The appeal to authority fallacy is an incredibly common one in Evolution. We are frequently told that we should listen to the scientists, especially if we, ourselves, are professionally unqualified. A big problem for this reasoning, other than the fact it is a fallacy that anyone who has ever taken a critical thinking course could identify, is that there are plenty of scientists who are skeptical of Evolution, sympathetic to the Creationist view, or are themselves Creationists. Evolutionists respond to this inconvenient truth with a second fallacy: The No True Scotsman fallacy.
The No True Scotsman fallacy, otherwise known as the appeal to purity fallacy, is the selective definition of terms to exclude inconvenient examples. To give an example:
E: No Scotsman wears a kilt.
C: This is a Scotsman, and he is wearing a kilt.
E: He's wearing a kilt, therefore he isn't really a Scotsman.
In this case, the argument is as follows:
E: No scientists accept Creationism.
C: This is a scientist, and he accepts Creationism.
E: He accepts Creationism, therefore he isn't really a scientist.
The same applies with rejecting Evolution. Even many agnostics have felt the wrath of Darwin for daring to question the status quo. Richard Sternberg, for example, is an agnostic who dared to allow a peer reviewed article to be published which just happened to suggest Intelligent Design is valid. For this, he was called a "closet Bible thumper", and persecuted so viciously, the Office of Special Counsel got involved.
This is very telling. Real science, while often suppressed by politics, never needs politics to defend it. Why would it? Truth can stand for itself. Yet, Evolution requires a lot of politics. Notice, Creationists are quite capable of engaging with Evolutionary arguments without maligning either the character or qualifications of a scientist who makes them. I've heard Creationists sing some very high praise for Richard Dawkins, for example. Yet, Evolutionists are so vicious, they often act like merely saying the name of a Creationist is enough to refute the arguments presented, even if that particular Creationist is not in view at the time.
Why is this so common? The same reason any other worldview throws such ad hominems around. If you cannot attack an argument, attack the one making it. And we all know how feeble Evolution is when it comes to actual arguments in its defence.
Christianity, by contrast, is a very well-evidenced faith. For centuries, apologists have added many people to the Church, from simple to scholar, because we have one thing no other religion on earth can claim: A God who walked among us. Jesus Christ personally entered our world to live as a man, and even die like one. Specifically, He was very publicly executed, after which time He was very publicly seen alive again by a great many witnesses. Even 500 at one time.
And this was no accident. The death He died is the judgement we deserve, for we are all sinners who have rebelled against God. Yet, God loves us, and so opted to instead punish Jesus. When He died, He died for you, and when He rose, He bought you eternal life in the Kingdom of God. All it requires is to confess Jesus as Lord and believe He rose from the dead.