to Established Curriculum.”  That sounds like something out of Nazi Germany!  Absolutely NO God talk allowed here, comrades!

Mr. Freshwater was also accused of “Disobedience of Orders,” because he was told to remove certain items from his classroom, which he did, but there was a patriotic poster featuring Colin Powell that he did not remove, but said he did not recall being told to remove it.  That poster was handed out to teachers by the school office and was displayed in other classrooms in the district besides his.  He also had a couple of school library books: one was a Bible, and one was titled “Jesus of Nazareth.”  Because he had these things in his classroom, he was accused of “defiance.”

This is an outrageous injustice, and this case is extremely important for the future freedoms of teachers and students alike.  As the President and founder of the Rutherford Institute, John Whitehead, stated,

“Academic freedom was once the bedrock of American education. That is no longer the state of affairs, as this case makes clear.  … What we need today are more teachers and school administrators who understand that young people don’t need to be indoctrinated. Rather, they need to be taught how to think for themselves.”

The godless people who aggressively push the hypothesis of evolution in our public schools cannot tolerate opposing viewpoints, and if Mr. Freshwater ultimately loses this battle in the courts, all of America will have lost yet another chunk of our Christian liberty at the hands of anti-Christian tyrants.

As reported by the Rutherford Institute, two lower courts have already sided with the School Board against Mr. Freshwater, ignoring the First and Fourteenth Amendment violations by the school district.

The conclusion of Mr. Freshwater’s appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court states,

“The [School] Board’s actions constitute a violation of the First Amendment academic freedom rights of both Freshwater and of his students, of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, and of Freshwater’s right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Because of its significant implications for academic freedom in public schools and the continued vitality of teachers’ First Amendment right to openly practice and discuss their religious faith, the case is one of monumental public concern.  As no reviewing court has yet examined these critical civil liberty components of this case, Freshwater prays that this Court will grant his petition and undertake that essential analysis.”

We should all be praying that Mr. Freshwater is given a victory over this anti-Christian, public school district.  Ultimately, we are all Mr. Freshwater, and if he loses, we all lose.

We should also pray for, and consider financially supporting, the Rutherford Institute, which is made up of front-line, legal warriors who provide free legal services to people who have had their constitutional rights threatened or violated.  From the Institute’s information page,

“The Institute’s mission is twofold: to provide legal services in the defense of religious and civil liberties and to educate the public on important issues affecting their constitutional freedoms.

Whether our attorneys are protecting the rights of parents whose children are strip-searched at school, standing up for a teacher fired for speaking about religion or defending the rights of individuals against illegal search and seizure, The Rutherford Institute offers assistance—and hope—to thousands.”

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Gina Miller, a native of Texas and current resident of the Mississippi Gulf Coast, is a radio/television voice professional.
Gina Miller
View all articles by Gina Miller
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly


  • PolishBear

    Uh, RIGHT. Science is nothing but an elaborate Satanic deception. Astronomers, physicists, geneticists, mathematicians … all just tools of the devil.

    • Bob Ellis

      Gee, I don’t remember any Christians having said that. Maybe it’s just a strawman atheists create to make themselves feel better about all the myths they believe in that are contrary to science.

      • thisoldspouse

         If atheists didn’t have their strawmen, they’d be the loneliest creatures on earth.

    • DCM7

      The problem with evolutionism is that it’s NOT science. You make the typical fallacious assumption that rejecting evolutionism means rejecting science as a whole, when in fact accepting real science requires rejecting evolutionism (or else embracing incompatible concepts, as so many do).

      “The hypothesis of evolution – which is not even a plausible explanation, with its gaping, fossil record holes and fantasy mechanisms – is the best the godless among us have come up with, and they cling to it with a fanatical fervor.” — Boy, does that sum it up.

    • DCM7

      …or perhaps you’re parroting the popular claim that various branches of science depend heavily on, and are unified by, evolution. (In that case, though, why name “mathematics”?) Unfortunately (for you), the reality (acknowledged even by many secular scientists) is that NO branch of science actually needs evolutionism. In fact, if it affects any scientific study, it does so by misdirecting it. Such is what happens when pseudoscience gets treated like real science.

