Obviously I believe the replacement for evolution is design. The sheer laws of probability support design over evolution time and time again. Evolution is not science. It is not based on scientific evidences which are measurable by the scientific method. I believe we can evolve to adapt to our environment, but complete mutation has been proven to lose genetic information. Here is an interesting quote from Charles Darwin.<quoted text>
Your sinuses are carried over from ancestor species that walked on all fours. That is why they don't drain properly.
If evolution is false, why are your sinuses arranged this way? What possible reason could a Designer have for making them APPEAR as if they are artifacts of older designs that have not been updated very much?
Creationists want to attack the theory of evolution. Ok. But what is your idea to put in its place? What scientific argument can you provide to offer the best explanation?
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.