Why are evolutionary scientists so bitter toward any deificating attribution towards science being Creationism

Question

Is it possible to give an unbiased answer to these discussive questions?

Creationism is an idea that Christians use to support their faith. It is not fundamental. They are not trying to punch people in the face forcing them to believe. There is much supported evidence that withholds Creationism as a provable theory. I, myself, do not agree with any Intelligent Design theory or anything like it, although I am a Creationist. I have read the facts of Evolution and Creation. I know my stuff. I am a Christian and I believe in Creationism. Although I am fed up with the anger and prejudice that evolutionists have towards Christians. This isn't a matter of science, it is religion. An Evolutionist and Creationist will debate, but they end up at the wall of what is to be believed. God isn't science. Why debate His existence in a scientific argument? Why are evolutionists so angry about the Christian beliefs? Why? Why? Why? So many weird questions that hurt to think about...

First addition: I do agree these 2 sides should be kept separate. Thank you for the point that these 2 ideas are hardly debatable. I just wanted to see if I could get some informed opinions :)

Answer 1

It is because of the following:
1) Each side is convinced it is right.
2) One side is arguing from a religion / faith perspective (using insight / holy books, etc. as the primary source of their argument), while the other is arguing that the only evidence admissable in the debate is empirical (evidence-based).

The problem -- and the hope -- for this situation is that the two "sides" don't actually represent opposite sides of anything. It's like asking me which do I like better, your hat or your socks. What if I like both? Is that not a valid answer?

That said, creationists are just begging for a whipping if they offer up a faith-based position and ask it to be taken seriously by empiricists. Scientists are begging to be called faithless devil worshippers when they make up their minds BEFORE the debate, refusing to admit thoughts they don't already agree with. Nobody is asking them to believe evolutionists are right.

For both sides: it is disingenuous to begin a dialogue that you only want to "talk into"... especially if what you want is to be LISTENED to.

I hope this helps.

Answer 2

A scientist should be interested in truth reachable with the scientific method. A scientist should admit when science doesn't have an answer. In most other areas, they do. A scientist shouldn't reject a hypothesis without a solid scientific basis. They don't reject quantum singularities, intersecting M-branes, and parallel universes, but some do reject any form of creation. No, it's not rational, and it's not scientific. I would not expect all scientists to agree that God created the universe. But I would not expect a scientist to say that's impossible. At one point in history, it was reasonable for scientists to say we know of nothing smaller than the atom. It was never reasonable to say there IS nothing smaller than the atom. I agree that the accountability issue causes some to rule out the creation possibility even before asking the question.

If you want to argue evolution with a scientist, argue science. Debate whether the evidence supports the conclusions. That's an important and necessary debate even within science. "Evolution" encompasses a huge range of claims. Some are accepted almost unanimously. Others are hotly debated even among evolutionary biologists. Remember, "All generalizations are wrong."

Answer 3

There are to types of creationists. The first type accept that creationism is simply a religious belief. I respect that, and have no problem with these people.

The second group of creationists are claiming that it is a science and are using this to attack evolution. (It is not testable and fundamentally this makes it not a science). One of the prongs of their attack is that they are trying to get creationism taught in biology along side evolution. This has angered many scientists (not just evolutionists). Initially this anger wasn't pointed at the religious belief but rather the act of forcing religious belief into science. All the media attention and drama has caused tempers to flare and both sides of the argument have become more bitter.

One thing that I find interesting is that I know a lot of people who went to catholic school.In biology they were taught evolution (granted with a wink saying we know better) but never in their science classes was anything said about creationism or ID. I have a lot of respect for these schools simply because of that distinction they've made between science and religion.

Answer 4

There are two kinds of Creationism.

New Earth Creationists think the Earth was created 6000 years ago, and that Man and dinosaurs walked the Earth together. Many don't want their children taught science. They may find geology just as offensive as evolution. That's a pretty hostile thing, and it generates a hostile response. It may deprive the world of scientists who could advance mankind, cure disease, etc.

Old Earth Creationists accept the idea that the Earth is very old, and that life started out simply, and became more complex. They simply say that a higher power is behind it all. They don't object to science education, which they can put in context in their home. Scientists generally don't have problems with OECs. Many OECs ARE scientists. Here's a website of one:

http://www.reasons.org/

The fault is not all on one side. Some scientists (Richard Dawkins is a good example) are just as dogmatic about science as any religious fanatic. They oppose old earth creationism, even though they have no scientific evidence against it. Science has no evidence about why or how the Big Bang started, only guesses which are no better than faith. Science starts a tiny fraction of a second _after_ the Bang. Great quote from Brian Greene, a recognized scientific expert in the field: "The Big Bang theory says nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or even if it banged at all".

Basically fanatics on both sides insist on fighting, even though old earth creationism is compatible with most people's religion, and also with all scientific knowledge.

Your anguish is understandable, and I share it. For most of us, both scientists and people of faith (and those who are both), this is a totally unnecessary fight. I'm not saying people have to believe in old earth creationism, I'm only saying that, unlike new earth creationism, it does not conflict with science.

