The Failure of Darwinism

I have a book in my office called, The Triumph of Darwinism. It celebrates the refusal of the scientific community to surrender Darwinian philosophy for creationism. It admits certain weaknesses in Evolutionary theory but says, as evolutionists have always said, that given enough time, the answers will be found. One interesting diatribe the writer offers is that the objections to Darwinism today are no different than they were when Darwin first proposed his theory. What a telling admission! In other words, in over 150 years of investigation and study, no objection has been overcome!!
Here are some problems readily apparent, even to me:

1. There are still no bona fide intermediate species (no provable missing links).
2. The Scientific Method (controlled experimentation with repetition of results) still validates Genesis (all life produces after its own kind).
3. There is no such thing as a simple cell or simple life form; even the smallest things are amazingly complex.
4. There has not been enough time, even in a fifteen-billion-year-old universe, for Evolution to produce what we have here on earth; statistical studies establish Evolutionary development of life on earth to be impossible (beyond natural chance).
5. There is still no workable mechanism for Evolution; in other words, scientists still have no consistent intelligible way of explaining what they believe about origins.
6. The evidence of the past reveals catastrophism, a condition Darwin admitted to be fatal to his theory if established worldwide (it is).

Add to this that Jonathan Wells has demonstrated in his book, The Icons of Evolution, that all of the textbook proofs for Evolution have been manufactured, and you can see Darwinism in a dilemma.
The Evolutionist is undaunted, however, and simply proclaims Evolution to be beyond falsification now. In other words, no data that seems to discount or disprove the Theory is admissible as scientific. Of course, this means that Evolution is now to be considered a dogma of science. Very convenient. But not scientific. And not the truth.

Terry