Evolutionists are intellectual snobs (Talk.Origins)
Anticreationist complaints are a form of snobbery. There are many more important traits on which to judge people than whether they believe in evolution.
- Derbyshire, John, 2003. Pseudoscience vs. snobbery: A Doonesbury lesson. National Review Online (Apr. 22)
CreationWiki recommends that a person actually read the source that Talk.Origins uses. The author of this Talk.Origins page could hardly be more inaccurate about what the article was actually saying. It was a political article pointing out that George W. Bush shouldn't be seen as a bad president just because he doesn't believe in evolution, and that such a claim is an example of snobbery. The author of the source article rightly asserts that, when it comes to the presidency of the United States, there are more important traits on which to judge a person. The article never even said that all anticreationist complaints are a form of snobbery, but certain ones. It is more specifically talking about "the modern Left" and their ridicule of Christians and creationists. Besides, the author, by his very own admission in the article, is not even a Christian or a creationist himself! Please read the article for yourself to see what it is actually saying.
It is just amazing how Talk.Origins can take an article with a rather narrow focus, and make a statement that is much broader and wider than the article actually states. All it sets up is a straw man.
(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
1. Most anticreationists would be content to let creationists believe as they wish and not make an issue of it. However, creationists make creationism an important trait. They make a huge deal of it and want to impose it on others. If creationists did not believe that it is one of the most important traits on which to judge people, the creationism-evolution dispute would not exist.
It's funny how ironic this statement is. Evolutionists have chosen to impose their belief about evolution on everyone because they see it as important. It is taught in almost every school, spread thick on the media. People who don't want to know about evolution have it thrown in their face every time there is news coverage on another meaningless piece of bone dug up and labeled as some ape ancestor of man living hundreds of thousands of years ago. It is imposed upon us. It is an important issue. Isn't it fair that another view gets a chance to speak, a view that is held by some to have scientific importance but from a different philosophical viewpoint?
The issue of origins and where we come from is important and we do judge people on it. It's part of being human. We judge. But the issue was made when evolution started to be the only thing allowed to be taught in schools, the only thing allowed to be seen as scientific although its methods of interpretation are based firmly on a philosophical belief about the hidden past, outside of human experience. Until there is some fairness in that field, then there will always be an issue.
What Talk.Origins is saying is that if everyone that disagreed with evolution would just shut up and keep their opinions to themselves, then there wouldn't be an issue. That just shows their imperialistic, controlling mentality. People, in this present "democratic" world system, must be given their chance to speak. Creation science is a viable alternative to evolution, and as long as origins, the distant past, is talked about in schools and in the media, creation science should be given a chance to speak since it does have evidence and an interpretation of what that evidence means in a cohesive framework, despite Talk.Origins' ignorance and ridicule of it.
2. The complaint of snobbery is based on the attitude that all opinions are equal. Although that attitude sounds democratic and fair, it is indefensible. Opinions have value to the extent that they are informed. If you are suffering serious stomach problems, would you give equal weight to opinions from a professional gastroenterologist and a supermarket bag-boy? When someone speaking on the subject of evolution is woefully uninformed on issues concerning evolution, it is entirely appropriate to point that out. And the claims made by creationists show that almost all of them are woefully ignorant of evolution. There are exceptions (Kurt Wise, for example), but they are very few.
This is a very subjective statement considering that there are many different ideas about evolution. Who is this writer to say who is informed or not? What is his standard of determining who has the proper idea about evolution? The public can only go by what they are shown through the media, encyclopedias, science books, etc. Some anti-evolution scientists have gone through the school system of being taught evolution and thus should be qualified to speak about it quoting their teachers and books they have studied. Unfortunately some believe that if evolution was taught correctly then it would be accepted, but that is just their opinion.
The claim of snobbery comes from the fact that there are evolutionists who think they know better than others when that may not be the case. It comes from the fact that people who believe in evolution think that people who don't have that belief system are unfit in ways that are totally unrelated to evolution. If someone doesn't believe in evolution, does that make him wicked or stupid? According to some evolutionists it does. But if evolution is truly purely scientific, amoral, how can it be a basis on which to judge my morality? It can't. What does belief in the grand theory of evolution have to do with an ability to govern one's family or the country? Nothing. But, being snobs, they treat it as such. For example, Richard Dawkins [1989, p. 3] calls people who don't believe in evolution wicked, and the modern Left ridicules George W. Bush's ability to run the country on the basis of whether he accepts evolution.
3. The resolution of creationism as a scientific proposition rests on what the facts indicate, and facts are not determined by the personalities of the people who talk about them. Creationists are free to avoid this issue entirely by approaching creationism as an entirely unscientific religious viewpoint, but they have chosen not to do so.
The reason they have not chosen to do so is because evidence concerning the distant past, concerning the origins and history of the universe and life which have no written record or objective historical record, have to be interpreted based on philosophical axioms (presuppositions, assumptions, beliefs). In this regard, creation science is just as scientific as evolutionism. There is evidence that can point to design in the specified and integrative complexity of living things. There is evidence of a young earth seen in polonium halos, written history, and other observable phenomena on the planet. If there are observable phenomena that fit into a model of the history of life and the universe, then it would be unjust to call it simply "an unscientific religious viewpoint".
4. Many creationists have a literally holier-than-thou attitude. For example, they (falsely) claim that believers of evolution are atheistic and evil. You cannot get any more snobbish or elitist than that.
Many people in general, no matter their background, have a holier-than-thou attitude. Many evolutionists think they can dictate to the world what science really is and condemn as unscientific scientists who think observable phenomena indicate something other than an evolutionary history of the world. That is "holier-than-thou".
Also, we are dealing with what is right and wrong here. If you believe you are in the right, then someone else is in the wrong. If you believe that evolution is right and are adamant about it, then you are going to show people their error. Your character will determine how you do that. Some evolutionists go beyond their status and show an improper attitude to those that don't agree. Why? Because they are human. Creationists are human too and can make the same mistake in how they put themselves across.
Whilst no doubt Talk.Origins could show some examples of creationists claiming all evolutionists are atheistic and evil, this is not the norm. Creationists have frequently criticized other Christians for accepting evolution, which is a clear acknowledgment that many believers of evolution are not atheists nor evil.
But the fact is this: if evolution were purely scientific, its adherents should have no ill will to those that have a different opinion about the development of the universe and life -- people who have physical evidence as creationists do. The atmosphere for discussion would be much more open. But it is not, and this is because evolutionists believe that evolution is the only truth that is able to be preached in the world.
Creation science includes the concept of an objective source, that being Deity, and objective morality, so it is more consistent with its framework to show the moral wrongs in evolution, such as its deceptive cover-up of its religion-philosophical underpinnings as well as the scientific inadequacies with which it is rife.