Come again? I made absolutely no such claim or suggestion.
Any given reigning ideology, however true or false, is usually supported by a host of personal and political interests. These interests typically serve to "strongly discourage" any elements that may challenge the reigning ideology. This is not a commentary on how scientifically well-supported evolution is or is not, or on how "honest" scientists are; it is merely a statement of how establishment ideology functions.
Surely this is not such a novel or controversial notion?
The argument on the table involved specific biological phenomena
that evolution cannot apparently account for. Aloimeh could concede for the sake of argument that the earth is as old as you like and it would fail to have any effect on the objection at hand.
If the scientific community is ''suppressing'' evidence against evolution, then I would call that a conspiracy.
Aloimeh seems to have backed away from the age of the earth
question, but from reading his posts I think he still means to say that life
on earth must still conform to the young earth biblical interpretation. Which, if true, would mean he has really painted himself into a corner, because the fossilized life is found within rocks which he now concedes may be billions of years old. I see no way to argue that the fossils are younger than the rocks they are found in.