one of the key claims of evolution -- namely, that the changes in life forms are the product of chance alone -- is not properly a scientific claim as it is not open to testing or verification.The problem for Darwinian evolution is that all observation shows that it never occurs. Random genetic mutations happen, but they're normally harmful or fatal to the organism. They never add newer, more complex program/structure/function.
If Life is constantly evolving into newer, more complex forms, then how can anyone catch a coelacanth, a fish contemporaneous with the tyrant lizards?
If in five hundred million years, coelacanth evolved into . . . coelacanth, then how did some ape-like organism(s) evolve in only a few million years into Man?
The best Darwinists can do in defense of their creation myth is Lenski's E. Coli, and what do they show? After tens of thousands of generations, the bacteria evolved into . . . bacteria!
The Darwinists demonstrate their inability (or unwillingness) to deal honestly with facts also in how they address the T. Rex red blood cells discovered in Montana. At first, they did everything they could to avoid admitting that red blood cells were discovered in a fossil at least (according to them) 65 million years old. Then, rather than revise their assumptions with regard to dating, they instead suggested that protein has a longer shelf life than they realized!
(And really, moving the goalposts is all that's left to those who believe that Man arose accidentally from microbes by way of maggots, mice, and monkeys. That and name-calling.)
At what point of certainty do you accept a scientific finding?Observable fact. Whether it's Science or Religion, without observable fact, all you've got is fiction.
No scientist observed the Big Bang (anyway, who's ever heard of explosions building things?). No Darwinist has ever observed abiogenesis (so much so, that they run from the topic). And no one's ever observed a bird hatch from a reptile egg.
Darwinism isn't Science, it's science fiction.
Yet we've got sixteen hundred years of eyewitness accounts of YHWH's intervening in human affairs -- culminating with the Crucifixion and Resurrection -- preserved by the societies in which they occurred.
Histories written, words recorded, monuments made, and worshiped as a god. Yet no one denies the historicity of Julius Caesar. Even allegedly-hostile, non-Christian history calling Christ a "sorcerer" acknowledges (unwillingly, no doubt) His miracles, and still the evolutionists mock.
Two thousand years ago, Paul observed that God's eternal power and divine nature are obvious in the Creation. If someone won't believe Moses -- or their lyin' eyes -- then they won't believe even if Someone rises from the dead.
Christians have no reason to be ashamed. All have reasons to believe.