Creationists are frequently attacked for not accepting not just universal common descent evolution but the entire Big Bang-to-man story. Claims like anti-science, science denier, and insults to your intelligence and education, if you even question this atheistic view of origins. Daring to openly challenge it as a scientist has been demonstrated to be dangerous to one's career. Any legitimate scientific theory is going to thrive, taking on any opposition. Also, being able to raise questions about a legitimate theory can only help make it better if it's correct. All these common criticisms that you see fail to recognize the fact that there are some legitimate reasons why someone may reject a particular theory without rejecting science as a whole.
Misunderstanding The Theory.
One very important reason why someone may reject a theory is not properly understanding it. This does not necessarily mean that they are stupid; it may simply be that they were not presented with it properly. An excellent example of this is with general relativity. The common rubber sheet illustration does not really show what is going on. It does not show that space itself is moving towards the center of mass. Without that little detail the model does not make any sense, without changes once you see that aspect of it. It is very easy to reject general relativity simply because the rubber sheet illustration makes it seem like nothing but a mathematical abstraction. Once you see that aspect of it, the theory makes sense and is much easier to accept. The problem was poor illustration, leading to an incorrect view of the theory.
Philosophical problems with a theory.
A person may reject a theory because they have philosophical problems with it. This might be the philosophical underpinnings of a theory. For example, a theory that is trying to explain something often associated with religion, from the atheist position of philosophical naturalism, is likely to be rejected by those who accept the religious perspective as simply trying to explain away a religious event. You can also have questions about whether or not it is coherent, whether it really explains what it is supposed to explain, whether it is falsifiable, whether it leads to absurd consequences, or whether there are better alternative explanations. All of these are philosophical issues that someone may have with a particular theory and reject that theory because of them.
Possible unaddressed problems with the theory.
A person may reject a particular theory because of unaddressed problems that they have with it. This can be problems with procedure in testing the theory, along with things that the person sees as either unaddressed or improperly addressed by the theory. It could be as simple as problems one sees about the theory itself, that simply go unanswered. But it is very easy question the validity of a theory, when you ask questions about it and the only response boil down to: “Trust the experts,” or are simply outright insults.
Thinking they have a better theory.
Sometimes there may be a case where the person in question simply thinks they have a better theory. Now this is irrelevant to whether or not they actually do, but as long as someone thinks they have a better idea, they're not going to accept what is being presented to them. Also, it means possibly that the person actually has a better idea and either has not gotten it published yet or cannot find a journal that will even look at it. It is actually extremely difficult to get most mainstream journals to even review a paper, let alone get one published.
Seeing the theory as unworkable.
It is actually quite reasonable that somebody would not accept a theory that they see as unworkable. Getting back to the rubber sheeting out of General Relativity as an example. The simple fact of the matter is that when not given the full picture, General Relativity looks completely unworkable, because it does not explain the acceleration due to gravity. However, once you see the full picture, the fact that space itself is accelerating does explain it. However, without that little detail, it seems completely unworkable.
Having unresolved questions about the theory.
A very common reason why someone would reject a theory is unresolved questions about it. This is not an unreasonable reason for rejecting a theory. After all, you have some questions, but no one seems to be answering, and even worse, ridiculing you for having them, then it is quite reasonable to reject the theory.
Not accepting the assumptions behind the theory.
Every theory and science as a whole has assumptions behind it; now, those are sometimes reasonable, and they may be valid; however, they may not be. One reason why someone may reject a given theory is that they do not agree with the assumptions behind it.
An assumption is something you accept as true without having proof, a belief or starting point you take for granted in reasoning or decision‑making. An assumption is a mental shortcut: you treat a claim, idea, or condition as true so you can move forward with an argument, calculation, or conclusion. It may be reasonable, or it may be completely unfounded, but the key is that it isn’t verified.
Here are the key aspects of all assumptions, no matter how reasonable they may be. They are accepted without proof. That is, you treat it as true even though you haven’t demonstrated it to be such. They form a foundation for reasoning. Assumptions often serve as the starting point for arguments for models or predictions. Assumptions can be mistaken. They can be completely wrong. However, if an assumption is wrong, the conclusions built on it are usually also wrong. Assumptions are common in everyday thinking, because people routinely make assumptions about others, situations, or outcomes. A good example of this is assuming that other individuals are conscious entities, even though we only know for sure that we ourselves are.
