Here's an excellent, and brief, article that explains in easily understandable terms why evolution is a poor theory.
This autumn 18 gifted UGA students and I are spending six weeks examining Stephen Hawking’s best-selling book “A Brief History of Time.” Therein Hawking states, “A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements. And it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.”There's more, it's short, and I suggest you read the whole thing.
I consider Hawking’s statement to be an excellent definition of a good theory. How does evolution stack up to the two demands of a good theory? By the term “evolution,” I mean the claim that random mutations and natural selection can fully account for the complexity of life, and particularly macroscopic living things. ...
The second requirement for a good theory is far more problematical for the standard evolutionary model, sometimes called the modern synthesis. Over the past 150 years evolutionary theorists have made countless predictions about fossil specimens to be observed in the future.
Unfortunately for these seers, many new fossils have been discovered, and the interesting ones almost always seem to be contrary to the “best” predictions. This is sometimes true even when the predictions are rather vague, as seen by the continuing controversies associated with the purported relationships between dinosaurs and birds.
(HT: Donald Sensing -- glad you're blogging again!)
I appear to have gotten my links confused, and the post above has been corrected.
Here also is a peer-reviewed article by Stephen C. Meyer titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" in which "Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms." (Linked to previously.)