I've noticed many Evolutionists complain that Creationists will not accept many scientific conclusions unless they are 'forced' to by insurmountable evidence.
I find this curious, as it would seem such strong criticism would always help refine scientific theories. Would it be better if everyone accepted a theory (scientific or otherwise) once a certain point of evidence has been gathered, and it would never be questioned again? Why is the required level of evidence determined by Evolutionists better than the required level of evidence determined by Creationists? Does it matter if the motivation for setting that level is often religious?
Perhaps some criticism is unscientific, and the Evolutionist tires of hearing such arguments. But surely it could not be said all Creationist arguments are unscientific. So then, why doesn't the Evolutionist welcome this criticism, that he may further advance his theory and be certain he has indeed found the truth. For if his theory is true, the eventual accumulation of evidence will reveal this truth to most of his opponents anyway. And if the theory is shown to be false under this criticism, then both Creationist and Evolutionist have gained new knowledge.
™ Version 4.2