Personally I have the right to believe any theory independantly from the likelyhood of its correctness.
This is correct. You, personally, can believe whatever irrational fantasies you desire. You can be as wrong as you wish.
That said, when you try to force MY children to believe your irrational nonsense (not saying you do, but there are people out there trying to do so), you're no longer talking about your right to believe what you wish, but rather religious indoctrination. And when you start spouting off like you're some sort of expert (not that you do this, but there are those who do), you're stepping over a MAJOR line. It takes decades to be an expert in even one subdicipline of evolutionary thought. Even Richard Dawkins isn't an expert in all of it (his chapter in The Greatest Show on Earth about fossils was.....well, he tried). Pretending to be an expert when you haven't done the required legwork is fraud.
1. Why are there no dynamic changes but evolution evolves stepwise, which is nearly impossible
I'm sorry, but what are you trying to say here?
I THINK you're saying that evolution occurs in fits and starts. Well, that depends on your perspective. From a biological perspective, evolution takes a long time--just look at the graph a few posts up. TWO MILLION YEARS to double brain size. You can't imagine how long that takes--no one can. Two million years is enough time for a mountain range to appear out of an ocean (McCullough Range in the Great Basin). This can hardly be said to be fast. From a geologic perspective, yeah, two million years isn't that much time--but geology deals with rocks, not organisms.
Also, you have to remember that evolution deals with discrete genes. Mutations arise at specific locations in the genome. That means that biochemically evolution MUST BE somewhat stepwise--there are discrete units of evolution. The problem is, there's so much wiggle room here that in the phenotype you almost never see evolution as stepwise.
2. Why does no evolutio occur today, during a time period, when the external life conditions within a short period of time changed more dramatically then ever?
Evolution IS happening today. Several new species have arisen (one lizard, Nylonase, all of the breeds of cattle, dogs, chickens, etc., and so forth). Again, you need to keep scale in mind. We consider Rome to be a long time ago. The western empire fell less than 2,000 years ago--not nearly enough time for the type of large-scale changes most people want to see to occur. Also, the "Cambrian Explosion" took millions of years. Sure, it was a huge explosion of diversity--but it took place over a time period roughly equivalent to "from the Miocene to today". And finally, we're in the middle of a mass extinction. In some mass extinctions origination rates are suppressed. That's not the case in THIS mass extinction (again, domestic critters and plants can be considered new species [remember, paleontology deals with the morphospecies concept], so there's a fair amount of origination right now), but in, say, the K/Pg mass extinction origination rates were fairly low.
Also, "external life conditions" aren't changing more today than ever before. We have nothing like the Oxygen Revolution (roughly 2.5 GA). If we made the atmosphere 18% cyanide gas or sulfuric acid, that would be the equivalent. A few PPM CO2? Meh. And the re-working of the land isn't really comparable to Pangea. We're affecting things, but the world has experienced major physiological shifts in the past.
. Why is this theory such a dogma (dogmas always "stink" and have to be challenged alone for the reason of being a dogma)?
It's not. You simply don't have the perspective to see the real challenges.
Creationism and Intelligent Design have NOTHING to support them. Check out an ID website sometime--it'll be 99% "Evolution is wrong! Check out this structure!" The other 1% is cherry-picked quotes. Creationist sites are worse--they have that mixed with "Goddidit". These aren't support for an argument. The ID advocates/Creationists simply assume that if they disprove evolution (and nothing they provide does, in my experience) we'll be forced to accept what they say as true.
Evolution HAS been challenged, and our current understanding of the theory is pretty different from what it started off as. There's phyletic gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium. There's epigenetic factors. The discovery of genetics itself caused a fairly big shift in our understanding of evolution. But the core concept--heritable variation through time--is sound. There's simply been nothing to discredit it. Even Creationists/ID advocates admit this, with their discussion of "macro" vs. "micro" evolution (they always misuse the terms, by the way; it's gotten so bad that most scientists seem to have simply abandoned the terms entirely) and "variation with kinds".
If tomorrow something better came along, I won't say it would be embraced with open arms. Science is harsh, and any new idea would be subject to the most robust criticisms we could offer. But that's not to say we'd dismiss it. Paradigms have been overturned, even relatively recently. It just takes a lot of work.
