“I see plenty of parallels between Global Warming and Darwinism.”
Then what you see is a totally false mirage serving a fantasy belief, because the two topics have nothing substantial to do with each other.
“Global Warming” is a non-scientific and political movement pretending to be based upon science which is in reality based upon invented and false evidence pretending to be the result of the scientific method while it actually is not a valid application of the scientific method.
“Darwinism” from Wikipedia for example says: “Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory, it originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance when Charles Robert Darwin published On the Origin of Species, including concepts which predated Darwin’s theories, but subsequently referred to specific concepts of natural selection, the Weismann barrier or in genetics the central dogma of molecular biology.[1] Though it usually refers strictly to biological evolution, the term has been used by creationists to refer to the origin of life, and has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution, both of which have no connection to Darwin’s work.”
In other words, you are demonstrating an abysmal ignorance of the topic you seek to criticize and denounce by equating it with the unrelated “Global Warming” topic; because “Darwinism” was a proposed theory based upon actual evidence resulting from the use of the scientific method, revised by supplementary biological evidence and biological theories, and generally superseded by a larger and more extensive body of evidence resulting from observations using the scientific method over a period of more than 155 years. As the Wikipedia article comments, you have adopted a non-evidentiary assumption and faith-based belief central to what is generally referred to as “Creationist” dogma rejecting the results of the scientific method.
“Neither can be proved wrong.”
Such a statement cannot be further from the Truth. “Darwinism” is a 155 year old proposed theory whose body of many conclusions have been tested by the scientific theory in detail. Many of the detailed conclusions which have been proven to be invalid (wrong) in part or in whole have been superseded and supplemented by later theories and results produced by the use of the scientific method. “Darwinism” is a theory which can be and often has been “proved wrong” in some of its conclusions and not in other of its conclusions. By making a false statement about the obsoleted theory as a pejorative against the current, more comprehensive, and more accurate evolutionary theory or theories, you are engaging in the logical fallacy known as the Strawman Argument.
“There’s always SOMETHING which allows the believer to hang on to their faith.”
You are taking your own faith-based behavior and falsely attributing the same kind of behavior to people who are making observations which are not based upon faith.
“Now, one might say Idea #1 is a lot better science than Idea #2 — but conversing with the two sets of believers is precisely the same experience.”
Your statement demonstrates how you fail to understand the definition of science and are ignorant about how “science” works. Belief and believers are one thing, and experience and experimenters are something totally different.
“It’s all insults, all emotion, all “you just don’t understand/you reject science/I know the facts”.
Again, such a pejorative statement is another case where you falsely attribute your own behavior to people who are not engaging in your own emotional behavior.
“For me, Darwinism is not scientifically superior to Global Warming.”
Given your obvious ignorance about what does and does not constitute science and the scientific method, it is not surprising to see you fail to recognize or acknowledge the differences between the two topics.
“They are religious cults and they refuse to be disproven by any evidence.”
Your statement is a self-serving illusory fantasy. “Global Warming” is not science in the first place, because it is actually a political philosophy, not a theology, and pseudo-science falsely pretending to be science. “Darwinism” is generally an incomplete and obsolescent description of observed natural history, and it is not a theology. “Darwinism” is not to be confused with the incorrect behavior of people who falsely engage in pseudoscience in the name of science.
The miracle which is required for Evolution, but which has not been seen, is the idea that Life began in the seas, then eventually came out on land, and then a land animal went back into the sea and eventually became a Blue Whale.
That's not the same as bacteria which remains bacteria, but which develops a resistance to antibiotics. It's many orders of magnitude more astounding.
I don't have enough faith to believe in it, and you are nowhere near close to proving that it happened.
I say it's a lot like Global Warming.