I had a fascinating experience reading this post. I will start by saying that I have a PhD in a biological science, and that I believe that the Theory of Evolution provides by far the most plausible explanation for what we can observe about life on earth. I will also say that I am staunchly a non-Creationist, but I could not care less what anyone else believes.

During the first part of this post then, I was quite surprised to find myself agreeing with what I took to be the central premise of the post: that it is pointless to debate Creationism vs Evolution, when one is a belief system and the other is a Theory attempting to explain scientific observations.

Having said that, I found the second half of the post to be littered with concepts that I soundly reject. I have no desire to begin a debate on this topic in general, but I do feel the need to address your attempt at explaining genetic elements of the Theory or Evolution. You state:

...when the theory failed to ever address or adequately explain where the information in genetics comes from, since natural selection produces a loss of genetic information. Furthermore, mutations creating genetic information such as new proteins with new positive functionality has not been observed. The mutation cited in the video was a very simple change inside of an existing protein. Mutating an entire new protein which is adequately built to produce positive functionality in an organism (not negative functionality) is problematic for a system of minor increments of mutational changes which evolution requires. Half of a protein, will not produce 50% of the functionality, just like trying to drive 50% of a vehicle does not work. At best, it produces neutral functionality, but more likely it produces negative functionality, meaning the organism would be selected against by natural selection, thus preventing evolution from ever happening.

This statement displays a fundamental, though not uncommon, misunderstanding of what a mutation is and the relationship between molecular biology and natural selection. In fact, this relationship in my view is one of the greatest strengths of the Theory of Evolution. A mutation is nothing more or less than a variation, a difference from the norm. On its own, it is neither positive nor negative. But variation is the fuel of Evolution.

All organisms use particular enzymes to replicate their genetic material during cell division. These enzymes have an inherent error rate, and these errors result in mutations, or variation in the resulting genetic material (genes).

Here is the really elegant part. It has been shown that when organisms (animals, plants, etc) experience stress, at the molecular level, the error rate of the enzymes I mentioned increases. This results in increased variation right when the species needs it, since increased variation increases the chance that some of that variation will provide a competitive advantage and will be selected for.

The further beauty of this is that it provides an explanation for the observed nature of evolution as occurring in fits and starts, as opposed to the incremental changes you incorrectly describe. That is, the greatest degree of variation is produced at times when a species experiences the greatest stress, and that is when the greatest evolutionary changes occur.

Thanks for getting me thinking.