There are religious believers who are going to be set in their ways & if that means rejecting the science of evolution, then it's probably a lost cause. I don't think there's any point in trying to change their minds, so I'm not interested in that.
I am, however, interested in finding out if there's a reason not based in any way on religious beliefs for rejecting the science of evolution. Is there any other reason?
The current model of evolution cannot make accurate future predictions and therefore has not advanced all the way to a rational model. This does not disprove the principles of evolution, but rather tells us the theory of evolution is still half baked. The principle of evolution has to do with the process of change through selection. The theory tries to fill in the specifics but cannot take this to the future.
For example, using basic laws of Newtonian Physics we can send a man/woman into space and land them at a very specific spot on the moon. The is an example of a rational model able to make accurate future predictions. The course is plotted in advance on paper. They do not have to send objects to the moon hundreds of times, with a blind fold, to sort of get it right; empirical science. That would be closer to empirical science, which is less advanced and is the state of current theory of evolution. It is not ready for prime science due some flawed premises that preclude reason.
Religion does not pick on rational models, since that would be illogical, due to proof of concept coming from its predictive value. Religion does not deny that space science can put a man on the moon. Empirical is different in that this requires faith, which can turn it into a type of religion. The weatherman can be right half the time and that is acceptable since it comes from empirical science. You will still watch. You could not have a space program based on odds. It needs to be nearly perfect; past, present and predictive future data. Nobody's life is dependent on evolution being fully rational, so you can serve half baked goods and get away with it; cookie dough. It is good with ice cream.
Evolution is more like going to the State Lottery Archives and listing all the previous winners of the lottery, to prove there is a lottery and there have been many lottery winners. Empirical can do that much. It can reveal what has been, and even shows pattens. You can even show the order of the winners and show patterns in terms of which cities have the most winners. You can even get fancy and reveal all forms of data trivia, like baseball trivia; the most stolen bases by a left handed hitter, who plays second base, during night games. But you still cannot predict the next winner. It falls short of a fully rational model; land on the moon and hit the target. Something is missing or there are some bad assumptions that are allowed, that appear to be valid, but do not allow you to reason to tangible future conclusions.
What compounds the problem is evolution is based on statistical math which places things in a black box. This creates the paradox often described as Schrödinger's cat. Since the black box of statistics is a input and output method, it has to remain closed, so we can not be 100% sure if the theory is right or wrong, so we have to assume both right and wrong; margin of error, at the same time. The lack of future predictive utility tells me, this is not the final theory, since it would not be right and wrong but just right. It is more like a stepping stone, using black box science and has not yet reached the age of enlightenment; reason, where we can open the black box and reason.
Most scientists who treat Evolution as dogma do not seem to understand there are different levels of science approach, with the black box approach useful, but not the final frontier. This is not the top of the science food chain. Being an applied scientist by training, I could not make something, that came from black box theory, and have no defects, with defects taboo in the market place. You need to depend more on rational theory that can predict the future, so you can control quality; see the future and make adjustments. A pure scientist may not need to be so specific, since discovering a new fossil, is an end all to itself, and this will not become the basis for a major manufacturing effort.
In terms of religion people, evolution via national selection is not much different from human selection of plants and animals. The farmer will pick his best stock and breed to make healthier offspring. Natural selection does this same thing, with humans copying nature. One difference I noticed can be seen with dogs. There are now over 200 breeds of dogs, according the international kennel clubs who define breed standards and keep records. All these dogs came from one natural species; wolves.
Natural selection is not as whimsical and manmade selection, with the pace of evolution slower. Natural selection stalled at the wolf since it a ideal classic design. Fossils records of science show how the best natural species, like wolves, linger and suddenly change, with gaps in the middle; missing links. It appears human selection is more in the gaps. We do not make new species, but rather we make more like missing links. That is done through genetic logic. The long quantum step approach of nature, is not well characterized by the modern theory; genetics alone. A more rational approach would be needed. Genetics is part of this, but nature appears to build a genetic platform to advance and when complete, poof a new species. We need another variable that helps to regulate these platforms.
Are you here to discuss what you asked me for or is your argument simply to say I'm not worth your time to discuss these things with? I mean you did respond so you must have a little time to explain to me what those debunkers are saying and why it debunks what I've quoted.