The fossil record does not need to be explained by me, it needs to be explained by evolutionists. There are no intermediate species in all the important places. The Cambrian shows that there is no way all those species could have evolved in a mere 5 million years from what existed before. So it is evolutionists that need to explain it. And indeed 150 years after Darwin they are still trying to explain it away by saying 'the fossils will be found someday'.
The DNA evidence contradicts evolution. The evolutionists pick and choose what genes will prove their theory in different circumstances as the article Kangaroo, Platypus Are Not Related After All shows. The articles on the fugu fish here and here also show that DNA disproves evolution. If evolution were true all genetic methods of tracing descent would be true, all the 'molecular clocks' would tell the same time. Evolution is not true so they do not.
The above are scientific facts which disprove your theory. Intelligent design explains them perfectly.
And it has been. Now it's your turn. And, as for your contention that DNA denies evolution, nothing in the literature says that, indeed it states exactly the opposite -- that DNA evidence supports the evolutionist view of things. Unless, of course, you have any actual scholarship to back up your claims. Oh, I forgot, you don't actually do any research on the creo side, you simply carp at the guys down in the trenches doing the dirty work.
What the article shows to me is that scientists are not afraid to contradict each other's conclusions based on the evidence at hand. It thus shows that science is not a conspiracy of dunces (unlike some other ways of seeking knowledge).