Wilfull Ignorance Is Not Science

Time and again, I get hit with the plaintive bleating of fundamentalist evolutionists that, "All the facts support evolution", "Creation and Intelligent Design do not have facts", "There are no facts for creation" and similar nonsense. News flash: It is not a case of "my facts are better than your facts" because nobody owns the facts. A fact is a fact, evidence is evidence. It is the interpretation of the facts that are at issue. For that matter (brace yourselves now), goo-to-you macroevolution and creation are equally religious and equally scientific. They are both belief systems about the past, interpreted through science frameworks based on worldviews.

When evolutionists insist that "scientists start with the facts and follow where the evidence leads", they are either misled or dishonest; nobody is unbiased. That flies in the face of human nature, Nellie.
Phylogenetic Tree (modified)

However, evolutionists are so passionate about being "right", they are threatened by honest inquiries and disagreements about their interpretations of the evidence (such as "Question Evolution Day"). I do not know if actual scientists in the field resort to this behavior, but uninformed, undereducated troll-thugs will call someone a "liar" who dares to question the "fact" of evolution — especially the alleged proofs.

Many of these proofs are fundamentally flawed, with glaring, stupid mistakes as well as outright fraud [1, 2]; perhaps they use fakery because they do not have real evidence? Bad ideologies need bad "evidence" to support them, while true science is willing to examine the evidence.

If you had asked me during my years studying science at Berkeley whether or not I believed what I read in my science textbooks, I would have responded much as any of my fellow students: puzzled that such a question would be asked in the first place. One might find tiny errors, of course, typos and misprints. And science is always discovering new things. But I believed — took it as a given — that my science textbooks represented the best scientific knowledge available at that time.
It was only when I was finishing my Ph.D. in cell and development biology, however, that I noticed what at first I took to be a strange anomaly. The textbook I was using prominently featured drawings of vertebrate embryos — fish, chickens, humans, etc. — where similarities were presented as evidence for descent from a common ancestor. Indeed, the drawings did appear very similar. But I’d been studying embryos for some time, looking at them under a microscope. And I knew that the drawings were just plain wrong.
I re-checked all my other textbooks. They all had similar drawings, and they were all obviously wrong. Not only did they distort the embryos they pictured; they omitted earlier stages in which the embryos look very different from one another.
Dare to read the rest of "Survival of the Fakest" here, and download the PDF for a more colorful presentation.