Misunderstandings @ New Scientist
Evolution is "only" a theory
This reflects confusion between "scientific theory" and vernacular "theory"
Common sense tells me that evolution is wrong
Common sense can be misleading
Living organisms are too complex to have evolved
This is the argument from incredulity
Radiometric dating is unreliable
Unreliable radiometric dates reflect poor experimental technique, not unreliable principles.
Scientists start with unreliable assumptions
Scientific assumptions have proven reliable for studying the natural world
One can't believe in evolution and still be a Christian
Did Jesus say that?
Scientists are dogmatic
Scientists accept what makes useful predictions, but not what makes only retrodictions
Scientists unfairly discriminate against creationism
Scientists reject that which scientific methods find wanting
A lot of scientific evidence supports creationism
Learn to distinguish between scientific evidence and apologetics
Evolution is controversial
Perhaps in some circles, but it hasn't been controversial among scientists since 1870.
Evidence for evolution is growing weaker
The scientific literature shows just the opposite
Evolution can't be accepted because there's missing evidence
Science is inherently incomplete. There's always missing evidence.
Scientists are constantly discovering things that evolution can't explain
This is true, but every scientific advance creates new questions
Evolution is a threat to belief in Christianity
Biologists would rather argue that belief in creationism discredits Christianity
Topics such as creationism and intelligent design should be taught in science classrooms
Only topics which are established in the scientific literature should be taught in science classrooms
Microevolution is well established, but macroevolution is fiction
There's no clear distinction between micro- and macroevolution. If this is intended to exclude common ancestry of humans and great apes it will certainly not. DNA sequence similarity is clear evidence of common ancestry. The nature of the differences is far stronger evidence.
The Bible is more reliable than science
The Bible is written language which is inherently ambiguous. "Correct interpretation" is oxymoron.
If evolution is true scientists should be able to demonstrate it in the laboratory
Evolution (like geology) is a complex, time dependent process. The best we can do is test its predictions.