Teaching about evolution is controversial because it pokes holes in certain commonly held beliefs. That doesn't make any of the actual underlying facts controversial.
> Evolution is completely uncontroversial.
Perhaps it should be uncontroversial is what you mean, but it certainly isn't, which makes that statement wrong.
No, you wish it was uncontroversial. Or it is uncontroversial within a carefully chosen subset of the society that agrees with the idea an its implications, but that's cherry-picking and does not actually mean it's uncontroversial (without qualification).
> Teaching about evolution is controversial because it pokes holes in certain commonly held beliefs. That doesn't make any of the actual underlying facts controversial.
How can you say that? The idea isn't controversial, but somehow only teaching it is? That's pretty obviously not true: the people who object to teaching evolution almost certainly object to the idea itself. I'm pretty sure they also dispute the "actual underlying facts" (at least historically).
A course-grained "controversial" tag will either apply very broadly or be inaccurately used (out of parochialism or other bias).
Still, not a 'controversial' topic unless you participate in scientific seminars.
At least be consistent, I mean, please.
I've read an article from a Hindi that basically explained how their religion was much more science-proof than the monotheisms. Also, looking into Ramadan for weird reasons, I recently found an article about how the Coran was more scientific-friendly than the bible, with example from the new testament.
Both where cherry picked bull* but I should have kept the links, it was quite fun and I probably would have had more examples.
If God can create matter and energy ex nihilo, why would He have any difficulty with setting a moon in motion to have a stable orbit? This feels like arguing that humans break the laws of physics every time we lift an object and throw it.