I dislike them because they attempt to impose their particular religious beliefs on a field in which I (rather peripherally) make my living. I dislike anyone who tries to impose extraneous ideological considerations on science.
You, being a professor, should understand the premises which you have put forth in your statement:
All creationists attempt to impose their religious beliefs on your field.
The question is, are these premises really true? Of course not! A professor should be well aware that making such absolute statements tends to cause later regrets. Perhaps you did not mean "all" in either premise. A professor should know enough to qualify his statements if he does not intend them to be absolute.
But let's test the logic of your statement a different way:
You leave the creationist only two choices: to either impose his religious views on "a field" or cease to be a creationist. This excludes the possibility of rejecting the evolutionary worldview will all of its systematic discontinuities in favor of creation while not imposing religious views on anyone. That is a possibility, is it not?
And, of course, there is always this unanswered question:
If evolution is so scientific,
if it has such a mountain of evidence in favor of it,
if it has evolved from theory to fact,
if it is so logically sound,
if creation is so mindless,
then why don't you or your peers simply meet with the creationists and overwhelm them with the facts?
The answer is: the mountain of evidence doesn't exist, there is no proof, there is no persuasive argument. I write this as a former evolutionist who believed evolution in public high school, at the state university and whose parents (my late evolutionist father had a full professorship) believed it as well.
So, why is it that I feel I have the very same beef with you, RWP -- speaking as a person who cares very deeply about the welfare of honest science, and one who is personally very sensitive to "extraneous ideological considerations" these days?
Forgive me for being blunt, but science would be dead soon, if people like you could control it.
Think of what you're saying here: Some kind of "perfection" had been achieved by Darwinist "science," such that all further questions are redundant and superfluous. So do not dare to ask them. In effect, this is a declaration of an "end of the road" for biological science, by virtue of a certain putative "perfection" achieved.
But just think this proposition through, and just in terms of the the scale of "modern times." We had a Gallileo. We had a Copernicus. We had a Newton. A Rutherford. An Einstein. Etc., etc. (I take my examples from "the queen of science," which is most definitely theoretical physics.)
Let me ask you a question: When the next great scientist came along on the historical time line, did that mean that each and every one of his precursors -- on whose work the latecomer himself necessarily built his own "innovations" -- get relegated to the trashbin of failed science?
Answer: No, I don't think so. Within their respective spheres of inquiry, given the tools they had to work with in their own times, the discoveries of great humam genius are still intact, preserved, and still quite useful.
The jury is still out on whether Einstein was right: That there is a certain "incompleteness" to quantum mechanical theory. (Though many minds are now exploring the possibility that Einstein -- an extraordinarily intuitive scientific genius -- might have a valid point regarding this issue.)
So here we have this professor, who in effect is saying that Darwin is so "perfect," as to be unchallengeable in principle. What kind of a "scientist" is that?
Not to mention that, by taking this stance, he has put himself entirely outside the tradition of academic freedom.
If I were an aspiring biology major, perhaps with a view to medical science, and I learned that my career had to proceed through the "gates" that this guy had prescribed for me -- his "litmus test" -- then I would probably choose to go to another school, had I the opportunity to do so.
But it seems to me that trying to stop the progress of science is the same exact problem as trying to stop history itself. Some people actually try to do that. They are variously called: Hegelians; Marxists; Stalists. I gather the generic category could be described by the evocative term, "totalitarian(ist)s."
To which I would only add: I strongly doubt that Creationism mounts any serious challenge to science. However, I have a strong suspicion that Intelligent Design theory is a major headache for the Darwinist doctrinaire-types "out there." But I gather the prof here won't give a recommendation to folks who find that particular line of inquiry "interesting," either.
This guy is a freaking ideologue. And arrogant beyond belief.
And I'll let my case rest right there. Anyone who wants to dispute it knows where they can find me.