Science thee we hail.
The study of origins can hardly be called a science at all. A science is something that can be studied and proved or disproved empirically. You can try doing it and see if it works. All theory on the subject is conjecture about the past based on an interpretation of the present. Ten people (even our beloved objective scientists) can be presented with the same facts and come to ten different conclusions.
The origin of origins.
Contrary to common belief evolution is not a new idea. Throughout history there have been variations on two theories of origins. One is that everything we see is the result of nature, there is no god. The other is that a deity outside of nature created all of it. The Greeks (3,000 years ago) believed in nature or evolution. So as for being new and advanced this theory is as old as humanity.
I’d like to make a few points about the evidence. Creationists and Evolutionists have the same evidence. Here are a few examples.

Point#1 Science vs. Science
The simplest protein has about 75 amino acids. Each amino acid must be bonded correctly and there are right and left handed versions they must all be the same version then they all have to be arranged in the proper sequence. Statistics is a science. The odds of that happening are one in ten to the 125th power or one hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is only one simple protein. You need between 300 and 500 to make a simple cell, not to mention a complex one. That’s not just statistically improbable that’s what we call impossible.
We also have the second Law of Thermodynamics which states that matter tends toward chaos. Evolution is a theory, this is a law. They are completely opposed. We see this law operating every day. Interesting that I've never seen it work the other way around.

Point #2 The start of it all
The theory that most scientists accept is the Big Bang. Matter and light 'burst forth' at a definite point in history. This theory is supported by cosmology. Which brings me to Kalam (the argument that if x and y are true then z). Nothing begins to exist without a cause (ie brownies do not bake themselves) the universe exists, therefore the universe has a cause.
Evolution has never come up with an explanation to original matter. All of evolutions' theories do not account for where the very first anything came from. No we are not living in an eternal universe, the sun is burning out. Also did you know that the moon is moving away from the earth? It moves away at a rate of an inch and a half a year.
Creation states that God exists outside of time He created time and the universe. He is the start of it all.

Point #3 Fossils
And for 65,000,000 years I mean dollars “How do you make a fossil?” Oh the reason we have fossils is because things fall in the mud and over hundreds of years are buried and fossilized, right? I’m sorry Johnny but that’s the wrong answer! Things are fossilized very quickly when water carrying sediment covers bones and replaces the air in them with sediment. In addition how many scavengers would avoid a lovely rotting carcass for hundreds of years? A find recently illustrates how fast fossilization happens. The find is (drum roll please) a pair of cowboy boots complete with fossilized feet and shins inside! They date to the late Pleistocene, I mean 1950’s. A complete skull was found in 3 different geological layers, read about it http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i4/ichthyosaur.asp.
So it happens fast instead of slow, what difference does that make? You basically need a catastrophe for a fossil to form a global flood, for instance.

Point #4 Noah's flood
There is so much evidence for a global flood, but it is largely ignored. Take a peek at some http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp the one about chalk is great. Fossilized footprints for instance have even been found in sand (sand doesn't stay still very long, you figure it out). The flood could have carved the grand canyon in a matter of weeks instead of millions of years or erosion.

Point #5 Living Fossils
Even if fossils were made slowly, how would one account for 65,000,000 year old Coelacanths (one of the “earliest forms of life”) still alive and unchanged today? There are about a dozen "100 million" year old sea turtle fossils that look the same as turtles today. Salamanders are living fossils because they have been found in the same place as "161 million year old" fossils.

Point #6 What does the textbook say? Evolution is notorious (to the studious) for using fraudulent or simply outdated (by that word I mean proven false) evidence. There are a few examples of theories that have been proven false that are still in textbooks. At a stage in embryonic development we are said to look the same as animals, this is simply not factual. Java man was built from a leg bone, skull cap and three teeth, two teeth from a gibbon and one from a human. Lucy has been hailed as the missing link but the reasoning for that is that she is said to have stood upright. Her knee set at a 15 degree angle, humans have a 9 degree angle. 'Her' femur and pelvis bone were discovered, 200 feet down 1 mile away and a year later. Her wrist locks just like every other knuckle walking ape today. ER1470 and ER1813 are beautifully modern they were probably children (both are small) they are said to be about 3 million years old. Suffice to say that the findings have been more detriment to the theory than benefit. Well, should have done more detriment, the fact is that some of these examples are still in textbooks.