"It is untestable, like all ideas of history, and unfalsifiable or unprovable and therefore is not Science."
Um, evolution is actually perfectly falsifiable. If it could be geologically shown, for instance, that the earth is 6000 years old, that would be more than enough to disprove evolutionary theory (at least the way we understand it today.) If we found human skeletal remains alongside trilobites and apatosaurs, that would be more than enough to disprove evolutionary theory. The fact that we cannot observe long-term evolution today is not a strike against it, and it is ludicrous to say it is. We also cannot observe long-term continental drift or solar formation, yet we fairly well understand these processes.
Only people who do not understand evolutionary biology or those with the intent to mislead would say that the theory of evolution is an unverifiable hypothesis.
"Natural selection is the sorting of available genetic information, not an increase of information."
Well, any mutation in the genetic code that is beneficial to the organism and carried on to future generations can be called an increase of information.
"Information comes from intelligent sources. Not from random chance."
Talk about unfounded opinions! Define "information" here, first. Anything can qualify as "information." Basically, you're starting from the supposition that God exists, and using this assumption to conclude that God exists. If this is your well reasoned "alternative" to evolution, I hope you can see why creationism is essentially the laughingstock of the scientific community. (ps: it's not because scientists are god-hating atheists.)
"Darwin's grandfather had a nice myth which his grandson faithfully embellished."
Frankly, what Darwin thought and what Darwin believed aren't of much concern to me. He could have believed that the moon was made of fairydust and that the planet was forty years old; that is irrelevant and it isn't an argument against evolutionary biology. This is a point that many creationists fail to see. It makes no difference what the originator of a theory thought, or what his motives were. What matters is the scientific rigor of the theory itself.
"Either he was a Liar, a Lunatic, or the Lord."
May I add the possibility that the source material was corrupted over time? Interpretive translation largely damaged the original text.