Creationists like to point at disagreement about exactly how evolution works, and they often cite the debate over punk eek [punctuated equilibrium, the view that evolutionary change occurs rapidly during brief episodes] as an example. Eldredge answers that debate is a key part of any healthy science and hardly a sign that a theory is in trouble. Further more, in this case, the debate is not over whether evolution occurred—that fact is made abundantly clear by the fossil record, by the study of genetics, by the taxonomic relationships between living groups, and by biogeography—but only over exactly which forces drive it and how they do so.
Dr. Gray: Well, in response, let me first of all say that scientific theories are falsifiable, they are testable, and the testing is what generates scientific debate. We are looking at a different situation here when we are talking about evolution. Evolution is a supposed historical process, which by any model would operate too slowly to be observed. This is true even of punctuated equilibrium which is supposed not to leave any fossil record over the few thousands of years where transitions are being made. In any case, all we can observe scientifically is present-day variation, and that is within very tight limits. What we are looking at is not evolution, and therefore evolution is not a fact.
Now, let's look at a modern formulation of evolution. A simplified view is that genes mutate, individuals are selected, and populations evolve [Talk Origins Archive, Chris Colby]. However, mutation is a destructive process, incapable of generating information. I will get back to that in a later question. We can also show that natural selection often does not select. In fact, there is a group within evolutionary ranks that are called "The Neutralists." That group says that the normal character of natural selection is that it fails to select.
The next thing to realize, when we talk about evolution, is that mutation is the so-called motor, and yet, mutation is incapable of generating/creating information. There is really no motor involved here. There is no motor available to power evolution. Secondly, in evolution, there is no transmission. The transmission here is the process of natural selection which is supposed to couple to the information that is generated by mutation. The evolutionary vehicle is polished and adored by all kinds of evolutionists for its so-called prowess. But the fact is that it can't leave its philosophical "garage." It doesn't have a motor; it doesn't have a transmission. A theory that has no observable, testable mechanism, does not deserve to be called science. Evolution is an ideology; it is a religion. It definitely is not a fact.