It might also be a good idea to start gently. You may thing that you have the very final word on the controversy and can easily prove evolution wrong.
and
3)If you wish to overturn a scientific idea it is probably a good idea to understand it first. You might look silly argueing with something that isn't what you think it is.
I’d like to second these suggestions. Though it perhaps
shouldn't be the case, you'll generally find that bald statements along the lines of 'evolution is rubbish because [insert claim]' will elicit pretty vehement responses. It comes across as arrogant. On the other hand, polite and friendly questions will bring out the best in those who disagree: you'll get polite and friendly responses, and people will go out of their way to explain stuff.
The reason you might encounter angry responses is this. Maybe, just maybe, you do indeed have valid arguments as to why evolution is tosh. And scientists would love to hear them. Yes really, they would. But the thing to bear in mind is that the subject has been studied for a long long time, by an awful lot of people, many of whom were or are very knowledgeable and intelligent. So there is a good chance that your reasons for dismissing evolution
have already been considered, studied, argued over... and resolved.
Maybe nobody’s thought of your idea before... but maybe -- probably -- they have. Yet evolution is still accepted.
So presenting it as a hardline claim makes it sound like biologists and co are stupid, that you know better than all these people who have spent their lives studying the matter. Asking questions, however, gives you the chance of having them answered, if they can be... and if they cannot be answered,
then perhaps you’re on to something.
It is also worth bearing in mind that
evolution is regarded by science as both a fact and a theory. The ‘fact’ part is that all living things on earth are descended from one or a very few common ancestors, and the lineages have changed and diversified over time. The ‘theory’ part is the scientific explanations for that ‘fact’.
You need to be aware of this when presenting a claim or asking something -- whether you are disagreeing with
what has happened, or
how we explain what has happened. For example, an argument questioning natural selection’s ability to do such-and-such does not tackle the ‘fact’, only the explanation; an argument that the fossil record does not support change over time does not affect the explanations.
Hope that helps!
Cheers, DT
™ Version 4.2