Ah, the ego of an over educated professor who only views life through one lens and that lens is science and how science can and cannot describe the physical forces we live with on a daily basis.
Gravity, magnetism, and quantum mechanics (a fairly new branch of physics that Einstein rejected as a valid theory) are simply exercises in how to define the physical world mathematically. Yes advances in all three have benefited mankind.
Evolution on the other hand involves the deepest psychological identity of a human being. But hey, you’re a scientist involved with non-biological chemicals that are not affected by theories that can be demonstrated to show that mankind is nothing more than the product of natural selection and the roll of the dice by organisms that happened to mutate in such a way as to form organic systems so complex that mankind with all his knowledge and technology cannot duplicate. Mankind can manufacture poor facsimiles but nothing to compare with the complexity of the human eye, our nervous system, the brain, and etc.
But then science does not have a conscious does it? Heaven forbid that any human being should fail to bow to the idol and god of science and question the icons of human wisdom and knowledge.
We know that “evolution” within species and families is a fact. We can observe how finches and other animals “mutate” or evolve. However, unlike gravity, magnetism and some of the other physical forces we live with we cannot test Darwinian evolution in a laboratory. So instead of teaching that all life evolved from a common ancestor as a theory you insist this be spoon-fed to all children without any real proof that all life “evolved” from a common ancestor.
By your own words we science cannot show by any evidence how 32 of the 35 existing phyla evolved during the Cambrian period, yet you still insist that evolution is scientific fact testable by science today, which is not totally true. Science has not been able to evolve any organism from a worm to a fish to a reptile to a mammal and until scientist can do just that evolution from a common ancestor is a theory without a shred of empirical evidence.