[Dimensio]

It's not a fallacy to say the evidence makes the current evolution theory "incredible" or "unbelievable". That there must be something other causative agent.

The problem here, however, isn't the evidence. You've not actually shown a problem with the evidence. You've just stated that you can't bring yourself to believe the claims being made. You don't even appear to have enough of an actual understanding of the evidence -- your mistakes regarding the nature of "survival of the fittest" shows this.

[DannyTN]

"You've not actually shown a problem with the evidence. You've just stated that you can't bring yourself to believe the claims being made."

There is not a problem with the evidence. I just believe it shows that evolution is not likely the origin of the diversity of life on this planet.

But apparently evolutionists prefer to label anything that competes with their precious theory as "incredulity fallacy". In other words, if it's not evolution you think it's incredulous and therefore a fallacy. If that's not a biased position I don't know what is.

What is incredulous about Intelligent Design? Man is now designing plants and animals. We don't have the technical know how to create life from scratch but we can certainly design new life forms from the existing ones. To say that we ourselves could not have been the product of intelligent design, strikes me as very arrogant.