[...]
I'd love to talk about genetics.

Back in the day, Darwin knew that for his theory to fly, there had to
be SOME form of information storage system in the body of living
creatures. However, he didn't want something like genetics, because
that would require some sort of written record of line inside living
cells, and that implied God.

Darwin then came up with a God free theory: that every cell in an
organism produces "gemmules", a magical substance that trasmit
characteristics to the next generation in the blending process he
called "pangenesis". The advantage of Darwin's view was that
gemmules could be changed by external conditions, or by use and
disuse, and thus account for evoluntionary change. The disadvantage
of Darwin's view was that it was wrong.

Have you ever heard of Augustinian monk Gregor Mendal? Yes, yes, I
know that you believe any person of faith has no right to express a
scientific position, but in 1866 Mendal, after years of methodical
research, to publish a book which laid the track for the discovery of
DNA. Mendal started his research based on no small part on the fact
that he found Darwin "unpersuasive".

The theory was brilliant, the research was solid - how did the
Darwinists react?

The Darwinists choose to simply ignore Mendal for three decades, and
instead happily search for the elusive gemmules. William Bateson,
one of the scientists who "rediscovered" Mendelian genetics at the
turn of the century, wrote that the cause of this lack of interest was
"unquestionably to be found in that neglect of the experimental study
of the problem of Species which supervened on the general acceptance
of the Darwinian doctrines...The question, it was imagined, had been
answered and the debate was over."

Mendal wasn't completely embraced until 1930. How much further
down the genetic road would we be today if Drawinists had opened
their minds in 1866?