Uh oh we have another creationist in our midst to deal with…
"Darwinism, which has been the chief explanation of how evolution works (through slow, almost imperceptible changes), is in trouble. In recent years learned books have argued that the perfecting of science has shown Darwinism to be untenable. The missing links are still missing. There is no reasonable way that a protracted series of minute changes can turn, say, a sun-sensitive blot on the skin into an eye. Living things are far more complex, especially at the microscopic level, than Darwin could have imagined.
"Even unwavering evolutionists such as Gould have admitted that Darwinism is on shaky legs. Many of them have rejected Darwin’s notion of small mutations adding up, over millions of years, into a positive alteration that allows the fit to be even more survivable. These evolutionists have proposed an alternative, ‘punctuated equilibrium.’ Instead of a long series of minute changes, there is one spectacular mutation: The blot becomes a fully developed eye in a single or perhaps in a handful of generations, not in thousands of generations. This idea has problems of its own and has not received universal acceptance among evolutionists.
“Taking all this together – new books that argue that Darwin got it wrong, plus pro-Darwinists’ implicit acknowledgement that Darwinism has problems – we can envision this scenario: Darwinism, the chief explanation of how evolution does what it is supposed to do, is seen to be unsalvageable. It must be abandoned, to be replaced by – what? So far there is no alternative, which means that evolutionists might find themselves in an anomalous position: arguing that evolution is true, but unable to explain how it might occur. And if that point is reached, the whole theory might be junked as untenable. I’m not saying that this is likely, but, given the unsettled state of evolution as a theory, it is possible.”
I’ll let you figure out who wrote this by
clicking here 
Thought I’d throw that in…For a response see
Index to Creationist Claims, mainly scientific responses, some of the theology is questionable as I read the responses.
Phil P
