Big difference. Newtonian mechanics works and is therefore basically true under certain conditions. Darwinian evolution is totally unproven in every sense and case.
"Darwinian evolution is totally unproven in every sense and case."
Wow. A bit of overbreadth. I believe even die-hard creationist accept what they call "micro-evolution."
For example, no one disputes that Shetland ponies evolved from regular horses after a ship wreck left them stranded. The relative scarcity of food made smaller size an advantage (they were more "fit"), so the smaller horses lived to have babies. The trait was reinforced over a couple of hundred years until what-we-now-call the Shetland pony was created.
Other examples abound, of course, that's just the one I recall.
The author is clearly aware that many people will not like evolution and will want to dismiss it.
That is why he makes the case that it is the consensus of scientists that matters.
The consensus of scientists is that much of evolution is a fact.
Horse-pucky! The Theory of Evolution has shown itself to be an excellent explanation of speciation, and divergence in response to ecological shifts. You are being willfully ignorant of the 99.9% of scientific literature that supports Darwin's theories.
On the other hand, there is essentially no scientific evidence for either creationism or ID (aka 'stealth creationism').
But after participating in 100's of these 'crevo' threads, I know logic won't change your mind, or that of any other anti-evolutionist. You want to restrict yourself to a pre-enlightenment world view (biblical literalism); I prefer to open myself to the advances in knowledge since 1500.