We are told about the alleged "mountains of evidence" for Evolution far more often than we are told what that evidence actually is. In the eyes of an Evolutionists, these "mountains of evidence" make Evolution rather sacred, so much so that to dare to question it is vehemently discouraged, to say the least.
One of these things is not like the others. If there really are mountains of evidence for Evolution, it should be easy to show it. If Evolution is true, Evolutionists should welcome questions, because even if they don't have the answers now, there should at least be enough evidence to "hold the fort" until those answers are found.
But Evolutionists rarely, if ever, respond to sincere questions with such confidence. In fact, whose questions are more sincere than those of the "blank canvases" that are school students? Yet, ardent Evolutionist Eugenie Scott, previously director of the National Center for Science Indoctrina... sorry, "Education", admitted "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."
Now, imagine for a moment she made a similar statement about the flat earth myth. The flat earth myth is actually a brilliant critical thinking exercise. We tend to take it for granted that the earth is a sphere, so learning to defend that view rationally teaches us to refine our other views, and our reasons for them. But obviously, if you put the flat earth myth in a classroom, you're not going to see many students walk out of it as flat earthers. Why? Because there really are mountains of evidence for the spherical shape of the earth. We have photos taken from space, we have photos of the curvature of the earth, we have the fact that things "disappear" over the horizon bottom first, we have different time zones as different spots on Earth face the sun. We have all these arguments, and you can dig as deep as you like into any one of them, they will never fall apart. Thus, any student who walks away "confused about the shape of the earth", and especially if they "reject the spherical shape of the earth", probably wanted that confusion. It is just not rational to say that the shape of the Earth should not be taught as a critical thinking exercise, lest it confuse students and lead them to reject the right answer.
Yet, Eugenie Scott believes that if you teach students, even secondary school students, about the Creation vs. Evolution debate as a critical thinking exercise, that will "confuse" students, and "may lead them to reject" Evolution. Why? Aren't there "mountains of evidence" for Evolution? Isn't it "settled science"? Backbone of biology my left foot! The reason teaching students about the Creation vs. Evolution debate is so likely to make them reject Evolution is because Evolution is one of the silliest religions on the face of God's spherical Earth! On a level playing field, Genesis beats Evolution 99 times out of 100, and the 100th time is usually because humans are far from infallible, and not all evidence has been discovered yet.
The real reason Evolutionists fear honest scrutiny is because the so-called "mountains of evidence" are as mountainous as mole hills. Sure, they have a few arguments, but these arguments are only surface level. Dig a little deeper, you soon find that these arguments don't work. But the point is, you're not supposed to dig deeper. You're supposed to believe the experts (until they start admitting uncomfortable truths, that is). You're supposed to sit down and shut up, like a good little sheep. In the words of Michael Ruse, "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. (...) 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."
And what a terrible religion it is! It doesn't just lack evidence, it leads straight to death. Death in both lives! It leads to death in this life because it is a religion of death. It has lead to violent racism in the past, and eugenics even to this very day. Not to mention the inevitable Nihilism. Suicide is a lot easier when you believe your life is as valueless as a banana. It leads to death in the next life because ultimately, it is a rebellion against God, the Author of life.
See, the truth is, we aren't monkey men. The human race is a special creation of God, made in His image. We are descended from just two people, Adam and Eve, who were originally "very good". Sadly, though they were warned that disobedience would lead to death, they disobeyed, and so the entire creation became subject to futility. Like our forefather, we rebel against God, meriting the same punishment. Yet God loves His image bearers, and so He set out to give us an alternative. 2,000 years ago, Jesus came to Earth in human flesh, and lived a sinless life. After this, He went to the cross and died, where He faced the full wrath of God for sin. Because of this, all who confess Him as Lord, and believe He rose from the dead, will be saved.