Creationists often point out that the origins issue all comes down, ultimately, to whether you believe God's word or man's. Atheists, of course, do not believe God's word, and so naturally, they are more likely to believe in Evolution. With God's authority laid aside, they replace it with their own.
Sadly, it's not just atheists who do this. Some who claim to be Christians are just as willing to throw out the Creation account in favor of the Evolutionary narrative. A few years ago, I had the displeasure to debate a particularly arrogant example. Boasting of his ability to cure cancer, he kept repeating the same phrase: "You think you know more about science than me?"
Now, we can set aside the fact that there are many Bible-believing scientists. We can ignore the fact that even Evolutionists in the scientific profession admit that Evolution is a religion (and one designed specifically to counter Christianity, no less). We can even skip over the fact that origins is a claim about history, not science. This man claims to be a Christian. That means he is beholden to certain authorities greater than the two of us put together. What they say, he is bound to either believe, or forever be branded a hypocrite. Not to mention how God will potentially deal with such blasphemy when this man dies. Let's imagine, instead of saying it to me, this Theistic Evolutionist was to go back in time to actually converse with various Biblical figures. How far do we think this man would get by bosting "you think you know more about science than me"?
The Apostle Paul
The Apostle Paul is indisputably a Creationist. Not only does he refer back to creation as a true historical account, using it as a foundation for many doctrines in Christianity, but he points out that those who do not give the Creator His due credit tend to be given over to grievous sins. In particular, "...even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them." (Romans 1:28-32).
In the first century, as the New Testament was being written, Paul was at the top of his game. First, he "...advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers." (Galatians 1:14). He was by no means ignorant of the beliefs of the Jews, up to and including their beliefs about origins. What were those beliefs? Well, without trying to jump the gun, let's ask Josephus, a famous first century historian: "Accordingly Moses says, That in just six days the world, and all that is therein, was made."
In other words, Jewish thought on origins was firmly rooted in Moses' teachings. Of course, this means Paul would have been just as familiar with the Old Testament, likely knowing large portions of it by heart. What Moses wrote, Paul knew.
Furthermore, Paul wrote large portions of the New Testament himself. But watch what he says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
The inspiration of scripture means whatever the prophets and Apostles wrote, they wrote as if they were God Himself. Yes, their personalities were left intact, but their fallibility was suspended; they wrote the absolute truth, as surely as if the Lord Himself spoke it aloud. Therefore, what the Bible says, that is what we, as Christians, must believe.
There are two major implications of rejecting this concept. The first is that Christianity is a meaningless, man-made religion, and that actually, every individual Christian must just make things up as they go along. You become the ultimate arbiter of truth (which this Theistic Evolutionist certainly seemed to believe he was), deciding which bits of the Bible you want to keep, and which bits are the babblings of bronze age goat herders. Ironically, even then, those "goat herders" have an advantage: They were there.
The second is that it puts you squarely outside the fold. Paul had every right to be considered an Apostle. Aside from being recognised by all the other Apostles, and all the churches of his time, He was hand chosen by Christ for the job. When the Apostle John speaks of "us", he is including Paul. And in 1 John 4:6, he says "We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." In other words, if you do not hear Paul the Creationist, you are of the spirit of error, and do not know God.
So, how well would this Theistic Evolutionist's boastings hold up against the Apostle Paul? I always prefer caution when it comes to doubting a person's profession of faith; I can only judge the fruits, it is for God to know the heart. But based on what we've just read, I think anyone trying to undermine Paul's beliefs on the origins of the heavens and the earth would be swiftly disfellowshipped and exhorted to repent.
The Prophet Moses
Long before Paul, Moses was also selected to be a prophet of God. Much like Paul, Moses had a very extensive education, but not in the traditions of the Jews. Rather, "...Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds." (Acts 7:22). This is hardly surprising, given that he was adopted by Pharaoh's daughter.
Being so well educated in Egyptian mythology, Moses was likely quite aware of their old earth beliefs. In an effort to gain some form of superiority, it was common practice for nations to exaggerate their age, with Egypt claiming to have existed for over 100,000 years. And with neither scripture to guide him, nor Godly parents to lead him, he very likely believed these myths at first.
