It’s not a personal attack. I am ignorant of many things, such as quantum chromodynamics. At the same time, I’m not going to pronounce to the world that quantum chromodynamics is just speculation and based on opinions.
Evolution is not speculative. It isn’t an opinion. It isn’t an ideology. Evolution, be it cosmic, geologic, or biological, is backed by mountains of evidence. As Todd Wood mentions, there’s gobs and gobs of evidence. So what are we to make of an article that tries to state what is demonstrably not true? It could be the author is just mistaken, which is the assumption that I always start from. If someone was well versed in the evidence they wouldn’t have to ask what is meant by the “relatedness of life” because it is plainly described as common ancestry throughout the scientific literature. It certainly isn’t described as a social construct. It is the same type of relatedness that ties you to your cousins.
Heliocentrism was viewed in much the same way in the past as evolution is now. It was considered heresy and going against what was written in the Bible. If someone were to write an article now stating that a Bible believing Christian has to believe in Geocentrism, and that Heliocentrism was just speculative, based on opinion, and without evidence, how would that look? What if Heliocentrism was described as atheism, an ideology, or something that was dreamt up without considering the Bible? What if gravity was described as putting God in a secondary role because they were replacing a non-Biblical natural process in place of God?