The first clarification I'd like to make here is that while a strictly metaphysical view of God is indeed unfalsifiable, a Biblical perspective is most certainly falsifiable. That is, through literal interpretation, the metaphysical account given in Genesis states that the world was created around 6,000 years ago, and furthermore there was a flood around 4,200 years ago. If one can prove that the universe has been around for longer than that (many of our scientific interpretations suggest so), then you've essentially falsified the Biblical account. However, if one choose not to take the Genesis account literally, then we've opened up a can of worms regarding Biblical interpretation... let's not go there.
Currently, I suspend belief in evolution theory, as it seems to lack sufficient evidence to support its core belief.
We have no way of proving so much as the possibility of living material arising out of inorganic matter. To the extent of my awareness, the best laboratory tests with regards have brought to life... a few amino acids. This comes nowhere close to giving credence to an evolutionary origin of life. You'd need a couple dozen more of the correct amino acids to have the necessary ingredients for protein synthesis within a unicellular organism. Still, this gives no explanation for how the unicellular organism itself emerged.
Consider the extraordinary amount of hurdles that follow after this. How does one explain the emergence of the genetic code? The transition from invertibrate to vertibrate? The transition from asexual to sexual reproduction? For that matter, aren't we already making key assumptions to support this idea? A simple example is in regards to the sun- it would've had to stay in a very similar state for millions and millions of years in order to maintain a hospitable environment for the evolution of life on Earth.
The point should already be clear to any rational thinking individual, the point I think INTJ123 has been trying to make. There is nothing wrong with believing in evolution theory, but understand that it is simply that- a belief, a faith based assumption, which in this characteristic is no different from religion. The theory is unsubstantiated, plain and simple. I do think we should continue to explore the possibility of the theory; stay true to the scientific method. However, we should not be indoctrinating children (a state of mind all too influential) toward this belief system, as it is not factual. Furthermore, through logical implication, it destroys the faith of many individuals- this, mind you, is what tends to frustrate the creationists most.
Somebody, please show me some evidence that supports evolution theory. Fossil record? Alright then, but first let's discuss radiometric dating, and its inherent assumptions that potentially disavow the entire process. Mutations and genetic drift? Evidence for variation within a species, not speciation. I'm serious, show me some evidence. Granted, I'm not an expert. However, I have been spending copious amounts of time discerning the argument from both sides, and after careful consideration, I remain unconvinced. I simply wish to know the truth.
What's interesting is that, hypothetically and momentarily, imagine the Biblical account of the flood to be true- an account, for the record, which has dozens of similar occurrences through out multiple, unrelated cultures around the world (I'll site if necessary, though I'd really prefer not to due to laziness, please do your own research if you're curious). Now consider the supposed transitional fossils we find of twelve foot neanderthals. Under this interpretation, these were not neanderthals; they were humans from a pre-flood world. Under pre-flood atmospheric conditions, the air we were breathing would've been oxygen saturated and of higher pressure- conditions which have been scientifically proven to cause organisms to grow much larger than they would otherwise.
But of course, it's not scientific to use a creationist explanation to interpret evidence, as the creationist relies on the metaphysical, which is inherently unscientific due to its unfalsifiability.
If I may momentarily muse: the first law of thermodynamics shows that matter is neither created nor destroyed, simply changed- this implies that, assuming a closed system (which allows for these laws to hold true), there must have been an external source that created our universe. Additionally, the second law, regarding entropy (yes I'm understating, but the implications hold true), would imply that even if there was an oscillatory process of big bang >> big crunch >> big bang, the closed system would not be able to continue this process infinitely due to dispersal of energy. This means there was also a beginning to the universe. Whether you want to use multiverse, intelligent designer, or any other theory to explain this is your decision.
My issue is that the Big Bang is also written in textbooks made for children, and this is clearly metaphysical in nature. Given this hypocrisy, I don't see any reason why intelligent design should not also be allowed to be taught in schools, but that's just my opinion.
Consider the implications on behavior with regards to evolution versus creationism (in this case, Christianity). Evolution suggests a state of moral relativism, with which the logical ad absurdum conclusion is that anybody can kill anybody with no lasting consequence- that is to say, if you were caught you may be punished by death, but even so. This might seem excessive, but I would argue that we've witnessed social darwinism in practice, Hitler is unfortunately a fine example. Christianity, on the other hand, suggests a constant state of judgment for your actions, as at the end of your life, you will be held accountable. It gives a more persuasive reason to act righteously outside of satiating personal ego in a morally relativistic world.
Err, I'm growing weary. Seriously, bring some evidence to the table that we can discuss. Let's see where this topic goes. Take care everyone!
Another essay,
when will you learn? 
