There are scientific (not religious) reasons for not agreeing with natural selection. Mind you I don't have a formal education on the subject but I'm educated enough to listen to basic arguments and understand them.
This is what even Darwin had to say about natural selection:
Sure Darwin couldn't find it then. But people have found a case now or several. The Bacteria Flagellum
This bacteria propells itself using a tail that is connected to a rotary motor.
Now natural selection argues that if something was useless, it would be lost as the organism evolves. Now in the case of Bacteria Flagellum, did the tail come first or the rotary motor? If it was the tail, it would be useless without a rotary motor and should have been lost. If it was the rotary motor, it would have no purpose without the tail to proper itself.
Moreover delving deeper, the rotary motor has several parts. If you remove any one of the component it loses its function. How did these parts come into being while the previous ones may have been lying useless?
This shows, whenever the whole mechanism came into being, it came into being all at once.
Problem with Darwin was, he never went to the molecular level. His arguments were too much on the surface. His arguments were like a bird's beak is too big for this xyz purpose so it became smaller. We were apes, we lost hair, grew a larger brain and became human. This is not hard science by todays' standards, these are some very macro level observations. It was acceptable 150 years ago, today, not so much.
I believe evolution species and natural selection may be going on. But not at the level that Tyrannosaurus Rex of yesterday has evolved into my pet parrot today. Some will occur over a period of time through various mating patterns, maybe over time we'll all become white or all become black.
But there's no way you'll see the human species evolve as aquatic like mammals by mating with a dolphin. Even if tomorrow the world gets submerged under water and it is required of us to have good aquatic skills.
Also proponents of natural selection never explained how the first life came into being? All life consists of building blocks known as proteins, newer proteins, are also built by proteins. It begs the question where did the first protein come from?
Going further down, they are made of amino acids.
Going further down, amino acids base elements would be nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and Carbon. Today in a controlled lab environment with all the right conditions, scientists are unable to recreate a protein with nothing but these base elements. Yes they can create proteins, using some other proteins, but never just from base elements. They reason is simple, genetic material is required in its creation. At the very least - the first protein ever, definitely came into existence all at once.
But I would concede that I cannot prove God made life only once you concede there are inconsistencies to saying that all complex life came into existence through random occurrences of natural selection. In some cases it is scientifically shown that there is "Intelligent Design" at play. Could be God, could be Isro's theory of Aliens seeding Earth. Scientifically speaking Isro's theory is more conceivable than natural selection.
Intelligent Design is the 30 year old new kid on the block. Just like the Theory of Evolution rendered creationism as a myth in the scientific community 50-75 odd years ago, Intelligent Design is gaining momentum and the time is not far when it too would force the theory of evolution to be known as the myth of evolution.
