Protecting Evolution is Not in the Spirit of Scientific Inquiry

Question Evolution Day is February 12!

The biggest problem with evolution is that it is not scientific. Sure, scientists do science stuff to try to support it, but in the end, we have speculation, conjecture, wild guesses, tendentious "facts", bad science and even fraud.

Evolution is a pseudoscientific theory. Yet its adherents passionately (even desperately) try to defend it despite rational thinking and inchoate practices. I have inquired of atheists and evolutionists who attack The Question Evolution Project, other Bible-believing Christians, and me personally. They want to "protect" "science" from "religion". Here is one outstanding example with a Stalinist edge:
By the way, Twitter "Tweets" are public. Twitter said so. This is why they delete things.

Science does not need protection! Further, they conflate the words evolution with science, which is intellectually dishonest and manipulative.

The true spirit of scientific inquiry allows consideration of different points of view. Refusing dissent is against science.
One of the predictable rites of the biological establishment is the outraged, condescending response given to any criticism levied at the theory of evolution by the wrong group. There is no end of the amount of indignant spleen vented towards the supposed interlopers—pig-ignorant, fundamentalist, pseudo-scientific nuts—who dare contradict the most important idea in the history of science. Consider noted atheist and evolutionary evangelist Richard Dawkin’s statement:
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).
And yet, in two recent articles on pride and error in the sciences, a foundation is laid for even evolutionary biology to be more open to criticisms, without worrying from where these critiques arise.
In both Half the Facts You Know Are Probably Wrong, by Ronald Bailey, and How Might Intellectual Humility Lead to Scientific Insight?, by W. Jay Wood, a strong argument is advanced for principled and unbiased humility in the search for scientific truth. After all, could it really be any other way? Why should Mother Nature or God favor a blindly biased cabal of “truth hoarders” arrogantly convinced only they intuit the secret nuts and bolts of the universe?
Intellectually honest people should read the rest of "Every Scientific Fact is Open to Reevaluation—Except Evolution, by Conservatives". But I admit that I do not understand what "Conservatives" have to do with the article.