I think you've fallen into the same trap I set for our friend TB in an earlier post on the mind-set of political conservatives.

What I'm trying to show is that if you apply the same logic that creationists use to the evolution of languages then you must come to the same conclusions. The evidence is interpreted according to your world view. In this case, the evidence for linguistic evolution parallels that for biological evolution: Languages = species, dialects = subspecies, language families = biological taxa, ancient texts = fossils, grammatical and lexical structures = anatomical and physiological attributes. However, the fundamental guiding assumption of both camps are basically antithetical. creationists believe the world cannot be explained without an intelligent creator, Darwinists believe it can only be understood as a result of stochastic processes.

Until the discovery of continental drift and plate tectonics, creationists used as evidence the geographical distribution of diverse living species and fossils as proof that they had to be independently created. Now they've abandoned that logic, and have started to attack the idea of plate tectonics itself. The concept of astronomical objects visible at mega-light year distances has also forced them to attack either astronomical estimates of distances or the constancy of the speed of light.

The funny thing about this is that many creationist ministers have had to learn the ancient tongues as part of their study of scripture...Hebrew and Greek HAVE evolved over the centuries, and they are perfectly aware of this and have accepted it. Now they have to justify it.

But there is a deeper subtext to this article, one which I had not realized myself when I first wrote it (about 5 years ago for a humor magazine). By its very nature, evidence for Darwinian natural selection will ALWAYS be circumstantial. We simply cannot live long enough to see new species arise, except perhaps in microbes. Neither can we gather population statistics on evolving biota over geologically significant time periods. We cannot acquire direct evidence of natural selection by physical or statistical means. We only have access to a very incomplete and fragmented geological record. Consequently, it is possible to interpret anything we observe in the biological world in terms of Darwinian principles. Darwinism cannot be disproven. This should set the alarm bells off for any scientist: beware any world view which is fundamentally untestable.

As to your question, yes I believe that Darwin was right, but I also believe he didn't get the whole story. And I suspect that when we do figure it out both the creationists and the evolutionists are going to be blown away.