Should be noted that unless her area of research is specifically evolutionary microbiology or some such, she's not entirely likely to know any more on this than the average layperson. Science is a field of foci - you can know an awful lot about and be brilliant in something like genetics, and know nothing of evolutionary science. Considering that she was teaching an environmental science class - which, to the average passerby, will sound like an ecology class - if you want to appeal to her authority, it would be wise to state if she has any.
I'm not disputing you, per se, just pointing it out.
It's been a good three years or so since I took the class, I forget her exact area(s), but believe me, she knew magnitudes more than the ordinary layperson.
Either way, it doesn't matter in the long run. Gravity is still a theory. We know it's an actual force, we just don't understand its rules 100%. There are discrepancies in the movements of celestial bodies and spacecraft; planets and long-duration probes like the Pioneer and Voyager series, that astronomers have noted over years. Observations of Voyager 1 and 2 have showed the probes coming up short in their predicted paths out of the solar system, at equivalent rates over the same observational periods. Same with many of the planets; these are extremely small perturbations in orbital paths, but they are measurable and they are real.
What does this mean? it means we either don't completely understand the effects of gravity on solid objects, or there are other forces acting that we're not observing or comprehending at play. This is the reason that while we all know gravity exists, our current body of knowledge is still a theory of gravity, not a scientific law.
Nobody, however, is disputing the existence or effects of gravity, and guess what, the sum knowledge of evolution is just as plentiful as for that of gravity.
Here's the points that I believe are crucial here, in the article-
The answer lies, in part, in the possible theological implications of evolutionary thinking. For many, the Darwinian view of life -- a panorama of brutal struggle and constant change - goes beyond contradicting the biblical creation story and conflicts with the Judeo-Christian concept of an active and loving God who cares for his creation. (See Religious Groups' Views on Evolution.) In addition, some evolution opponents argue that Darwin's ideas have proven socially and politically dangerous. In particular, they say, the notion that more resilient animals survive and thrive ("survival of the fittest") has been used by social thinkers, dictators and others to justify heinous crimes, from forced sterilization to mass genocide.
First of all, much of the bible is mythology; that may be an ugly admission for many, but there it is nonetheless. On the first point, where science is contradicting scripture, I must once more invoke the late Carl Sagan. The science of the bible is based on that of ancient Babylon, some six thousand years old. It was the best science on the planet at the time, but we've learned something since then. There's no surprise, then, that there's conflict with a holy book written millennia ago based on obsolete science.
Secondly, to directly quote Dr. Sagan; "science is after what the universe is really like, and not just what makes us feel good".
When the brutal struggle of evolution is discounted because it contradicts the Christian concept of an ever-present, happy funball god, that's a problem. If these truths are socially or politically dangerous, we must ask for whom
are they socially or politically dangerous. Certainly not for the common people, who can always benefit from the truth. But perhaps for the institutions that would dispense information and would-be truths, who aren't interested in the truth; they're interested in control. As long as they've got the masses listening to them, they'll have it. The truth will set you free.
The argument of survival of the fittest being misused by dictators and despots is a desperation grab, at best. In fact it's laughable. This is like saying a handful of people in society have misused guns by killing other people, therefore guns must be bad for everyone. It's doubly hilarious when you consider the fact that all these listed atrocities; heinous crimes, from forced sterilization to mass genocide, have all been committed in the name of Christianity and other religions as well.
Christianity, having been an underground cult during the Roman era got its day in the sun, throwing off the shackles of barbarism and oppression of Rome, and over the centuries, became the very thing it sought to defeat in the end. Funny how things work out like that.
Their agenda is based on personal gain and not empirical evidence, and therefore disqualifies itself. To any sane and discerning mind, the 'science' of our holy books collapses in the face of true science.