Adherents of molecules-to-man evolution are passionate about their beliefs, and many are intolerant of those who reject this position, whether for scientific or theological grounds, or both. They are not content to allow the study of origins to be an academic discussion, preferring to vilify their opponents. They engage in stalking, misrepresentation, libel, censure, dreadful logic, outright persecution, and more. This kind of behavior is typical of atheists, but it is distressing that professing Christians corinthianize with said atheists in maligning people that should be their brethren in Christ. Naturally, atheists approve of this behavior, since it advances their naturalistic worldview and Christophobic agenda.
It is perplexing why they do such things. Perhaps they seek the adoration of the world, and perceive the atheistic interpretations of science (especially regarding unscientific evolution) to be a mark of intellectualism. (Their companionship with logic-challenged atheists is quisquous, and will not elevate their status.) Further, they seem to elevate atheistic science views to the magisterial position above Scripture, and reject sola scriptura. Degrading the Bible (which they claim to believe) for the sake of friendship with enemies of God is also not Christian behavior. If TEs want to show why biblical creation science is "harmful", they should be intellectually honest and not only refrain from misrepresenting the views of biblical creationists, but use their skills in doing correct research instead of cherry-picking quotes that falsely bolster their position.
Young-earth creationists (YEC) are engaged in a hermeneutical, theological, and historical war with neo-Darwinian evangelicals (represented in this article by the anti-YEC attacks made by Mark Noll, Francis Collins, and Ronald Osborne). Their two arguments, which are designed to not only refute our position but also to intellectually discredit us who disagree with their denial of the historicity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis, that we employ facile, simplistic exegesis to Genesis 1–11, which is not in keeping with the approach of past interpreters; and, in addition, we refuse to capitulate to the putative inviolable hermeneutic of the priority of science with respect to these texts (thought to be exemplified in Galileo’s struggle with the Roman Catholic Church’s hermeneutical approach to Scripture) are historically inaccurate when it comes to the first and neglectful of all the factors that produced said struggle and the nature of the same when it comes to the second. The church by and large—Basil of Caesarea, Augustine, and up through Luther—has always believed the first chapters of Genesis are literal history. It was Galileo who, without the benefit of Sola Scriptura, claimed that God in the Bible catered to the superstitious beliefs of ignorant people to teach His central message. Kepler, a Protestant, was able to reconcile the Bible and science without compromising either. Geocentrism had become established because the best science of the day was made to interpret the theology—the result, bad science and bad theology. In short, the arguments are proven to be specious and spurious. One battle won; many more to fight. If we do not understand the dimensions of the war we are engaged in, we are already halfway to theological and historical oblivion.Although this is not an easy article to read and is quite intellectual, it is well worth the time of the Bible-believing Christian. To continue, settle in and click on "The Nature of the Neo-Darwinian Evangelicals’ Criticism of Young-Earth Creationists — Personal Reflections on a Tale of Misadventures with History".