> Conversely, might the appearance of CRE bacteria might sway the evolution debate?
No. It seems like an easy political point, but there's a lot more to the story.
First, there are far easier and more visible examples of evolution. In UK schools, possibly because it's a nearby example, it is taught that the color of moths in London changed dramatically during the Industrial Revolution because light-colored moths were easy snacks for birds on newly soot-covered walls. There are more colorful examples closer at hand: most of the domesticated animals in the world are examples of evolution by artificial selection: cows today share little with cows 10,000 years ago, and corn today looks nothing like 10,000 years ago.
Second, thanks to #1, the belief is often that "humans (special) didn't evolve from apes (animal)" --- not that species never change. The belief is based on an idea that either evolution started after humans were created, or that even if evolution has been running for 100 million years, there's no way that natural selection could cause the leap from animal to human. It doesn't preclude belief in evolution among animals.
Third, antibiotics are all prescribed by doctors, who are plenty aware of the work of Sir Charles.
And, last, antibiotic misuse is largely a tragedy of the commons. Rational patients who are very aware of the risks of antibiotic-resistant phages will still request antibiotics: they feel the benefit (even if the chance of a benefit to them is small) but the pain of antibiotic resistance is felt by other people.
So, no, it's easy political point but it has more to do with enthusiasm than fact.