And speculation does not equal theory. so in that sense the suggested explenations are no different from Harun Yahya's work.
The difference is that that Yahya assumes there is no explanation other than the one he prefers, and claims the absence of same somehow 'disproves' evolution. Advocates of all the explanations, being scientists, would quite happily change their minds should additional evidence suggest that one of the alternatives is, in fact, correct.
The Yahya approach is a fairly 'classic' one. If a perceived gap in scientific understanding exists you assume it can never be filled with a definitive explanation, and so it is legitimate to insert God to plug the gap. What that ignores is that the whole history and purpose of science
is to fill those gaps; that is what science is
for. Without such puzzles it would not exist, and could never have existed.
So this makes me wonder whether both sides depend on faith, and therefore according to my understanding - both parties are in a similar position - both using the issue of faith, or depending on the future to see if our positions can be clarified using science or other means?
No, it isn't a matter of 'faith' from the evolutionist/scientific point of view. The evolutionary theory is accepted
because it is the best scientific theory we have. There is nothing else that even comes close. It is important to realise that that does not make it
right, and nor does it eliminate the possibility of a partial or even complete alternative. Should such come along and 'disprove' evolution, or even just provide a more convincing explanation of the empirical facts, it will replace evolutionary theory as the accepted theory.
I think it is frequently misunderstood what scientists hold most dear, particularly in regard to such things as the evolution and intelligent design debate. It is not that they have a fear that some theory may be proved to be wrong (unless maybe they wrote the paper that suggested it!), and their 'faith' in it will be overturned. It is that the scientific method itself is abandoned and corrupted. Creationism and ID are perfectly good theories, but they are not
scientific theories. Their claim for admittance to 'science' is solely a negative one; that they can fill gaps science has has not yet managed to fill with a rational, material explanation. But without any
positive element, theories why that gap should be filled by God (you would first need to prove there
is a God, for starters), supported by empirical evidence, it cannot be science. Those "other means" are necessary.
