The first major promoter of evolution was Charles Darwin. Darwinism is now taught as a proven fact by most in the secular world. It stands in stark contrast to the creation narrative of Genesis, which has God creating the universe and giving meaning to life. Darwin recognized that people would make objections to his novel scientific proposals:
We have never observed life forms reproduce different life forms. In other words, all life forms produce after their own kind. Thus, the life reproduction pattern laid out by the Book of Genesis is more consistent with the modern scientific realm than evolution. Transitions between basic features in organisms are also rendered improbable by the fact that other vital functions would simultaneously be disabled (how did our essential organs such as the heart, lungs, and stomach develop in the first place?).
"The macromolecule to cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture."
"Universal common ancestry (UCA) is a central pillar of modern evolutionary theory. As first suggested by Darwin, the theory of UCA posits that all extant terrestrial organisms share a common genetic heritage, each being the genealogical descendant of a single species from the distant past. The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to ‘local’ common ancestry—for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life—and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory. Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing, 7,8,9,10, and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope 1,5,8,9,11,12,13,14,15."
A commonly accepted postulate by defenders of Darwinism in regards to how the universe began is the Big Bang Theory, which is a problem in and of itself for atheistic worldviews because of its theistic underpinnings. It is simply contrary to reason to suggest that something can originate from nothing. From nothing comes nothing. Living matter cannot originate from non-living matter and chemicals. Nothing cannot be the cause of a cosmic expansion of matter. It is a fact that atheistic evolution cannot account for the origin of life. It is more reasonable to believe that God created all things ex nihilo.
Genetic mutations are rare and usually harmful. Changes can be made, but new genetic information cannot be added to an organism's genetic code (which is what is required for macroevolution to work). How did mammals reproduce before they somehow evolved into a male and female of the species? Did some mysterious creature that had both pairs of genitalia have intercourse with itself? How could the precise, natural process of blood clotting arise from blind, unguided chance? Why is it that some organisms have supposedly evolved to a certain state of complexity over millions of years just to cease in the process since (we have found snakes and spiders that are dated back millions of years that are the same today as they were back then)? How does one account for the fact that humans have characteristics that provide no advantages for survival such as music and religion? Which elements and compounds were included in the primordial soup? Where did life begin? These are only a few of the several questions that render naturalistic evolution inadequate as a scientific postulate. Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek raise other issues: