The real debate worth having is one of meaning and morality, a subject to which materialistic evolution cannot even speak, but... Even in it's supposed forte ground of science the ol' theory has it's potholes. Here's two interesting ones for discussion.
Somewhat recently, at North Carolina State University I believe, they've found/recovered 'soft' tissue from within a 65+ million year old T-Rex bone. Described as 'springy' tissue containing protein(fragments?). I've since seen this touted on a secular science channel as well, with no real explanation as to how it was preserved of course. Soft tissues last 65+ million years?
That may be the lighter stuff though. Far harder to get a handle on, though possibly further reaching, is the problem of red shift quantization. That is to say in a nutshell, that red shifts seem to fall into groups rather than an even distribution. Is the universe really expanding? To put it a little better, though this is still obviously crude, red shift is when light from a star appears 'redder' than light from another star. The predominant explanation for the differences has been the doppler effect; that basically light from stars moving away from you 'change pitch' just like a horn on a car or train does depending on whether it's moving towards or away from you (and depending how fast). Thus with distant stars being red shifted the conclusion was that the universe is expanding. However, if this is the case, one should find a smooth distribution of red shift degrees (one doesn't generally accelerate stars in specific bursts). So the observation of red shift quantization casts some serious doubt on the prevailing view of the cause of red shifts. If it isn't the doppler effect, is the universe expanding? Bear in mind that the universe's expansion is bread and butter to the big bang theory.
I'm sure the theory of evolution will 'evolve' to survive, but don't feel intellectually intimidated by it. It's not nearly so sound as the theory of gravity.
More Trouble For Evolution
Linear Mode
