Another World Net Daily article on the Discovery Institute is hardly news. Scientists, doctors, and engineers are people. It is possible to find all manner of obscure and minority viewpoints among them. That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people working in scientific and biological disciplines accept natural selection and descent with modification as being best explanation for the evidence we have. Both the fossil record and DNA analysis strongly support evolutionary theory, and our understanding of fossil evidence and DNA evidence is crosschecked with our understanding of other physical sciences such as physics and chemistry. To suggest that it is a theory on its last legs or facing serious opposition with scientific circles is disingenuous at best.
Evolution has been in crisis since 1859. Not a year goes by when it isn't abandoned by science.
In the meantime, world famous critics of evolution like Behe, Dembski and Denton, abandon their opposition to common descent.
Appealing to 'truth by popularity' is the well-known fallacy of 'appeal to popularity'. Particularly when followed on by the tired deception that fossils represent a 'record' and that DNA 'analysis' is independent of an assumption of common descent. Both are firmly based on that assumption. Now that's disingenuous.
You would also need to understand that the fossil 'record' and DNA 'analysis' are metaphysical interpretations of evidence based on an 'a priori' requirement of naturalism. Science is strictly limited to natural explanations, therefore it should be no surprise that only natural explanations are allowed.
Then ask yourself whether limiting yourself to naturalistic explanations is appropriate if you are indeed looking at a supernatural creation or whether it guarantees a wrong answer.
Once you understand that, you could begin your search for specific *evidence* that uniquely supports evolution. You won't find any. The 'support' for the theory is wholly in the 'interpretation' of the data.
Most evos just can't grasp that fact, however and really aren't interested in doing that much thinking.