4 Things Your Biology Teacher Doesn’t Want You to Say… (pt. 1)

“The first to state his case seems right, until the other comes to examine him.”

~ Proverbs 18:17

From Caleb,

Since the school year has started, I am sure a number of you have had opportunities to share and defend you extraordinary faith in ordinary ways, which you then used to the glory of God. Doing this is some classes is easier than others; I know you all know which class I’m talking about: science.

What makes it challenging to defend our faith in this circumstance? The answer: Proverbs 18:17. In science class, you’re bombarded with facts, charts, graphs, pictures, and a whole slew of data that all “points” to evolution being truth. You are “shown” that there’s no God because the evidence says there is no need for God. I’m here to tell you that’s wrong.

I have compiled some of the most common pieces of evidence cited for evolution and then broken them down, so that you can boldly stand up for truth in YOUR classes. All these experiments simply point back to a designer.

1. Homologous Structures

“Homologous Structures.” KaiserScience, 4 Aug. 2015, kaiserscience.wordpress.com/biology-the-living-environment/evolution/homologous-structures/.

This is THE MOST COMMON piece of evidence used within any curriculum to support evolution. The argument is that the similar bone structure of multiple organisms reveal that they must have all evolved from one common ancestor. Seems logical, right?

This is an argument that can stop you in your tracks and make you have serious questions. What makes this one so hard is that you can see it! With all the colors and labeling, it seems pretty clear that evolution must be the answer; any teacher would say you’re ignorant to not accept the proof, but not so fast there chief…

At best, for Darwinists, this argument is one they shouldn’t run to, but at its worst, this argument points to a God. I’ll explain, but first, I want you to look at and analyze these two pictures..

Van Gogh Self-portrait (1889)
Van Gogh – Starry Night (1889)









These paintings both look very different on first glance, but the longer you study the paintings you’ll begin to notice very similar painting patterns. Look at the long brush strokes in Van Gogh’s tree painted in “Starry Night”, and then look at the jacket Van Gogh is wearing in his self-portrait. The designs are extremely similar, yet the paintings are extremely different! Next, look at the background of the two paints. You can see similarities in the two backgrounds by the swirling brush strokes.

Why?  Because they share a common designer! You can always tell which work belongs to an artist, designer, or author, because they always use similar methods for producing content. The same goes for creation: one common designer (God), one common design.

Practical way to engage in class on this topic:

“Isn’t it a logical conclusion as well to say that all these animals could share one common designer, rather than one common ancestor?”

2. Embryological Development


These are “Haeckel’s Embryos”. Ernst Haeckel decided that he would further add to the evolutionary evidence by diagramming embryos in early stages of development. The idea is that the similarities that you see in early development is proof that all living things came from a common ancestor.

In a classroom setting, hearing your teacher tell you this, what are you even supposed to say?! It seems so clear! But is it really…

When Haeckel was examined on his studies, it was found out he actually faked his drawings! The ones in the picture above aren’t even what the embryos look like during those given stage. However, some teachers will be ready for that response and say, “The trend still holds true, even though his pictures were changed a little”. Despite the fact that Haeckel was found to have fudged his pictures, these drawings still appear in most textbooks today.

Even if they did look the same in the beginning, many things can look similar when they are microscopic containing smaller amounts of detail. Regardless, no matter what they look like in the early stages of development, the embryos ALWAYS, WITHOUT FAIL, grow to become the same version of what birthed them. Pigs give birth to pigs. Rabbits give birth to rabbits. Humans give birth to humans.

Practical way to engage in class on this topic:

“Why are we still taught about the similarities in embryological development when the most famous study of them was forged?”

3. Miller-Urey Experiment

Miller Urey
Warmflash, David, and Nathan H Lents. “Origins of Life I | Biology.” Visionlearning, Visionlearning, Inc., 12 Feb. 2017

The design of the experiment was to have a mixture of “Primordial soup”, which was considered to be the likeness of early-earth’s oceans. That mixture was boiled and then the gases created were zapped with an electrical current, cooled, and collected in a flask. Scientists then analyzed the mixture collected: they discovered it contained amino acids, which are the building blocks of life.

Since they created life from non-life, God isn’t necessary and what you believe is foolishness, there’s no need for God. Seems pretty convincing… What’s the truth?

An amino acid is nothing close to being a life form; it isn’t hard to create an amino acid. An amino acid the building block for longer strands of protein that eventually go into making parts of your body; however, what Miller got were just pieces of amino acids. He didn’t make all the necessary kinds, nor would they, given billions of years, formed into life of any sort.

Saying that you have created amino acids is like having a pile of bricks and calling it a house. EVEN IF they had created life in a lab, what would it prove? It proves that you need a designer managing the details in order create life. This is not a great piece of evidence in favor of evolution; it’s nothing short of using magic as an explanation.

Practical way to engage in class on this topic:

“How close is an amino acid to even a single cell organism? Even with these amino acids, aren’t we still missing key information such as DNA and nucleic acids which are required for all life?”

4. The Fossil Record


Image result for evolutionary fossil record whale
“The Fossil Record – Oxley Yr10 Science.” Google Sites, sites.google.com/site/oxleyscience10/home/evolution/the-fossil-record.

Many scientists and textbooks will claim that there is clear evidence with the fossil record to prove that evolution is correct. The picture above is a classic picture that would show up on an activity or in a textbook and then be sighted as evidence for evolution. It’s commonly called “descent with modification”; the theory is that every generation that is born is slightly different than the last. Over millions of years, these small modifications create a whole new species, or so we are told.

The problem with this theory is that the fossil record is not nearly complete as scientists, teachers, and professors would have us to believe. The fossil record lacks many of these “transitional” fossils that are supposed to support evolution.

With many of these “transitional” fossils missing, the evidence points to the earth starting off with many species and then having them die off over time through disaster, competition, and hunting. While both explanations are possible, the one that is the most plausible and reasonable one is the second explanation.

Practical way to engage in class on this topic:

“With many transition fossils missing, wouldn’t it be reasonable to suppose that each of  organism was a unique organism rather than a one that had evolved from a given ancestor?”


These are just four topics that I lightly touched on, but trust me… the list is much longer. I encourage you to always dig deeper and investigate the claims that are being made before you allow them to shake you. Also, take the time to research all the things you learn in class. When we understand the world around us more, it increases our love and amazement for the Lord.




  1. Sadly, grades > truth – and the naturalists are counting on it; that’s why they infiltrated the highest levels of education, so they could control what children learned and how they learned it. It’s easier to convince someone that something is true, if you control how their future is shaped by teaching them ‘facts’ and then demanding that they remember them ‘for the sake of their future job prospects’. Also makes it easier for the teacher to dodge the question; just threaten to suspend/fail a student, as happened to me (and I wasn’t even a Christian back then), and any debate can be shut off effectively.

Comments are closed.