In this question about a creationist term for macroevolution, the introduction to this site for our new user was "I can't see why EL&U should become involved in helping creationists find more persuasive terminology..." I find this objectionable, and doubly so that 7 users currently agree with this statement.
This site is about language and usage. The OP asked a question about vocabulary. If users object to the philosophy, they need not contribute an answer. I think this question is absolutely on-topic for the site. The leading comment makes it seem as though it has been closed because of its philosophy rather than its content, and indeed the "not constructive" close reason reinforces this impression.
Additionally, the first sentence was followed with "I can't see how this question will lead to anything other than extended discussion of unresolvable philosophical arguments." That is certainly reasonable, although it is troubling to me that the same user who wrote it proceeded to post 3 comments that seemed geared to provoking extended philosophical arguments. This question can be answered without dragging philosophy into it.
So if we are not going to accept this question, I want a much more definitive answer than the canned one that has been given. Why was this question closed?