I know. Let's take this to bits, paragraph by paragraph.

The experiment showed that it is not impossible that "life's building blocks" appeared purely by chance. There would be many permutations of the conditions in the experiment which could lead to different proteins being formed, and no-one can say what the initial conditions were like. This was just a proof of concept, not a proof of what precisely happened.

Are you looking in the right textbooks? When the Cambrian explosion was first discovered, the technology to look at the fossils properly, to find the precursors of the species which emerged in this eight milion year window. The boundaries of microscopy are being pushed back, and it is expected that more detail will be found regarding these organisms yet; no reasonable person in the scientific community assumes they have found everything.

This paragraph requires a great deal of detail which it is missing to be of any use to anyone. The accusations appear to be unfounded, a slew in general on textbooks which remain nameless, and there would have been an outcry by biologists (I feel it can be reasonably assumed that not all young biologists taking their first degrees of study, looking at textbooks and comparing with reality, are dishonest, many in fact profess to be Christian).

The archaeopteryx is not generally believed to be a missing link. It is believed to be a relative to the direct ancestors of modern birds, and is still not fully understood. However, its bone and wing structure is particularly interesting to scientists, and has been observed fossilised in very fine grain limestone, meaning it can be studied perhaps more thoroughly than most fossils, hence its heavy use in textbooks and the like.

The peppered moth is a useful demonstration of the theory, showing how it could be employed. There is argument on both sides of the debate, not just one, and it is not the only demonstration of the principle (polar bears vs brown bears is a more wide ranging example across different species, but illustrates the point).

Darwin, the first major literary proponent of evolution in his book "The Origin of Species..." used Galapagos finches as his own example. It is a very easy to understand presentation of the idea, and shows the differences across the different islands clearly, something a textbook is meant to do. It tries not to demonstrate evolution (a long term process), but natural selection by means of survival of the fittest (a more short term process, where genetic mutation is not paramount to its success, merely an already present difference). Also, the meaning of this paragraph is somewhat vague, and could do with some clarification of what it's getting at precisely, for instance when you use the term "net evolution".

It is particularly difficult to engineer extra wings on an animal, or even just extra cartlidge, or an extra head. Give the scientists a break, they demonstrated that if you modify DNA, you can end up with a very different animal. Scientists have demonstrated their concept much more successfully where GM crops are concerned, with many GM crops now in large scale production. The changes to DNA with physical consequences show that changing DNA could lead to improvements in an organism.

Artists drawings are useful in showing to the general public what has been found. They are usually representations of evidenced creatures, found by their fossil, or even bone records, and make science more accessilble. They would not be used as evidence (hence justifictation) in serious research.

Scientific fact is unlikely ever to be proven, and is used as a substitute phrase for "proven beyond reasonable doubt". It is not believed by the scientific community, which oversees what is protrayed as "scientific fact" that the current theory of evolution (not exactly the same as Darwin's original) that the theory is based on misrepresentation of "the facts". Any fact in science is up for disproof; that's what the scientific method is about, I'm afraid.

"The Origin of Species" is no longer the be all and end all of evolutionary theory, it has been expanded upon, as Darwin would have wished, its claims tested, sometimes disproved, but very often supported. Just because Darwin said something in his book does not make it true, so his admission that his theory may not be up to scratch was in fact very correct of him. The people who were to read his book would possibly have been rather shocked by his work, and he did not want to appear too prescriptive, and he therefore allowed people to make up their own minds, based on the evidence he produced.

THis argument does not follow. Darwin's followers did take to his ideas and believe fervently in them, but this is because they stood up to scientific scrutiny, and not because of a blind faith which would lead a religion into turmoil and uselessness. Creationism is not regarded as scientific fact, it is a religious concept. Evolution now is regarded as a scientific fact, not as a religious concept, however "religious" its beginnings. By saying "other concepts such as creationism", you also imply that creationism is one of many different things which "should be banned", when in fact, this debate appears to be purely about creationism and evolution; nothing else had so far been mentioned. Overgeneralisation spring to mind?

Evolution has not become a scientific law in the same way that the effect of gravity on a macroscopic scale is regarded as a law. People are looking for the evidence, and it appears that "Icons of Evolution:..." would be a rather biased source; Jonathan Wells has not been without criticism. Namedropping a book such as this in an argument is a rather unsteady way to support your claims. There has been much less "evidence" (I use ""s ironically here, I'm getting bored of this argument)

We are doing. It's called the study of evolutionary theory, and I couldn't agree with you more. However, by using this conclusion with such unsteady evidence as above, you discredit yourself as a serious debator. Think it through yourself next time, okay?