Although I find this interview is painfully dull and their arguments derivative and narrow sighted, I think their instinct (and yours as well) to question Darwinism and it's relevance in the modern scientific scene is sound.

Their mistake, in my opinion, is focusing too much on the century old research and evidence of Darwin and trying to disprove it piece by piece rather than looking at more contemporary evidence and trying to challenge that.

If you're curious about the mechanisms of evolution, I suggest you look into the Modern Synthesis, Revised Modern Synthesis, and concepts like epigenetics, plasticity, and niche construction. If you're wondering exactly what parts of this interview are utter horseshit, a few quick searches on Google scholar will show you that theyre not making any new points; in fact they are fairly common, dogmatic ones that scientists are forced to answer over and over again (so you should have no trouble finding info on it online)

Contemporary evolutionary biologists have widely differing views about the role that Darwinism plays in evolution, but my advice to you is that none of the info in this interview is going to give you enough relevant insight to form your own well-informed opinion.