Once upon a time, there was nothing. The nothing magically exploded, which magically flung stars into space. One day, for no reason at all, the stars magically formed into galaxies, including ours, which magically formed our planet, which magically became hospitable to life. Then, a pond magically formed, which magically created the first living cells, which magically turned into fish, frogs, dinosaurs, monkeys, and us.
The overuse of the term "magically" in the previous paragraph annoyed me as much to write as it would annoy an atheist to read. As much as I love to satirise Evolution, I like to at least try to be creative about it. The above is just pure laziness. Yet, this is what Evolutionists do every time they address Intelligent Design. Not understanding, and indeed not wanting to understand, any belief about an intelligent creator, Evolutionists always default to accusing their opponents of believing in magic. In other words, the abomination that is the previous paragraph is exactly what Creationists deal with from the other side every day.
An excellent example is the meme displayed in the header image. Found in the comments section of a popular Creationist page, the meme consists of four panels, depicting a conversation between a rather derpy looking con artist sitting behind a home made stall, and a very angry looking... You know, I'm not even sure what that's supposed to be, but it's a surprisingly accurate depiction of what I imagine an arrogant atheist troll would look like.
The derpy con artist, apparently serving a deity called Todd, begins by saying Evolution is a lie, to which the angry troll thing responds "AND WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE TO THE OBSERVABLE SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT SPECIES CHANGE OVER TIME VIA MUTATION, GENETIC DRIFT, AND NATURAL SELECTION?" Todd's reply? "Magic."
Of course, to begin with, the con artist doesn't exactly put up much of a fight against Evolution. In fact, his argument structure is identical to your stereotypical atheist's arguments against God. "It's a lie, it's a fantasy for adults, you gotta be a fool to believe it." It really goes to show that not even atheists like being treated the way they treat others. They do not, and indeed should not, put up with bare assertions backed with no arguments.
But in reply, the troll gives an answer that atheists would not, and should not, tolerate from Christians. To begin, there is a glaringly obvious flaw in the question "what's your alternative?"
The greatest irony is that Evolution itself is the alternative view. Creationism came first. Then, as Evolutionists like Michael Ruse would later admit, "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."
Long before Michael Ruse made this admission in 2000, Charles Lyell, the "snake oil salesman" from whom we have inherited the train wreck that is Uniformitarianism, wrote in a letter that he wanted to "...free the science from Moses...". Thus, our alternative to Evolution, really, is the view that Evolution was made up as an alternative to: The historical fact that the heavens, the Earth, and all that is in them, were created over a span of 6 days by the eternal God.
But let's imagine this wasn't just "the alternative". Let's suppose, as indeed it once was, Creationism was the dominant, and indeed only credible view of origins. It was never acceptable to the atheists! For centuries, if you were an atheist, you were an alien! No one took you seriously, because you had nothing to take seriously. Atheism was just denial (and remains so today, just with a few fanciful tales added on top). Now, tell me, is "what's your alternative" a valid argument for Intelligent Design?
An even bigger problem for the Evolutionist is that, in this case, we don't even need an alternative, simply because the Evolutionist has committed the equivocation fallacy. That is, the use of ambiguous language in order to mislead, or avoid commitment. Evolution, contrary to this meme's assertion, is not simply "the theory that species change over time via mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection." Why? Because even Creationists believe that species change over time via mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection. In fact, even in his day, Darwin was known to have plagiarised the work of Creationists who wrote about this fact long before he did.
To really drive this point home, we'll simply grant the definition, and say ok, Evolution isn't a lie, I believe in Evolution and the historical account of Genesis. We immediately spot the contradiction in this statement. If Evolution is true, Genesis is not. If Genesis is true, Evolution is not. This is because Evolution is not about mere change over time, but a specific type of change, over a specific amount of time.
Historically, humans are descended from humans. Specifically, one single pair, Adam and Eve, whose unique creation did not involve any amount of modification of a prior species. All other organisms were created "according to their kinds", meaning while there is variation within, there is no direct relation without.
Evolution, by contrast, attempts to link all living organisms on Earth to one particular common ancestor: A magic microbe (sorry...). This has literally never been observed, and indeed could not be observed, not only because it never happened, but because even if it did, it would take longer than the lifespan of the people who had not yet evolved in order to observe it.
