I've always thought religion would become less and less prevalent. Being non-religious was extremely rare before evolution was discovered and now its growing in popularity since we now know more, i think that trend will continue.
Evolution has had about 150 years, religion has had multiple thousands of years. In my opinion its just a matter of time before religious belief becomes a minority everywhere.
What do we know? That one species can evolve into another? Never been remotely proven. That one species can adapt itself to its surrounding. Sure that happens. It doesn't change its species though. "Macro" evolution just doesn't happen nor can it be proven to have happened.
And you're basing your claims of no evidence on...? I study evolution and genetic variability in populations of a certain algae, and have data from the last 20 years from across the country (not the person who took it 20 years ago though) to say that a population doesn't evolve would be absurd. What about genetic drift? What about species isolation? What about changes in a population that prevent sexual reproduction with the rest of the species? The truth of the matter is, there is a plethora of data supporting evolution.
Even assuming your claims were true, what, are we supposed to accept the religious explanation as more plausible? Because not only has that never been proven, it's a lot harder to swallow in the first place, which means we should expect even more evidence that it's true before we take it seriously.
And besides. It's pretty much rock solid that one species can evolve into another, or at least that multiple current species sprang from single earlier species. When you look at genetic data across living things, the signs of a tree-like structure are absolutely fucking unmistakable.
Sure, it's not a trivial problem to actually extract the entire tree of life (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics - the difficulty is that we only get to touch DNA from the leaves of the tree, and we have to infer the rest), but the tools biologists use are more than powerful enough to distinguish a set of leaves that likely came from an underlying but hidden tree structure from "leaves" that came about in some other way. I don't know numbers off the top of my head, but IIRC from conversations I've had with bioinformatics folks the confidence levels are extremely high, the only debate is over which particular tree should be inferred from a given set of leaves.
Take species A. For whatever reason, species A splits into two groups, A1 and A2. A1 and A2 are (initially) the same species, but the split causes them to be separated for a long time (hundreds, thousands, tens-of-thousands, hundreds-of-thousands, millions of years).
You have already accepted that A1 and A2 will adapt to their surroundings. What prevents those adaptations from eventually making A1 and A2 no longer able to mate?
Evolution has had about 150 years, religion has had multiple thousands of years. In my opinion its just a matter of time before religious belief becomes a minority everywhere.