    • WXRGina

      Hey, Jack, WHO said “science is nothing but an elaborate Satanic deception”?  What a pathetic attempt at ridicule!  I don’t suppose you have anything of substance to offer, so empty, baseless ridicule is all you can spit out.

  • Bob Ellis

    I can call Star Wars “science,” too, but that doesn’t make it so. It seems to be so difficult for evolutionists and liberals to tell the difference between facts and wishful thinking, between fact and assumption.

    When you put forth an idea which is flatly contradicted by empirical science at many pivotal sections of the idea, no rational person can call that idea “science.” Myth? Wishful thinking? Fantasy? All of those could apply well to the hypothesis of evolution, but something that in order to be possible depends on multiple events which science flatly disproves, you can’t rationally call it “science.”

  • retiredday

    Evolution is junk science.

    But when you live in a junkyard, you can’t tell.

  • Bob Ellis

    I am fairly well versed in atheism and evolution. I used to believe in evolution, and gave atheism a serious look.

    That’s the problem. The more I looked into evolution, the less I found that it was actually substantiated OR observed. In fact, it really hasn’t been substantiated at all, and has never been observed even once, in the lab or in the field.

    Science has plenty to offer. One of the things it tells us is that the hypothesis of evolution is an unworkable and illogical idea. An idea that is contradicted by science on several fronts cannot rationally be called “science.”

  • WXRGina

    Not to engage you, J, but your saying “Evolution is science” is pretty meaningless. I should not have to point out how silly your statement is, but saying something is “science” in no way means it is true.

    • jaytheatheist


      My calling evolution a science is not my claim. It is the claim of tens of thousands of scientist, who presumably, do know a thing or two about what constitutes science. To not accept my view is one thing, to reject expert view is another.


      • Bob Ellis

        As I have pointed out numerous times before, it doesn’t matter if 7 billion people call evolution “science” or not. What matters is if it fits the definition of science, and it clearly does not.

  • WXRGina

    Hey, pal!  You may have missed “Polish Bear’s” sarcasm toward us, but I believe you are on his team.  Maybe you should re-think your comment to him.

  • retiredday

    “Evolution has been substantiated and observed.”   Only in terms of macroevolution.  No evolution has been substantiated or observed between species.  There is no missing link, after more than a century of searching.

    The hypocrisy of atheists is that despite evolution being a hypothesis, you worship it as if it were proven fact.  You whine at believers to prove the existence of God, while you yourselves have nothing but your faith in the unproven claims of evolution.  You don’t even have to believe in God to have the intellectual integrity to admit that there is substantial scientific evidence for Intelligent Design.  I’ve never yet met a genuine atheist who was objective about science.  They are all biased and hold to their agenda like a religion.  Your understanding of reality is limited by requiring it to fit into your formulated thinking.  Human understanding is insufficient to grasp the totality of existence, and atheists cope by refusing to recognize that anything beyond their ken exists, by insisting that nothing is beyond their ken.  Evolution is small minded and atheists have small minds. 

    • DCM7

      “Only in terms of macroevolution.  No evolution has been substantiated or observed between species.”

      Not sure you’ve got your terms right there. “Macroevolution” is exactly what has *not* been observed, so you probably mean “microevolution”. But actually there is no “evolution” at any level at all, in the sense of any new genetic code being created; there is only change which can most simply be described as a slowly degenerative genetic drift. That’s not the kind of “evolution” by which anything could get created, or by which reptiles could turn into birds. That kind of “evolution” is, of course, completely imaginary.

      Plus you use “species” when you probably mean “kind.” “Species” is a man-made term that doesn’t have as hard a definition as people think. Tigers and lions are different “species” but they’re the same kind; ever heard of a liger or a tigon?

  • Bob Ellis

    The joke is on you if you are delusional enough to think evolution is a viable scientific theory.

  • Veldy

    Unfortunately, today students are not taught to think, but to simply fall in line.  It amazes me how so many can look at creation and think that it all occurred through some sort of random process.  A simple example: 
    How many different species are there that reproduce in the same manner?  

  • bondmen

    Evolution is not science, it is a way of viewing the world around us assuming there is no Creator God, so in reality evolution is a philosophy and I dare say to some, a religion. Yes, that would be The First Church of Darwin! If one wants to see a great quote on science search for Michael Crichton’s quote on settled science.  I would encourage all who have an open mind to get a copy of Living Fossils by Dr. Carl Werner and see for yourself what the “science” museums are not showing our children.  Thank you Lord there are teachers in government schools who stand for what’s true and have the courage and compassion to endeavor to bring light to a dying world.

