Creation Scientists and Secular Arguments

OK, so I have a question. Hopefully, you to help me understand something.

Why is it that when someone one the evolution side wants to argue against Creationism, they never argue against the merits of Creation models. Rather, they will bring up everything from the Supreme Court (a legal body, not a science body) ruling against the teaching of Creationism, on the grounds of "separation" of Church and state (even though the Intelligent Design movement, generally, does not advocate a specific creator or religious point of view), to the simplistic argument that "virtually all" scientists believe in evolution.

I actually had someone respond to a letter to the editor I had written with those, exact words. Whether they were spoken in ignorance or in a deliberate attempt to mislead, I don't know. Either way, the argument is ridiculous.

First of all, the statement is simply not true. There are Creationists, whether Christian Biblical "young earthers" or from the I.D. movement, everywhere. These are not just some quack, no-one-takes-seriously fringe types, but solid, quite rational people with PhD's in their fields. What they have done, is to re-examine the evidence and assumptions and found better explanations for the data observed. If you search, you can even find folks on the secular side offering praise for the same Creationists secular work, then turn around and attack them for their Creationists views. If you'd like an example of this, do a search on Dr. Andrew A. Snelling. Dr. Snelling has a B.Sc. with first class honors in Applied Geology from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and a Ph.D. in Geology from the University of Sydney. I'll even give you a starting point for you search: noanswersingenesis.org. On the one hand, Dr. Snelling is praised for his credentials and work, then blasted for his creationists views. If you'd like a rebuttal to Dr. Ritchie's ("noanwersingenesis") criticisms, may I recommend the recent movie Expelled? You'll see why Creationists aren't published in mainstream journals, for example. But again, it's always the "messenger," not the model that is attacked and criticized. If the evolution model is so superior, compare the models and let them speak for themselves. What is the evolution side afraid of?

Secondly, even if the statement was true, does that make it "right?" Seriously, back in the day when "virtually all scientists" thought the world was flat, did that make it "true?" Of course not! And when you examine the "evidences" and assumptions of the evolution side (with an open mind), you'll see, like the aforementioned PhD's, that the "proof" they offer does not make for quite such a solid argument as they would have you believe.

Here are two other links if you'd like to see what the Creationist side is doing: icr.org and answersingenesis.org. Do a search on RATE and FAST at either, or both, sites to see some of the problems with evolutionist assumptions and to see some of the latest Creation models. Remember, though, they are just models, and like the evolutionist side, they are subject to change as new data and interpretations arise. The only "assumption" not open to change on the Creation side is "In the beginning, God created..." At least the Creation side is intellectually honest enough to make that statement, and not try to push their views as absolutely proven fact "this-is-definitely-the-way-it-happened."