Whenever Evolutionists attempt to give evidence for Evolution, they often end up giving examples of things that are perfectly compatible with scripture. Peppered moths, mutant fruit flies, blind cave fish, all of these things, and more, fit quite nicely with Creationism. There is not one example of "Evolution in action" Evolutionists present as evidence for Evolution that would even make it slightly more feasible than the Genesis account.
One question Evolutionists must answer is, if the Genesis account is true, what would they expect to be different about our world? An excellent answer to this question would be the body of Jesus. If you can find evidence that Jesus did not rise from the dead, the entire Bible fails, including Genesis.
Of course, this is an extreme example. Not only is it unrealistic to expect to find the body of Jesus, it is also impossible to actually prove it is Him. Plus, I'm just going to put this out there: He actually did rise, so you're never going to find that body. But though it is an extreme example, that is an example of something that is compatible with Evolution, but not Creationism. Evolutionists need to present something that follows the same logic. If you present something that fits with Evolution, but also fits with Creationism, that's insufficient. At best you have slightly tipped the scale. What you need to present is something that only fits with Evolution.
Of course, the reality is, the world looks exactly the same today as it would if Genesis is true. Nothing about our world even remotely suggests otherwise. But there are a great many things that fit better with Creationism than Evolution.
Irreducible complexity in living organisms is an excellent example. Ironically, natural selection is one of many reasons Evolution cannot happen, because transitional forms would inevitably be selected against. There is no benefit to a half evolved leg, or a half evolved wing. A half evolved heart, or a half evolved lung, would be fatal. And of course, they're just one single component of a much more complex respiratory system. And that respiratory system is just one system in a whole body of complex systems. If these systems don't work properly, they inevitably get selected against.
The law of biogenesis is another example. Life must come from life, and life similar to itself at that. It is impossible for life to create itself, or to be created naturally. Heck, we can't even do it deliberately. So where did life come from? Design screams designer, not slime pit!
The fossil record fits nicely with Creationism too, but not too well with Evolution. Of course, they have excuses for this, but ultimately, the extreme rarity of transitional forms, compared to the innumerable ones that should be detectable, means that Creationists have a huge advantage.
Furthermore, if fossils really do take millions of years to form, they should have no soft tissue. There is no way to preserve soft tissue for that long, yet we frequently find soft tissue in dinosaur fossils. The same is true for Carbon 14, which should not be detectable after around 60,000 years.
Ultimately, the world we see makes perfect sense if Genesis is true, but no sense if Evolution is true. This should come as no surprise to us, for the Creator Himself left His Heavenly throne, and took on our form. His mission: Redemption for mankind. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was born to the virgin Mary, and lived a perfect human life, and ultimately died on the cross. There, He received the full penalty for the sins of the whole world, allowing us to be redeemed to Him through faith. Confessing Jesus as Lord, and believing He rose from the dead, results in salvation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An attempted response from an atheist
When this article was originally published as a post on the God Squad Apologetics Facebook page, an atheist attempted to respond with the following:
"What would I expect to be different? I'd expect there not to be killer microbes, malaria-carrying mosquitoes, intestinal parasites, disease-carrying ticks and fleas, rabid bats, worms that eat the inside of our eyeballs, brain eating amoebas... Need I go on?"
For sake of this atheist's credibility, it would be better if he not only didn't go on, but also concluded with "just kidding". See, aside from proving he never read beyond the meme (which isn't especially uncommon from this particular atheist), it also shows extreme ignorance of the topic at hand. The question was what would we expect to be different if the Genesis account was true? Genesis does not rule out unpleasant things in nature, but rather explains their existence, either directly (e.g. labor pains and thorns) or indirectly. Everything the atheist described in his response is perfectly compatible with the Genesis account of origins because they are all explainable within the Fall. Therefore, the argument (which I'll point out is a theological one, not a scientific one) fails.