[E-Mat]

"...Darwin is an evil mad scientist to propose his theories of natural selection."

Most people (and certainly all scientifically-minded people) who don't buy evolution wholesale don't have a problem with theories of natural selection. Natural selection is provable and religious people have understood and employed its principles, as well as directly contributed to that theory. In fact, these very same people wouldn't have a problem with "Evolution" if it could stick to the observable and provable facts.

And "Evolution" is by no means foundational to anything in science. In fact, "Evolution" is a loosely supported hypothesis that itself is propped up with a collection of other theories (some provable, some speculative, some grossly circular) and it deserves almost all the criticism it receives. The people who claim "Evolution" is foundational can ultimately point only to the more successful (and wholly independent) scientific props as foundational or even practical.

It might be silly to argue against a silly scientific theory on what appears to be religious grounds (e.g. "Creationism", "Intelligent Design", etc.), but it seems to me that religious fanaticism is precisely what prevents open questioning of evolutionary theory and some of its more questionable supporting science; so, I'm not surprised that religious type people are the most vocal opposition.

[narby]

but it seems to me that religious fanaticism is precisely what prevents open questioning of evolutionary theory and some of its more questionable supporting science;

The selling of "Intellegent Design" is quite obviously an attempt to "prove" the existence of God by scientific argument. The method chosen is to attack evolution, which the non-scientific population doesn't understand anyway. It's obviously working.

My fear is that it will damage both science and religion in ways that neither can see today.