There are three issues raised here, and in article cited:
1. Life is too complex to have originated naturally
My problem here is the word ‘naturally’, and the basic phrasing. The issue is not that life couldn’t have evolved naturally, but that it evolves at random by natural selection. The constant change in the phrasing (on both sides) is deliberate, I suspect. But the issue is Darwin’s theory, not evolution.
Darwinists will have a hard time with this:
Based on an awareness of the inexplicable coded information in DNA, the inconceivable self-formation of DNA, and the inability to account for the billions of specifically organized nucleotides in every single cell, it is reasonable to conclude that there are severe weaknesses in the theory of gradual improvement through natural selection (Darwinism) to explain the chemical origin of life. Furthermore, Darwinian evolution and natural selection could not have been causes of the origin of life, because they require replication to operate, and there was no replication prior to the origin of life.
2. Cellular systems are irreducibly complex, and could not have evolved.
Same problem here: cellular systems are ‘by and large’ irreducibly complex, and could not have evolved by natural selection. The claims for irreducible complexity are not absolute. The point is that complexity is hard to account for by natural selection.
It is a disservice to intelligent students to force darwin dogma on them: the whole thesis is outlandish. As Hoyle pointed out long ago, the random assembly of so many proteins and other complex chemicals by chance is not a reasonable claim.
Thus, each of these enzymes and proteins must exist for the system to work properly. Many other mathematical and logistical weaknesses to the Nilsson example of eye evolution have been uncovered (28). In summary, the eye is incredibly complex. Since it is unreasonable to expect self-formation of the enzymes in perfect proportion simultaneously, eye function represents a system that could not have arisen by gradual mutations.
3. We don’t have any transitional fossils
There are problems with this, but, surely, it is by and large the case. However, with man, you could claim we have a reasonable sequence of fossils: australopithecus, habilis, erectus, neanderthal, sapiens in several stages.
But despite this a different problem is obvious: having a set of transitional fossils doesn’t solve the problem in the slightest. We need to know the inner details of brain, behavior, and culture, and those we lack. We have virtually nothing on the evolution of language, self, consciousness/self-consciousness (they are not the same), and certainly not fossile evidence that can help here.
The ape to human species change would require an incredibly rapid rate of mutation leading to formation of new DNA, thousands of new proteins, and untold cellular, neural, digestive, and immune-related changes in DNA, which would code for the thousands of new functioning proteins.This rate of mutation has never been observed in any viral, bacterial, or other organism. The estimation for DNA random mutations that would lead to intelligence in humans is beyond calculation. Therefore, the recently discovered molecular differences between apes and humans make the prospect of simple random mutation leading to a new species of Homo sapiens largely improbable (35).
Three home runs here for the so-called creationists/ID-ists. Darwinists complain about religionists and evolution, but their stance in the face of such intelligent criticisms is stone-walling, evasion, and boilerplate repeated ad nauseam.