Surely you are joking!!!!!!!!! If evolution was so self-evident, so powerfully supported by the "overwhelming" amounts of supposed evidence, then why, at every hint that some people may disagree, do the supporters of the "theory" of evolution scream murder and run to their mummies (or in this case the courts) for protection. The truth here is that this issue is NOT "science" vs "religion" - it is religion vs religion (humanistic atheism seeking justification for its existence in darwinism, oops I mean Neo-Darwinism since it has had to be reshaped a few times because the original versions didn't [and still don't] work). AND science vs science - yes, truly! I could bore you for a long time with lots of sensible, coherent scientific findings that far better support the Special Creation model over evolution in terms of explaining things the way we observe them to be today. Evolution actually probably doesn't even qualify as a "theory" (regardless of the self-serving statements of the esteemed academies) and is certainly not useful as a "tool" (it is totally unnecessary as the many thousands of PhD scientists here in Oz and around the world who accept the Biblical explanation of origins will attest). For example, there is no known mechanism (or even one postulated) for how evolution actually happens. "Random mutational changes over vast eons of time" just doesn't cut it because all of the multitude of mutational events discovered and studied in modern science fail to produce any increase in the genetic information produced - only re-arrangement or losses. How then do you go from the (totally hypothesised and evidence-absent) idea of a "primordial soup" to ANY form of life (this problem has been outsourced to outer space now but of course one wouldn't dare ask the obvious next question of how did the aliens came to be) and thence from single-cell organisms through the amazingly empty (its mostly gaps) "tree of life" (ironic title in the extreme if you are familiar with Genesis) to more complex creatures like humans (or anything "on the way up")? Genetic change is relentlessly DOWNHILL - not uphill as the evolutionists would have us all swallow unquestioningly.
Recent scientific discussion on the news involves discussion of the "great extinction" found in the geological record which has "baffled" scientists about how apparently up to 95% of the then animal population died off. Global warming is the latest contender (next it will be SARS and AIDS) - try the Flood of Noah guys - its all recorded. And what about all this nonsense about the atmosphere and chemical nature of Titan? Methane, Nitrogen, etc - very exciting stuff (and shows what real science can achieve in getting the craft there and the info back) but that this represents "what was probably happening in the early history of our planet's development"???? How much money is being wasted in the pursuit of this information? What would happen if (apart from the temperature problem) just a whiff of oxygen (reported to be useful if you are hoping for the spontaneous development of life) somehow (actually mechanics of events doesn't seem to matter in evolution, only the "facts" of its unsupported "truths") joined in the mix? Nobody better light a match that's all. That would make a loud bang!
Summary: Why did that innocuous little sticker cause such a fuss? - because evolutionist are very sensitive to any suggestion the the emperor has no clothes. What other field of science would possibly object to being "approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." Why has evolution been singled out (this was a naive statement)? Because it is the only area of science or all of the other fields of endeavour that you listed where such an approach is actively discouraged (to put it mildly!). How many people get taken to court for offering a different interpretation of history (actually, quite a few come to think of it!) or literature? It is fine to say "other fields of study are far less grounded in fact and professional consensus than is evolutionary biology" except that is only half true - there are very few facts, just the consensus (but not as strong as it is imagined there either). Why not just apply the open mind as suggested (or at least offer some "facts" to support your religious beliefs, since that is what they are - it takes far more faith to believe in the proposed processes of evolution than the Biblical account). Have a nice day.