  • Bob Ellis

    Most people once thought the sun orbited the earth. I think we know how good that “science” was–and actually, it has more to support it than does the hypothesis of evolution.

  • Bob Ellis

    You are right about Star Wars. The technologies, people, events, etc. are not “real” and are not observable…just as evolution is not real and not observable. It hasn’t been observed even a single time, inside the lab or in the field. It is nothing more than a supposition–one that not only isn’t supported by science, but is flatly contradicted by science at several key points.

    You can believe in it all day long, and twice as hard on Sundays, but the facts remain the same: science contradicts the hypothesis of evolution.

  • Bob Ellis

    There you go again–trying to rewrite inconvenient facts, whether they be scientific or historical…or both.

    The position that the cosmos orbited the earth was held as not just philosophical truth but scientific truth for many centuries, going back to the Greeks (not the Bible). From their perspective, one can see why they might think that, but to be dogmatic about it, especially in the face of evidence to the contrary (i.e. Galileo) is uncalled for.

    Sadly, many people continue to do the same thing today. Believe in a hypothesis like evolution, which is contradicted on several critical points, is one of the best examples.

    While you are correct about the properties of the scientific method, it’s a shame that you are unwilling to recognize that the scientific method fails to prove the contentions posited by the hypothesis of evolution, and the scientific method has completely disproven several key elements of evolution hypothesis.

  • Bob Ellis

    Majority opinions can be compelling–which is really the only reason more than a tiny handful of people believe the hypothesis of evolution. Like I once did, many people wrongly believe, “If that many educated people believe it, it must be true.”

    What we fail to recognize in such instances is that “majority opinions” have been wrong about a myriad of things over the years–scientific, historical, political and so forth.

    “Majority opinion” is an extremely poor barometer of right and wrong, or of true versus false.

    And when the “majority” (which is actually a minority of the population) believes in something that has been proven repeatedly to be unscientific and impossible, it takes a lot of ignorance, a lot of stupidity, or a lot of faith (or a lot of all three) to accept that majority opinion.

  • Bob Ellis

    We have done spectrum analysis and sent many probes to the sun, but if you want to claim we don’t know much about the sun, that’s fine.

    Something we DO know for a fact is that evolution has never–not even once, in the lab or in the field–been observed taking place.

    And since you mentioned bacteria–which, given their very short generations, should have made any evidence of evolution glaringly clear long ago–I should point out that they are within our sphere of empirical observation and testing…and still no evidence of evolution. In fact, if anything, they point to the fallaciousness of the hypothesis of evolution. I am speaking of their ability to “develop” resistance to antibiotics…which actually involves a LOSS of genetic information and biological flexibility, not a GAIN of genetic information and functionality.

    You really should do the both of us a favor and own up to the bankruptcy of evolution as a viable scientific theory. Or at the very least, sequester your opinion until you’ve had a chance to objectively review the evidence. That’s what I did when I began to suspect evolution was a scientific “empty suit.” It’s a lot easier to think objectively and clearly when you aren’t busy publicly defending what it is you should be critically considering.

  • Bob Ellis

    No I’m not. You can’t have new functionality without new genetic information. And no, the antibiotic resistance is because of information that was missing in the first place…and then passed on to subsequent generations for a net loss in genetic diversity for that line. No new genetic information has been gained = no evolution has occurred.

    I see you aren’t taking my advice and giving this any objective thought. You’re never going to learn how foolish and bankrupt this hypothesis is until you do so.

  • Bob Ellis

    You were the one who brought up majorities, not me. You brought up scientific credentials, not me. Why is it liberals always bring things up as if they were proof of their arguments, and then when these are debunked, they claim they weren’t contending what they were clearly contending?

    In a perfect world, we should be able to trust what a scientist says. Why? Because in a perfect world, a scientist wouldn’t try to BS people–himself included. IN that perfect world, scientists wouldn’t try to make more of any evidence they have than that evidence warranted, and they wouldn’t try to play philosopher instead of sticking with science.

    Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world. We live in a world where scientists have the same character flaws, weaknesses and fears as everyone else. Thus many scientists make more of something than it warrants, try to make evidence fit their presuppositions, and end up lying to themselves and others. Put simply, many human beings want a free pass when it comes to moral accountability. Evolution, if true, could provide such a free pass. The only problem is, despite the eagerness of many scientists to get that free pass, not only does it not exist, the scientific hypothesis they see as a gateway to it is nothing but fantasy.

    Here’s a scenario for YOU to consider. After an examination a doctor tells you that your appendix needs to be removed. Luckily, you get a second opinion and find out that your appendix is perfectly health…and after doing a little checking around, you find that this doctor likes to do unnecessary surgeries for extra income. You might have even gone to a clinic where all the doctors have that same tendency.

    Where’s your “professional credibility” and “majority” reliability now?

    Moral of the story: don’t be a fool just because somebody in a lab coat tells you something.

  • Bob Ellis

    Science is always right, inasmuch as we listen to what the scientific method tells us. We get into trouble when we start guessing and imagining and assuming based on what the scientific method has told us, instead of just stopping at what hard information it has provided.

    That is what the hypothesis of evolution is and does. It was a viable hypothesis 150 years ago. Unfortunatley, since then the scientific method has been unable to provide any solid proof for it…and a LOT of damning evidence against it. But instead of being good scientists and saying, “Darn, guess we were wrong about that possibility,” many in the scientific community and elsewhere still desperately hope that “free pass from moral accountabilty” can someday be proven.

    That isn’t science.

  • Bob Ellis

    I don’t think anyone expects science to always be right. What would be nice is if science would stick to what it knows, and leave the wild, unsupported conjecture to the philosophers. Evolution is nothing more than a fanciful philosophy dressed up as “science.”  

    And no, my statement that the scientific method has nailed evolution to the wall as a fraud is dead-on.  The scientific method has proved species don’t change from one into another. The scientific method has proved organisms don’t spontaneously gain new functional genetic information. The scientific method has proved that life does not come from lifeless materials, The scientific method has proved matter does not come into existence from nothing.  The hypothesis of evolution has received fatal wounds from numerous bullets.

    The only problem is, many people are emotionally invested in maintaining a belief in that philosophy, so they ignore the obvious.

    You’re right that this thread has been belabored long enough. If you’re unwilling to face the very obvious scientific truths I have repeatedly laid out, there’s no point in beating the dead horse further. As you so aptly put it, we can have our own opinions, but we aren’t entitled to our own custom set of “facts.”

  • Bob Ellis

    You see nothing debunked because you understand that the carefully crafted house of cards of your philosophy would crumble if you stared dead-on at real science instead of the conjecture and assumption that is being passed off as science.

    It’s sad that you don’t do the research about your beliefs that you say you do with health care. Even then, I hope the references you’re checking aren’t invested in some way in propping up someone else’s reputation. That’s the incestuous environment we have in the world of “science” today; most are afraid to say anything negative about the herd, especially a leader of the herd, for fear of being outcast. That’s not science; that’s high school hallway peer pressure.

  • Bob Ellis

    Allow me to spell it out as plainly as I possibly can in what I hope is not yet another vain attempt to help you understand.

    Is this information:


    Yes, it is. It denotes a vehicle and tells us what type of vehicle it is.

    Is this information:


    Obviously not. Why not? Though all the elements remain, this collection of letters is “mutated” and no longer conveys INFORMATION.

    Thus, if you take this sentence:

    He was the commander of a battleship in the Pacific

    And replace it with

    He was the commander of a pteltsbai in the Pacific

    then you have a LOSS of information. All of the basic elements are still there, but you have a LOSS of information.

    Now, while we might expect someone as anti-science as an evolutionist has to be simply to believe in that silly hypothesis may not be able to understand what I have just explained, I think you have it in you to be able to grasp it. You may have to climb over several walls to do it, but I think you can get there if you want to.

  • Bob Ellis

    We all approach things with presupposition and bias. Christians as well as atheists do so. It’s so incredibly sad that even after our countless discussions, you still seem completely oblivious to the fact that evolutionists dogmatically seek to pass off biased assumption as if it were fact.

    It’s okay to bring assumptions to the table of scientific inquiry (impossible for any human being not to, really). But one must be willing to abandon those assumptions if there is compelling–especially empirical–evidence which disproves those assumptions.

