Vox Day's Evolution Debate

Vox Day has started a debate over evolution with an evolution advocate, Scott Hatfield. Each of them have been making posts on their blogs responding to the comments of the other. Vox is trying to prove that evolution is an unscientific theory which is untestable, and Scott is defending the traditional scientific-ness of evolution theory. One thing to keep in mind is that Vox is NOT arguing "creationism" or "creation science". He is trying to prove that evolution is an unscientific theory that cannot be proved and requires just as much faith as religion, which might explain the religious vigor with which its adherents respond to non-believers.

Vox's posts:
It has begun
It has begun #2
Oh, for Darwin's sake
It has begun III

Scott's posts:
Vox Dei Bait (Prologue)
Vox Dei Bait #1
Vox Dei Bait #2
Vox Dei Bait #3
Vox Dei Bait #4
Vox Dei Bait #5

This has been an interesting exchange, except for a few trolls in the comments. And while I would count myself as being an "evolution skeptic" like Vox, there are a couple of comments that I made in Vox's posts which were not responded to by anyone. I think they are comments that should be addressed, which is why I am posting this here.

Comment 1: Regarding Australia's indigenous species
My comment from VP:

OK, well, if (as I and most regulars here believe) God did it, that is, He created life and evolution does not occur and does not explain the diversity of life on Earth, then how does one explain the example of isolated animal populations such as that of Australia?
Before Europeans explored Australia, all the mammals there were marsupials, not placentals. And there were marsupials all over the biosphere filling all sorts of niches that in other parts of the world are filled by similar placental mammals.
So why did God make Australia full of marsupials? And what is up with the Platypus and Echidna, mammals that lay eggs?
My answers are: "I DO NOT KNOW" and "God did it for some reason I don't understand".
But it is an interesting question which is explained by the evolutionists as isolated species evolving to fill similar niches, and that by chance, only viable marsupial populations existed on Australia when its land mass drifted apart from the rest of the world millions of years ago.

And no one responded to this one, of course, there was this annoying troll on that thread that Vox ended up banning, who kept blathering about being descended from fish no matter what response he got from everyone else.

I found something about this at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent, Part 2.6.

The usual creationist response refers to the diaspora of marsupial animals after the Flood, in which all the marsupials ended up in Australia. OK, whatever. I guess the possums went the wrong way.

Comment 2: Regarding new species of weed in Britain
Vox, in one post, asked for evidence of new species evolving, since the evolutionists say that life is evolving all the time at a high rate. Most of this evolution is occurring in microbes, they say, and would also happen where science cannot usually catalog it, but there should still be some examples of this in plant and animal life that we can observe.

Well, I recently read about some new species of weed (groundsel) in Britain, and here's some links about it:
Scruffy little weed shows Darwin was right as evolution moves on
Discovery of UK's Newest Plant Species

So they claim that this weed is a new species which evolved from some other similar weeds, but it can't reproduce with other weeds and therefore counts as a new species. Is this one of the examples that Vox was asking for? It's no mouse to elephant, but it is something.

Conclusion
So, anyway, I'd like to see what others think about my two side comments to Vox and Scott's debate. What say you? I say that God is still in control, and that life and the universe simply operate based on the rules that God set up when He created everything. The sheer complexity of DNA seems to me to argue for some sort of designer, at least, not random processes. Could God have used evolution in creation? If not, why not?