"I recently asked more than 70 researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the charactarization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss." - Philip Skell, formerly Professor of Chemistry at Pennsylvania State University
Skell's observations are not anomalous. The fact is, no matter how much Evolutionists may squeal about how "Evolution is the backbone of biology" and how anyone who disagrees must be a fake, Evolution does nothing for science. In fact, if anything, it hinders it. What about when Raymond Jones had to self fund his research into rumen bacteria because his hypothesis dared contradict the Evolutionary narrative? He was proven right (and thankfully reimbursed), revolutionising Australian agriculture. Or the whole vestigial organs hoax? I'm grateful not to be speaking from experience, but it's not fun when your all too important coccyx is removed because some berk thinks it's just a useless, leftover tail. And who could forget "junk DNA"? Some Evolutionists still use this argument to defend Evolution, but as Professor John Mattick stated, "the failure to recognise the implications of the non-coding DNA will go down as the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology".
This is really embarrassing for Evolutionists. Evolution doesn't advance science, as they so often boast that it does. It advances only one thing: Its own agenda. That's why none of the scientists Skell asked said they would have done their research differently if they thought Evolution was wrong. That's why to this day, Evolutionists cannot name a single scientific advancement that could have been made only if one believed in Evolution beforehand. That's why Creationists thrive in science even under intense political pressure. That's why agnostic scientists privately confess sympathy towards Creationism. That's why Evolutionists need political pressure on dissenting voices. And that's why, in spite of possessing that political power, dominating not only the scientific community, but also the media, the school system, and half of the general public, Evolutionists can provide no solid arguments strong enough to convince the other half.
Face it: Intellectually speaking, Darwin's fairy tale has evolved massive vocal chords, but its teeth have yet to grow in. In a battle of intellect, Evolution is a chihuahua. Creationism? It's the 140lb rottweiler on the other side of the gate. Eugenie Scott said it best: "In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science." Without the PR talk? Teach kids to question Evolution, they will. And it doesn't have the answers.
But Christianity does. In fact, its central claim is its ultimate evidence. How could Jesus have risen from the dead if He is not God Himself? When He rose from the dead, He proved He was God. But this was more than just a show of His power. Jesus' death and resurrection had a purpose: The forgiveness of sin by punishing Him instead of the sinner, and the reception of that forgiveness for all who will believe He rose. Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, and you will be saved.