The typical ‘logic’ of evolutionists involves made up stories that have zero evidence, circular reasoning and arrogance.
I wonder if you believe in the ‘science’ of anthropogenic global warming as well?
I wonder if you believe in the ‘science’ of anthropogenic global warming as well?
You're comparing apples and oranges.
The process of evolution--not the theory, which was devised to explain the process, but the process itself--is an unavoidable feature of biology which scientists both account for and exploit to advance knowledge within the life sciences. It's apolitical, and, for the most part, people seem to appreciate the advances we've made using it. Furthermore, not all people of faith see a threat to their faith because evolution plays such a major role in biology. I certainly don't. Those who do, however, threaten scientific advancement if they should ever get into a position where they have the political power to stop or impede any research that is related to evolution.
On the other hand, the hypothesis that the fluorescence of CO2 within the infrared portion of the light spectrum has a disproportionate effect on the natural warming/cooling cycles of the earth has never, to my knowledge, been demonstrated. But, for politicians who've never succeeded in achieving authoritarian control (aka socialism) over the people, this hypothesis is a gift from heaven. They're not trying to restrict our freedom because they're control freaks--no, they're doing it to save the earth! Keep in mind that politicians decide which research gets funded--so any researcher who wants funding throws in something about "anthropogenic global warming" even if their research has nothing to do with climate change. It's a completely different issue.