Answer 5

Who says that evolutionists hate creationists? It seems to me it is the other way!
Besides, Intelligent Design is the direct outgrowth of Creationism.
Also, as you yourself have said it, Creationism is a matter of religion and Evolution is a matter of science. Maybe we should just try to keep them separate!
And where did you get the idea that evolutionists debate God's existence?
And finally, if it is the evolutionists that are angry with creationists, how come most of the questions about evolution on Yahoo! Answers are asked by creationists! We are just sitting quiet doing our thing and all of the sudden a creationist asks a question and starts a fire!

Answer 6

Personally, I think the anger stems from things like demanding a SCIENCE textbook mention both evolution and creationism, even though creationism isn't science. I believe that many Christians try too hard to enforce creationism as scientific theory, especially in public schools, which should be totally separate from religion anyway. Comparing a religious belief to a scientific theory is not like comparing apples and oranges (both fruity), it's more like comparing apples to iPods, or apples to bunnies. They don't compare or contrast in any way, they are separate.
That said, if you don't want your kids to learn about evolution, take them to a christian school and vice versa.
:-) Thank you for an interesting question.

Answer 7

ok, I in simple terms recently made the transition from being athiest to now Christian. besides the undeniable fact that I even have some deep roots in technology having a grasp's degree in metrology that would desire to be very plenty physics. I actual have a bachelor's degree in historic historic previous of the Levant (Mesopotamia) i'm able to predate all the Biblical observations with the Epic of Gilgamesh the Assyrian Kings lists that predate te earliest aspects of the Bible by using potential of 1000 to 3000 years. unquestionably, basically an fool might experience the earth flat. anybody that would desire to comprehend the advice of the wheel may well be conscious the earth a sphere revolving and rotating around the photograph voltaic. besides the undeniable fact that the Bible strikes out on many scientific standards too. throughout the time of the sixteenth Century many government sought to ascertain the Bible with the recent emergence of technology. it fairly is besides the undeniable fact that ongoing. i'm in pursuit of that basically for myself. a sizable complication i've got is the Flood. If it got here approximately as recognised as a international flood protecting the mountains it would require 3 cases the finished water on and interior the earth and interior our environment. i've got a disaster with "What got here approximately to all that water?" I contend flooding the earth replaced into as quickly as close by and lined the mountains in possibly the Black Sea or Bosphorous project. that would artwork to evaluate technology. Interchanging that the worldwide was once actual the self-discipline the inhabitants traveled lived and would desire to work out. I do have a disaster with some Christians that on one hand opt to disprove technology which incorporate carbon courting, yet devoid of project will use the aspects of technology that help the Bible (like DNA) I in simple terms think of a few take the Bible slightly too literal or omit that some possibly parabales or maybe organic fantasy to benefit out to describe concerns to the persons residing 2000-3000 years interior the previous whilst technology devoid of project did no longer exist.

Answer 8

Believe what you want. Don't try to convert me to your religious beliefs and I won't try to convert you to mine. Science is another matter. Before you can accept a hypothesis or a theory, it has to be able to be proven wrong. If it cannot be proven wrong, it is faith, not science. Nothing wrong with faith, so long as it doesn't masquerade as science.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's ....

Answer 9

Believe whatever you want to. Just keep it the hell out of any institute of science.


BTW, there is absolutely no evidence for any creationist beliefs (I will never refer to it as a theory). Have your beliefs, but always remember that it's not science. Scientists are being attacked by these ridiculous fundamentalist who think that the bible is a science textbook, so of course they'll be defensive.

Answer 10

Others have hit this point well.

How many scientists do you see picketing in front of sunday schools demanding "equal time"? Compare that to the number of creationists picketing outside of school board meetings demanding "equal time" in science class.

How many scientists are insisting that they know more than religious leaders *ABOUT MATTERS OF FAITH*? Compare that to the number of religious fundamentalists insisting they know more than scientists *ABOUT MATTERS OF SCIENCE*.

How many scientists are trying to get laws passed requiring churches to either stop the preaching of Genesis, or include evolution in their sermons so that people can "make up their own minds"? Compare that to the number of creationists trying to get laws passed requiring schools to either stop the teaching of evolution, or include creationism in science class so that people can "make up their own minds."

How many scientific web sites can you find that are trying to use religious arguments to disprove accepted articles of faith in those religions? Compare that to the number of creationist sites trying to use scientific arguments to disprove accepted theories of science.

Do you see the pattern?

The scientists are not seeking out these conflicts. They have no interest in attacking religion. These conflicts have absolutely no benefit to scientists.

It is invariably the creationists who seek out this conflict.

*Where* do you see scientists "debating His existence in a scientific argument"? They don't. They really don't.

It was evolutionary scientist Stephen Jay Gould who urged the doctrine of "nonoverlapping magisteria" ... separate realms in which religion and science could co-exist peacefully.