...Darwinian theory is a type of fundamentalism. It does not allow any criticism or counter theories. The only scientific evidence that exists that might possibly support evolutionary theory is carbon dating that points to a much older earth than one derives from deducing a straight time line from Scripture. The rest of it is bunk.
I don't think evolutionary theory can be written off quite so quickly. True, the antiquity of the earth doesn't in and of itself prove the validity of evolutionary theory, but it does give scientists the chronal backdrop against which they can hypothesize evolutionary activity. That the earth is
ancient -- much more ancient than scripture appears to indicate -- is not in question. (Or is it?) What's in question is whether the mechanisms of Neo-Darwinism, namely natural selection and point mutations, are sufficient to drive the evolutionary process, and whether the geological and fossil records give evidence of an evolutionary process at work.
It is certainly not a theory of origins. For every originating point in Darwinism, there is a previous originating point, infinitely. So it cannot be a theory of origins, although it claims to be.
This, too, is true. Evolution supposes that life evolved from certain fortunate combinations of non-living molecules, but there is no proof backing up this claim, nor will there be unless and until a self-replicating organism is created in a lab somewhere. This does not, however, rule out the possibility that evolution proceeded naturally from a "starting point" of divine intervention, so I would advise our not
jumping to the conclusion that evolution's lack of a testable "origin of life" hypothesis necessarily renders all
of evolutionary theory invalid and unworthy of serious consideration.
Now, since we all experience our world as something less than good, we must account for how that corruption entered the world. We have two alternatives. Either God messed up, or we are at fault.
I don't think the "either-or" you have proposed is necessarily valid. We
might not like the imperfections we experience on a daily basis, but that doesn't necessarily mean those imperfections aren't part of God's plan. Certain theistic evolutionists believe that man was created mortal but with the potential
to participate in immortality through the original communion with God that man had in Eden. Outside of Eden, things grew and died in the same cycle of life and death we see today, and only after the fall did God banish man from the garden into the environment the rest of the world was already experiencing. So from this perspective one could argue for a perfectly-designed creation on one hand without sacrificing our moral culpability for having to participate in the negative aspects of that creation.
Darwininism is not true...mostly because it does not accurately reflect reality as we know it and experience it. We do not behave as beings that are driven by instincts evolved due to selective advantage. We are much more complex than that.
Yes, we are more complex than all other animals, but this doesn't constitute a counterargument to evolution. Our complexity does not eliminate from our psyches and our biology the basic underlying instincts and desires of our animal natures. For all our spirituality, the human animal is
an animal, and it is biologically hardwired with some of the same driving instincts that animals have. The desires for food, sex, safety, etc. -- these are all traits we share with the animal kingdom. We can rise above these basic desires -- something animals only occasionally do -- but they are still present within us.