I suggest you get ahold of two books by Stephen Meyer - “Signature in the Cell” and “Darwin’s Doubt”.
I started out believing that Darwin’s theory was more or less acceptable, though there were always some lingering doubts in the back of my head.
In those two books, Stephen Meyer, takes a wrecking ball at Darwin’s theory (and all the recent patches, such as punctuated equilibrium, and others). He does so in the most scientific, rational, thorough and respectful way using available data and scientific reasoning. He never brings up the bible, creationism or religion as an explanation or subterfuge - Truly an intellectually honest tour-de-force.
He basically tries to do two things - dismantle Darwin’s theory and its derivatives, and two, make a case for intelligent design. I feel he succeeds quite convincingly in the first. He also makes quite a good case for intelligent design, but not as convincingly for me... not yet, at least.
In “Signature in the cell” he addresses not so much evolution as the origin of life, or the first cell, and again dismantles the current accidental, strictly “materialistic” theories, and makes a strong case that, of all the available theories, intelligent design offers by far the best explanation available thus far.
Just so you know where I’m coming from, I’m agnostic, and an engineer by training, and like I said I was an evolutionist before reading these books - no more.
(Actually Meyer doesn’t dismiss evolution completely, he believes (and I do too) that micro-evolution does occur to some extent, but that evolution is incapable of explaining macro-changes.)
Again, if you’re open minded at all, I think you would gain a lot by reading these books. If you do, I’d like to hear back from you and see if it has shaken your faith in Darwin, or perhaps it may strengthen it and that you can easily answer the objections posed by Meyer - either way you win.
Evolution doesn’t address the origin of life, only what happened afterwards. I have no “faith” in Darwin. He just got the ball rolling. Evolution really answers the objections. The case for intelligent design may well be there and is certainly attractive but I don’t yet see it.
“Intelligent design” has no scientific application unless and until you are introduced to the corporeal designer and can give it the specifications of what you want produced.
ID posits a really good supernatural consulting subcontractor.