An Open Letter to Pinellas County Churches

cathedral interior

Dear Pastors, Lay ministers, and Board members,

We all know Christianity is under attack.  Secular atheism has taken over the colleges, the prep schools, the media, the entertainment industry, and much of society. We have been passive for so long, and have lost so many battles, ceded so much ground that there is now an epidemic of mental health problems and all of society is suffering under the weight of sin and hopelessness.  Drug abuse and addiction are rampant. The family is under siege. But all is not lost.

At the center of all this confusion and suffering, I absolutely believe, lies the scientifically unpalatable and discredited theory of evolution.  As stated by University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne,   “Evolution is the greatest killer of belief that has ever happened on this planet because it showed that some of the best evidence for God, which was the design of animals and plants that so wonderfully matched their environment could be the result of this naturalistic, blind materialistic process of natural selection.”  Of course I vehemently dispute his assertion that natural selection could intentionally or accidentally design anything. (Please see prior posts on “Natural Selection” and “Branch or Vine”.) But I absolutely cannot disagree with his statement that belief in evolution kills belief in God.

What we believe about our origins has a profound affect on what we believe about ourselves. I am confident that evolution will someday be exposed as the greatest lie in the history of science.  Take a few minutes to view my blogs on “A totally Modern View on Evolution”, and  “BIG GOD, small god: Why Cosmology Matters”. Or look at “The Data in the Strata” on my blog.  You will find that none of the supposed scientific foundations of evolution are valid.  You will find proof exposing many of the fraudulent efforts of secular atheists to promote evolution.  And you will find there is no real scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution.

Like most of you, I was taught in our secular schools that Creation was a myth, and that science had all the answers.  Although I found this teaching upsetting to my core faith, I had no idea how to respond. Atheistic scientists and educators told us they had all the answers, and the Bible, we were told, was just a fairy tale. As a physician and a scientist, one who has studied this social phenomenon for decades, I am absolutely certain that the opposite is true.  There is absolutely NO evidence that evolution or Natural Selection has created any of the immense variety of life on our planet.  Yet Public schools and Universities continue to teach the lie.

I would love to see the truth of the Bible brought forward in a way that offers a path to faith, hope, love, and most importantly salvation.  My blogs at and offer the reader many scientific proofs of the absurdity of evolution, and the scientific impossibility of the Big Bang.

In Pinellas County we have hundreds of churches serving a population of a million persons.  It is the most densely populated county in all of Florida. Because of this we have a unique opportunity to serve, and to shine brightly for Christ in these dark days, and we can do so together.  If the Body of Christ can unite in service to humanity here, we can show Truth to a doubting and confused world! But how can we act together?

Christian Evolution

We can come together in 2 major ways.  First pastors and ministers who are not themselves scientists, should look within their congregations for believers who are skilled and knowledgeable in the fields of science to help them, and to explain scientific principles. WE CAN  NO LONGER CEDE THE INTERPRETATION OF SCIENCE TO THE ATHEISTS. Pastors and leaders should become familiar with the latest findings by reading books like “In Six Days” and “Refuting Evolution“.  They should go to good websites like, or read my blogs listed above. And they should visit sites that support Bible history like the Ark Encounter, the Creation Museum, and The Museum of the Bible to find out how science supports the Bible.

Second, it would be entirely possible for Bible believing pastors, Christians, and scientists in Pinellas county to begin a world class Creation museum and Bible history museum right here, serving not only the millions of people in the Bay Area, but also the ten million more who visit the Bay area on vacation every year.  And in the process, by teaming up with other Christian ministries like the Museum of the Bible, we could offer hope and salvation to a generation that is lost and suffering without Christ.

I work as an ER physician in Largo, and I live right here in Pinellas county.  If you have caught a glimpse of the vision that I believe God has for us, please reply to this blog with a message, or email me at And please ask all your friends and fellow ministers to join the cause. Truth saves lives.  Truth saves souls. May God bless you as you spread the Truth.

Neal Mack MD

church interior





Published by


Emergency Room Physician. Student of science and student of scripture. Defending truth in a post-truth society. I believe that Truth exists, and I believe it is our duty and privilege to seek it out, amidst ignorance, frivolity, and misconceptions.

12 thoughts on “An Open Letter to Pinellas County Churches”

  1. It’s been over two hundred years since Darwin’s book came out. Everything has supported evolutionary theory so far, and the claim from creationists that “real soon now” they will have evidence of their god and the myths of the bible is still that, a baseless claim.