Assumptions shape conclusions. If you start with a faulty assumption, even flawless reasoning afterward can lead you to a wrong answer. This is why identifying and examining assumptions is central to critical thinking, science, and philosophy. Consequently, someone who disagrees with the assumptions behind a particular theory will, if they do any thinking about the theory, naturally tend to disagree with it. This is one of the keys to understanding disagreement with the idea of universal common descent evolution. If you do not accept me as something of absolute naturalism that is behind the ideas, you will very likely look at the same evidence and come to the conclusion of a common designer.
Seeing alternative interpretations of the evidence used to support the theory.
Seeing an alternative interpretation of the evidence being presented in support of a theory will cause a person to reject that particular theory. This is particularly a problem when evidence is being interpreted by a theory and then used as evidence in support of that theory. This happens all the time in historical sciences. For example, almost any piece of data claimed as evidence for universal common descent is actually being interpreted under its presupposition. For example, genetic similarity between organisms is often claimed as evidence for universal common descent evolution, but that is the interpretation that you get only by assuming universal common descent evolution. The patterns of similarity can easily be explained by a common designer using the same genetic language.
Lack of empirical evidence
A complete lack of empirical evidence is another reason why someone is likely to reject the particular theory. However, this is often used simply as an excuse by people who will summarily reject any evidence presented by creationists because it doesn't come from pro-evolutionary and inherently atheistic sources, and then they will claim that there is no empirical evidence for any aspect of Biblical creation. If you're going to use this, you need to honestly look at evidence presented by a theory’s supporters; you should only reject it if there are good reasons for doing so. This is particularly true if you're going to argue that there is no empirical evidence for the participant's theory. However, under the proper circumstances, it is a legitimate reason to reject a theory.
Methodological flaws
Another reason why somebody might reject a theory is that they see flaws and the work being done associated with it. A good example of this is that in paleontology, genetics, and comparative biology, the universal common descent evolution is frequently assumed, and then the interpretations and communities based on those assumptions are then claimed as evidence for universal common descent evolution. A good example of this is claiming a different variety of a gene found in a different organism as a beneficial mutation; however, no one observed a mutation; it is simply assumed to have selected one variety to evolve to the other. That is flawed reasoning because it is circular reasoning.
Results are not reproducible
The first thing that needs to be noted here is the fact that there is a difference between not being reproducible and not having been reproduced. There are legitimate reasons why the results may not have been reproduced. These situations do not qualify as being unreproducible.
The simplest reason why a set of results may not have been reproduced is that no one has tried. This can be because of the expense, or because no one has had a desire to try. The helium detection rates measured by the RATE project are a good example of both. Making you necessary movement is rather expensive, and this is the reason why creativeness has yet to reproduce the results. Evolutionists would not want to, and the tongue will not report the results unless they go against the RATE results.
The typical reasons why results have not been reproduced. This can include the need to have the right equipment. It can include difficulty getting the equipment in the right manner.
The time to reject a theory because results are not reproducible is when multiple attempts have failed. However, this is also the time when you know you have actually debated the quality of the efforts to repeat the results. It helps you if you can identify what went wrong on the other attempt, while demonstrating that the failed reproductions were done collecting.
Contradicts established theories
Now one reason for rejecting a particular theory is that it contradicts established theories. However, there is a caveat here, and that is the situation where the new theory is intended to replace an old one. In that situation, rejecting a new theory in defense of the older one just because it contradicts the older one is not proper science. What is being referred to here is the case where A theory configures other established theories that it is not directly with. A good example of this is the fact that universal common descent evolution contradicts information theory by trying to create new complex specific information by simply filtering noise through an imprecise filter. The idea of abiogenesis contradicts everything we know about how complex systems are designed and built. It runs into multiple problems with well-established principles of thermodynamics, and I am not talking about the second law.
Explanations are ad hoc or incomplete
This one describes much of so-called origins research: a lot of the explanations given for the origin of various things are ad hoc and incomplete. This is particularly true of how they get around problems. For example, the nebula hypothesis: the primary explanation for anything that does not fit is a totally ad hoc explanation of a large impact. In many cases, there is no evidence for it, other than the problem that it is designed to fix. These notions about abiogenesis are totally ad hoc and totally incomplete. There is not even a single real theory on how it could have happened. What does exist is nothing but a bunch of ad hoc claims to make it look possible.
