All science must be demonstrable and provable. Evolution is neither. Even the most vehemently faithful supporter of evolution will admit that evolution can not be observed to be happening.
Which, again, is quite simply not true, as has already been pointed out to you several times. Not only do we have
tons of evidence of it
having happened, in the form of speciation, fossils, DNA etc, but we have observed it happening. Why do you think we need new flu vaccines every few years? Why are there bacteria that can feed off man-made materials that didn't exist a few hundred years ago? The current fad among creationists does seem to be to simply shout "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AND THERE NEVER WAS" until they go blue in the face - I suppose that's all that remains once you've spent 150 years trying to disprove something and failing every single time - but reality, fortunately, doesn't work that way.
(even Darwin admitted he might have got a few things wrong at the end of his life)
Again, such as? I've read his autobiography and I can't recall any statements of that nture.
It has so vehemently and with such religious fervour defended evolution as THE only scientific alternative to all the religious mumbo-jumbo about creation it can't gracefully back down and admit it believes as big a load of old cobblers as any one else does.
This argument is ridiculous. Why would people who have to work with it deliberately continue to use something that doesn't work, knowing they'd get nothing but fame and fortune if they disproved it? If you look at physics, for instance, it's been turned upside-down several times in the last 125 years or so alone. There have been dozens of scientists who have taken great pleasure in pointing out where Newton, and later Einstein, got it wrong (and
proved them wrong as well). If the theory of evolution is so easily disproved, and in fact was never proved in the first place as the current party line seems to be, you'd think at least
one of all the hundreds of thousands of scientists who've worked with it and used it as a model for 150 years would step up and say "Look, here's where Darwin got it wrong, give me my Nobel Prize and a house next to Stephen Hawking's."
The lack of any evidence of it actually happening is one objection.
It would be if there wasn't lots of evidence, true. Since there is, it's... well, still an objection, just a completely unfounded one.
The Law of Entropy is another.
There's no such thing as The Law Of Entropy. Are you thinking of the second law of thermodynamics, which in layman's terms says that entropy
in a closed system always increases? It doesn't apply for the very simple reason that the Earth isn't a closed system, as it's continuously supplied with energy from a helpful outside source, which was discovered (and occasionally mistaken for a god) even by the most primitive tribes. You know,
the sun. (Though the continued speciation of life could, in a non-physicist way, be seen as a form of entropy.)
The third really simple objection any one with can come up with is all the living fossils. If evolution was happening all the time continuously albeit slowly over millenia so excuse us if we can't actually observe it happening, how come it managed to turn a complete blind eye to certain species that have remained exactly the same as they are in the fossil record millions of years ago?
Ah yes, the "if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys" argument. Same reason there are still Brits even though some of them emigrated to America: evolution doesn't state that every species always keeps changing - it says life evolves to fit the conditions it lives in. If a species surroundings don't change, there's no reason for the species to change.
Fourth objection - where are the transitional species? Either living today or in the fossil record. Just ONE?
How about thousands? Name one you'd like to see and I'll post a picture of it. I already did, earlier in the thread; you may have missed it.
Here's a helpful list from wikipedia to get you started.
Even homo sapiens sapiens just appeared on the scene with no 'missing link'.
Aah but wait, says the person with a little knowledge, what about the Cambrian explosion.
Which lasted for 50 million years. Which is a little bit longer than we've been influencing our environment.
Foucault's Pendulum says the simplest explanation must be right.
Are you thinking of Occam's Razor? Foucault's pendulum is something entirely different. And even Occam's Razor doesn't mean that "the simplest fairy tale is always right"; there still has to be some kind of proof. You said earlier that we could just google arguments against evolution; the problem with that, of course, is that like I said earlier, creationists have been very creative over the last 150 years - which means that you have lots of different, and completely incompatible, arguments against evolution. None of which have stood up so far. You have the fundamentalists who claim the Bible is absolutely 100% literally true, that the Earth is 6,000 years old, and that men have fewer ribs than women. (Talk about ignoring evidence.) You have the ones who spout scientific-sounding arguments about "irreducable complexity" and "macroevolution" and other terms made up specifically to invent a barrier that they have never proven exists. You have the "intelligent design" people who claim everything was created by... SOMEONE, who may have been the Abrahamic god and may have been Ridley Scott, WE SIMPLY CANNOT KNOW AND THEREFORE MUSTN'T. And you have the outright
kooks who claim God's perfect creation is proven by the banana fitting perfectly in the palm of a man's hand (which you'd think would make them reconsider their opinions of gay sex, but...) If they can't even agree on something as basic as the age of the earth, how are they supposed to come up with a more workable theory?