My bachelor's of Science degree was awarded by the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1980. This was well before the human genome project was completed, but my degree was in biological sciences and I had quite a few courses that included the theory of evolution and taught from that perspective, including the basic biology classes bio 101 and 102, physics for biology, comparative anatomy, animal physiology, adaption and evolution, and genetics. My test score for the graduate record examination advanced test in biology was in the top 5% nationwide, so I absorbed a bit of the teaching. However, my conclusion was that evolutionary theory was inadequate to explain the origin of life. Some time after I graduated, I also read Robert Ardrey's books African Genesis, the Territorial Imperative, and the Social contract, all about his research into the anthropological studies trying to explain how man could've evolved in such a (relatively) short period of geological time.
Evolutionary theory is in part dependent upon the concept that anything, regardless of how unlikely, will occur given sufficient time for totally random processes to accidentally combine and work together in a functional way.
What's more, Charles Darwin based his foundational work, the origin of species, on mistaken observation. He believed that the various phenotypes of finches that he observed on the Galapagos Islands were different species. However we know now that those various phenotypes are just normal morphological variations in one species, just like the various ethnicities of mankind.
Then there's the flawed logic of the theory regarding the fossil record. The similarities in morphology between "divergent" species was the original "evidence" of lineal relationship between them. However, the comparison of placental mammal to marsupials and nonplacental mammals that thrived in geographically isolated regions like Australia, lead to the "understanding" that similar morphology could evolve independently to fit similar environmental niches. So, the primary evolutionary evidence upon which the theory is based, similar morphology, is by the admission of evolutionary scientists, not actually proof of lineal relationship.
Molecular biology and genetics is also used as evidentiary by examining genetic similarity, but huge anomalies persist in the "evidence". For example, some pig proteins are closer to their human counterparts than those in apes, but no one is proposing that we evolved from pigs.
One of the very first experiments to prove the spontaneous generation of life was an attempt to generate something living inside a sealed jar that contained nothing but dirt and air. The experiment generated worms in the soil, but was flawed because the soil wasn't sterilized and contained eggs. Yet that experiment was still taught as support for the spontaneous generation of life in the 1970s, but with the note that it was flawed for the stated reasons.
Newer devised experiments utilizing a mixture of gases that might have existed in the primordial Earth were able to produce some simple hydrocarbons, the building blocks of more complex organic compounds, but not life.
To this date, no one has been able to create even the simplest form of life spontaneously under experiment.
Some biologist have given themselves over the study of cellular mechanisms in bacterium, single celled organisms, some with extremely complicated biological machines for locomotion and transport. Some of these (non-Christian) scientists arrived at the concept of irreducible complexity, the notion that the most basic definition of life includes the requirement for multiple interdependent processes which couldn't themselves evolve independently. (Evolution only occurs (theoretically) when the organism is living and capable of reproduction). Their conclusion was that life demonstrates intelligent design. This conclusion is unacceptable to a concept of "pure science" that excludes any kind of creator, so the field was labeled pseudo science, and the scientists in those endeavors, "quacks" and frauds.
The theory of evolution and the mechanisms that make it a possibility are easy to understand, but the end results are extremely improbable. However, the "scientific community " prefers a flawed theory, with flawed origin, built on flawed logic, with evidences as "proofs" that have alternative explanation, to the consideration of the supernatural, a God and Creator. This is why some evolutionary scientists turned to the newer hypothesis of "pangenesis", or that life originated "elsewhere" and somehow hitchhiked a ride to Earth. That allows them to rule out the problem of insufficient time for life to evolve here, and completely disregard its origin elsewhere.
Evolutionary science is a blind man trying to identify an elephant by its appendages.
