Darwinism is not good science. Hence, it needs a bodyguard of ACLU thugs to keep the critics away.
Exactly. Evolutionary theory neither needs nor seeks such defense in the professional market place of scientific ideas: the domain where science is actually practiced and scientific ideas are put to the test.
It's only in the field of science education that a defense is regrettably necessary against political activism initiated by antievolutionists, who seek to AVOID the normal review and testing of scientific ideas and instead have their views included in curricula on an "affirmative action" basis.
Darwinism is not good science. Hence, it needs a bodyguard of ACLU thugs to keep the critics away.
Again, the "critics" AVOID real scientific debate almost entirely. The problem is that if they enter the debate then their ideas must be subjected to potential refutation and abandonment, like any other scientific idea is. But they're not willing to risk their ideas in this fashion (because they are, in fact, religious dogmas) and therefore choose political debate (and effective exemption from normal scientific review) instead.
Sad. Especially from conservatives who normally advocate the competition of ideas.
The theory of evolution (what you call "Darwinism") has withstood the attacks of religious believers for 150 years, and is still gaining ground.
When Darwin wrote, in 1859, there were a few fossil hominids known, now there are tens of thousands.
The advent of genetics a few decades ago could have ended the current theory of evolution for good, but... all the new data just supported it!
Sorry, your religious belief does not constitute scientific data.