The debate about evolution is not as intense as it once was, but critics of evolution do still show up. Most of the flaws that dog the theory of evolution are outlined here. In point of fact, they are not flaws, so much as they are simple misunderstandings. Here are some.
First of all, there is confusion about whether mutations happen just randomly, or not. In a sense they are random. Yet, what makes the mutations continue to be inherited, that is selected by the environment, is not random at all. Critics of evolutionary theory often say something very much like the following: “Nothing about creation could have just happened by accident.” Or another often cited complaint: “All of this, and my family and I did not just happen!” They are correct. Natural selection selects mutations that are favorable, not randomly, but specifically. Even though the minute changes themselves may be “random” their selection is not random, but holds a purpose toward better survival advantage. Ice ages, global warming ages, a desert or an arctic environment; all select for favored traits.Those who are best adapted to their environment survive. It is not the "fittest" that survive, but those that the environment favors.
A second criticism of evolutionary theory is often that humans are made in the image of God. This one presupposes that all other creatures and primates especially, are NOT created in the image of God. This reflects a very real prejudice against the inherent beauty of all other creatures, plants, interactive systems and the biosphere itself. It is not at all surprising that humans do not find other apes attractive. In fact, that they do not just proves again that attraction toward mating is evolutionarily driven.Yet, humans want to feel more special, favored, and chosen above all other creations.This certainly must reflect a bias more than it reflects reality.
Other apes, lacking the capacity to know and comprehend holy texts, do not seem to support the idea of their own salvation as humans do. Humans ARE different from other species, so it is natural that they expect to be thought of as somehow more intelligent, more worthy and more “chosen” than the rest of creation.
A third criticism of the theory of evolution is that there are no missing links. The idea is that a missing link in the fossil record would be solid evidence that a human-like bipedal creature somewhere half way between other primates and a human should be found as proof of humans descending from “monkeys.” The problem with this phrase is similar to the others. It suggests there are such things as “missing links.” Being related to a common ancestor does not mean there is a species that is halfway between the two species. It means humans share a common ancestor with other primates.
The famous skeleton of Lucy, an Australopithecus, and Ardi, an Ardipithecus, show that there is much proof of common ancestors, but looking for a missing link is irrelevant and non productive toward understanding our relationships to other living animals. DNA evidence reveals that almost all DNA is shared between all living things. Therefore, there must be common ancestry in a bottom up fashion of ever-increasing complexity. It appears that the top down model, that is an entity creating all these living beings, is assumed to be woven to the misunderstanding. Critics of evolution must assume that natural selection, or evolution, creates in a designer like system.
Evolution does not "design" in the sense humans understand. It is better described like a tinkering engineer who just keeps "inventing" tools until some work more optimally than others. There is nothing random about this, nothing less special and nothing determined by a missing link halfway between what works in which environment and what does not.
Finally, a huge miss-comprehension about evolution is that it somehow suggests the creation is not amazing, or even miraculous. In point of fact, science is always even more astounded by everyday miracles of creation. A deity that can turn wine into blood may be astonishing, but events that work within the framework of the everyday can be shown to be quite amazing. The size of the cosmos is one miracle. The advent of life that has self-awareness is surely one as well. They are all the more special in that they can be proven with a skeptical and self correcting process called science. They do not rely on sketchy, or biased evidence, so they are actually incredible due to their own credibility!