Some things are just not open to debate ... unfortunately

Within the great "open-minded" world that we live in, here are two non-negotiables.
You can't question global warming or Darwinian evolution.
I thought of the former when I read about Nobel prize-winning physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, abruptly resigned from the premier physics society - the American Physical Society - in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."
Dr. Giaever, who won the Prize in 1973, disagreed with the APS' official position on global warming that "the evidence is incontrovertible."
Giaever said in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the society, that "In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."
Which, interestingly enough, forced the APS to admit, "The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."
Now, I'm no scientist. I'll also admit I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other on the whole issue of global warming. Certainly I have my doubts, because I remember when scientists were predicting the next Ice Age in the last 1970s.
But because "global warming'' has become such a lucrative business - particularly for people like former Vice-president Al Gore - there is a huge financial incentive for the warming theorists to be right.
And even more (because I do believe such things are not always about money), people like Mr. Gore and many others have staked their reputation on this.
Maybe their goal is to move the world to some form of renewable energy source. But the ends do not justify the means.
And the fact that such "warmists'' never seem willing to engage in debate but rather simply laugh derisively at those who question them makes me very suspicious.
Kind of like Darwinians.
It's pretty much accepted that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is an ignorant boob. I heard that noted brainiac Chris Mathews on MSNBC attempt to use evolution as a way to discredit former Pennsylvania Senator and current (weak) presidential candidate Rick Santorum, trying to force Santorum into a statement on evolution with his usual smirk.
Do I believe in evolution?
Depends. I absolutely believe that species have evolved. Heck, I've evolved. But evolution within species is not questionable.
However, Darwin's version has species evolving from one species into a new species. And there is no evidence; at least none scientifically accepted except by evolutionists themselves.
Even Darwin's famous finches evolved back-and-forth depending on the weather, but never evolved into a monkey or whatever the next higher form of life is above finch.
Here's the thing: the evolutionist' answer to anyone questioning Darwin's "theory" is faith. Evolutionists absolutely stake their reputation on the belief that one day they'll be proven right.
Which is very similar to the religious whose beliefs they ridicule.
I can respect a person of faith. I'm a person of faith.
But I admit the core of what I believe takes a measure of faith.
Why won't evolutionists and global warmists be intellectually honest enough to do the same?