This article is deceptive. By clever wording it gives the impression that Evolution is a fact and we are then trying to explain how fear "evolved". The readers are distracted by the second premise that they swallow the first by stealth - this is pathetic. “Evolution” is a vague word. Micro evolution is minor changes within a species, this is real and observable and uncontested. The conflict pertains to Darwinian/Macro evolution which asserts that: 1] All living things had a common ancestor. This implies that your great….. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule. 2) The observable world has come into existence by totally natural, unguided processes and specifically WITHOUT the involvement of an intelligent designer. Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution. Dr John Sanford [Geneticists and inventor of the GeneGun) said . ” The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false, you can't create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.” Consider a quotation from New Scientist magazine in an article “Survival of the fittest theory: Darwinism's limits” 03 February 2010 by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini “Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical. The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin's account of evolution is hardly considered. Such dissent as there is often relies on theistic premises which Darwinists rightly say have no place in the evaluation of scientific theories. So onlookers are left with the impression that there is little or nothing about Darwin's theory to which a scientific naturalist could reasonably object. The methodological scepticism that characterises most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic.”