Not quite the same thing. Creationism is not a scientific idea, and it is reasonable to attack the people who make moral proclamations, if they fail to live up to them.
The difference is that science bases its authority on the objectivity of its observations, the fact that they can be repeated by any competent person. Religions are based on unique events witnessed by a few individuals, and their credibility is essential to the credibility of the claims to truth.
There have been attempts to censor scientific observations based on morality, excluding from publicationfor example, the data compiled by the Germans and Japanese during WWII in their cruel experiments. Such censorship makes sense only if it discourages future cruelty.
You wrote:
"Not quite the same thing. Creationism is not a scientific idea, and it is reasonable to attack the people who make moral proclamations, if they fail to live up to them."
I believe there is a misunderstanding or two here. ;-)
My point was that scientists (as you went on to explain)
take pains to rely on repeated observation under controlled conditions, etc. They also lay great stress on
_logical thought_ as opposed to revelation.
To paraphrase you "...Evolutionism is a scientific idea,
and it is reasonable to attack the people who make logical
proclamations, if they fail to adhere to the rules of logic."
So far, so good. (*)
The surprise I referred to was that someone espousing
the scientific viewpoint would engage in such an egregious logical fallacy (this bad person subscribes to your belief, so it must be false) to advance their point.
Unless, of course, they were merely trolling.
Cheers!
(*) For the nonce, my doctorate is in molecular collision theory.