Evolutionary theory has become sacrosanct (Talk.Origins)
Evolutionary theory, for a variety of nonscientific reasons, has obtained the status of sacred revelation. To express doubts by bringing up the counterevidence to the theory is to brand oneself an intellectual infidel.
Source: Wiker, Benjamin D. 2003. Does Science Point to God? Part II: The Christian Critics.
(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
1. Evolution is far from sacrosanct. Since Darwin's formulation of it, there have been several significant revisions of important aspects of it…
Yes, there have been significant revisions and there are likely to be many more revisions as Evolutionists try to make their theory fit reality, but that is not point of what the claim deals with. Talk Origins is talking about the details of Evolution, but the claim is referring to the general concept.
2. Critics of evolution are treated as intellectual outcasts not because they criticize evolution but because they do not know what they are talking about.
This statement implies that all critics of evolution do not know what they are talking about, even in their fields of expertise. Yes, some creationists do not know what they are talking about, but there are also some evolutionists who do not know what they are talking about as well.
Answers in Genesis (AIG) recognizes the problem of poorly educated creationists doing more harm than good to the reputation of creationists, so they devote a page to arguments creationists should not use (AIG n.d.).
If you look at AIG’s list about 15 of them are simply out of date, 3 are urban legends, and 6 are a matter of Biblical interpretation. Only 2 or 3 are real scientific blunders
Still, it is extremely common to hear creationists speak with ignorance about the second law of thermodynamics, no transitional fossils, irreducible complexity, and other subjects, and AIG's list of bad arguments barely scratches the surface.
While some creationists speak with ignorance, Talk Origins is argument is flawed.
- Just because some creationists speak with ignorance, it does not even imply that all or even most do.
- In many cases Talk Origins is basing their claim that a creationist is speaking with ignorance on their disagreement with an Evolutionary interpretation
The real infidels of evolution, such as Barbara McClintock and Stanley Prusiner, win acclaim.
Both McClintock and Prusiner are Evolutionists, they did not challenge the general concept, just some the details.
3. Creationist works almost invariably cite mainstream science in their attempts to discredit evolution. If evolution is sacrosanct, how can creationists so readily find science articles to use against it?
- In such cases the cited source is not attacking the basic concept of Evolution, but only specific details.
- In other cases that raw data of a given paper suggests a problem for Evolution even though the author did not see it.