One of the other things used to defend Evolution is the fallacy of equivocation (the use of ambiguous language to avoid commitment or conceal a truth). Modern Evolutionists are excellent at this in debate, as it is often said that Evolution is just "change over time", specifically related to how one species changes to another. This gives the impression that Creationists reject the idea that species change, when in reality, it isn't the amount of change we dispute, but the type of change.
Evolutionists are also quick to avoid fundamental parts of their religion in this manner. For example, is the origin of life part of Evolution? Given the word "Evolution" is in the name chemical Evolution, the obvious answer is of course it is. And indeed, Evolutionist G.A. Kerkut defined the "general theory of Evolution" as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form." But Evolution goes further back in time than just the origin of life. Harvard University describes Cosmic Evolution as "the study of the assembly and composition of energy, matter and life in the thinning and cooling universe".
Evolution, then, is a very broad term. Unfortunately, this makes it very difficult to criticise Evolution, particularly when dealing with individual Evolutionists. But in this article, I have clearly defined, using the definitions of respected Evolutionists/institutions, what I mean when I talk about Evolution.
Looking at this definition, I can say with absolute confidence that Evolution is one of the silliest religions on the planet today. Generally speaking, it begins with a magical explosion called the Big Bang (so named because of Sir Fred Hoyle's mockery of the story). The Big Bang is such a fanciful fairy tale that you don't even really need to look for evidence against it, you just need to take a step back and try to make its defenders promote it with a straight face.
As a Christian, I believe in the beginning, the eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent God created the heavens and the earth. That's extremely easy to defend, and extremely difficult to attack. But a lot of Evolutionists believe in the beginning, nothing exploded, which started the formation of everything. Try defending that. With a straight face, try to defend the Big Bang. This magical explosion allegedly sent matter and energy all over the universe, and that supposedly formed somehow (there are a number of "theories" on exactly how) into stars, planets and all the other celestial bodies that make up the billions of galaxies we have today.
A story is often told of Isaac Newton and his atheistic friend. Like many people today, Newton's friend believed, against all logic, that the solar system is not the product of design. So Newton had a model made, which mimicked the known solar system (of his time) as closely as possible. Newton's friend took the bait, and asked who made it, to which Newton replied that no one had made it. It just randomly appeared on his desk. The friend persisted in asking about its maker until finally, Newton explained that the toy represents the solar system, whose laws were well known to this friend, yet Newton was unable to convince him it lacked a maker. How, then, could the atheist justify his belief that the original, which is far greater, lacked a maker?
Since Newton's day, a lot of research has been done on the solar system alone. Today, Newton would have a lot to add to his model, all of which he would assuredly use to glorify his beloved Creator. As we look into space, we can affirm the words of the Psalmist: The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork. But not so, says the Evolutionist. Newton's feeble toy, of course that was designed, but the system it was based on, you're a fool if you think it's anything more than a cosmic milk spillage. It only looks designed because... science?
And so we zoom in to our own little planet. The only planet on which human beings, and life in general, can feasibly inhabit. Our planet is very well designed. There's a reason it's not barren, unlike its siblings scattered throughout the galaxy. The universe is not a friendly place. It takes a lot of training, fitness and a host of equipment just to leave the earth, and while some are hoping we'll one day be able to inhabit Mars, that's not going to happen in the foreseeable future. So, why does the Earth happen to have the ideal conditions for life? For this, Evolutionists invoke the "anthropic principle". To give the Wikipedia definition (yes, I feel dirty), "The anthropic principle is a philosophical consideration that observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it."
Now, imagine I have a coat that you really like. So you ask me "hey, where'd you get that coat?" and I reply "well, if I didn't have this coat, you wouldn't be able to ask that question." Are you satisfied? Does that have any explanatory power what so ever? Of course not! It doesn't tell you how I got the coat, which is the question you asked, but rather explains what would obviously happen if I didn't have the coat. Similarly, the anthropic principle is a perfect non-answer to a very important question. It doesn't tell us why our planet is so fine tuned for life, it just says that if it wasn't, we wouldn't be around to ask why it is. The question is about how a design came to be, and so the answer should be how the design came to be. The answer should not be what the universe would be like if it wasn't like it is now. The anthropic principle isn't even deserving of a name, because it's just stating the blindingly obvious.
