It might be considered bad taste to call someone a liar but if the shoe fits one must wear it. Jesus certainly wasn't reserved in His harsh criticism of the Pharisees. In the evolution v. creation debate, there are some arguments used against creationists that are flat out lies. We need to recognize them as such.
Lie #1: “Evolution is a FACT.”
Evolutionists are notoriously equivocal over the term “evolution.” To them, any change in an animal population is called “evolution.” The belief that all the various species are descended from a common ancestor is also called “evolution.” The deception arises when evolutionists use the two terms interchangeably. Imagine this hypothetical conversation:
CREATIONIST: “I don't believe in evolution.”
EVOLUTIONIST: “Then you're an idiot. We see evolution occurring every day.”
CREATIONIST: “Oh really? We see thing like dinosaurs changing into birds?”
EVOLUTIONIST: “No, you idiot, that kind of change takes millions of years. We obviously don't see that.”
CREATIONIST: “Then we really don't see evolution occurring.”
EVOLUTIONIST: “Of course we do. You're an idiot.”
Conversations like this highlight the abuse of the term by evolutionists. They make the tenuous argument that evolution is “change”, we see change, therefore all animals have a common ancestor. Since they call both things “evolution” (change and common descent), they hold one up as evidence for the other. If a creationist claims to not believe in “evolution” (common descent), he's accused of not believing the other (that things change).
In ordinary conversation, most people understand evolution to mean one kind of animal evolving to become another, such as apes evolving into humans. Militant evolutionists are hyper-technical to identify evolution as “change.” Certainly it's a fact that animal populations change; it's not a fact that one kind of animal can change into another or that all species have a common ancestor. A person who says, “Evolution is a FACT” is merely stating his conviction that “evolution” is true; that doesn't make it true regardless of his use of all capital letters! This very deceptive practice occurs daily. I'm not sure if it is the most often used lie, but it certainly ranks in the top five.
Lie #2: “Evolution and the Bible are compatible.”
Evolution cannot be reconciled with the Bible without one or the other being compromised (usually it's the Bible). The Bible clearly says that God created the heaven, earth, and everything in them in “six days” (Exodus 20:11). Evolutionists claim that the universe and earth were created over billions of years. The only way these can be reconciled is to assume the Bible doesn't mean what it clearly says (that is, six days means billions of years). But if the Bible doesn't mean what it clearly says, then the Bible could be reconciled with any belief, no matter how bizarre.
Remember also that the events of creation are ordered differently than the events according to evolution. Consider the following:
BIBLE : Earth before the sun (Genesis 1:1, Genesis 1:14-15)
EVOLUTION: Sun before the earth
BIBLE: Plants before marine life (Genesis 1:20, Genesis 1:24)
EVOLUTION: Marine life before plants
BIBLE: Birds before land animals (Genesis 1:20, Genesis 1:24-25)
EVOLUTION: Land animals before birds
BIBLE: Man created at the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6)
EVOLUTION: Man appears near the end of creation
There are many other examples along these lines but one other is of considerable theological significance:
BIBLE: Sin before death (Romans 5:12)
EVOLUTION: Death before sin
We can see there is truly no way to reconcile the Bible with the theory of evolution except to completely disregard the plain meaning of the words of the Bible.
Lie #3: “There is no evidence for Creation.”
People who say there is no evidence for creation are either lying or speaking from gross ignorance. “Evidence” is neutral; it's not necessarily “for” any theory. Rather, theories are used to explain the evidence. Yet evolutionists try to argue that all the evidence is “for” evolution and there is no evidence “for” creation. Creationists and evolutionists live in the same world. We have the same fossils, rocks, oceans, and animals to study. Evolutionists do not have any more evidence than creationists; we just use different theories to explain the same evidence.
