Scientists and creationists are always at odds, of course.
The creationists have this creator who is evil, who is small-minded, who is malevolent, and who is not very bright and can't even get his science right. Creationists have made their creator in their own image, in my view.
Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious dogma or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute.
I have a strong feeling that the subject of evolution is beautiful without the excuse of creationists needing to be bashed.
Ironically, members on both sides of the debate do agree about one thing: big bang cosmology puts their position in jeopardy. The big bang poses a problem for young-earth creationists because it makes the universe billions of years old rather than thousands. Such an assertion undercuts their system at its foundation. Big bang cosmology also presents a problem for atheistic scientists because it points directly to the existence of a transcendent Creator - a fact they dare not concede.
Inveterate creationists, then or now, never allow their faith to fall victim to facts.
By understanding evolution as the expression of universal intelligence, now becoming conscious of itself within us, and as us, we overcome the dichotomy between current evolutionists who see no design in evolution, and creationists who often propose and anthropomorphic God as creator.
Creationists have long held that evolutionary theory is atheistic; defenders of the theory do the theory no favor when they agree.
Creationists often appeal to the facts of science to support their view, and evolutionists often appeal to philosophical assumptions from outside science.
Creationists reject Darwin's theory of evolution on the grounds that it is just a theory. This is a valid criticism: evolution is indeed merely a theory, albeit one with ten billion times more credence than the theory of creationism - although, to be fair, the theory of creationism is more than just a theory. It's also a fairy story. And children love fairy stories, which is presumably why so many creationists are keen to have their whimsical gibberish taught in schools.
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.
Creationists use facts the same way a drunk uses a lightpost: for support instead of illumination
