h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I thought this might be an interesting argument, but instead I am a bit disappointed. I don't think this would be an answer to satisfy any "evolutionist troll" in the slightest.

The problem is that the assumption is made, at least it seems to me, that there are only two possibilities: evolution and creation, and one is right and one is wrong. And, because evolution is an imperfect theory, this means it is incorrect, therefore, the answer is creationism.

I'd like to think the goal of this answer is to suggest this. I was quite interested when it was brought up that there are other scientific alternatives to evolution, but in the end, none of these are discussed. In the end it seems to be assumed that the argument that evolution is flawed ought to be enough, the end.

Atheists who make evolution the cornerstone of their philosophy are missing the point: atheism is a-theism, the belief that there are no gods, and evolution is not a dogma, it is a scientific explanation of the origins of species.

And any creationist using this to counter an evolutionist is also missing the point. Proving that evolution is an imperfect theory does not mean that therefore creationist is correct, because it is not an either/or equation. Besides, like any other theory, it is subject to change and refinement as our science and technology improves. Think of the changes that the model of the atom went through. (and is still going through.) The evidence for evolution might be conflicting and confusing, but there has to be scientific evidence pointing to creationism, beyond just "we don't understand how any of this could have happened without a creator being, and our present science can not explain it completely."

This is not a proper retort at all. I am disappointed.