WorldNetDaily does it again...another ridiculous article, titled "Who are the real fundamentalist, extremist zealots?" Can you guess who? Sure you can. Evolutionists, of course.

Parent Larry Caldwell had an idea to bring more diversity into the education of his child and fellow students of the Roseville, Calif., Joint Union High School District.

Months ago, he observed, the district's biology textbook failed to point out any of the weaknesses of the theory of evolution—teaching it instead as a matter of fact.

How tiresome. How unimaginative. How stale.

Look. There's a simple request I would like to see addressed by the next person who complains that evolution is taught without mentioning its weaknesses.

Name them.

That's right. Rattle off a list of these purported weaknesses for me. Tell me all the stuff that I ought to be explaining in class that I'm hiding. In detail. Preferably with a discussion of your alternative theory, which covers these deficiencies better than evolution. OK?

And please...do your homework. Don't tell me how weak and inadequate the theory of evolution is, how there hasn't been any supporting evidence for it generated in over a century, and then happen to admit that you've never heard of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, as has actually happened here. You don't get to declare that thousands of scholars have been dead wrong while revealing that you haven't even heard of the simplest, most basic, most fundamental points of the theory.

Go ahead and read the rest of the dreary, boring WorldNetDaily article. The author expends a lot of effort complaining about how evolutionists are all religious fundamentalists (and we all know how evil that is)...but look closely. Despite announcing our failure to teach the weaknesses of evolution, he doesn't name one. Not one.

Despite claiming that evolution has become "so sacrosanct that you can't question it", he doesn't ask one question. Not one.

He claims that evolution is "unsupported by facts and unsupportable by facts". All that means is that he doesn't know one thing about the science. Not one.

Dealing with people who wear their ignorance as a badge of honor does get rather depressing. It's also painful to see these constant accusations that scientists are afraid to face problems in the field, when practically every paper published is saying, "here is a problem we are trying to answer" and "here is a new problem that our data has exposed." I can't even imagine what these people think must be in a scientific paper—do they picture something like a church newsletter, with lots of "Praise Darwin!"s and announcements about the upcoming lab social?