"I think the evolution of flight is one of the clearest examples that the standard theories of evolution purely by mutation and natural selection are still lacking explanatory power."
That's doubting the currently accepted explanation for how evolution occurred, not the fact of evolution itself.
The standard response to this sort of doubt inevitably seems to involve a lot of huffing and foot stomping and irrelevant accusations of creationism, as it isn't currently possible to respond with an actually persuasive and non-speculative account of, say, the evolution of feathers via random mutation and natural selection.
I don't care if he's a creationist or not. It's telling that this is your response. You can't actually say anything substantial about how feathers evolved, because you don't know, and neither does anyone else.
FWIW, reading the other responses in this thread does not give me the impression that he's a creationist. If someone asks you why your view is more rational than theism, you should be able to respond to that question without shouting -- and the person asking won't necessarily be a theist. Unfortunately, as EGreg says, it's impossible to say anything at all critical of current evolutionary biology without someone screaming at you that you're a creationist and refusing to engage with any of your points.
At no point did I scream anything. I said I thought he was a creationist, which means believing in the idea of creationism. I also got mildy frustrated in some comments.
