I can say parts of evolutionary theory are wrong and not argue it from a scientific point of view, but rather a practical point of view. Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory. It is constructed using the scientific method. To argue for or against it requires you argue using the methods of science. You can't just say you don't like it, or don't believe in it. If I trip and fall perhaps I don't like gravity, but that does not constitute evidence.
Nobel prize winning physicist Max Planck has said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
This statement is embodied in Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Makes for fascinating reading. Nice, but it has no direct relevance to what we're talking about. There has not been a scientific revolution; rather, there is a religious attack on the science of evolution. Different things entirely.
To argue for or against it requires you argue using the methods of science.
Yes you can. Read the Philosophy of Science. If the scientific method used to develop the theory itself is flawed, all the conclusions are flawed. History is riddled with flawed scientific methodologies. If the concept of random mutation is not proven in the historical evidence, why should I have to believe it, because a bunch of scientists in the field do?
I can say science is good at things it can directly verify, and no good at things that happened a billion years ago. Scientists can say a meteorite caused dinosaur extinction and I can say BS: you were not there with quite a degree of confidence that I am correct. Science can be and is often misapplied.
The Nature and Philosophy of Science