This is a nice piece, but I disagree with the conclusion:
“If the critics want to answer the challenge this poses, here is what they need to do: positively demonstrate that random, unguided processes can indeed produce constructive biological change.”
Even if they did demonstrate that the Darwinian mechanism can do this, that is just the start; they then have to demonstrate that it did do it. It should read:
“If the critics want to answer the challenge this poses, here is what they need to do: positively demonstrate that random, unguided processes did indeed produce constructive biological change.”
There is a big difference between the two and it is important to keep this in mind with all historical science. Just because someone demonstrates that a pyramid can be built in a certain way doesn’t mean that the pyramids in Egypt were built that way. Even if it was demonstrated that one of the pyramids was built using a specific technique, it doesn’t mean that all of them were built that way: the technology and techniques could well have changed over time to reach the same goal.
The impossible task that Darwinists have is not just to show that what they propose is possible, it is to show that this is what actually happened, not just with one or two genes or traits or morphologies or whatever else you want to look at, but with the whole lot. They are masters at picking ambiguous and exceptional examples and treating them as if they are the rule.
Transitional fossils are a perfect example of this. Darwin himself points out that his theory predicts that the fossil record should be full of missing links, but there are few fossils that can be palmed off as missing links. Even the best molecular examples seem to fall into the same category, with the possible exception of very closely related gene families like the globin genes which get discussed ad nauseum while the real problems for Darwinism, like ORFan genes and most others, are ignored.
See also: At Salvo: What will Darwin’s faithful do as the edifice slowly crumbles? Darwinians have been marketing attitude rather than evidence for decades. It is slowly becoming less effective.