[phoenix_fire]

I'm just not convinced that it's the best explanation. Here is a pretty interesting article on the subject: Catholic Culture : Library : The Genesis Controversy

which says that science itself is dismantling the idea of macroevolution. It is from a Catholic source, granted, but it makes some good and well supported points. I especially like the bit about eyes. This is a pretty good excerpt too:

Since the fossil record gives no evidence of the gradual transformation of species, the only other place to look is breeding experiments. But here the evidence also goes against Darwin. Breeders can change the color of a pigeon or the size of a cow to some degree, but they can only go so far. In fact, all breeders have the same experience: if they try to go too far in one direction, the animal or plant in question either becomes sterile or reverts back to type. The most famous breeder of all, Luther Burbank, found no evidence of the unlimited plasticity of species which Darwin’s theory demands and posited a Law of Reversion to Average. The late Richard Goldschmidt, a leading geneticist who taught at Berkeley, spent years observing the mutations of fruit flies and concluded that biologists had to give up Darwin’s idea that an accumulation of micro changes creates new species. If you have a ‘thousand point’ mutation in a fruitfly - a statistical impossibility - it is still a fruitfly.

It's not a matter of superstition. As a matter of fact, and I've said it before, if evolution were proven tomorrow, it wouldn't damage my faith a bit. But I'm skeptical of the mechanism on mundane principles.