For this article, I'm going to throw Evolutionists a bone. I am going to preface the article by telling you, right off the bat, that I am going to make the tu qoque fallacy. The tu qoque fallacy, a.k.a. appeal to hypocrisy, argues that a belief cannot be true because the believer is not consistent with it. However, though I am not only making a fallacy, but also straight up admitting it, I hope to illustrate why I believe making this fallacy is worth it.
According to the purest form of Evolution, all living organisms are ultimately related to each other due to common ancestry. All life on earth, supposedly, can trace its origins all the way back to just one single celled organism that magically created itself about 3.7 billion years ago. Thus, we are directly related to germs. We are directly related to fungi. We are directly related to plants, and to animals.
Now consider how we treat every other living organism on the planet. We market cleaning products by bragging about how many germs they kill. We cut down trees in order to use them for building materials. We use plants to make ropes, paper, and clothes. We take fish out of their natural environment and keep them stranded for life in a single spot, like a living ornament. We breed and slaughter millions of chickens per year just so we can eat them. We violate the reproductive autonomy of our dogs by neutering them. We breed and train horses for sport. We selectively breed sheep so they'll give us quality wool. We force oxen to help us grow our crops. We consider field mice to be collateral damage when we harvest those crops. We put gorillas in zoos just so we can watch them for entertainment. We test new medicines on rats because they're expendable. We test cosmetics we don't even need on bunnies. We kill frogs just so children can cut them up to see what's inside.
We don't do any of this to our fellow man. While we're supposedly related to all of these organisms, we are distinct from them. Not only is man distinct from every other animal, most of us are innately aware of this fact. Now, the tu qoque fallacy appeals to the fact that believers do not live consistently with their views to say that therefore those views are wrong. But I'm not going to appeal to the fact that Evolutionists don't live consistently with Evolution. I'm going to contend that actually, Evolutionists can't live consistently with Evolution.
Evolution degrades man to the level of animals, animals to the level of plants, and plants to the level of bacteria. If we are just the end result of a random process, we have no value. We are worth nothing. But Evolutionists generally don't believe this. When people treat our fellow man like we treat other organisms, we get really rather upset. We look back on history and see the worst of humanity, and we shudder. Child sacrifice, slavery, racism, genocide, we see all these things as abominations, and yet if Evolution is true, it is no worse to gas 6 million Jews than to scrub your kitchen with Windex.
But who would ever draw such a conclusion? In my entire life, I've met a grand total of one Evolutionist who thought Hitler was justified. But if Evolution is true, he was. Justice is a man made concept. The man who is right is the man with the biggest gun. Thus, Evolutionists are faced with two contradictory views. In one view, man is as worthless as the mould in a petri dish, and morality is non existent. In the other, at least some human life is valuable. It can't be both. Thus, although I have made the tu qoque fallacy today, I contend that it is a valid exception simply because of the logical law of non-contradiction. If you hold two contradictory views, it just makes sense to get rid of one of them. So Evolutionists should either discard the inherently religious belief that man is valuable, or discard the (also religious) belief that man is worth as much as a germ.
I contend that Evolution is the better candidate to be discarded. First, it is the view that most offends our instincts. We recognise design in the universe as young as we are able to speak, and barring sociopaths (sociopaths being the exception that proves the rule), we all have a sense of justice and inherent value. Second, it is a view that offends science. Science cannot determine value, but it can tell us that life begets life, and that life is its own kind. No one has ever observed Evolution, but everything we have observed is compatible with the Bible.
Evolution offends our instincts, Evolution offends science, but the best reason to reject Evolution is simply that it offends the Creator. It is one of many things God calls "sin". That is, acts, words or even thoughts of rebellion against Him. These are things that must be paid for. But the good news for us is that He doesn't necessarily require a sinner to pay for his own sins. There is another option. Just one other option.
2,000 years ago, Jesus, the Son of God, came to the Earth to live as a man. He never once sinned. His life was 100% perfect. Therefore, He was worthy to pay for our sins. And so He did. He died a sinner's death, and He rose from the grave. Thus, to have your sins forgiven, all you have to do is confess Him as Lord and believe that He rose.