And, let’s just grant, for the sake of argument, that Darwin was right and that all animals were evolved from a single organism, a single cell. There is still a problem, in fact, a problem that Darwin himself cited and didn’t even claim an answer to - “Where did that first cell come from?”
Imagine getting a text from someone random...you’ve gotten one of those before. It looks like this: “aiojernasroineaoneandepomamd”. But imagine the text you got looked like this, “Hey, guess what, I won the lottery.” What’s the probability that you would get THAT text randomly? And I don’t mean someone sent it to you by accident, meaning to send it to someone else...I mean, you got that text because someone was sitting on their phone and it sent that...how random would THAT be? Well, that’s something like a billion times more likely than the probability our DNA formed just like it in order to make life happen. Think about that for a second. Said another way, from the book Evolution from Space by Hoyle and Wickramasingle, the probability that life could originate out of nowhere with all of the right combinations of chemistry and physics would be similar to a tornado blowing through a scrapyard and piecing together a Boeing 747, gassed up and ready to fly. That’s funny to think about! Mathematically, the probability is something like 1 to 10^40,000,000,000th. I don’t even understand that number.
Irreducible complexity - destroys the argument that evolution slowly and methodically pieced together life by proving that there are many organisms that can’t exist without multiple irreducible minimums in terms of complexity. Think about this...you go to Ikea and get a new piece of furniture, which you will know has to be brought home and assembled by you...a joy of Ikea shopping. What’s the likelihood that that you could ditch the directions and randomly piece things together and take them apart and try a new order for this process each time, and then end up at the final product? And you have to remember this...you can’t do this with a sense of knowing that this is a book shelf, of a chair, because this is random. You would have to do this with absolutely no sense of the end game. It might be easier to think of it this way...imagine you were given all of the parts of that Boing 757 and you were told to put it together, no instructions, no computer or Youtube for help...go. That just isn’t going to happen. And, in your assembly, when you recognize that your 100th decision used a piece that you later figured out needed to be used in your 2,000,000th decision, you’d have to take it all apart and start over again. I mean, come on...that’s the same argument that naturalism is making.
And recognize that there is a difference between evolution within species and evolution from nothing...I mean, people seem to be getting taller, and animals around the world are adapting to changes in the climate and the world...that’s totally fair, but that is different than saying no life evolved into some life and we are just the 100 trillionth iteration of that process.
Both the evidence from the telescope and evidence from the microscope point to the evidence of God.
The bottom line for today is this - there is no credible evidence that points to the fact that there is a common ancestor vs. a common designer; it is perfectly scientific and reasonable to be a believer in God and in the story of Jesus. You can rest in that conclusion firmly. And, if you want to feel more secure in your faith, you can do so be leaning into science; you don’t have to run away.