This article was originally written for Question Evolution Day 2020.
Evolutionists and Creationists actually have a lot of common ground that Evolutionists, in a vain effort to appear more rational, are quick to deny. On the one hand, they are quick to deny similarities that would be beneficial to the Creationist. For example, natural selection and speciation. If Evolutionists can make it look like Creationists believe in the fixity of species, all they need to do to "prove" Evolution, or at least refute Creationism, is show that species are not fixed. However, when it is pointed out that Creationists actually came up with natural selection and speciation before Darwin, and that Darwin even plagiarised Creationist material on the subject, it becomes harder for Evolutionists to gain the upper hand.
On the other hand, Evolutionists are quick to deny similarities between our worldviews that put them at a disadvantage. For example, the single origin of the human race. According to the Bible, the human race is descended from two human beings: A man, whom God created directly from the dust, and his wife, whom God created from the man's rib. This causes Evolutionists to mock the Genesis account. "So incest is ok, and we're all inbred?" But the problem Evolutionists have is that, following their worldview to its logical conclusion, even bestiality would be incest, and yes, we are all inbred.
One could phrase it this way: In Creationism, all humans share a common ancestor. In Evolution, all humans, along with apes, alpacas, antelopes, ants, and apples, share a common ancestor. See, in Evolution, all life is descended from a magic microbe. That is my sarcastic way to refer to the single celled organism that was supposedly created by natural forces more than 3 billion years ago. That single celled organism evolved until it ultimately gave rise to all living things on the planet today.
Now, is that not a little more unbelievable than the Genesis account? First, you have to posit that a single celled organism inexplicably came into being without a parent similar to itself. Against all odds, it not only had everything it needed to survive, but also reproduce. Already we're off to a bad start. First, this has never been observed, so it's basically a made up story. Second, everything we know about science currently militates against the possibility of life coming from non-life. The universe just seems desperate to kill everything. Third, Evolutionists, though they have made valiant efforts, have failed to produce life from non-life intelligently. How they expect nature to do it by accident I'll never understand. Fourth, the law of biogenesis has been rigorously studied, and the result is always the same: Life, and life alone begets life. To quote Louis Pasteur after one such experiment, "Microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves."
And so we see that abiogenesis alone is far more laughable than the idea that a man and his wife could give rise to the entire human race. When you add the fact that this magic microbe is, in effect, the Evolutionist's Adam and Eve that gave rise to the entire eco-system, you see that they have the identical problem on a larger scale, but with no valid solutions.
Contrast that with Christianity. As it turns out, we do have a valid solution in that, when you understand why inbreeding is a problem in modern humans, you can understand why it wasn't a problem for early humans. Each generation inherits genetic copying errors, called mutations, from the previous generations. Mutations are typically harmful, neutral or a "mixed bag" (i.e. even beneficial mutations usually come with a drawback). Ironically, this is yet another problem for Evolution, but we'll save that for another day. Anyway, because we inherit two copies of each allele, one from each parent, and usually in different places, the negative effects of most mutations are masked, in whole or in part. However, close relatives likely have the same mutations in the same places, greatly increasing the risk of mutations being inherited and expressed in the resulting offspring. Adam and Eve, being the original type, inherited no copying mistakes because they were not copies. Their children, therefore, had no mutations to inherit. Every mutation Adam and Eve's children had would have been brand new, and statistically unlikely to be in the same places. Therefore, Adam and Eve's children could have very safely got married and had kids, with virtually no risk of any deformities. However, as the human race continued to breed throughout the generations, and especially after the flood which saved only one family, mutations would have continued to accumulate, and inbreeding would have become more and more of a threat.
Thus, in Christianity, the threat posed by inbreeding varies depending on what point in human history you look at. But in Evolution, there wasn't even a perfect original human genome. So the solution to Christianity's inbreeding problem cannot apply to Evolution's even bigger inbreeding problem. When Evolutionists mock Creationists by raising emotional objections against the single origin of the human race, they're actually mocking their own ridiculous view of the single origin of all life that has supposedly existed for the past 3 billion years.
What's more is that actually, genetic experiments show that yes, the human race really is descended from only two people. While they obviously add the usual Evolutionary spin, Evolutionists readily admit the existence of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam. Right down to the very names, Evolutionists admit that Adam and Eve existed. They just don't have the wisdom to admit that it is the Biblical Adam and Eve.
So why the mockery? Probably because acknowledging Adam and Eve means acknowledging what they did against the God who created them, as well as how that affects us directly. Just as Adam and Eve sinned, so also do we sin. And we face the same penalty: Death. That is, unless we turn and put our faith in the "last Adam", Jesus Christ.