But then came time for God to call him as a prophet, any any belief in Egyptian gods was soon corrected. Moses was unique as a prophet, not only being of note, but actually having the privilege of seeing God up close and personal. When Aaron and Miriam spoke against Moses, feeling they were his equals in the faith, God confronted them, saying "“Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, Even plainly, and not in dark sayings; And he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant Moses?”" (Numbers 12:6-8).
This should have come as no surprise to Aaron. Pay attention to Exodus 4:14-16: "So the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses, and He said: “Is not Aaron the Levite your brother? I know that he can speak well. And look, he is also coming out to meet you. When he sees you, he will be glad in his heart. Now you shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth. And I will be with your mouth and with his mouth, and I will teach you what you shall do. So he shall be your spokesman to the people. And he himself shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be to him as God."
Those last words in particular are nothing to be trifled with. "You shall be to him as God". This goes back to the concept of inspiration. When God speaks, His chosen messengers or mediums do not lessen the authority of that message. If God, through Moses, told Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go, that is as authoritative as if God had appeared the Pharaoh in the burning bush instead of Moses. And Moses' written words in Genesis are just as authoritative.
In fact, Moses' words are so authoritative that Jesus swore by them, appealed to them, and warned of the perils of denying them. Aside from the obvious "...scripture cannot be broken..." (John 10:35), Jesus specifically referred to Moses' words, saying "Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”" (John 5:45-47).
Of course, Moses did not know about Jesus at His time, so he wouldn't be expected to say "if you won't believe my God-inspired account of origins, you won't believe Jesus either", but Moses could certainly appeal to his own authority as a prophet to say "lump your science, I know the Creator".
The Lord Jesus Christ
But the answer both of these men would have to give to "you think you know more about science than me?" is actually no. Being a messenger of God does not grant one His omniscience. Being God, however, does. Christianity, as the name suggests, is based entirely on the love of Jesus, the Christ whose name our religion bears. If you claim to be a Christian, you are claiming to follow Jesus. If you do not follow Jesus, yet still have the audacity to claim to be a Christian, you are a liar.
That Jesus is God is littered throughout the Bible in both explicit and implicit form. Indeed, confessing Jesus as Lord is one of the criteria for salvation (Romans 10:9). Furthermore, the Gospel of John opens by telling us as much. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." (John 1:1-4). This clearly tells us that not only was Jesus there when everything was made, but actually, He's the God who made it.
But it gets worse still. Just as the Bible was inspired by God, Jesus was inspired by the Father. Scripture makes it very clear that the Trinity acts in one accord, with the Father effectively "leading the pack". That is, frankly, a terrible way of saying it, but as of this moment I can think of no better way. But John does a pretty good job: "Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me,or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves." (John 14:9-11).
To disagree with Jesus on anything is therefore folly on multiple levels. On the topic of origins, you are arguing against the all-knowing God, who speaks on behalf of the omniscient Father, having witnessed and participated in the very act of Creation! "You think you know more about science than me, God?" Do I even have to explain how such an arrogant stand against the Lord would ultimately end?
Conclusion
Although I don't like to write responses to individuals, or to speak ill of those who are not here to defend themselves, I will do so in order to edify others. In this case, I'm sure you'll agree that this particular man is insufferable. Nobody likes the "I'm smart, you're dumb, I'm big, you're little, I'm right, you're wrong" type of person. But ultimately, this is the attitude all Theistic Evolutionists must take.
Thankfully, they don't all express it in a sanctimonious manner. However, consider that the entire Jewish and Christian communities, throughout most of history, were Creationists, right up until misotheists like Charles Lyell began to hijack science. Only then did the Church begin to accept the same Old Earth ideas we've rejected ever since Moses put quill to papyrus. In order to sustain that acceptance, you do have to stomp your feet, shake your fist, and roar at them "you think you know more about science than me?" But as I have shown in this article, it wouldn't matter. Those prophets and Apostles with low knowledge of science were inspired by God, and Jesus can absolutely say yes, He knows more about science than you.
Everything militates against Evolution, to the extent where not even atheists have any real excuse to deny the creation account in Genesis. But if you claim to be a Christian, you have no business going near Darwin's vomit. If you are a Theistic Evolutionist, you are guilty of a grievous contradiction; a sin for which you must repent. Otherwise, you are no better than Mr. "You think you know more about science than me"?