The reification fallacy is one of the most common fallacies of the modern age, especially in debates about origins. While Evolutionists often claim they are trusting science, what they are actually trusting is people. Science is not a speaking entity. Rather, it is a metaphysical concept, literally meaning "knowledge". It is the study of the natural world, which can technically be done by anyone, regardless of their qualifications. Because natural laws apply equally to everyone, regardless of where they are in the universe, anyone can make the same observations about our reality.
However, not everyone interprets them the same way. Through bias, error, and even sin, two people can look at exactly the same facts and draw completely different conclusions. Therefore, science itself does not say anything. Even when there is a consensus among scientists, there may well be dissenting voices, which of course can be quite legitimate. Historically speaking, science has been held back by consensus, only to be advanced by a minority of scientists, or even just one. In fact, Evolutionists would have to admit this, as there was a time when "Young" Earth Creationism was held by the majority of scientists. Consensus would have been a poor argument for Creationism, and it remains a poor argument for Evolution.
The reality of the situation is that those who say they "trust the science" on any issue, not only Evolution, are actually trusting a particular set of people who have a particular opinion on a particular issue. Science does not support Evolution, scientists do. Science does not oppose Creation, scientists do. There are, in fact, scientists who do not support Evolution, though they do not support Creation either. There are other scientists who support Creation over Evolution. The question to ask, then, isn't "what does science say", but "which interpretation best explains the evidence?"
Of course, there are a host of sub-discussions we could get into when it comes to origins. For example, how old are dinosaurs? Soft tissue has been found inside many dinosaur bones. To the Creationist, this is evidence that the bones are "young", since soft tissue cannot survive millions of years. To the Evolutionist, this proves soft tissue can survive millions of years, since that's how old the bones are. Do you see the problem we face? Every piece of evidence we discuss is interpreted in this manner, to the extent where the debate on origins would last millions of years, if the Earth could endure for so long.
But the great weakness of Evolution is that while Evolutionists trust their preferred scientists' interpretation of the scientific evidence, Creationists trust the word of the Creator Himself. The scientific evidence, at least in the view of many Christians, fits Creationism far better than Evolution, but the Theological evidence tends overwhelmingly towards Creationism.
It is worth noting, at this point, that the issue of origins is not even a scientific one. Science deals with how things work in the present, whereas origins deals with what allegedly happened in the past. Think of it as the difference between determining how a plane flies (science) and who invented planes in the first place (history). No amount of scientific evidence can bring you to the story of the Wright brothers and their first flight in 1903. For that, we must look to the historical record.
In much the same way, no amount of scientific evidence can tell us about origins. Even if, somehow, Evolution was possible, and you could prove it was still happening today (which is unrealistic, since it takes too long), you could not prove where it started from. You could not rule out the possibility that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days, roughly 6,000 years ago, and things had simply been evolving since then.
But looking at the historical data, we can rule out Evolution. Throughout recorded history, a grand total of 0 new kinds have evolved. Reproduction has always worked as it does now, only creating new variations of already existing kinds. Cats produce cats, dogs produce dogs, monkeys produce monkeys, men produce men. Breeding between kinds, by contrast, proves impossible. Breed a lion and a tiger, you get a liger, but breed a man with a monkey, all you get is arrested. All we see in the present, all we have ever seen throughout recorded history, is exactly what the Bible says.
This applies not only to reproduction, but to other historical elements as well. Obviously, I'm not saying the Bible records 100% of human history. We do not go to the Bible to study the life of Henry VIII, the strategies of WW2, or even the events of the Reformation. Nevertheless, the Bible is indisputably the most accurate historical book, starting with the fact that the Earth is no older than 6,000 years old.
This, of course, does not mean there are no records which purport to show a history greater than that. Egyptian chronology, for example, would seem to conflict with the Noahic flood. However, without going into too much depth in this article, these histories are doubtful in various ways. Egyptian chronology in particular is based on two very shaky pillars: The history presented by an Egyptian historian called Manetho, and Carbon dating. But Manetho's dates are particularly spurious due to his bias, as he sought to prove Egypt's superiority over the Greeks. As for Carbon dating, again without seeking to overextend this article with a tangent, suffice to say any method that can give radically different ages for the same sample should be considered questionable at best.
But the age of the earth should be considered a trivial detail compared to other issues. That's not to say it's not important, but its importance pales when compared to two other issues of history: Prophecy, and Christ.
Prophecy, as a whole, is the act of speaking on behalf of God, which in part includes telling the future ahead of time. It's one thing for the Bible to be historically accurate, but to have been historically accurate before history even occurred is nothing short of impressive. One unique feature of Christianity is that it does this consistently. In fact, Biblical prophecy is often so accurate that wherever possible, Liberal historians (that is to say, bad, sloppy, biased historians) often attempt to revise the authorship dates.
This is not a new thing. In fact it was 3rd century philosopher, Porphyry, who first attempted to claim Daniel's prophecies were written after the events they described. But this attempt backfires, as it acknowledges a major problem it fails miserably to solve.
But even this pales when compared to Christ. Just as was prophesied in the Old Testament, the New Testament records a time when the Creator Himself became incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ, who not only performed a host of miracles during His ministry, but was also very publicly executed, before appearing to many witnesses, both in separate and as groups, over the course of 40 days. After that, He ascended to His throne, where He sits to this day. All of that for you.
See, generally speaking, it's better to believe a man who rises from His grave over 8 billion people who are heading to theirs. But Jesus didn't rise just so you would become a Creationist. He rose so you would become a child of God. Through our many sins, including blasphemies like Evolution, we made ourselves enemies of God. But through the death of His Son, God made atonement for our sin once and for all. Now, all who confess Jesus as Lord and believe He rose from the dead will be saved. So, you can "trust the science", i.e. trust sinners who believe we're all just monkeys with no hope and no future, or you can trust the Savior, who is our hope for an eternal future. The choice is yours, but it seems obvious which is better.