Some of the more bombastic among atheists are fond of saying the evolution of all species from a common ancestor is not just a theory, but a fact.

What a jump in logic they have made, though, to assume that “theory” status is the worst-case scenario for their belief system.

The scientific method, as you were taught in gradeschool, basically goes like this: A hypothesis is an idea that someone comes up with about something in science and nature. Then, a plausible hypothesis will see evidence of its probability gathered over time. When enough evidence is available that it is likely true, this infant hypothesis graduates to the adolescent-like state of “theory.” By then the hypothesis is supposed to have been tested and demonstrated to be a likely truth. After a time, when room for doubt has been completely removed, the evidence having proven it, not just substantiated its plausibility, then the theory matures to adulthood, becoming a scientific law.

For example, gravity is a scientific law. Biogenesis (the fact that life forms are only produced by other life forms, never by non-living material) is a scientific law. The constancy of the speed of light is a theory. The distance from us to the stars is theory. That all life forms are made up of microscopic cells, even, is referred to in the scientific journals as “cell theory.”

But before we discuss whether evolution has progressed enough to be a law, an undeniable fact without plausible alternatives, we need to not just skip over the first question. Is it even worthy of “theory” status in a scientific sense?  Has this belief system actually met the standard of evidence that the grand jury can indict it of probability, based on the evidence? Not really.

When we refer to evolution as "theory," we're being far too kind to the Darwinists, granting them far too much benefit of the doubt. At best, their belief is a hypothesis based on speculative philosophy. They not only fail to bring to the table sufficient evidence of a scientific theory--but they ask us to accept their beliefs without any evidence at all, basing their teachings on mere assumptions from point A to point Z.

“But the fossil record proves evolution, doesn't it?” you ask.

No, as Dr. Kent Hovind is fond of pointing out, if you have a fossil, the only thing it proves is that something died. It does not prove that said something ever had offspring at all, much less offspring of a different kind from itself. And why, he rightly asks then, would you dare to assume that the fossil in your hand was capable of doing something no life form on earth today can do, namely mutate into another lifeform with more advanced gene code, coupled with survivability and the ability to reproduce?

What's worse--their evolutionary hypothesis is not just unproven, not just unsupported by evidence, but implausible. It is literally incredible. The evolution of species from a common ancestor not only didn't happen--it COULDN'T happen.

Want evidence of that? Take their favorite example of late that they say points to the “fact” that we are not a special creation, but a member of the animal kingdom called homo sapiens, which descended most recently from ape-like ancestors. That example is this: They say humans and chimpanzees are 98.4 percent alike in genetic code. The conclusion they wish you their listeners to jump to is the belief that we, therefore, are more than 98 percent the same thing they are. If they are scientifically-minded, though, they are being deceptive intentionally. Because if they aren't just ignorant, they are aware that 1.6 percent difference in DNA structure is actually an uncrossable gap, even given millions of years of time. The geneticist who heads the human genome project, an evolutionist himself, has pointed out that 1.6 percent of our DNA comprises 48,000,000 nucleotides, any three of which “would be fatal to the animal” if changed.

That means we are 16 million fatal genetic changes away from chimpanzees. 16 million generations of genetic change happening over billions of years, and every single time it had to work, meaning the animal produced still had to survive the mutation and be able to reproduce the next generation, or break the chain and have to start the evolution over. These 16 million generations of change would have taken billions of billions of billions of billions of years, when you consider we have 6,000 years of history to look at, in which we have seen it happen not even once, much less 16 million times.

Billions of billions of billions of years. No one claims the universe is anywhere near that old. And even if it were, we are now just talking about how long it would take for one primate to turn into another, not to mention how long it would take slime on a rock to evolve into people smart enough to create the computer you're reading this on.

Since the genetic code of all living things is so tightly locked against change, everything reproduces according to its own kind, just like Genesis 1 says, making the Bible the only scientifically accurate account of how life continues over generations.

And worser still--even if there WERE some way that the various species could have evolved from a common ancestor, said ancestor couldn't have existed to begin with, because even a one-celled life form could not have come into being apart from the Creator. The scientific law of biogenesis proves this. And that is a law, equal with the law of gravity in the weightiness of its evidence, and more substantiated than the theory that you and all living things are made up of cells, even though you have actually seen cells under a microscope.

Evolution is an implausible idea. It would take such a miracle to make evolution work, that only an all-powerful all-knowing God could have done it. And He says He didn't.

So no more of this nonsense about evolution being a fact. Evolution, as a belief system, has never made it past the embryonic stage of evidence-gathering. It has not even been birthed properly into a theory yet.

When we Christians call it a theory, we're just being polite.