Perhaps the greatest problem with evolutionists is the fact that they often ask questions of creationists but refuse to stick around to hear the answers.
I am currently reading the book Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil, by Cornelius G. Hunter, and his main premise is that the theory of evolution, at its core, is a theological hypothesis, rather than a scientific one. For Charles Darwin, whose favorite book was Milton's Paradise Lost, reconciling a loving and benevolent God with the cruelties of nature was impossible. As he wrote, "What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horribly cruel works of nature" (quoted in Hunter, p. 10). Similarly, Darwin noted, "There seems to be me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the [parasitic wasp] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that the cat should play with mice" (Ibid., p. 12)
And evolutionists have followed Darwin's line of thinking ever since. More often than not, when they see various aspects of nature, these scientists conclude that "God wouldn't have made it that way," thus taking their research from the scientific arena to the theological. As Hunter observes, referring to one particular evolutionist, "[He] obviously has specific ideas of what the designer is and is not allowed to do. First, the designer must be sensible to us, going about his work as we see fit" (83).
In essence, we conceitedly try to make God in our image, implying that He has to operate within the framework that we think He should. It is the epitome of self-love, in my opinion. Are we so arrogant as to believe that we know how things should or should not work? (Admittedly, I am nowhere near a scientist so I am not as optimistic about the capabilities of the field.)
Ultimately, however, we are confronted with the reality that, although evolutionists demand answers from creationists, they refuse to stick around to hear those answers. In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, time and again, points to different aspects of nature as evidence that an Intelligent Designer is disqualified (which, of course, is not a positive argument for evolution, but a negative argument against design - the precise accusation he flings at creationists). Yet while he makes these accusations, at the same time he has no room for theology, saying that he has never heard a good explanation as to why theology should be considered a subject at all.
So which is it, Dawkins? You demand an explanation from creationists as to how such works of nature can be reconciled with God, yet you laugh at the very field of study you are questioning. There seems to be a bit of hypocrisy.
Dawkins isn't alone, of course, as Hunter has shown. Many of them have taken the bait - hook, line, and sinker. As he writes, "They [evolutionists] employ assertions about what God would and would not do to prove their point, yet they claim that evolution is a scientific conclusion" (84). They do this while scoffing at those who try to answer the questions that allegedly prove their intellectual superiority.