Because those who believe they define what science is adhere to an atheistic view of the world in one way or another.

E.g. negative theology of this sort: “God wouldn’t have designed the panda’s thumb this way, so that’s more overwhelming evidence that natural selection created an illusion of design again.” mixed with what they believe to be methodological naturalism which necessarily builds an atheistic worldview along these lines: “It seems to me that naturalism is useful, therefore we can only seek naturalistic explanations no matter what the truth may be because what is useful is more important than what is true. Hmmmm, I’m overwhelmed with naturalistic explanations for everything now, which means it must be true!” Based on this sort of reasoning Theism and Deism fall outside what they believe is useful, right, good/scientific and “true” in the end.

Any questions which lead them to a quest/pursuit of truth outside of the philosophical naturalism that they methodically build up based on methodological naturalism justified by such arguments combined with arguments based on the professional identity of scientists must be based on “creationism,” a word that has evolved into a stigma word about which no further thought is necessary. The reason that stigma words are used and the question upsets them is because when they cannot explain information by simply merging information and the formation of things together they are unhappy, if there is some distinction or if information seems to govern the formation of things then they will be unhappy thanks to psychological dynamics that act as a sort of cosmic Oedipus complex in which any notion of Father God must be killed. It seems that thanks to the urge to merge their reaction to anything which implies a union or link between the metaphysical and the physical is visceral. That’s my guess because it seems to show up in sweaty palms, shaking hands, a long pause, a little lecture about creationists bringing about the end of the world and so on. It doesn’t matter if the little fellow is a priest or a scientist the pattern is the same because it’s not an issue of “religion vs. science.” (Ironically, in America the theologians who supported Darwin were those who wrote the Fundamentals by which the American term “fundamentalist” came to be, so historically fundamentalists were Darwinists.)

But in all seriousness, why is that considered a creationist question, not just a scientific one?

Either way, his goose is cooked.

Answering questions when you’re armed with the truth is very easy. But when everything you believe is based on a lie, any answer you might give will get you into hot water.

“As a former atheist, I deplore this kind of action by the ones involved in this imbroglio.”

Well… it seems to be Dawkins at fault in this case.

Actually, I’m not quite sure of the subjects here. Whose actions? Which ones? I can see reasonable interpretations both ways. Either way, can you expand on your reaction? I’m interested in the motivations involved.

1. If the model animals came from past life forms, were they not the models for their time? (trilobites, coelocanthus, etc.)

2. If evolution is supposedly happening even now and an ongoing process, then how will the model life forms, like us, evolve into something else?

It is interesting to note that Dawkins’ rebuttal uses computer analogies, but the irony is that computers require intelligent designers!