Given that it has been shovelled down the throats of young children for generations, Evolution is rather easy to accept, and rather difficult to escape. For me, personally, I didn't think anything of it. I was surprised when I found out people didn't believe it, and even more so when I found out there are actually people who believe the world is 6,000 years old. I was, and remain to this day, a huge dinosaur fan. Any animal, dinosaur or otherwise, has captured my attention for as long as I have been able to comprehend the world around me. My book shelves are littered with book after magazine after leaflet, many of which contain one common element: Billions of years of Evolution. I even have my hand-written notes about how scorpions first evolved 300 million years ago (pictured below).
But as I look back on all of this, it's really quite embarrassing to me that I fell for it. I don't say this to insult those that are still hooked on the idea, but examining Evolution in its entirety really shows how ridiculous it is. The first clue to this should be the fact that Evolutionists can't even get their story straight. I find that while Evolutionists often tell unbelievers that they "don't understand" Evolution, I can actually use the words of other Evolutionists, or even their own, against them and make them say they don't understand Evolution.
The second clue should be that Evolution is mentioned where it doesn't need to be. Evolution is mentioned more often by Evolutionists than veganism is mentioned by the most stereotypical vegan. It is inserted where it just doesn't need to be. An experiment I am quite fond of doing is going through the aforementioned animal books in my collection and crossing out all references to Evolution, even if it is mid-sentence. Most of the time, the sentence actually makes as much, if not more sense than it previously did. Others times, it leads to grammatical errors, but slight tweaks to the sentence, most commonly changing a verb tense, yields the same result. The only time when this trick does not work is when the passage is directly addressing Evolution, which would obviously result in destroying the whole passage. Consider the following example:
"From the frozen tundra polar ice to the tropical rainforests, the earth is rich in mammals, animals of astonishing diversity that have occupied a range of environments. Without doubt, humans are the most successful mammals - we have explored and colonized all the earth's habitats! Humans domesticate some mammals for work, meat and milk, and for useful products, such as wool and leather. These domestic animals include dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, goats and horses. There are 5,416 known mammal species. The diversity is such that the smallest mammal, the shrew, may weigh only 3g (1/10 OZ), while the largest, the blue whale, can reach up to 145 tonnes (160 tons). Mammal species can run, glide, fly, jump, swim and crawl. To survive the rigours of low temperatures, some cold-climate animals - such as pregnant female polar bears - spend the winter in deep sleep to save energy. Most aquatic mammals have thick layers of body fat instead of hair, which in most land mammals serves to conserve heat. Seals, dolphins, bats and chimpanzees all have upper limbs with similar bones, but seals have flippers, dolphins have fins, bats have wings and chimpanzees have arms."
What's wrong with this passage? Nothing. It's grammatically correct, it accurately describes its topic, it conveys all the information one might need to know (though I contend it needs to add a little about how mammals are endothermic, and feed their young via milk produced by the mammary gland, hence the name "mammal"). It is a great introduction to a section of a book that is dedicated to mammals. That introductory paragraph is not my own. It exists in one of my animal books, and I haven't edited a word (with the exception of changing the tense of domesticate). All I have done is cross out all of the rubbish about how "mammals probably began to dominate the earth about 65 million years ago" and "our domestic coexistence with other species began around 10,000 years ago". The book makes perfect sense no matter how much Evolutionary dogma I remove. What this tells me is that the book could be about 5 pages shorter (or better yet, the same length, but with more facts) if Evolution wasn't randomly thrown into it every 3rd sentence. The same is true of documentaries. I challenge you to watch any random documentary, the chances are high there will be several references to Evolution that the documentary would be quite complete without. (Props to "March of the Penguins" for only doing this once).
Despite being so heavily ingrained in our culture, Evolution has several critical flaws that make it completely impossible. The first is the origin of life itself. This is something that is so riddled with holes, many Evolutionists try to distance themselves from it. In their mind, Evolution has nothing to do with how life got started, but about how it diversified after the fact. But this is silly, first of all because things can't evolve if they don't exist, and second of all because that can put Evolution at any time, even to the point of removing all conflict with the Bible. After all, if Evolution doesn't require the millions of years, why couldn't God have created in exactly the way He says in Genesis, and life has just been evolving ever since that day, 6,000 years ago? This possibility eradicates problems such as irreducible complexity and the conspicuous absence of transitional forms.
Abiogenesis has been thoroughly discounted as a possibility. Even before Darwin, Louis Pasteur conducted several experiments to show that life only comes from a previously living organism of its own kind. The Miller Urey experiment attempted to create life from non-life by simulating the assumed early atmosphere of the Earth, and failed miserably. Currently, there is no possible scenario in which life can spontaneously arise, with or without intelligent input. Some organisations are even offering huge cash rewards for anyone who can provide a working theory for how life can arise without previously existing life. It can't happen.
Irreducible complexity is yet another spanner in the works for Evolution. Every life form on the Earth, from the "simplest" single celled organism to the largest of any animal phylum, has several features which, if slightly changed, would spell death for the entire species. What that means is that the existence of any complex creature is proof against Evolution, because any ancestor to such creatures would die in the transition to it.
A final clue to Evolution's weakness (not final as in there are no more, but final as in I'm not planning to add more to this particular article) is its absolute failure to follow through on any of Darwin's major predictions. You won't hear this from Evolutionists, of course, but Darwin made several predictions which have failed to come to pass. For example, Darwin suggested that over time, the fossil record would reveal innumerable transitional forms. Modern Evolutionists, always ready to shift the goalposts, say that every fossil is transitional, but we all know that this isn't what Darwin meant. Darwin wanted the fossil record to reveal a gradual transition from one species to the next, but he never got it. As it stands, the evidence from the fossil record fits much better with the Creationist orchard than the Evolutionist tree of life.
The more you study Evolution, the more obvious it becomes that it is not the scientific fact we have been taught to believe it is. It is a cultural religion, nothing more. It lacks essential evidence, and powerful evidence is crushing it to pieces. Even its most ardent defenders are not so confident in its truth, and often resort to dishonest tactics to promote it. If you're an Evolutionist and are new to this ministry, I recommend you look back over past material. In this article, I have given a highly simplistic summary of the topic, but in the past, I have gone in depth about the evidence against Evolution, and if God preserves my life long enough, I will continue to do so. Know that this is not out of hatred, but out of love. You are following a false religion. I can offer you something better. Something that is not only backed by evidence from every single academic field, but also offers eternal benefits. I can offer you Jesus, the God who created this universe, took on the form of a man and took the punishment you deserve for all the evil things you do. If you put your trust in Him, He will give you eternal life after you die. Stick around. I'll attempt to convince you to accept this free gift.