It is an attempt to put scientists who believe that the theory of evolution is a useful theory on the same level as people who believe in creationism.
Science is not philosophy. There is no way to equate a scientific theory with a philosophy.
Creationism is neither a scientific theory nor a philosophy; it is a religious belief.
Creationism may in fact be true, but there is no way to prove it scientifically, and there is no way to argue for it philosophically.
Philosophers can argue for the existence of God, and that God created the universe, but there is no way to argue philosophically that God created the world as we know it about ~6000 years ago.
Likewise there is no way to prove scientifically that the Earth was created ~6000 years ago.
The paper you site is an excellent contribution to the scientific discourse. It will either be found to be incorrect, or it will help to improve the methods that scientists use to show if/when natural selection occurs.
The scientists' reluctance to question natural selection outright is an understandably conservative conclusion from their results. What they discovered did not disprove natural selection, in merely brought into doubt conclusions made by other scientists.
This is the way that science should be done.
All words are made up. ‘Evolutionism’ just happens to be a word that you don’t like. I know how you feel. There are any number of words that I don’t like. Most of them are associated with an attempt to achieve political domination.
”Science is not philosophy. There is no way to equate a scientific theory with a philosophy.”
I quite agree. To convince a number of your antagonists, however, you will first need to persuade Richard Dawkins, Steven Hawking, Steven Weinberg, Daniel Dennett, William B. Provine, everyone at Berkeley who endorses the Berkeley website evolution 101 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_01), which features what it calls “From soup to cells – the origin of life,” and everyone at all the universities whose science websites list the Berkeley website as a recommended resource, Steven Pinker, Stephen J. Gould, Peter Sanger, Michael Tooley, Richard Lewontin, Marc Hauser, Victor Stenger, and a whole host of other Atheist, Agnostic, or Science sycophants, that Science doesn’t do philosophy. The failure of Science’s protagonists to sing off the same page is one very important reason why you will continue to have so much trouble convincing Conservative Christians that the Theory of Evolution does not incorporate the origins of life, does not lead one to the conclusion that ‘1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent,’ and that Evolution advocates do not seek unrestrained access to public monies for the purpose of controlling and advancing a public indoctrination agenda. It just may be that Conservative Christians are more inclined to believe all those eminent scientists and all those university websites rather than your declarations to the contrary.
”Creationism is neither a scientific theory . . . ”
Creationism is a theory about the origin of existence, including the origin of life. It includes the use of scientific knowledge as a source of confirmation, yes, but in the form of a scientific theory, no.
”. . . nor a philosophy . . . ”
It isn’t?! The Oxford Companion To Philosophy carries quite a number of pages devoted to the subject of religion, with an emphasis on Christianity and Western Civilization, and with topical headings such as: history of the philosophy of religion; problems of the philosophy of religion; skepticism about religion; religion and epistemology; religion and morality; religion, art, and science; religious belief and cosmology; and a host of other topics, including an article on “Atheism and Agnosticism.” The Companion also carries articles on a number of philosophers noted for their Christian orientation. You’ll have a difficult time convincing people that Christianity is not philosophy. One has to wonder why you would even want to. Perhaps it has to do with the clear desire of some to disqualify Christianity from inclusion in any civilized discussion conducted in Western Culture.
”. . . it is a religious belief.”
Creationism is a philosophical tenet of Christianity. It is a religious belief. It is not a religion. Christianity is the religion. Creationism does not inform Christianity, just as the tail does not wag the dog. Christianity informs Creationism.