Celebrating Darwin

The Economist writes of Darwin in the latest edition, saying, correctly, that the evolutionary theory perhaps is the only scientific theory that is not widely accepted. No normal person, regardless of how much science knowledge he bears, would be proud to say that he does not believe in Einstein's theory of relativity; probably all he would say is he has no idea of what Einstein's theory is all about. However, Darwin's theory, which has obviously satisfied all parameters as a valid scientific theory, sounds somewhat controversial 150 years after the Origin of Species was published. In fact the evolving nature of living organism, as the newspaper points out, was not first raised by Darwin. Thinkers far older than Darwin such as the Greek philosopher Empedocles, who was born in 490 bca, are known to have suggested that nature selection might explain why living organisms were adapted to their surroundings. The idea of struggle for existence could be traced back to a Muslim theologian al-Jahiz born in 776 ca. But why, after man has lived through ages of ignorance and begun to enjoy an enlightened life, is he in doubt of Darwin's theory? There are plenty of reasons. I can think of one here: man is too proud to come to the cruel reality that he is no better than other living organisms that share the Earth with him, after thousands of years of theocratic hypnosis. Theocratic hypnosis. Yes, and ironically, the substance this term is supposed to refer to is, in fact, a result of evolutionary force that makes man adaptable to the environment he once lived in. Is there a reason to awaken a man who is still in a Dark Ages slumber, a consequence of theocratic hypnosis. I am not entirely sure of this, despite the fact that I abhor ignorance and barbarism; but I am not sure if the slumber we are in should be utmost interrupted. However, some waking moments are worth pursuing.
To me, the evolution theory is easy to grasp and nice to follow, for, as I said, it has all the attributes of a scientific theory, and so it is falsifiable. Unlike some other arguments such as Intelligent Design which I am not particularly convinced to accept, evolutionary theory has a firm ground to base on and the ground is increasingly strengthened as we find more fossil record and have progress on genetics and molecular biology. Some people who obviously possess a brain which is inferior, in a Darwinian term, do not like to accept they themselves and chimpanzees (probably) share the same ancestor. While I do not like this (because chimpanzees obviously live a much fuller life than those people and it would not be fair if they share the same ancestor as these human beings), I do not deny this likelihood if such likelihood is high enough.