I didn't know evolutionists feared criticism. I'll ask one next time I see one. As scientists I would hope they would be masters at producing criticism. In fact, the biological literature is full of criticisms, which is why evolutionary science has changed so much, and branched out, over the years.
Aside from evolutionists, anyone who values reason or simple truth may very well have convulsions at efforts to teach schoolchildren that the second law of thermodynamics means that only God can increase complexity.
I didn't know that "Darwinism" had an economic or political branch. I'll have to go back to Darwin's writings to see if I can find that. What are they doing advocating government monopolies? Perhaps you are thinking of a subset of Darwinists who also happen to be collectivists?
Some religion is superstitious. Darwinism is also superstitious.
What religion is not supersititious? What about Darwinism is superstitious?
I mean no personal insult or attack when I say that you are aiding the illustration of that imperviousness. You giving non-answers to a core question.
How so?
Oh? How about manufactured flying dinosaur fossils? How about Lucy? I'm sure my creationist/id associates could list pages of manufactured evidence.
How do contemporary evolutionary theories depend on these?
The process of observation and reinterpretation is the way of science.
Right you are, which is why the theory of evolution, fake pepperd moths and all, is not science.
And creationists can conceive of empirical data that would disprove the existence of God? That is, the part of their theory requiring God's existence is falsifiable?
Well, erase for a moment, for the sake of argument, all you think you know about how people currently conceive evolutionary theories. Can you conceive of a rational way of tentatively explaining the existing biological and fossil evidence without the need of a deliberate intervention?
Source is "Answers in Genesis" HERE.