>>845584
I don't know, but the best way to attack evolution is not as though it were religion, but to attack it from a scientific perspective. The best way to go about this is also from a theoretical perspective, since plenty of evidence can be outweighed by a single theoretical misstep. However, the evidence is still going to require an alternative explanation.
In the end, you will probably still have to reconcile your faith with the existence of deep time.
As a matter of fact though, the most important thing is that science is falsifiable by competing theories, and evolution may or may not be falsifiable.
Among these arguments which I find interesting is that evolution is based on a tautological statement, therefore it is unfalsifiable. This statement is "survival of the fittest." Which really is a circular argument; if x survives, x is the fittest, if x is the fittest, x survives. So "survival of the fittest" is true, but only trivially true.
I don't think that this entirely disproves evolution, but it certainly takes evolution from the status of "hard science" to "soft science" since while you can refute the tautology claim by saying that chance also governs the survival of x, it is also true that chemistry and physics never need to appeal to chance in order to make their theory work.
So evolutionary biology is more like economics or social science than like physics.