I hear your complaint. But my experience is, there's a language, tone and type of content in real science. Some of this language is not comprehensible by ordinary people (such as us), but every real scientist can also write in ordinary language, and when they do, a good part of their scientific attitude bleeds through. And a normal person can easily detect that.
Creationists, by contrast, are not writing in scientific language, or even in science-translated-into-ordinary language. Instead they use a pseudo-scientific argumentation, which combines half-digested scientific ideas with outdated criticisms, which abruptly shift to: therefore God must have done it.
In my view, there's nothing scientific about those types of argument.
Let me remind you, that before he was a scientist, Charles Darwin was a trained theologian, and that he sat on his Big Idea, unpublished for over 20 years, because he was afraid of the consequences. Indeed, he only eventually published when another scientists threatened to publish his own version of the theory of evolution.
But when Darwin did finally publish, his theory was well enough thought out to gain rapid widespread acceptance, and all of his first run editions quickly sold out.
Now, I would argue, the 20 years Darwin spent "incubating" his idea was probably the best thing which could have happened to it. Had he published a half-baked version 20 years earlier, it might have been quickly discredited and batted down.
But when Darwin was finally ready to publish, there were by then many people eager to learn and accept his new ideas. And ever since, the number of "Darwinist" scientists outnumbers the "anti-Darwinists" by at least 100 to one.
Today, when anyone can publish whenever they want, if a real scientist were to publish a truly scientific critique of evolution, and seriously propose an alternate hypothesis / theory, it would be a matter at least as newsworthy as Darwin's original publication.
But I've seen nothing remotely resembling such, have you?
Creationists, by contrast, are not writing in scientific language, or even in science-translated-into-ordinary language. Instead they use a pseudo-scientific argumentation, which combines half-digested scientific ideas with outdated criticisms, which abruptly shift to: therefore God must have done it.
In my view, there’s nothing scientific about those types of argument.
Actually I’ve heard this over and over and over but when one actually goes and investigates what the scientists DO actually say, there’s nothing at all unscientific about what they’re saying, let alone that it MUST be God.
click on the “scientists” link:
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org
And I do find it rather fascinating that the theologian Darwin can publish a scientific paper, but let “real” scientists refute it and they’re the ones injecting religion into science?