Help Me Understand

[robvalue]

It's perfectly reasonable to have doubts about any particular scientific theory. It's healthy, in fact, to investigate problems people say it has.

No theory is presented as cast-iron 100% accurate no matter what new information may emerge. Every single one represents our best attempt to model reality, and will be subject to further modification given new findings. It's even possible (though somewhat unlikely) that new findings would show the entire basis for the theory to be flawed, and that a new hypothesis needs building up from scratch. This is all part of the scientific process.

What is not reasonable is to conclude that because there are (what you consider to be) some problems with the theory, that you not only disregard it but insert your own entirely unsupported ideas in its place. If a theory is wrong, we need new sensible, testable hypotheses. We don't need fall-back positions of made-up stuff in place of simply admitting we don't know yet.

This is the problem where creationists (I don't know if roadrunner is one or not) present a false dichotomy between evolution and goddidit. Wrong. Either the theory of evolution is well supported, or else it is not. That's as far as it goes. For one thing, if you're going to insert a story in its place, any story that anyone makes up is as good as another.