The complex biology of the ‘basic cell’ exhibits what has been termed ‘irreducible complexity’ by biochemist Michael Behe, due to the fact that removing even one component would result in the cell to malfunction. The fact that a cell with ‘missing pieces’ would become nonfunctional implies that ‘previous states’ of cell complexity could not have existed.
Stated another way, there is no possible ‘evolution’ of the cell.
The cell didn’t develop over the course of ‘natural selection,’ because the previous states of the cell would be nonfunctioning, resulting in there being nothing for nature to ‘select’ as an advantageous mutation or adaption.
And even more importantly is this quote from Charles Darwin himself, the original proponent of the Evolution Theory, who at the time was unable to see the complexity of the cell due to limited technology:
As it turns out, there is now so much overwhelming evidence of ‘irreducible complexity’ in living organisms, that Charles Darwin himself would willingly deny his own theory.
Yet, the theory of evolution persists, not because of the absence of overwhelming evidence, but because of the stigma of believing in a ‘higher power’ in the scientific community.
It is literally a social construct at this point, because those who openly claim to believe in Intelligent Design, due to the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, are often ostracized by their colleagues, making it fundamentally a social and political issue, rather than an honest seeking of truth.
Were it simply an objective seeking of truth, then all of the scientific community would have long since come to the conclusion that there has to be a Creator, irrespective of ‘which religion’ is correct about said Creator.
Using the example of the simple mouse trap, an extremely straightforward machine that only involves a few parts, the idea that it could be developed by ‘chance’ is impossible. Even the simple mouse trap had an inventor and creator.
And yet, the ‘simple’ cell is more complex than the modern smartphone.
In fact, some might say that the basic cell is even more complex than an entire city full of technology.
Yet somehow, it developed by chance?
That would be like saying that a smartphone ‘magically’ evolved by chance, that all the pieces of metal, plastic, and glass somehow came together in the wilderness to form a functioning device, without the help from a ‘creator’ to design and manufacture the complex device.
Without a doubt, the more scientists find out about our universe, and the life within it, the more overwhelming the evidence for a God grows.
And if there was a God, or at least a Creator, how might this being interact with all of humanity?
Is it more reasonable that this Creator would interact with multiple people over multiple time periods, spreading the same message along the way?
Or would this God speak to one person at one point in time, and never again after that?
Which method would be more believable and reasonable?
Would God have numerous ‘witnesses’ spread out over centuries, to the point that many of these witnesses never knew each other simply because of the separation of their existences in time? Making God's immortal timeless existence irrefutable, just like a human court trial where witnesses are the key source of evidence.
Or would he tell just one person, one time, and only have one witness for all of human history?
Some of the most popular religions in the world have only been around for a handful of centuries (such as Islam, which didn't exist until 610 AD), and often involve only one ‘prophet’ of God, while the Jewish/Christian religion has not only been around the longest (over 5,000 years), but also speaks of a God who remains the same all throughout the thousands of years of recorded history involving this God speaking with humanity.
(Note that Christianity is the 'fulfillment' of God's promises from Judaism, and was really meant to be an 'extension' or 'continuation' of Judaism, rather than a different religion.)
And not just a God who speaks to people, but one who often delivers a message that was both consistent and also in sharp contrast to the behaviors, cultures, and beliefs of the time.
A God who is countercultural.
A God who even had ‘unwilling prophets’ who didn’t want to be messengers, but who where strongarmed into it by their very Creator (Jeremiah 1:4-10).
And a God who asked questions in the book of Job that modern scientists have only recently been able to answer, as well as questions that science still can't answer today.
A God who has proven himself real, consistent, and timeless by his many witnesses spread across many periods of time.
Science only reinforces the truth of the Creator known by Christians.