The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[John 6IX Breezy]

Would you mind stating your position concerning evolution? Sorry if you posted it before, I looked and couldn't find it stated. I don't mean to inconvenience you. I just want context.

I'm not an evolutionist—if such a term is helpful. I view theories as tools but have no commitments to them. I think evolution is a good theory in that it provides many unique perspectives. I also have no broad objections to its tenets—natural selection, genetic drift, etc. That said, I also recognize that the theory is imperfect and overextends itself. Many of its problems are widely recognized, such as Gould's critique of the adaptationist programme, or the untestability of phylogenetic inferences. Its overextensions are more widely critiqued in the field of evolutionary psychology. Many of these aforementioned critiques comes from within the proponents of the theory. But I also value arguments from without, such as irreducible complexity, because they pierce through the monotony of its echo chamber. Such critiques are needed to create growth and improvements in the theory. 

An addendum: 

One thing to notice is that I rarely argue for one perspective over an other—this is perhaps why you couldn't find my position on evolution. In other words, I am not interested in debunking evolution in order to mount an argument for design. This is in contrast with the forum, which seems to demand that only one theory be crowned "best explanation." I am of the opinion that science is a fertile land, with many theories being permitted to germinate thereon. Their only appraisal is by the data, not by each other.