He did not raise a specific point to be answered, rather he merely emphasized that evolution is a myth with the word superstition enclosed in quotation brackets to emphasize that it is a myth, and that it is still supported only by some polites, evolutionists, etc.
The truth is, if we try to apply the definition of myth to evolution, we will find that it does not meet the required standards. According to the general definition of myth it is an idea that is not based on any evidence that can be proven. According to Robert Park, author of "The Myth," it points to the virtue of a collective commitment to a belief despite evidence of its invalidity. That is, there is benefit and a "virtue" desired from behind this myth, and you can find this in many historical stories and tales that are myths, but they are still circulating until now because of social virtues that exist in their context. Therefore, the definition here imposes a correlation between superstition and the existence of a virtue through which it is called.
The point here, is evolution essentially inviting you to a virtue? On the contrary, it falls - if we deal purely materially with a complete exclusion of philosophy and this is definitely wrong - virtue indirectly, but for example some other theories are trying to elevate the human being and therefore give him a kind of virtues.
In both definitions - of myth - we will find that the theory of evolution survives.
There is a misunderstanding that occurs when dealing with any scientific theory, scientific theories are essentially critiques of it, so when you criticize it, you are trying to prove it, especially when it transcends it. At the beginning of evolution there was criticism of the difference in the number of chromosomes between the great apes, and it turned out later that fusion occurs between them, especially among the more developed ones, and upon analysis it became clear indeed!
What happened with Beihai also the same, irreducible complexity, revealed that even complex organs can be disassembled and developed, so scientific theory has conditions that accept and absorb criticism. Here, evolution directs criticism of morality as fundamentally non-critically theoretical, but rather closer to faith, and this is what prompted the American court to remove the word scientific theory from morality, as the classification adopted for it is Religious Argument and not Scientific Theory.
According to the Pew Research Institute, the number of scientists who validate evolution as a "mechanism for the diversity of organisms" has reached 97%. Whereas, only 66% of the public share this with them. And this is really happening, commoners everywhere do not reach the level of scholars, and this is why they are called commoners, and we can here thank God all that the world is the one making the medicine and not the commoner, because if he did that we would have died.
The rejection of evolution is present in the West in a big way as it is here also, the point is that it is scientists who adopt this idea, as we have said 97% of American scientists who own the best universities in the world and most Nobel laureates.