No one does that. Even the most adamant creationist looks both ways before crossing the street. These two camps can and should coexist.
You are new at ET Gabfly so I am quite serious that you possibly missed those videos. BTW, we have our very own Jesus here at ET (in vacation lately) so you better watch out. Atheists are on his hit list!
"Social engineers?" "Social Darwinists?" What is your context? Moral decency? If so, then you may wish to compare theists with ethicists.
Actually, no. Creationists exist in the gaps of knowledge. The more knowledge that results from progress, the less space there will be for those who thrive in its gaps. Little wonder, then, that they dislike giving ground.
it behooves the creationist to construct the rational argument replete with evidence. i's not MY fault or the fault of other rationalists that we disbelieve in every crazy thing that comes down the pike. it's actually to OUR (rationalist) credit that we challenge assertion.
the point is that some people probably claim to "feel" the presence of undetectable talking mushrooms. without the concept of evidence all feelings are equaly valid. feeling are simply emotions.
Valid is the key word there. I'm not arguing that the scientific worldview is not utilitarian. But clearly it is not meeting all needs.
Okay, but is it necessary to make stuff up from whole cloth to meet those other needs? If so, then that brings us back to our side order of fringe fries:
of course i set the impossible task to the theist.. what manner of man can explain the irrational in rational terms
I like Pascal's proof of the supernatural. This will really appeal to my friends, Tressy Nazi Boy Obfuscaty (punch drunk now from the beatings in politics) and Pallywood Sameeh.