Joe at Evangelical Outpost tackles evolutionary theory.
Gross Theoretical Inadequacy: The Explanatory Problems of Macroevolutionary TheoryI don't usually bother arguing about macroevolution. It's usually pretty obvious that most adherents to evolutionary theory are too far gone to appreciate any challenges to their zealous faith in the theory's truth.
A mature theory should not only have adequate explanatory and predictive ability but should also correspond with established scientific fact. Macroevolution survives not because it is an air-tight theory but because a large enough contingent of scientists is willing to believe that the “gaps” in the theory will be understood…not today, of course…and maybe not this decade…but…someday…we just have to wait. (cue sounds of crickets chirping)
Forgive me if I refuse to drink the neo-Darwinian Kool-Aid but my commitment to logic keeps getting in the way. In a discussion on bacterial flagellum, William Dembski refers to the theory’s inability to explain even this basic feature as a “gross theoretical inadequacy.” Dembski is being generous. That phrase could be liberally applied to almost every area of the “evolution-only” explanation.