    That is what I did many years ago when I examined the evidence for and against the creation account, and for and against the evoution hypothesis. I honestly wanted to know which one best fit the evidence, and which had the biggest holes. I have no interest in believing in fantasy; in fact, I loathe the idea.

    Interestingly, I found out that I had been lied to repeatedly and brazenly by media and academia for years. What had been presented as long-proven, incontrovertible fact was in fact nothing but pure guesswork and biased supposition. What was worse, I soon realized that hard science proved that the hypothesis of evolution was impossible not just at one critical point, but at many critical points.

    So no, unfortunately in the fantasy world of the religion of evolution, errors don’t die. You just pretend that assumptions are facts, and pretend that empirical proof of the illogic and impossibility of evolution doesn’t mean what it is painfully obvious that it means.

    As I’ve said before, as amazing as it may seem, the fact that an educated person who understands the fundamentals of evolution can still sincerely believe in it is extraordinary proof that the Bible is true, by providing an astonishing illustration of the spiritual blindness of which it speaks. It defies credulity that a person could be fully informed about the hypothesis, yet still sincerely believe in it; nothing but a spirtually-rooted mental blindness could adequately explain it.

    Unfortunately for you, the hypothesis of evolution has NOT withstood the stest of time. A few decades after Darwin’s time, modern science began to point out the abject impossibility of it as a viable theory. But like a lot of bad ideas (astrology, Islam, etc) a lot of people in positions of power remain emotionally invested in perpetuating the rotting corpse of evolution. And sadly, a lot of the herd (fearful of being called “ignorant,” “dumb,” “backwards” or a “Bible thumper” follow blindly along. Fortunately, that figure is the minority in America…and growing smaller, I believe.

    One day, as human beings look back on the truly silly ideas of history, anthropogenic global warming will be surpassed only by the idea of evolution. May that day come as soon as possible.

    • jaytheatheist


      “But one must be willing to abandon those assumptions if there is compelling–especially empirical–evidence which disproves those assumptions.”

      Your continued mistake is in believing that empirical evidence supports your position. While you certainly have your view as I do mine, the key difference is that yours is the vastly minority opinion not only concerning the validity of evolution but also as to what constitutes ‘evidence’.

      “a lot of people in positions of power remain emotionally invested in perpetuating the rotting corpse of evolution.”

      The key here is the caviler use of the word “lots”. We are not talking a ‘few hundred’ isolated people cowering under a common management structure; it numbers in the 100’s of thousands of independent researchers, across multiple disciplines and reaches across the globe and across time. That is a “lot” of people to get marching in lockstep under false pretenses.

      You can certainly continue on believing in a vast conspiracy that is hiding the truth but it certainly seems to violate your principle in not believing in fantasy. Only fantasy can be used to account for what must take place to explain what is observable.


      • Bob Ellis

        The level of your delusion is truly amazing. When not a single transitional form has ever been found (Darwin’s own failed standard for his flimsy hypothesis), when not a single instance of evolution from one form to another has ever been observed, when not a single instance of new functional genetic information has ever been observed passing from one generation to another to produce biological change, when life from lifeless materials has never been observed (I could go on)…and yet you say “empirical evidence” doesn’t support my contention that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of evolution?

        I have to hand it to you. I’ll go to church this morning knowing that my faith is pretty weak in comparison to yours.

        That’s enough on this thread. Have a great Lord’s Day today!

  • Bob Ellis

    Yes, the example does illustrate a point–one that devastates any shred of doubt that what I said is true: antibiotic resistant bacteria LOSE genetic information, they do not gain any. What prevents the organism from processing the antibiotic element is the absence of the ability to process a harmful protein. In this one instance, the LACK of genetic information proves beneficial…but overall, is a LOSS of genetic information and a LOSS of genetic flexibility and diversity.

    Thus, it is clearly, abundantly, and painfully clear that no, none, nada, notabit of evolution has occurred.

    And on this silly note, let’s conclude this discussion thread before it devolves any further, because if you can’t admit the failure to support your flimsy theory at this point, one of two problems exists: intellectual deficiency (I don’t think that’s the case), or a deficiency of integrity. In either case, I don’t want to get into the derision that either deficiency would truly deserve.