It amazes me the amount of people who won't even expend effort on the question of whether or not Darwinian Evolutionary theory really is all it's cracked up to be. It's 
almost offensive to open the topic up for discussion. Anyone who challenges evolution in public will seem uneducated and people who accept it will feel shocked that anyone dares question the scientific establishment on a topic so well proven, with it's supposed "mountains of evidence".
That said, it occurs to me that the (particles to people evolution) evolutionary philosophy has at it's core, two fundemental pillars upon which all of the supposed evidence rests. The first is unguided, purposeless, completely random chance. The other is selection. Natural selection, a guided, teleonomic purposeful decision based upon sexual prowess, survival in any number of environmental conditions and so on. The loudest mouthpieces of the modern scientific establishment, whether they be Eugenie Scott or Discovery Channel, tend to focus on pillar #2. Nearly exclusively. Terms like "evolutionary arms race" are thrown around as though the evidence for piller #1 were so firmly established or otherwise irrelevant that they needn't be discussed. ("we're all here, aren't we?" "obviously evolution happens!"). Whenever you here phrases like "the evidence for evolution is overwhelming", I'll wager that they are almost ALWAYS referring to the kind you'd see upon pillar #2.
What's the problem with that? It's simple. I don't know a single creationist who would dispute either the evidence NOR the conclusions drawn on pillar #2. Natural selection is a fact. Creationists agree with that. We also agree that the genome carries a high degree of potential for variability. Where we draw the line, is that selection can only take the species so far. To the limits of the created kind, to be more precise. And in fact, this is just what we observe in the world around us. (and even animal breeders will tell you that they've come up against hard limits in just about every kind of breeding, from dogs to cats, to corn and roses.) But the point I'm making here is that we all agree that natural selection works and that it can lead to limited change within a species. But how many people have ever really considered the possibility of pillar #1? Is random, unguided chance (ala "happy accident") really capable of providing the necessary upgrades that are enjoyed by the animal kingdom in it's current, "highly evolved" state?
But remember, Darwinian Evolution needs the whole ball of wax. The random creation of novel materials AND the selection which leads to adaptivity within the environment. For the creation part of the equation, the only option for a dawinist is random chance.
Chance is the polar opposite of structure. Structure implies order, and order is the very antithesis of chance. Order is what you get when a car is built, a puzzle is put together or a newspaper is printed. Order is known to have causation and root in teleonomic principles, not natural law. In fact, natural law specifies (via the famous 2nd law of thermo) that things are moving toward a greater state of disarray and away from order. But all of this aside, I have great trouble with pillar #1 on a perhaps more basic elemental level even than this.
How can the great explanation of the living world all around us, by the world's most pedigreed scientists be that all of the complexity, beaty and function (teleonomy) has arisen by way of completely senseless, random, happy accidents compiled together.
It's sort of like a guy in a garage. His friend, who knows he knows nothing at all about car engines, comes over and sees this gorgeous V8 chevy engine all put together and clean and gleaming, freshly oiled and running. Over the sound of the motor he yells "wow, that's really a nice engine! Where'd you get it?" And the guy with the engine says "well I built it myself by slowly figuring out which parts fit where and made the most sense together until the whole thing was working. It took me a long, long time." To which the friend replies "well great, but where'd you get all of these fancy parts?" And the guy with the engine says "oh these? They just all sorta showed up."
As a last attempt at illustrating the bankruptcy of this kind of argument, consider this. In any other scientific circle outside of evolutionary biology it would be considered absurd to postulate mere chance or "well, it just happened that way" as part of your theory. It's basically a type of NON answer. And we're supposed to accept the scientific establishment's answer that all things great and small, bold and beatiful "just kind of happened that way." That's not science. That's a non answer. At least a Christian can claim an actual explanation. It's there because it was created. It's brilliant and well designed because it was created that way. It changed and varies based upon ecology because a brilliant master designer had the foreknowlege to make the genome adaptive. The adaptations help the creatures survive, but they also populate the world with incredible variety and beauty, from the largest blue whale on down to the tiniest blue butterfly.