You said -- "But alot of your cohorts deem it necessary to do the same thing to scientific threads."
It's a "worldview" issue -- which deals with "truth". At the bottom line, what is at stake is something called "truth", which forms the "worldview" of the person who holds that position.
Now, in terms of public discourse, what that is all about (at least in democratic types of societies) is having these things hashed out public view for all to see, so the truth can rise to the top and untruth will sink of its own weight.
What's going on here is a clash of worldviews. One is right and the other is not. It's as simple as that.
However, in reality, there is no such thing as a clash between true science and what God has said in the Bible. True science will always find itself moving towards truth. And since God is truth -- true science will always come to the position of God.
The problem is that there is politics in science and it's not always faithful to the truth.
This is nothing more than coming into the public arena and saying "What you're saying is not true. Here is the reason that it's not true."
What is evident from many quarters (in this society) is that many prefer these kinds of "discussions" to be *sequestered* behind closed doors and not take place "in the public arena".
It's what is meant by "You do this over there (i.e., "keep to yourself") and we'll do it over here. However, the "over here" is the entirety of society -- while the "over there" is "behind closed doors".
That's why you see this happening the way you do. It's just as valid of an opinion about a scientist -- as if it were another scientist disagreeing with him on another so-called "scientific theory".
What's going on here is no too much different than what goes on in the political arena and just like what Ann Coulter is saying. That's a perfect example.
Regards,
Star Traveler