    Theists can’t even agree among themselves about their creation myths, each doubting the other because of lack of evidence. Why should anyone believe you if you can’t convince each other?

    and your lies aside, there is plenty of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. it’s a shame that you are reduced to lies that are easily demonstrated. I guess you didn’t read Romans 3 where it says that lies, even if “for” this god, are not to be done.


    1. 100 years ago, scientists and the public could be excused for believing Darwin’s hypotheses. They were looking forward to finding proof in the form of fossils that would support their belief. However, as stated by Richard Goldschmidt (evolutionist) those transitional fossils do not exist. Or as stated by evolutionist David Raup, there is less evidence for evolution in the fossil record now than in Darwin’s day. Or as stated by Evolutionist Eric Bapteste, there is currently no evidence for Darwin’s tree of life. It should have been easily proven by genomics but has instead been discarded on the trash heap of history. Science offers no support for evolution. So in spite of your strongly worded assertions about my dishonest character, I would prefer to keep the argument on the scientific merit of the theory. (See my prior post “Tree or Vine” for references. And may God bless your understanding.


      1. and more evidence you have chosen to lie or remain willfully ignorant “Darwin claimed that a unique inclusively hierarchical pattern of relationships between all organisms based on their similarities and differences [the Tree of Life (TOL)] was a fact of nature, for which evolution, and in particular a branching process of descent with modification, was the explanation. However, there is no independent evidence that the natural order is an inclusive hierarchy, and incorporation of prokaryotes into the TOL is especially problematic. The only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree. Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true. This is not to say that similarities and differences between organisms are not to be accounted for by evolutionary mechanisms, but descent with modification is only one of these mechanisms, and a single tree-like pattern is not the necessary (or expected) result of their collective operation. Pattern pluralism (the recognition that different evolutionary models and representations of relationships will be appropriate, and true, for different taxa or at different scales or for different purposes) is an attractive alternative to the quixotic pursuit of a single true TOL.”


      2. I thank you for including the above quote. It states exactly what I said. The tree of life is dead. It cannot be revived. There is No proof it ever existed. Darwin would be appalled and Darwinism, which was based on the definition of descent with modification, is unsustainable.


      3. Wow, still clueless eh? The tree of life has been changed to match facts. That’s the beauty of science, it changes to fit reality. As opposed to religions which have no evidence to support their claims. Darwin wouldn’t have been appalled at all. He was a scientist. And funny how all of the scientists that you lied about say that evolutionary theory is alive and well.


      4. I also want to thank you for including the quote from David Raup in its full context. As I read it (again) I can only reach one conclusion. He says “we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions that we did in Darwins time”. This supports my statement fully. When he goes on to say that the fossil record is not “an important cornerstone” of evolution, again, I think Darwin would be appalled. And such a statement is reasonably interpreted as a loss of one of evolution’s most foundational credentials.


      5. No, you aren’t reading it again, you posted a quote-mine and had no idea what Raup was actually saying. And again, you lie on what Raup is saying. I am happy that you do this sicne it shows you have no respect for your god or your religion than I do. Doubling down on a lie doesn’t make it true.

        As for what you think Darwin would feel, again, nope you are wrong. Darwin wasn’t bound to his theory by dogma. it’s rather like when Christians lie and try to claim Darwin became a Christian on his deathbed. You have to lie to cling to your religion. And nope, it isn’t reasonably interpreted as a loss at all. But creationists will keep lying since they have no evidence for their claims.


      6. Dr. Mack, would you care to clarify the definition of “transitional fossil” which you would find acceptable? There are many thousands of individual specimens representing many hundreds of species which all reasonably meet even the strictest definitions of transitional fossils. I’d be happy to share some with you if you would describe what finding of transition would satisfy you.


      7. Dr. David Raup, who has been called “the world’s most brilliant paleontologist,” recently said this of the fossil record: “We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.”
        In the past, transitional fossils were basically defined as “a fossil that looks like something between two modern species”. As Paleontology and archaeology have advanced to include genomics and other sciences, most of the supposed transitional fossils have been discredited. It turns out that most were example of extant species, some were extinct species, and some were outright frauds. Darwinism, a hundred years ago, did not have all these scientific tools.
        So while it is true that those who wish to find “transitional” fossils have done so. Many of these finds, such as the classic “Evolution of the horse” series (which has been show to be three separate species of horse) cannot withstand the application of scientific principles.


  2. Darwin wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin believed that descent with modification was a requisite foundation of his theory. That means when the Tree of life (descent with modification) died, the theory would have lost the support of Darwin himself


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s