Why do some Creationists insist on bashing the findings of Evolution Scientists instead of presenting their own evidence on Creation?

Answer 1

Creationism is based on an unprovable and untestable belief in the origin of the universe. Since it has no evidence in a scientific sense whatsoever, creationists are left with only rhetorical tools (e.g. science-bashing).

Sensible creationists understand that faith and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive but also that faith and science are working on different aspects of human existence. Unfortunately, these creationists are the minority of creationists.

Further CommentIt seems to be regarded as a fairly normal part of scientific endeavor for scientists to be critical of each others work. This goes on all the time in every field of scientific endeavor. It is a normal and natural part of scientific rigor and scientific progress. I have seen evolutionists scathing in their criticism of other evolutionists for various reasons where they believed it was warranted. Creation scientists are also rather self-critical and peer-review their work as do evolutionists.

As for presenting their own evidence - they regularly do. It just doesn't get the publicity since it is not a mainstream opinion.

AnswerHowever, whist evolutionists argue over the minutiae they do not debate the actual existence of macro evolution reasoning there is overwhelmingly evidence for such. Believing they can win over this by default creationists have tended historically to present little hitherto unexplained "abnormalities" to contradict evolutionists. Such as the existence of the eye or the whale and recently the flagella of microorganisms citing "irreducible complexity". But these phenomena have been explained time and again in the due course of the ongoing evolution of science itself.

Interestingly, while belief in evolution, or "transmutation" as it was called, was widespread back in Darwin's grandfather's day amongst natural philosophers; Natural Selection itself was not accepted until the discovery of the mechanism and the formulation of the laws of inheritance... after Darwin's death.

The impossibility of explaining the structure of genomes without evolution is given as the most recent compelling evidence for its existence. Such scientists having no real interest in the subject until now.

AnswerThe assumption behind the question is flawed in that creation scientists regularly present their own evidence on creation. Included in this is pointing out the implications of discoveries in mainstream science which have a direct bearing on this issue. In addition creation scientists are continuously involved in scientific research and presenting their own scientific findings.

A recent example of this is the recent publishing of a book by John Hartnett of the University of Western Australia on astronomy and the 'big bang', providing an explanation of the issue of 'astronomical time' and the age of the universe from a creationist perspective.

Dr. Damadian holds the patent as the inventor of the MRI scan, a great breakthrough in medical technology and diagnosis.

Dr John Baumgartner is a world leader in the field of plate techtonics and 'rapid subduction' modeling.

Need for Clarity

Creationists also regularly point our the misuse of common terminology when driven by an agenda which seeks to prove or assumes evolution, contrary to the facts of science. This is a purely natural thing to do and is regularly done in mainstream science.

Genetics is one field where creationists point out how science demonstrates the impossibility of evolution. Mendel began the science of modern genetics and showed how characteristics, although they remained hidden for some generations were always there in the 'gene pool' but remained unexpressed. More recent work has demonstrated that no new genetic information can arise spontaneously to make the many changes required to take place.

Genetics also demonstrates that there is a definite limit to change and also the fact that mutations and recombination do not create new traits although they may damage or alter the way existing characteristics are expressed to confer a selection advantage. Such is the case with blind cave fish who have 'lost' the ability to express the genes for eyes which they do not need.

Creationists in particular point out the misuse of terminology such as natural selection to 'prove' evolution when all it shows is that organisms change in response to their environment in accord with previously existing genetic information within the 'gene pool' of that organism. The classic example of the peppered moths (although of course now shown to be a fraudulent experiment) still were and remain peppered moths.

Summary:

Creationists do both criticism, where warranted, and presentation of new evidence as this is discovered. They also seek to be scientifically rigorous in the use of terminology.

Further summary:

Cladistitians who study the changes in genes would of course disagree with the above "clarification" and will cite gene duplication as further evidence of common ancestry of of all creatures.

The "only changing in response" argument against Natural Selection (using capital letters to avoid semantic obfuscation) was refuted upon the rediscovery of Mendel's work and also the discovery of the role of the nucleus and reproductive cells in the organism late in the nineteenth century.

A tendency to the conservation of energy explains the natural selection of blind cave fish in such an environment and it is understood that the permanent expression of such is reflected in the genes over a much longer period of time. As in the case of mitochondrial genes.

As usual the debate centres over the age of the Earth in the final analysis. Time is the critical factor here. Incidental, abstracted scientists tend to be the apologists for creationism in the mainstream. Such as Lord Kelvin in refuting the "soft sciences" of Biology and geology when he had no idea of how the sun even functioned in producing heat.

Read more >> Options >>

http://www.answers.com?initiator=FFANS

http://www.answers.com/main/images/hook-bottomL.gif)">http://www.answers.com/main/images/hook-bottomL.gif); width: 70px; height: 29px; margin-left: 25px; position: relative; top: -15px">