The funny thing about evolution is how it purports to provide a naturalistic explanation for life but makes assumptions that are contrary to observable laws of nature.
I should be more specific. Evolution not only purports to provide a naturalistic explanation; it IS a naturalistic explanation. Whether it’s the correct explanation–or even an adequate explantion–that’s another question.
The thing is, evolution depends on life forms becoming more diverse, more complicated, and more specialized over time. Thus, an amorphous blob can eventually grow into something really interesting, such as a swan, a person, or a hippopotamus (speaking of amorphous blobs). But this contradicts so much of what we see in nature. While we do observe blobs becoming individuals, we only observe this as part of a natural progression from embryo to adult–in which event, the complexity is already present in the DNA. Left to nature, individual bodies lose their complexity and revert to chemicals, bacteria fodder, and future petroleum reserves. Lay an elegant five-course meal next to an anthill, and in the fullness of time, you’ll have nothing but a full nest of ants.
(Of course, if evolution is true, why does it matter if some species go extinct, or if invasive species take over an ecosystem? Obviously, it’s merely a matter of waiting for a new species that is well-suited for the new environment to arrive and replace the extinct ones. Invasive species? Well–as the “fitter” species, it has a right to take over, doesn’t it?)
And just try building something–a house, a car, or for that matter a road–and see how long it takes for nature to turn it back into its constituent elements, or at least render it unfit for use.
That’s not to say that nothing evolves into more and more complexity. The fact that I am typing this and (hopefully!) someone is reading it is a testament to our world’s increasingly complex informational infrastructure. Ask any do-it-yourself car mechanic whether cars have become more complicated or less complicated over the last fifty years. And just try reading a VCR manual these days–or, I should say, a DVD manual. Even societies can become more complex and sophisticated.
So things can evolve into increasing complexity…the trouble is, it would evidently require a certain amount of intelligence to achieve each incremental gain…which sort of puts the idea of atheistic evolution back to square one.