Sean, thank you for the comments on theory. Understood and appreciated. I also agree that man does not create new species, with the possible exception of Dawkins and his computer paper.
But once again I must point to that slippery word "evolution".
(Theories) incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have....
I do agree that 'evolution' (finch beaks, big & little dogs) is not only theory, even in the above scientific sense, but also 'fact' and not theory at all. It long predates Darwin and recorded human history both. We find one element of it in ancient books including the Bible - selective breeding for desired traits.
In the post that you query, I tried hard not to refer to 'the theory of evolution' but instead to "evolutionary theories of origins". By this I intend to refer to the development of new species from older species. The fossil record does not bear witness to this. It does bear witness to a variety of animals of similar structure. These can be arranged into pleasing "lines" of succession that fit the theory. What does not fit the approved line is discarded or explained away - creationists and scientists are both adept at dismissing dating mechanisms that do not suit. i.e. we are all human, no pun intended
The evolutionary theory of origins is based upon "understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection". The experimentation and observation is of course related to evolution in the non-origins sense - i.e. selective adaptation. I suspect that TB virus evolves into more and less efficient strains of TB virus rather than (say) a new kind of flesh eating disease with a top hat. (The last item is a joke)
There can be no true experimentation or observation for the event(s) were singular and multi-millenia ago. That leaves "creative" (rather ironic that) reflection. Or as I put it, science by allegation. GR complained about my observation of a circular argument inherent in fossil record argumentation - a strawman I think he said but I don't see why it should be that and not an observation.
As to another matter, the argument from inefficiency is itself 100% defective. It assumes without evidence that a creative God is required to create a human without e.g. an appendix and four wisdom teeth in order to achieve His goals. It also ignores the element of the fallen condition of nature which has been warped from "good" to "quite spectacularly amoral". It also compares humanity to a poorly designed car that should be recalled and should never have made it off the drawing board. In a way, there's an element of truth to that - all humans have been and are going to be recalled and some will be redesigned perfectly in the way the designer intended all along. Others will be beyond repair/improvement and discarded.
If extinctions are offered as argument, the assumption has already been made that in an efficient universe (designed) there would have been no extinctions, which would rather crowd the Beltway.
Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
