Because religious fraud can easily be shown to either be in line with what the Bible teaches or against what the Bible teaches.
It is actually easy to explain most religious fraud when compared to the Bible, and most Christians are guilty of something, but in itself, there is a standard to follow, the Bible, while Evolution does not have anythng that is an absolute to follow.
But your comments that proving evolution wrong therefore proves all science wrong, that is a falsehood that no intelligent person engages in, I mean, after all, if it weren't for Bible Believing Christians, you wouldn't have science that we have today, like Newton, Morse, Fulton, George Washington Carver, Farraday, Boyle, Lister...shall I go on?
I'll stop you right there; Newton wasn't really a 'Bible-believing Christian'; he was a devout Unitarian who believed the Bible had been corrupted by Trinitarian heresies.
So is religious fraud OK if it is in line with what the bible teaches? Surely you don't mean that. I don't get it.
It is actually easy to explain most religious fraud when compared to the Bible, and most Christians are guilty of something, but in itself, there is a standard to follow, the Bible, while Evolution does not have anything that is an absolute to follow.
Your words here are very revealing. You want to decide the correct answer in advance (the bible, your "absolute to follow") and then look at the evidence. That may engage the intellect, and be an interesting pursuit, but it is not science. I also doubt that it is good religion. None of the people you list in the next paragraph worked that way. They looked at the universe first, then drew their conclusions about its mechanisms and history.
But your comments that proving evolution wrong therefore proves all science wrong, that is a falsehood that no intelligent person engages in, I mean, after all, if it weren't for Bible Believing Christians, you wouldn't have science that we have today, like Newton, Morse, Fulton, George Washington Carver, Farraday, Boyle, Lister...shall I go on?
No don't. Your argument is irrelevant and you know it; which begs the question why do you post it? None of the people that you list was a modern "creation scientist" or has anything in common with them other than religious belief. To be a creation scientist in 2005 involves rejecting most of modern physics, geology, paleontology, archeology, astronomy, cosmology, and biology. Rejecting the very scientific edifice that the people you list helped to build. Rejecting the "observe first and explain second" principal of science.
Modern creation scientists believe that mainstream science is wrong about much of the subjects above. Where are their achievements that make use of their better understanding of the universe? Where are the creation geologists mineral finds? Where are the wonder-drugs from creation biologists? Where are the marvelous new gadgets from creation engineers working under the instruction of creation physicists?