Just a short intro: I believe in evolution. I do also, however, enjoy arguing and try to understand both sides of the argument as best as possible. Unsurprisingly, the argument about God is the most interesting argument for me as sitting on the fence allows for a lot of arguing room.
Oh right, not atheist. Agnostic. I may find God one day. I would like that. But I haven’t been convinced yet either. So I shall just discuss things going for or against a divine Being, and just having fun along the way.
A lot of creationists have been saying that evolution doesn’t exist, that macroevolution is not an observable science and therefore invalid. Okay, that’s fine. I’ll still believe in it, but here are some flaws in evolution that we have to fix, and I have not heard these flaws mentioned anywhere before (Maybe I just haven’t been looking enough), so I will point them out so you may use them to continue arguing.
A theory can be unscientific if it can be made to fit to any scenario. That means, if you cannot refute evolution because it can be made to fit somehow every time, then it’s not really scientifically valid. This is my weakest point, but I thought I’d mention it anyway.
The concept of Regulation in organisms. This is when the egg becomes damaged during the creation process of an organism. Take a water flea for example. A normal water flea would use the entire size of the egg to become a full individual. If the egg were ‘strangled’, so to speak, in the middle of the egg, then the organism would still grow up to be a complete individual, albeit only half as large. Even though nothing we know of dictates the movement of the first cells, they can still create an organism in special circumstances. The individual, however, will also just be half as large, but alive and mentally able for the most part. We cannot explain this phenomenon as far as I know.
Coming back to the refuting of the evolutionary theory. We are not yet able to fully grasp evolution and all it’s principles. Many have suggested that there are ‘laws’ that we have not discovered that determine regulation and everything else. However, this is making the theory irrefutable, and thus an invalid theory.
Sorry, if this one sounds a little mushy. I’m translating from german. Not always easy with hard words.
Anyway, this is the concept of different appendages with the same DNA. For example, the human arm and leg. The DNA contained in these two body parts is identical, as well as the proteins, muscle cells, tissue cells, etc. This has to be done during creation from the zygote, but at the precision in which the cells are capable to do that is a fact science cannot explain. Science, in its atheism, must claim that it is a physiochemical process, but has been unable to do so.
- This is another theoretical approach:
Evolutionary science assumes that we will be able to solve:
The three-dimensional structure of all proteins
To the enzymatic and other properties of proteins.
The entire metabolism of an organism.
The nature and effect of all organisms and their position information during creation (how the cells know where to form and when)
The structure and placement of cells, tissue, and organs and the form of the organism as a whole; finally, the instincts of an animal as well.
Science cannot even begin to make basic assumptions that regulate all of these traits. If we assume, that all points could be explained with the physical laws today, then they would probably be wrong. However, if they stated, that the workings are based on known and unknown workings of nature, then it would be, once again, irrefutable.
I would like to put a disclaimer here: although these are problems in science, they are problems that may be solved in the future. They may also not be solved in the future and may give strong evidence to workings outside of our knowledge.
If people want to hear more, then I can provide more points, if it helps anybody or is interesting. I just thought that these points were a bit more interesting rather than the normal drivel on, “You can’t observe it.” Though I can’t say I’m much too versed in the field, so do enlighten me if I have made any egregrious mistakes.
Rupert Sheldrake: Das Schöpferische Universum: Die Theorie des morphogenetischen Feldes.
(A New Science of Life: the hypothesis of formative causation), 2002 7th edition