Darwinism has grown and blossomed into a cultish religion. Anyone challenging Darwinian evolution will be demonized and punished. The bombastic Darwinian rhetoric says that Darwinians are not against questions of their theory. Darwinians will cite examples of certain questions of the evolutionary mechanism. This is misleading because Darwinians have not proposed anything that challenges the foundational basis of Darwinism, which is random mutation and non-teleological naturalism. The only theory that challenges the foundation of Darwinism is ID. This is the reason Darwinism is so opposed to ID. Darwinians are not threatened by variations to their religious doctrines but when you challenge the basic tenets of their belief that’s where they draw the line.
The question people need to ask is why is it wrong to question Darwinism? Why are scientists portrayed as ignorant and unscientific if they are skeptical of Darwinism? Darwinians also try to make science into a democratic process by citing the majority of scientists affirms Darwinian evolution as the only explanation for life. Science is not subject to popular opinion. In almost every paradigm change is science there is a huge resistance to that change and the majority of the intellectuals at the time will affirm their status quo. i.e. Heliocentricity, Mendelian genetics, Relativity, Big Bang and Quantum Mechanics.
Ultimately, science will evolve and the truth will suffice. It is just a matter of time. Darwinians can delay this progress by stymieing ID through political and academic oppression, but they will not suppress the progress of science forever. To the current Darwinist will no doubt cheer and feel gratify that they have succeeded for the moment. Science like freedom can never be suppress indefinitely.
Darwinists attack ID as Creationism, personal belief, and philosophy. Why? Is it just because it conflicts with the foundational tenet of Darwinian evolution? Detecting and inferring design is practiced in science regularly from SETI to Stonehenge. Why is it off limits to detect and infer design in biological science? The Darwinian argument gets worst because they are the only self appointed Priests that is allowed to infer random mutation and natural selection as the explanation for biology. When critics point out their inference has produced no empirical evidence for their faith. The Darwinian retort is chastise the critics for appeal to the gap of their knowledge. How long should these gaps of knowledge be allowed to exist? It has been over 150 years. Most damaging to the Darwinian argument is not because of any gaps in knowledge. The fact is that the gaps have been filled and our scientific data shows that the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution are incapable of producing the types of biodiversity we observe. ID many not prove to be a viable replacement theory, but Darwinism is certainly failed as an explanation for biology.
ID is a burgeoning theory that must be explored with many different avenues. There is a growing numbers of testable theories for ID and more will come along if the Darwinian oppression is lifted. Contrary to Darwinian propaganda not all of these theories stems from Creationists. i.e. Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) by John Davison, Design-by-Contract by Albert de Roos. From the Creationist side there is the Limitation of Varieties by Fernando Chavez. Darwinists are not interested furthering science, they are only concerned with protecting their secular materialistic naturalism.