quote:
By the way, is it that Christians are abusing science just because they believe that the world around us didn't come into being by accident?
To say that something happened by "accident" is to imply purpose, which is outside the realm of science. I know Gould and many others do this in their popular books but it isn't a scientific outlook, as no evidence can quantify whether something can happen by "accident".
[QUOTE][B]Or is it just that everyone in the world has the same evidence that we're looking at[/QUOTE][/B]
The problem is that lots of Creationists have a problem of distorting evidence to make their case look appealing. And there are those that basically distort science so much as to make it into a lie in order to make their case seem appealing. To make it worse, these people pander to audiences with no science background and pretend to have credentials. (Anybody want to guess which Creationist I have in mind when I say this?)
[QUOTE][B]There have been many major and well-respected scientists who believed that the world was created by an intelligent being[/QUOTE][/B]
Yes, but believing the world was created is not the same as saying it was made in a week, ex nihilo, 6,000 years ago, then had a global flood. VERY very few people with competant backgrounds in science, especially biology and the geosciences, make that kind of claim. Of course there are a few. There are a few (the late atronomer royale Sir Fred Hoyle for one) that believe the Universe had no beginning and that HIV fell to Earth from a comet. There are some people with competant science backgrounds who believe space aliens abduct people for experimentation. That doesn't make it so.
Plus, you should read the lists of "Creation Scientists" certain groups put out. They run heavy on engineers, social scientists, and even people such as plastic surgeons, but are weak in geologists. Even then, quite a few of their most famous "creationists" lived before the Theory of Evolution even came about!