Seeing isn't necessarily believing.

Things in Christianity are pretty black and white. Sin is evil; God is holy; Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father; history is teleological and Providentially ordered. Unfortunately, people have always liked blurring the straight lines until Christian thought is indistinguishable from its secular counterparts. One of the lines perpetually blurred (at least in the Modern and Postmodern eras) is the one between creation and evolution.

It's ironic that scientists who affirm the widespread spontaneity of evolutionary theory like to make fun of those Medieval persons who (presumably) thought creatures like mice and fleas spontaneously generated from piles of dirty clothes or refuse. What's not funny is that many Christians stumble over themselves to defend the faulty Medieval ideas, instead of pointing right back at Darwinism and evolutionism and laughing just as loudly.

It's also depressing when Christians try to impress their secular colleagues and friends by appearing open-minded and accepting both Christianity and evolutionary theory. I'm no real friend of a lot of "Creation science," but I'm also not a fan of syncretization or kowtowing to the supposed secular "authorities." What makes us think Modern man is a better authority on Earth origins than God Himself, who inspired the Genesis account as recorded by its ancient author? If we accept the Bible as God's Word, why do we insist on subordinating it to fallible human observation and theory?

The real reason evolution isn't compatible with Christianity, however, doesn't have anything to do with the fossil record or dinosaurs or the speed of light. Those are phenomena which, despite the loud protestations of Scientists, are open to interpretation. Evolution is inherently anti-Christian because it blurs and twists the straight lines of Scripture.

God created man in His image, with an immortal soul, distinct sexes, and a teleological purpose (the care of planet Earth and the service of Himself). None of this is possible if man emerged by slow degrees from lesser forms, or even from merely different forms—the soul, for instance, would have had to evolve rather than being made by express decree of the Father of all things.

More importantly, the sin nature of Adam imparted to all his children would be a philosophical and theological mistake if he wasn't the first of the species. In fact, there would be a whole slew of folks running around on the earth in complete moral and spiritual innocence (yet, astonishingly, killing animals and each other, and dying of old age) long before our "first father" was even a twinkle in his troglodyte father's eye. This is true even if you take the Eden story symbolically.

I don't profess to know all about science, the nature of physics, etc. Far from it, in fact. But I think we'd all be closer to the truth if we echoed Socrates' words that wisdom is the knowledge that we know nothing. In the book of Job, God declares that only He knows the truth behind the mysteries of nature, having made them Himself, and continuing Himself to control them. If God makes a declaration, who are we to controvert it? Our eyes deceive us, and they deceive our souls, and only God is able to rescue us from ignorance by the knowledge of His Word.