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.
One of the reasons this disagreement is so ancient is because there are two creation stories in Genesis with two very different names for the creator. In fact, one name is plural, the other is singular.
You might chalk it up as just a mistake, since debates about religion would normally appear in a religion forum.
But the problem is that FR religion threads are held to very high standards of personal conduct -- no insults, no hint of profanity, etc. -- and anyone willing to defend the science of evolution is not likely to visit a religion forum where they are condemned as promoting a:
By contrast, "news-activism" forums usually allow more free-wheeling discourse, with blunter, rougher language -- language which might even approach in its mocking, insulting tone that of the article above.
And just in case we don't use such language here, then YHAOS has prepared a list of alleged insults against Christians from FOUR YEARS AGO to "prove" the point.
So, my guess is they classified it as News/Activism for the purpose of inviting folks like you and me to defend science, in the hopes of provoking us into language that is as insulting to them as their article above is to us.
Somehow, this makes them happier.