Well I do beg to differ, Vade. Gertrude Himmelfarb and Phillip Johnson have a relevant thing or two to say about the Evol "horse", all available on this thread, and neither of them promotes "Creationism", an Evol red herring. You all just don't want to discuss what a mess Darwinism is from a scientific point-of-view. I sometimes wonder why that is but I don't worry too much about it. The nice thing about Truth, Vade, is that it is immutable and ridicule won't drive it away. Science itself is a limited form of Truth but even within that limited realm, Darwin doesn't make the grade.
Gertrude is a scientific incompetent from 50 years ago. Johnson stole his arguments from Duane Gish, trimming all the obviously YEC stuff. OK, he claims that he's "not a creationist." (Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!) His resume says that he's not a scientist, either.
It is quite interesting that with all the scientific evidence presented in the article above the only thing which evolutionists wish to discuss is their strawman 'creationism'. That is their choice of course, but by not even attempting to refute the evidence presented against evolution they are silently assenting to the truth of the proposition that evolution has been disproven.