The fossil record does not contain any organisms which can realistically be considered as transitional between two different species, so there is no physical evidence in support of the theory of evolution. Radiometric and isotopic dating methods--which cannot be verified--are questionable at best, flat wrong at worst, so the earth is probably not as old as evolutionary theory says it is. Geological and archaeological data actually favor the Biblical account of creation and Noah's flood over their evolutionary counterparts. Genetic study has shown that random mutations are extremely rare and always result in a less-healthy organism, so the evolutionary process of natural selection would actually tend to eliminate rather than favor mutated organisms. Abiogenesis, the process of something living forming out of something non-living, has never been observed or duplicated in the laboratory, and in fact goes against all known natural laws, so even the very beginnings of evolution would seem to be impossible. The entire theory of evolution goes against the second law of thermodynamics, which says that entropy, or disorder, always increases. All things considered, the theory of evolution appears to simply be a myth born in the mind of man.
But what if the evidence for evolution were not so sparse? Scientists may one day be able to produce simple self-reproducing compounds under ideal laboratory conditions, which could prove at least the possibility of spontaneous abiogenesis. Many people argue that the fossil record is not complete, and that the "transitional forms" have yet to be unearthed. Several methods of isotopic dating appear to be fairly stable and reliable, although it would take millions of years to actually test them for accuracy. We know so little about ancient earth's atmosphere and other conditions that our assessment of geologic data may be flawed. The second law of thermodynamics is a tough one to overcome, but for argument's sake let us assume that the sun's energy, though not "directed" energy as is required to decrease entropy, could somehow do the job. Ultimately, what if all the evidence were to support the theory of evolution? Could it really have happened?
Statistically, no...not in a million years, not in four billion years, not even in ten billion years. If the ancient seas contained just the right mix of certain compounds at just the right temperature (the "primordeal soup"), if lightning of just the right power happened to strike at just the right place and time, if a large comet happened to strike the earth at just the right place and time, if the environmental requirements for the as-yet-undiscovered process of abiogenesis were met just so, and on and on...you get the picture. The more ifs there are, the less likely something is to happen, and these are no ordinary ifs! The statistical odds against each one of the above ifs are tremendous, on the order of the total number of molecules in the known universe. Evolutionary statistical thought says that, if a truckload of stone, wood, and metal were dumped over a 100-foot cliff, it could fall in such a way as to form a two-story, three-bedroom brick house with indoor plumbing and a basketball goal next to the driveway. According to this thought, if the dumping process were repeated enough times, eventually the house would happen.
The point here is that, even if all the evidence supported evolution (which, thus far, is not the case), in order to consider it viable one must either ignore the statistics or believe that the statistics simply do not matter. One belief is based on a lie, and the other requires great faith, which is a purely spiritual action! The final question, then, is not so much "Did it happen that way?" as it is "Where shall I place my faith?"
At the bare minimum, either I must believe that God created the universe or I must believe that everything happened on its own, and this belief will form the basis of my life philosophy. I must reconcile my views and attitudes about things such as happiness, relationships, politics, religion, etc.--my "world view"--with my life philosophy. If my world view is inconsistent with my life philosophy, then something is fundamentally wrong with one or both of them.
If I believe that God created everything, then I am a product of a master plan, with a preordained purpose for my life. The world has a preordained order, and there is an absolute morality, defined by God the Creator. I will answer to God for my actions, and this has bearing on my eternal fate; therefore, I have both a responsibility and a motive to live as God wishes me to live, fulfilling my God-ordained purpose.
If, on the other hand, I believe that I am a product of time and chance, then I have neither purpose nor meaning, other than those I choose for myself. The world is my enemy, and so my primary goal must be to survive. There is no absolute morality and no ultimate meaning. If any group-imposed morality, such as laws, rules, or regulations, is inconsistent with my self-determined purpose, I have no compelling reason to follow it. Ultimately, I answer only to myself; therefore, I would be a fool to consider anything before myself, my personal happiness, the achievement of my goals, the fulfillment of my self-determined purpose.
Is it any wonder, then, that we live in a confused, lawless society? We are taught that God is a myth and we evolved from primordeal soup, yet we are supposed to understand that obeying the laws of our society, even if they do not benefit us, is "the right thing to do." We are attempting to mix a God-centric world view with an evolutionary life philosophy. It does not work. As evidence, observe the national statistics on different types of crime and scholastic aptitude during this century. Up until 1963, all statistics were fairly constant. Since 1963, crime rates have skyrocketed and test scores have fallen dramatically. In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that our founding fathers were mistaken in their understanding of the First Amendment, and so they separated God from our public school system.
Proponents of "separation of church and state" claim that religion should not be an integral aspect of public education; however, not only do they overlook the example set by our founding fathers who, while in Congress, ordered the printing of the first American Bible to be used as a primer in the public schools, but they also overlook the fact that our public schools now inculcate an inconsistent humanist religion into our children. Our public schools present the theory of evolution as if it were fact, and then try to instill good self-esteem and teach good decision-making skills...clearly an inconsistent philosophy. Why do we do this? Because our society wants the good things which come from a God-centric world view, such as law and order, equality, peace and tranquility, and a feeling of purpose and worth. On the other hand, our society also wants to believe that each individual is in charge of their own destiny, that they have an inherent right to set their own standards of morality...the evolutionary life philosophy. It is obvious that this philosophical methodology is simply not viable.
In all of their writings, our founding fathers made abundantly clear the fact that, in order to survive and prosper, our nation must be inhabited by Godly people. George Washington said that "the propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation which disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained." As sad as the current state of affairs in America may be, it is nonetheless an undeniable testimony to the accuracy of their vision.