First rule of science: in order for something to be scientific, it must be observable. This is a bit misleading, here. Some evidence must be observable, yes, but that doesn't mean everything is directly observable. You may wish to change that.
Darwinism is not observable. You were supposed to write on evolution, not Darwinism. What is Darwinism? Unless you tell me what "Darwinism" is, I can't tell if it has been observed or not. Evolution has been observed, though. You do not see lizards changing into chickens, for example, today. Lizards have never changed into chickens, for example, ever. Perhaps you were writing on "Darwinism," but you were supposed to write about evolution, and evolution never suggests that lizards can shape-shift into anything.
Some point to adaptation or mutation as evolution. But adaptation is not evolution. Incorrect. Adaptation to the environment is evolution. A dog which grows thicker fur in a colder environment is still a dog. Yes, but why is this not evolution? It is. It may not be speciation, but it's still evolution. Furthermore, you may wish to be a little more clear with your terms; "a dog" seems to imply an individual, and even you know that evolution deals with populations, not individuals, right? Right?? And mutation is rare, random, and almost always results in a DEvolution of a creature. Mutations are quite frequent. You probably carry three of them. Mutations are random, but favorable ones are selected and unfavorable ones are selected against; this is called "natural selection." What is this "devolution" of which you speak? It's sometimes used in common speech, but has nothing to do with science; any form of change is evolution. There is no such thing as "devolution."
In addition, EVERY "fossil" that is "evidence" of evolution has been debunked. Incorrect. Some people have planted fakes, and scientists have exposed them. The fact that a few people planted fakes that scientists exposed does not suggest that every fossil is false. Remember the Ceolicanth "fossil" that turned out to be false? What is this fossil you refer to? Did you mean "Coelacanth?" Just because an extinct species has a living relative doesn't mean the fossil is false. Or the "Neanderthal" tooth that turned out to be a pig tooth? There are a number of Neandertal fossils, none of which are false. The incident you are referring to is the Nebraska Man. In that case, a scientist found a tooth and speculated that it might have been from a pre-human. He then checked, and found that it was from a peccary. When he first found the tooth, a non-scientific, popular magazine printed a long piece on the supposed "Nebraska Man," without checking to see what the scientists thought.
Furthermore, scientists cannot agree on a theory of evolution. Scientists debate over some of the details within the theory; this doesn't mean they think that the theory itself is shaky. It would be a bit of a stretch to claim that they have "contradicting theories," and an outright lie to say that this is evidence that evolution is wrong. I've heard at least three different theories which clearly contradict each other. They cannot all be true. Have you heard the actual theory of evolution? Your writings would suggest that you haven't.
Finally, if Darwinism is true, then the Bible is false, and worthless. They cannot both be true. Assuming you meant to say evolution, and not Darwinism, then yes. Evolution means that some parts of the Bible, (like the creation story), are wrong. What does this matter? Since the Bible contradicts itself many times, some parts of it must be wrong by definition. Even if evolution meant that the whole Bible were wrong, what does it matter? Things aren't true solely because you wish they were or believe they are.
F. See me after class.
