It does sound like you are straining to find fault.
Actually, I have to disagree with Betty Boop here. The idea that Darwinism has been stagnant and unchanging for 150+ years. Of course she's correct scientifically, but consider:
You see, each time it's challenged or new information comes forth, liberals that support it circle the wagons and attack those that dare to disagree or even present new challenges. There's no rational scientific defense of Darwinism, but only tired used up failed liberalspeak. If anyone suggests a flaw, then their credentials are attacked. Or they get shouted down and ran off with some farcical peer review.
Case in point, what's this unchallenged for 150 years nonsense? The better question is of course: What scientific theory requires so many lawsuits to prop it up?
Ummm... Let's see... Global warming?
[Says this scientist who accepts neither -- for sound scientific reasons...] ;-)
If it's correct scientifically, that should be sufficient for the purpose of a discussion of the science of it.
What is it exactly that makes that "the better question"?
Well, in my opinion, the teaching of evolution is litigated so ferociously because many of proponents are attached to it as a vehicle for atheism and nothing more. They have no more use for science than Jesse Jackson has a use for condoms. Talk to them about the logical extensions of evolution as far as human societies and IQ levels, and they suddenly lose their Darwin faster than Michael Moore downing a Domino's 5-cheeser.
It's also equally pathetic of those who state that those who don't accept that God zapped Adam and Eve into being as is written verbatim in the Bible (which was revealed by God but penned by quite fallible Men) are somehow anti-Jesus or other such balderdash.
As for me, I don't really care anymore - my opinions on the matter are my own and not open to vetting.