Conflicts with well-supported evidence
This is one that evolutionists will frequently accuse creationists of, but in many ways it's the other way around. The simple fact of the matter is that much of the evidence presented in support of various parts of the Big Bang to man story is based on its interpretation of the evidence under the presupposition of that view of origins, which was designed from its inception to conflict with biblical creation. There are conflicts in the Big Bang to man story that are simply either ignored or explained away by just-so stories. A perfect example of this is the fact that genetics shows that we are all descended from a single man and a single woman, with each of these lines producing a three-way split. Now this data is predicted directly by the Biblical account from Creation to the Flood. Meanwhile, what is predicted by universal common descent is completely at odds with all this data, requiring an ad hoc explanation to make it fit.
Relies on unfalsifiable claims
Falsifiability is a primary ingredient of the scientific method. If the theory cannot be falsified, then it does not legitimately qualify as science. Now, it is one thing, in a debate situation, to answer a claim that's something that's impossible with unfalsifiable claims to demonstrate how it is possible, but that is a far cry from a theory repeatedly relying on unfalsifiable claims to save it from reality. This is frequently a problem when dealing with every aspect of the Big Bang to man story. With the Big Bang itself, there are at least two well-known unfalsifiable claims that exist only to save the Big Bang from reality. These are Dark Energy and Cosmic Inflation. The number one ad hoc unfalsifiable explanation for any problem with the nebula hypothesis is to throw a giant rock at the problem to make it go away. The simple fact of the matter is, is that if a theory is largely supported by unfalsifiable claims, then it is not actually science and should be rejected.
Potential biases or lack of objectivity
One reason someone might reject a theory being promoted in science is to see clear evidence of bias and lack of objectivity in the development and promotion of the theory. That can include very strong assumptions such as philosophical naturalism, where anything but totally naturalistic explanations are thrown out before data is even looked at. The cherry-picking of data, where data is thrown out that does not fit the model. This has been known to happen with radiometric dating, where measurements are thrown out just because they do not give the results predicted by the geological time scale. Ignoring evidence that contradicts popular theory. It is usually done by explaining it away with a just-so story. A good example of the tendency in astronomy is to explain away observations that contradict the nebular hypothesis by throwing a giant rock not the problem to make it go away. Clear cultural and personal biases are evident in the scientific establishment my tendency to dismiss any opposition with ridicule and even lawsuits. A complete lack of objectivity can be seen when the theory is used to interpret the data, and then that interpretation is confused with the evidence itself and used as evidence can be theory. Another example is using terminology that serves nothing but propaganda value. You have very good examples of this in the recent tendency he called birds dinosaurs and human beings apes. These types of biases and lack of objectivity are excellent reasons for rejecting a theory, this is particularly true when the people promoting the theory you can't to be totally obsessive.
Personal disbelief or worldview differences
Injecting a theory because of personal disbelief or worldview differences is another reason for rejecting a theory. On the topic of origins, this one works both ways. For example, a creationist rejects the idea of universal common descent because it is fundamentally based on a totally naturalistic and atheistic worldview. In fact, that's the case for the entire Big Bang-to-man story. As a Christian, once you recognize the fact that this view of origins was designed from beginnings, He tried to explain how we got here without God, then rejecting it, based purely on worldview differences, is inevitable. On the flip side, the Biblical account goes against the worldview of an atheist, making it impossible to accept regardless of the evidence.
Conclusion
There are legitimate reasons for rejecting theories that are promoted as science. In fact, it is dangerous to science to attack disagreement regardless of the reason for it. First, science at its heart is the pursuit of truth, not a declaration of truth. Second, real science actually thrives on disagreement because that is how flaws and errors are discovered. It is also how new ideas are given a chance to be considered and tested. You are never going to convince somebody they are wrong and you are right by insulting them. It is important to recognize that the other person may have one or more legitimate reasons for rejecting the very theory that you accept passionately. This is one of the things where creationists clearly have a better understanding than evolutionists, regardless of which view of origins is actually correct. That is, most creationists understand that people can look at the same evidence and honestly disagree on what it means, because they are looking at it from different perspectives. However, most evolutionists are totally blind to this even being possible.
