Try an experiment: step aside from the group think of current leftist groups/orgs and ask yourself how you can move to postdarwinism in under a month. Why is this inevitable, how did the conservative religious right do this, before fumbling the ball on design arguments?>
The first week of a short month must acquire the classic sources of critique, from there moving to a set of potential critiques leading to successor theory.
In a great irony, this task was accomplished before Darwin existed by the Kantian teleomechanists. The issue of teleology may be too much to start, and can be held in reserve, but the basic critique of darwinism is not very complicated. To the disgrace of all biological, marxist, and general scientific cadres this was done almost without trying by a liberal arts professor in an elegant survey from the 1940’s: Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Barzun
The design argument is a red herring here, at least to start: the issue of darwinism is settled without any claims about design.
There is no excuse for the delay in getting this accomplished. Unfortunately ‘smart’ people can be the worst victims of the Darwin deception. It is not clear why. String theorists who can browbeat the plebs with mathematical wizardry are too often the worst victims of darwinian pseudo-science. That is one of the tactics of ideological deception: condition the most intelligent to perpetrate the ‘science’ needed for ideological conditioning.
There are many outcomes possible here, but the simplest is to simply renounce the claim to an evolutionary theory, so far, and to consider the ‘fact’ of evolution as established with a considerable fact basis, beyond the question of theoretical mechanisms.