You make a very compelling argument. It's one that I hear frequently from Darwinists who, by their own estimation, have science on their side.
But, as free-thinker, consider this potential problem with Darwin's theory. If evolution is a constant process, and if every creature that has ever existed has evolved, then what would a reasonable person expect to typically see in the fossil record? A continuum of transitional forms, perhaps?
In fact, the fossil record typically shows stasis in species, that is, creatures typically enter and exit the fossil record unchanged.
Now, if you consider the theory of evolution to be true a priori, then this should pose no problem for you. But, call me crazy, I prefer to believe theories that fit the evidence.
“The only thing the Discovery Institute has come up with to try and disprove evolution are some rhetorical shenanigans. IOW, a big pile of steaming B.S.”
How can you disprove something that has never been proved. Why don’t you concentrate on proving what so far have proven to be unprovable? Wouldn’t that actually be science?