At the risk of boring people by continuing to plug
Douglas Theobald's essay, I will point out that he presents some good evidence for the theory of evolution and explains why it counts as evidence.
The idea is that the theory of evolution (and the assumptions made in conventional geologic sciences) imply certain consequences. One can take these assumptions and make predictions as to what phenomena we observe. When we actually observe these phenomena, which do not have to exist, then the theory is considered verified to a slightly higher degree than before. If the phenomena is not observed, or if the phenomena that are specifically precluded by the theory are observed, then the theory must be examined more carefully to see if the discrepency can be resolved; if it cannot, and continual failed observations require the continual addition of
ad hoc explanations, then it will perhaps become necessary to abandon the theory.
Since the scientific method was not completely formalized until just a few centuries ago (or even more recently), perhaps this procedure isn't completely intuitive and obvious; however, it certainly seems to me to be obvious once it has been pointed out. If this procedure doesn't make sense to someone, then I truly don't know what more can be done except to try to explain this concept better.
The case of the fossils that are being argued, the relevant point is the
patterns we see in the fossil record. The theory of evolution makes some predictions as to the sequence of fossils species, makes some predictions of what sorts of fossils we are likely to find, and makes predictions of what sorts of fossils we definitely will not find. Once the principles of radioactive decay were discovered, the theory of evolution (or at least conventional geology) makes predictions about the correlation of fossil types with narrow ranges of radiometric ages. These predicted phenomena are observed to occur; there is no reason, without the assumptions of evolution and conventional geology, to expect these phenomena to occur. To a creationist, these phenomena must remain unexpected surprises and amazing coincidences; under current biological and geologic theories, not only are these phenomena explained, but they can actually be predicted
a priori.
As I said, once the scientific method is pointed out, this makes so much sense that I do not understand how it cannot make sense to anyone else.
But, without knowing Faith's particular objections in detail, I will note that most creationists do not argue against the scientific method; what most creationists do is to deny facts that are true or to present made up "facts" that are false.
The problem is to explain to people what the evidence actually is (that is, to explain what phenomena have actually been observed) and then to point out how evolution (or geology or cosmology) predicts
a priori that these phenomena must be observed, and that if these phenomena were not observed then that would have presented a problem for the theories.
It is also a problem that a few people are simply stubborn; they are so committed to their beliefs that they cannot and will not see any contrary evidence. There is simply nothing that one can do for people like that; they will have to become tired of expending the energy to maintain their beliefs against the constant barrage of facts (like happened to me when I was still in high school). But I am confident that most people are not this far gone; most people can be pursuaded if the facts are explained carefully (and, perhaps, care should be taken not to seem like one is attacking another's beliefs).
"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt