> So what? The arguments for evolution are the same kinds of
> arguments made for any scientific theory.
No they’re not. They’re the same as made for Global Warming, but not at all like those made for General Relativity, for example.
For one, General Relativity is falsifiable. Furthermore, it is mathematically solvent. People who reject General Relativity, even nowadays, are not called “deniers”, impugned and derided as intellectually deficient, and likened to cultists involved with nature deities.
They are not excluded from universities, dismissed from professional employment, cajoled, derided, and threatened with legislation, and told they should have their kids removed from them.
Those pejoratives appear to be the uniquely among the expressions of the Global Warmists and Evolutionists.
Global Warmists and Evolutionists are alike in their arrogance and derision of those who reject their claims, even when there is a great deal of data that they cannot accommodate with their theories. Their shrill, discordant, and bellicose demeanor is a disgrace to any real scientific proponents with a modicum of common sense and true inquisitive spirit.
Unfortunately, we seldom see the real scientists. All we see out here are the derisive poseurs pretending to know what even the real scientists readily admit that they don’t know.
So is evolution.
Furthermore, it is mathematically solvent.
I have no idea what that means.
People who reject General Relativity, even nowadays, are not called “deniers”, impugned and derided as intellectually deficient, and likened to cultists involved with nature deities.
That may be in large part because there is no well-funded, organized effort to keep General Relativity from being taught in schools or, if taught, being accompanied by a counter-theory with little supporting evidence. And people who reject GR don't generally tell those who accept it that they're doing Satan's work and are likely going to hell.
Another reason is that GR isn't something most people see in action, so they only relate to it theoretically. What about my examples? What if there were a bunch of people insisting that disease was caused by bad humors, and demanding that schools "teach the controversy," and complaining that they didn't get hired to teach in medical schools because of their beliefs? You don't think doctors and scientists would argue against them using exactly the same kinds of terms that "evolutionists" use for evolution deniers?