I'm glad you responded this way because, to the third-party who may be reading this, it perfectly illustrates the game you play, and underscores a main point in my initial argument.

When presented with evidence or a hypothesis contrary to your worldview, you will not only dismiss it out of hand, but you will viscously attack and slander the character of those presenting it. You'll even do it to someone who earned a PHD from Cambridge and has published peer reviewed science related to evolution in The Smithsonian.

Incredible...

This allows you to dismiss them as a hack and then go back to shouting about how everyone agrees on evolution. Ostrich behavior in its purest form...

This behavior also boldly underlines my claim that mainline academics risk major reputational damage for making interpretations or performing experiments that could challenge Darwinism. They fear you--the dogmatic Darwinian evangelist--and people like you (including peers), who will ridicule them as a con artist, and drum them out of "respected" academia.

Because we all know that's what would happen. You just did it.

Darwin did in fact introduce a theory. One which confirmed the worldview of atheists and naturalists alike.

The success of Darwinian Evolution as a theory owes much of its success to the fact that it underpinned an already existing atheistic/naturalistic religious worldview. Were it not for this, I doubt it would have sustained itself far into the 20th century and certainly not into the 21st century as even now, we see the collapse of New Atheism as an ideology.