Evolutionary theory has become sacrosanct (Talk.Origins)

Claim CA611:

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. [https://www.crisismagazine.com/2003/part-ii-the-christian-critics-does-science-point-to-god Does Science Point to God? Part II: The Christian Critics].

CreationWiki response:

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.

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.

If you look at the list from AIG (now from CMI) about 15 of them are simply out of date, 3 are urban legends, and 6 are a matter of Biblical interpretation.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.

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

Both McClintock and Prusiner are evolutionists, they did not challenge the general concept, just some of the details.


 * 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.