And so we come to the origin of life itself. Evolutionists really like to distance themselves from this one, it's that indefensible. In Darwin's day, the cell was considered to be a simple blob. Not extremely complex. Why would it be so hard for one to form in the primordial soup? But now, we not only know that the cell is a living factory, far greater than anything mankind has ever designed, but that there are no possible scenarios in which it could arise by chance. We've tried to create life from scratch, we've failed to create life from scratch. Several organisations are even offering huge cash rewards for scientific evidence that life can arise naturalistically. Create a living cell, become a millionaire.
And so we come to the final piece of the puzzle. How did we go from self-created single celled organisms to the diverse array of life we have today? Or, as Creationists often sarcastically put it, how did we go from "goo to you via the zoo?" This is where the most confusion tends to arise. As I previously explained, Creationists actually do believe in what many would call "Evolution". It is perfectly compatible with the Bible, for example, to say that all finches have a common ancestor. Whether a thick beaked finch or a thin beaked finch, most Biblical Creationists believe all finches are descended from one pair of finches that got off Noah's ark.
But a finch is not a bacteria. A banana is not a seaweed. A man is not a fish (despite what Evolutionist professors like P.Z. Myers might tell you...). Both Creationists and Evolutionists believe species change over time (and indeed, we came up with it first), but it is the Evolutionist who believes that this change can be so radical as to change a tyrannosaurus into a chicken over millions of years.
In the Creationist view, God created animals to reproduce according to their kinds, and commanded them to fill the earth. If animals were going to fill the earth, that would absolutely require some ability to change. Some animals have variations that are adapted to literally polar opposite environments. The leopard of Africa vs. the snow leopard of Central and South Asia, for example. But they are always fundamentally the same creature.
But in the Evolutionist view, human beings share a common ancestor with apes, alligators and apples. This kind of change is simply impossible, because of what is known as "irreducible complexity". Irreducible complexity is the theory that minimal components must be present within a design in order for it to function. In the case of life, a living organism requires certain structures and functions in order to survive. Would you be able to survive without a brain, like a plant does? Or without a heart, like a sponge? Without lungs, like a fish? The only time in your life the answer to any of these questions have been "yes" is while you were still developing in your mother's womb, at which point her vital functions were serving as your own. Had you been born too early, you would have died.
But Evolution requires such things to develop outside the womb. From our mythical single celled ancestors all the way up to our modern bodies, we would have to have to go through several fundamental changes. But the process of those changes would destroy us! An organism that does not require a heart could not evolve into an organism that does, because anything in between would die. It's ironic, natural selection itself makes Evolution impossible!
This is the best atheists can do? It would have been far better to just put Christians on the defensive! It would be better to just say "we don't know where we came from", rather than making up such a ridiculous story. That would mean letting us show you the plethora of evidence we do have, but at least it wouldn't open you up to looking so daft. The mere fact that anyone is willing to defend, even against all contrary evidence, the "theory" of Evolution is very telling. That man would go to such great lengths to deny the existence of our Creator is indicative that without an alternative creation myth, it would be far harder to do so. But to you Evolutionists, I say this: Try as you might, you cannot wish God away. Evolution is a temporary thing. You may hold it until the end of your life, but your life will end, and after that, you will meet the God who created you. Your denial of your accountability to Him won't make Him throw up His hands and say "you know what, you didn't believe in me anyway, so I'm just going to forgive you and let you into Heaven." He will judge you, and your defence of Evolution will become just one more charge He indicts you for.
There is an alternative. Jesus entered the creation as a man, lived a life without sin, yet died a sinner's death. Through His death on the cross, you can be forgiven of every one of your sins. You don't have to take the punishment for a single one of them, because they have all been accounted for. All you need is to come to Him in faith and confess Him as Lord. You do that, you won't be just another casualty of a cruel and indifferent universe. You will become a new Creation. And I assure you, it won't take Him 4 billion years to redeem you to Himself.