Does the beak of the finch prove Darwin was right?

[Does the beak of the finch prove Darwin was right?  By John D. Morris, Ph.D.] "While on his journey aboard the Beagle, Darwin had an extended stay in the Galapagos Islands. He observed a group of finches that were similar to ones he had seen on the mainland 600 miles away. Darwin concluded that these birds were related to the birds on the mainland but had developed unique traits suited to the islands. The structure of the beaks was one of the key characteristics he studied. This interpretation was contrary to some creationists of his day who believed species could not change.

Darwin’s conclusion concerning finches matches that of the modern creationist models and demonstrates the variation within a kind that is observed in nature—the finches are still finches. Studies by Drs. Peter and Rosemary Grant over the past decades have shown that the beak size of the finches changes with the climate of the islands they inhabit. Beaks got larger during droughts and smaller during wet periods. All the while, the birds were observed to interbreed. This cannot be considered evidence of evolution in the molecules-to-man sense because there was no net change in the population, even though rapid changes in beak size were observed. The Grants’ work is an example of a good study using the principles of operational science arriving at a faulty interpretation based on evolutionary presuppositions." Does the beak of the finch prove Darwin was right? Evolution Exposed. Second Ed., Morris.

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]:  "So how did the intelligent designer design organic life. We need to have the procedure so we can test if it happened."

The naturalist wasn't there. The creationist wasn't there. God was there (Ge 1:1). You can believe him instead of attempting to undermine what he said (Ps 11:3).

"My sperm cells are mine (Gamera)."

Does the beak of the finch prove Darwin was right?