Lacking the intellectual honesty to attack evolutionary theory on the real reason he disapproves of it – that it conflicts with the Babylonian myth of creation regurgitated in Genesis – Mr. Beeli attempts to discredit the theory on political and "scientific" grounds. "So entrenched is evolutionism," he rants "in our political culture that it might be easier to get rid of government schools (euphemistically called 'public education') than to purge the government schools of evolutionism. As a scientist with a Ph.D. in experimental physics, I am tired of Creationists saying, 'Evolution is merely a theory.' The truth is that evolution is not even a scientific theory."
Mr. Beeli then goes on to display his ignorance of the concept of a scientific theory by saying, "In order for a candidate theory to be a viable scientific theory, this candidate theory must have a theoretical development that goes beyond 'things happen.'"
Really Mr. Beeli? What about gravity? Should we ban it from our school curriculum because it "just happens?" We know gravity exists because we see its effect. Wouldn't we be better served by formulating a gravity theory and testing hypotheses to find out why gravity happens – as we are doing with evolution?
Should we ban relativity from our schools just because we don't understand how it happens (and don't really believe) that time could be slowed down by gravity? We know gravity affects time because we have to modify signals for satellite communications to compensate for the fact that time is moving faster on the satellite than on the surface of the earth. Should we ban this fact from our school curriculum because it is not delineated in the bible or because you can't explain how it happens, Mr. Beeli?
Further remarks by Mr. Beeli in his article indicate that he is not familiar enough with evolutionary theory to intelligently discuss it. He seems to be under the delusion that evolutionary theory still adheres to Darwinian "natural selection," and he speaks of evidence of devolution in species.
Modern evolutionary theory embraces the concept of intelligent design, which says that an organism's DNA will proactively modify the organism's structure to effect its survival whenever that survival is threatened. The results of that modification might appear to Mr. Beeli to be "devolution," but the mechanism is not designed to please Mr. Beeli's sensibilities – it is designed for survival.
Thus dogs evolved decreased visual capabilities to make room in their brain for the evolution of increased olfactory capabilities. But that is not, as Mr. Beeli suggests, "devolution." That is the evolution of what the animal needed to survive in a cold climate. If you can't see the snow shoe rabbit, you must evolve the ability to smell it, even at the expense of your visual acuity, which isn't working in any case.
Life itself, the vehicle of evolution, does not devolve, because it is not subject to the constraints of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Life is self-replicating and self-improving. We don't know why and we don't know how it works, but because we don't assign responsibility for the phenomenon to a deity does not mean the phenomenon does not exist. Evolution is a freely observable fact. It is going on now, before our eyes. It is the denial of that fact that is unscientific.