Evolution, in all honesty, is no less a theory than Newton’s Laws of motion. In reality, the only reason it has not been considered a law is that no one can show you in real time the speciation of say, an ape into a human being. But just because you cannot see something happen does not mean it exists or not; Christians should understand that concept best of all.
The theory of evolution can best be compared to a very large and complex puzzle depicting the planet with over 5,000 pieces, nearly complete, save five or six missing pieces. While most reasonable people feel safe assuming that the puzzle does indeed depict a planet (that the evidence provided points toward evolution’s legitimacy), there are a couple of diehards that refuse to give in and will use any uncertainty or loose seam, no matter how meaningless or negligible, to pervade further doubt. “Maybe it’s a dog,” they’d say, “you can’t know for sure without the remaining pieces!” Yes you can — it is called deductive reasoning.
Ultimately, however, even if you admit that evolution cannot be proven fully and only partially, that partial argument has greater evidentiary fortitude than its counterpoint, creationism. And that is undeniable. The number of holes that could be punched into Christianity are so numerous they seem endless. First, there is the issue of different biblical translations; second, the different books and their legitimacy (such as the Vulgate versus NIV or King James); and even if you get past that you still have to contend with different interpretations of the faith, as well as different religions entirely. I am afraid the statement, “I have faith” just won’t hold up in the court of valid arguments. Besides, if you are arguing with an atheist what meaning does that even have?
One might even say that those who argue for creationism or its doppelganger, intelligent design, realize how tenuous and flimsy their arguments for these beliefs are.
It is important to note that intelligent design hasn’t gone through the peer review that hard science has. Interesting — so apparently those who support intelligent design either fancy themselves too superior to submit to that crazy field of science or they recognize that what evidence they do have is relatively shaky and generally built off of conjecture, faith and interpretation. Unfortunately, feelings don’t mean much in the way of hard evidence in the scientific field.