This article was originally written for Question Evolution Day 2020.
The overwhelming majority of Evolutionists are all bark and no bite. We've all heard the cliche that there are "mountains of evidence" for Evolution, but how much evidence have you actually heard?
As an ex-Evolutionist, my answer is that I have yet to see so much as a mole hill. Don't get me wrong, I have seen several valiant attempts, and am well acquainted with several arguments that Evolutionists do use. But the truth is, far from being a well-established fact of science, Evolution is an ideological myth about history.
Every author should be familiar with the phrase "show, don't tell". When you write a character, you don't tell the reader "he was strong", you tell about a time he lifted a car. You don't tell the reader "she was happy", you show her dancing or laughing. The reader should be able to tell the characters attributes or feelings based on what you tell them. In the same way, if there really are mountains of evidence for Evolution, Evolutionists shouldn't say "there are mountains of evidence". Rather, they should put more effort into providing that evidence.
There's a very simple reason they don't often do it. The truth is, they can't, because it doesn't exist. In fact, Evolution is one of the rare cases where absence of evidence really is evidence of absence. If Evolution was true, we would expect to see several things that we just don't see. Transitional fossils, for example, are virtually non-existent. They are so rare that Evolutionists fake more than they find. By contrast, there are many things we see in the natural world that we should not see if Evolution was true. Irreducibly complex things that even Evolutionists admitted would disprove Evolution if they were discovered. Biological magnets, for example, were previously said to be impossible in Evolution, because they would be useless until fairly perfect. But of course, God isn't limited by the unfit transitional forms, and so we now know that many animals have magnetic abilities, usually for purposes of navigation.
On top of both lacking evidence, and having compelling evidence against it, alleged evidence for Evolution, more often than not, fits equally, if not better, with Christianity than with Evolution. In fact, in some cases, Creationists beat Evolutionists to the punch. Ironically, a lot of Darwin's own work is known to have been plagiarised from other sources, including none other than Edward Blyth, a Creationist (albeit Old Earth Creationist) who wrote about natural selection long before Darwin. Darwin even used the same rare words as Blyth, as well as the same examples. The University of Cambridge may even be in possession of a copy of some of Blyth's work with Darwin's handwritten notes on them.
And so I repeat what I said at the beginning of this article: Evolutionists are more bark than bite. The way they speak, you'd think they had enough evidence to smack down Creationism in a 15 minute YouTube video. In reality, the Emperor has no clothes, and you should absolutely pay attention to the man behind the curtain.