What are evolutionists afraid of that they try so hard to get rid of G-d?

Below is a part of an internet discussion that I had lately after I watched a lecture given by an anticreation activist at a Skeptics conference in California. Then I posted a comment that went like this:  What are evolutionists afraid of that they try so hard to get rid of G-d? Here's what I got.

[Guy 1 It's the fear of a nurturing a society ignorant of science. Creationism may be an easy way to explain life, but that does not make it fact and does nothing to advance our medical and technological institutions. You can have your believe in God. Just don't falsely say it's a good substitute for scientific knowledge and don't teach religion as fact in public schools.

Guy 2 What is the Master Cabinetmaker afraid of, that he tries to push out those who teach complete b*t about woodworking?

V.F. I'm sure he does right. The MC metaphor could stand for creationists just as well. My point is that both sides have arguments to lay on the table but I will rather put my trust in the book that is centuries old than in a 150 year old theory whose author doubted it himself. Besides, the scientific revolution began years before evolutionism was even mentioned and being Christian did not hinder many of the great scientists from making their discoveries.

Just tell me, has the country become a better place since you took God out of schools? Who cares how sweet that lady sounds - look where we are. If evolution is true there is no future. We are here for a better reason than to vanish into nothing.

Guy 2 Why would the truth of evolution mean there is no future?

V.F. It would mean no Future for us after we check out, only eternal nothing - have you thought about it? Try to think about where the Universe ends to boot - and watch yourself lose your mind. Evolution is silent about the afterlife because it's materialistic, and materialism can't explain non-material things. That's what the infamous crisis of science of the 20th century came from (if you do some digging into the history of science you'll find a lot on that).

Guy 2 Evolution is a demonstrated fact (e.g. Nylon eating bacteria). Evolution helps us vote against e.g. the over-use of anti bacteria in the food industry. Evolution is used to classify bacteria in medicine. It has real and practical use, where as creationism has none. It only stagnates scientific progress because you already think you have all the answers. If evolution is not taught properly in schools have disastrous effects in the near future. That is why she is on the mission.

But the credibility of an Idea should never come from its age alone. What so solidly roots scientific theories in reality, is that they are constantly checked and tested against reality. science is a way of asking universal questions and it will always respond in a way. There is something like objective truth/reality. And science endeavours to find out just how that reality looks like. Also, let me hint to you, that Darwin did not doubt evolution himself.

V.F. I agree that science is a powerful means of getting knowledge. I'm working on a PhD research myself. However, science is not believed a universal tool for explaining everything. Not anymore. Things like love or compassion still have to be grasped differently. Bottom line: time will tell. As a Christian I'm not afraid to be proven wrong because I have nothing to lose but "a bunch of superstitions", as atheists say. But if atheists are proven wrong they lose heaven.

Guy 2 I think your last sentence is merely a form of Pascal Wager. Also, compassion and love are almost certainly just an output of our brains, as is consciousness. And the fact that science can not yet explain everything in every detail does not mean that it won't be able to explain it in principle. I do not believe in the supernatural, and that leaves only the natural, which science can explain, if yet incompletely. There is, I am convinced, no reason to believe in the supernatural And even if he [Darwin] did, that wouldn't change the validity of his theories. science works on the basis of reality and facts and evidence, not on the authority of some author. modern science is also well beyond Darwin and knows what he couldn’t even dream of. Like DNS etc. However, the bottom line is, that s.o.'s religious views should be granted everyone. But they should be private and not influence school education. Science demonstrably explains the facts of reality, and so the scientific theories of, e.g. Conception should be taught, and not the "alternative theories" of storcks etc.]

I didn't have my final say on this, and, for the most part, did so deliberately. There is basically no way to prove either point, it is the matter of faith. Evolutionists are believers too, it's just that they believe in billions of years. Atheists are also believers for they believe there is no G-d. Both sides have their arguments to lay on the table but if you truly love science you will allow for your views to be tested by at least one criterium: time. The point is that if you have a certain opinion you need to hold on to it until proven wrong. If you are wrong then someday the evidence against your view will become so clear and undeniable that it will be simply foolish to persist any further. And if you are right then you will have all the evidence lining up for you bringing you perfect peace inside. 

Meanwhile, I challenge everyone to try to love people in the way that will transform them completely and make the world better. If you think evolution can help you do that, go ahead. But I will go to the One I know can teach me to love, not only to love people but all that is good and hate all that is evil.