As we watch the sun move across the sky, one might say that is “evidence” for the sun revolving around the earth. Indeed, people had believed in a geocentric model of the universe for centuries but, of course, no one believes this anymore. Over time, we gathered more information and now we have a better theory – the heliocentric model. Even though the model has changed, some “evidence” hasn't changed: the sun still appears to move across the sky. The difference is now we have a better explanation about why it appears to do so. The sun itself never told us which theory is correct. Similarly, when we find a fossil, the fossil doesn't “tell” us anything. The fossil isn't evidence “for” evolution any more than it's evidence “for” creation. It's just a dumb rock (dumb as in not speaking). We just have different theories about how the fossil came to be.
I'm also curious as to how evolutionists decide on what evidence to consider. What about the Bible? Here is a book which claims to have a record of the creation as revealed by the Creator. This evidence even speaks to us, unlike the dumb rocks. Aren't we allowed to consider the Bible's account as evidence? Alas, no. Evolutionists won't consider the Bible as “scientific” evidence. What they have done is summarily reject the most powerful evidence that speaks for creation and claim instead that the dumb rocks endorse their theory.
On could argue honestly (not correctly but honestly) that evolution explains the evidence better than does creation. I don't necessarily even object to someone saying that “X” is evidence for a theory because some evidence indeed seems better explained by one theory over the other. Even so, it's a lie to say there is no evidence for creation.
Lie #4: “Evolution has been tested and proven even more than gravity.”
This lie is often employed in response to the weak argument that “evolution is just a theory.” When hearing this, evolutionists will sometimes respond, “Well, gravity is just a theory too and evolution has been much more tested and is better established.”
This is a more subtle use of equivocation. The phenomenon of gravity is well understood. We can easily observe it effects, measure its force, and even predict the movement of planets based on what we know about gravity. That gravity exists is without doubt. What causes gravity, however, is still the subject of much speculation. That is the theoretical part about gravity.
The phenomenon of natural selection is also observed. It is certainly not as predictable as gravity but we don't doubt that it exists. As natural selection occurs, animal populations change, and some call this “evolution.” The theory is that, over time, these small changes lead to big changes, which leads to more biodiversity, which culminates is “bigger evolution” (pardon the crude term). See lie #5.
The equivocal implication in this lie is that the theory of evolution (common descent) is more tested and proved than the phenomenon of gravity. This is absurd. It's a joke to believe that we can trace the lineage of modern animals back to a common ancestor with more certainty than we can trace the movement of planets.
Lie #5: “Microevolution over time leads to Macroevolution”
Here is a very interesting quote from Wikipedia regarding the most famous example of “evolution” - the peppered moth:
“Critics have argued that the "peppered moth story" showed only microevolution, rather than speciation or other changes at the larger macroevolutionary scale. Biologists agree that this example shows natural selection causing evolution within a species, demonstrating rapid and obvious adaptiveness with such change, and accept that it is not proof of the theory of evolution as a whole. However, though creationists accept "microevolution" of varieties within a "kind", they claim that "macroevolution" does not happen. To biologists there is no dividing line between the two, and in the modern evolutionary synthesis the same mechanisms are seen operating at various scales to cause both evolution within species and speciation at a macroevolution level or wider changes, the only difference being of time and scale.” [emphasis added]
There's no “implication” here. Wiki states outright that microevolution plus time equals macroevolution. No consideration is given to the type of change required. If I continuously removed one colored moth from the population, how long would it take until new colors began appearing? The answer is obvious: you cannot add new colors to a population by continuously removing colors. It doesn't matter how long you do it. Likewise, I can't turn a molehill into a mountain by continuously removing dirt. It doesn't matter how long I dig. I can't grow a company by continuously losing money. It doesn't matter how long I work at it.
“Change” plus time isn't a magic formula; it must be a certain kind of change. It must be a change that adds new traits to the population. The peppered moth example occurred more than a century ago. In the last 100 years, what macroevolution has occurred? Some will argue that 100 years isn't long enough. OK, but let me ask you this: what microevolution has occurred? Over time, the population returned to normal. The microevolution over time led to a net change of ZERO!
Time is not the hero of evolution.
Further reading: Answering the Critics about the Five Lies of Evolution