It is here that I disagree. The natural evolutionists have proposed an explanation but have not yet come up with a workable mechanism. I want to stress here that my objection is not based on faith but what I consider poor science.
If the natural evolutionists wish to present their ideas as one possible explanation, fine. But let us not pretend that the evidence presented to date comes anywhere near what we could classify as fact. Let the natural evolutionist also be honest enough to acknowledge the weaknesses in their theory.
Let us consider an analogy for a moment. Science would tell us that babies come about when the father fertilizes an egg inside the mother, and the fertilized egg is implanted in the womb, whereupon the fertilized egg develops into an embryo, and eventually into a baby. A simplified version, to be sure, but not the only theory on where babies come from. An alternate theory might be that babies come from storks. Hey, why not? My daughter's current theory about my wife's impending birth is that Santa Claus will be bringing a baby brother or sister for her - it is due around Christmas, after all. Medieval investigators believed that a sperm was a tiny homonculus, a complete human, for which the mother's only contribution was as a vessel for development.
The problem is, although there are many possible explanations for where babies come from, only one of those theories is currently well supported by the evidence. And so it is with the origin of species - the theory of evolution is not merely one of many possible explanations, it is currently the best explanation, the one most in accord with the evidence available to us. Perhaps tomorrow the evidence will point elsewhere, but we are limited to what we have immediately available, as far as science is concerned.