The believer of the Hitchens brothers pokes holes in Darwinism and points out how nastily any criticism is rejected. All of this is the last half of his current blog:-http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/evolution/-"First, what do these two gentlemen think my position is on the theory of evolution by natural selection? I will re-state it, yet again. It is that I am quite prepared to accept that it may be true, though I should personally be sorry if it turned out to be so as, it its implication is plainly atheistical, and if its truth could be proved, then the truth of atheism could be proved. I believe that is its purpose, and that it is silly to pretend otherwise. 
 
It is an elegant and clever explanation for the current state of the realm of nature. But it is a theory . Personally, I have no idea how the realm of nature took its present shape, or how life began, and I don't think anyone else does either. There are several strands of belief among supporters of the theory (much as there are several sorts of belief in God), with Stephen Jay Gould disagreeing with Richard Dawkins, among others. The theory of evolution by natural selection has altered substantially since it was first set out, stumbles over the fossil record, which provides some unwelcome evidence of large-scale sudden change, especially in the Cambrian Explosion, and has a general circularity problem (as do most all-explanatory theories), which has troubled at least one notable philosopher, Sir Karl Popper. Don't tell me he 'recanted' (even that is in dispute, by the way). So did Galileo, and in both cases the recantation said more about those who desired and pressed for it than it did about those who made it. In both cases a rather ossified faith come up against an enquiring mind, and the enquiring mind was compelled to conform, by ossified faith. Which side are you on in such conflicts? I am always on the same one.- Mr Platt's assertion that 'to suggest that the theory is "based upon speculation, not upon observation" is an insult to Darwin, and to the many biologists who have studied and refined the theory over the years.' , with its interesting use of the word 'insult', is a mild but important warning of the inquisition-style rage which quickly enters arguments on this subject, and which is in fact the biggest single argument against the theory. Why are its supporters so furiously intolerant of doubt and dissent, if they are so confident?"