Evolution, Why scientists reject creationism
Why are scientists adamant about evolution?
Evolution is a crucial organizing concept in biology. It was proposed in the mid 19th century and by 1873 was generally accepted by the scientific community. Studies of geology, the fossil record and recently DNA sequences confirm evolutionary principles. Evolution is an everyday working tool in many areas of biology. The notion that evolution is a "theory in crisis" is nonsense.

There are no realistic scientific alternatives to evolution. So called "evidence against evolution" is rationalizing (starting with a conclusion and collecting supporting evidence). Rationalizing is a common, unscientific approach to justification.

On the other hand the origin of life remains mysterious and is likely to remain so in the near future. Our picture of the overall tree of life is sketchy and emerging. Scientists predict that the missing information will have natural explanations. At this stage we can't dogmatically exclude nonscientific explanations (although we rightfully exclude them from science).

The study of "origins" from the religious perspective suffers because religious scientific education is often weak, or worse. Without modest scientific training it's difficult to fully grasp the strength of the case for evolution. Uninformed and pseudoscientific viewpoints discredit religion in the eyes of science. Imputing "moral evils" to evolution fails scientific tests.

Where can science and religion agree? They can agree that evolution shouldn't be taught dogmatically. Scientists mustn't forget that evolution doesn't fully explain the human condition. Nonscientists must realize that "extrascientific" concepts are not acceptable science and that scientific ignorance is no virtue. The Scopes trial set a lingering, disrespectful tone which needs to be replaced by better informed and more respectful dialogue.