This not only shows that Evolution is more than just "change over time", but also shows why Evolutionists are forced to claim otherwise. Evolution is a complete mess of a story that would be impossible to prove even if it could occur. But anyone can see that species change over time via mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection. Thus, Evolutionists hope they can convince you that if a fish can evolve into a new species of fish, it can also evolve into a new species of human. All you need to do to disarm this assumption is point out how unnecessary it is.
But what is our alternative? It is not, as this meme claims, "magic". Not that no one out there believes magic accounts for our origins. I'm sure there's some religion out there that attributes it to magic. But the more common view is Intelligent Design, of which Creationism is the most credible variant.
Creationism is not magic by any reasonable definition of the word. Unfortunately, Creationism is rarely attacked by anyone reasonable enough to know this. Evolutionists compare Creationism to magic, first and foremost because they don't understand what Creationism actually teaches, but also because it is a word loaded with certain connotations.
Consider, for a moment, the name "Adolf". What does it bring to your mind? The chances are high you're thinking of a very specific, very different Adolf to the one in my mind. Or at least, the one I want you to focus on. I am not thinking of Adolf Hitler, as many of you likely did. Rather, I am thinking of Adolf Dassler, co-founder of the popular clothing brand Adidas. The name "Adolf" is charged enough that any English reader will likely immediately start thinking a certain way, regardless of the intended way. In the same way, "magic" is a charged term, immediately conjuring up thoughts that have nothing to do with Creationism.
By making Creationism seem synonymous with magic, Evolutionists make Creationism seem as credible as magic. It's a dirty tactic, but it is effective. Yet, the modern conception of magic did not even exist when the Bible was written. God is certainly not magic.
What He is, however, is the maximally great Spirit, possessing all the attributes necessary for our creation to exist as it does. For example, God is eternal, which is essential for our existence in time. There must be an uncaused first cause, or nothing could ever exist. Evolution fails to provide this first cause, to the extent of not even really trying.
The biggest weakness of the Evolutionist view, especially when compared with the Creationist view, is ultimately observation. Of course, it is absurd to suggest we even could observe our own origins, but the origins of the heavens and the earth, and all that are in them, was observed.
First, it was observed by the Creator Himself. This goes without saying, as aside from being present, He is the very cause. Second, it was observed by the angels, both the ones who remained loyal to the Lord, and the ones who fell from the Kingdom, now being known as demons.
While demons try their best to subvert God's word, and angels don't talk to us unless directly commanded, God has given us an infallible book, revealing every detail we need to know about our origins. But this book goes beyond origins, telling us who God is, and how we relate to Him. But it also authenticates itself with a third witness: Us.
In 2 Peter 1:16-21, we read "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
This is one of several internal testimonies in Scripture that the authors witnessed the very things they describe. In other words, the Bible isn't just a made up story based on a few dudes randomly placing bones on the table and drawing silly monkeys standing next to each other. It's a constant string of "we saw, we saw, we saw". And aside from being corroborating eyewitnesses, each and every one of these men was willing to lay down their very lives for this claim, which many of them eventually did.
What did they see? Although they did not see the first Adam, the Bible is written based on some very direct encounters with the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45). They saw Jesus' miracles. They saw Jesus' death. They saw Jesus' empty tomb. They saw Jesus alive again, outside the tomb, after He had died. Now, as a general rule, it's far wiser to believe one man who walked out of His grave than 8 billion people who are heading to theirs.
Evolution is a religion of death. It speculates based on the remains of the dead. Its main process depends on the presence of death. It has caused a large number of violent deaths. It leads to death. Evolution is a lie that cannot save, it only destroys. But by rising from the grave, Jesus purchased eternal life for all who will confess the easiest, most evidence-based faith this world has ever known: Faith in the one God who actually showed His face.
Adam knew Him. Noah knew Him. Abraham knew Him. Moses knew Him. The prophets, the Apostles, the communities they lead, all had very direct encounters with God. And with their sound testimony, we have all the reason we will ever need to not only accept Creationism as an alternative to Evolution, but life as an alternative to the sin that separates us from our Creator. All who confess Jesus as Lord, and believe God raised Him from the dead, will be saved. But if you want to believe you're the worthless result of a magic explosion, the second death is always an option.