Those of us here defending science (aka "methodological naturalism") are generally not interested in defending atheism (aka "metaphysical naturalism"), and yet that is the issue on which many attack "Darwinism".
Atheistic-"Darwinism" is said to cause and result from every socialistic wickedness known and therefore should be rejected in favor of... of... of... well, why not go all the way and say: young earth creationism?
My point is: many Christian denominations teach that evolution can describe the methodology by which G*d created life on earth, and therefore it's unnecessary to equate evolution "Darwinism" with atheism.
That should wipe out about half the assaults on evolution theory from a religious perspective.
The other half involve actual mechanics of evolution: can purely "random" mutation-changes possibly lead to first, the origins of life itself and second, the development of thousands upon thousands of new species?
"Intelligent Designers" insist that G*d must take a personal hand in certain specific evolutionary innovations, for instance, complex eyes.
A scientist says: there's no physical evidence of that, and indeed many "transitional forms" can be found for every alleged "intelligently designed" feature, suggesting that evolution's "step by step" methodology is indeed adequate to explain them.
Likewise, a "theistic evolutionist" (that's the term used) says:
So, bottom line: the question is not whether science somehow "proves" or "disproves" G*d, but rather, can we see G*d's Hand at work in various scientific theories, such as evolution, or "Big Bang", etc.?
I think, with just a little effort nearly anybody can and, indeed, should.
Methodological naturalism is a strategy for studying the world by which scientists choose not to consider supernatural causes - even as a remote possibility. (Conservapedia)
According to Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga,
“The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as “scientific,” it cannot refer to God’s creative activity (or any sort of divine activity).”
The possibility of divine intervention in nature is not only neglected, but positively dismissed.
“The methods of science, it is claimed, “give us no purchase” on theological propositions—even if the latter are true—and theology therefore cannot influence scientific explanation or theory justification. Alvin Plantinga, Department of Philosophy, Decio Hall, University of Notre Dame
Whether it is called natural science and evolution or methodological naturalism it imperiously demands the exclusion of everything supernatural in favor of the closed box of naturalism: void, matter and energy working in and through matter.
As void, matter (chemicals) and alchemical energy acting on chemicals does not, can not, and never has produced life, let alone conscious life, natural science adherents cannot allow ontological questions to be asked, thus they are rabidly zealous in the quashing of such questions by way of psychological abuse, terror, ruthless ridicule, relentless criticism, slander and even physical death whenever total power falls into the hands of the worst of them, as was the case in the Soviet Empire.
After much thought C.S. Lewis concluded that the entire purpose of natural science is to keep God out and furthermore, Evolution is the Biggest Lie at the center of a vast, interlocking system of lies.
The natural-science of evolution: is evolution a valid theory which accurately describes how life on earth has come to be what we see today?
The philosophy (or call it "metaphysics", "ontology" or "atheism") of materialism: is the material natural universe all there is, or is there a super-natural, spiritual realm within or beyond it? Those of us here defending science (aka "methodological naturalism") are generally not interested in defending atheism (aka "metaphysical naturalism"), and yet that is the issue on which many attack "Darwinism". Atheistic-"Darwinism" is said to cause and result from every socialistic wickedness known and therefore should be rejected in favor of... of... of... well, why not go all the way and say: young earth creationism?
My original question in this (still unanswered) is "why is this News/Activism?"
The disagreement over literal interpretion of the Book of Genesis is older that Darwin himself, much less ToE. There's nothing remotely "new" about it. As far as being a subject of political activism, even the Founders had theological disagreements. Thomas Paine particulary had some unkind things to say about the Bible, and I imagine he and John Adams would have some serious difference of opinion on the matter. But you won't find those debates in the records of the Continental Congress or the Constitutal Convention. Trying to make it a criteria for drawing political lines is something that not only avoided, but specfically warned against.