Perhaps one day we will not call evolution “Darwinism.” After all, we do not call classical mechanics “Newtonism.” But that raises the question of whether a biological Einstein is possible, someone who demonstrates that Darwin’s theory is a limited case. What Darwin proposed was not a set of immutable mathematical formulas. It was a theory of biological history that was itself set in history. That the details have changed does not invalidate his accomplishment. If anything, it enhances it. His writings were not intended to be scriptural. They were meant to be tested. NYT
My mother, being somewhat "old school", doesn't believe we were descended from monkeys. "Oh you young people think you're so smart", she would say. Young like Darwin, who was about my age when he published OtOOTS?
Mind you, she doesn't have the internet, where talking monkeys are rampant...
For instance, in one study involving the decoding of 3 billion bits of the chimpanzee genome, researchers found that the chimp and human genome are 99% identical in regions that both share. The remaining 1% amounts to 40 million differences that the investigators refer to as “40 million evolutionary events that separate us and them.” Missing from their write-up was the explanation of how evolution caused the separation.
As was true for common morphological and embryological features, common genes is [sic] no more evidence of evolution and common descent than it is of an intelligent Agent and common design. Neither does it illustrate how evolution best explains the noted similarities and differences. The Point
Yes, whenever there is something we don't yet understand, God did it. The flaw with such an argument is that as that list of unexplained problems continues to shrink, the necessity for God diminishes too.
Anyway, off for a buffet dinner in honour of Charles Darwin - a natural selection would be good. Some primordial soup to starts things off...