Creation Muesum

[SteelCurtain]

Which is exactly what "Christian Science" is. Any "reputable" (and by reputable I mean accepted by Christians) Christian source has a statement of faith like the one from AiG I posted above. They literally state that any evidence which contradicts scripture must, by definition, be wrongly interpreted. Science can never start with an unassailable position. That is the antithesis of science.

This is a generalization.  I would also point out that many naturalist make a similar claim (and with much less reason). I also take into consideration, that either the info gathered from science or scripture, may be wrongfully interpreted by myself.

It is a generalization based on evidence. That I provided above. "Reputable" Christian sources all use the statement of faith.

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

If you could, provide a "naturalist" source, claiming to be performing science, that states that if they discover evidence that contradicts their claim, they will disregard it. I'll wait...

If they start with the conclusion, then it is not scientific. By definition. If you start with the conclusion that the world must be 6,000 years old, and then go and search for corroborating evidence, even if said evidence is collected in a "scientific" manner, you are still only collecting evidence in a scientific manner. The interpretation of the evidence with the conclusion already in mind is not science. It is arm waving at its basest.

So then... if I am told by my teacher, that evolution is true, and then proceed to demonstrate in a scientific manner that it is true, then it is not science?   It would seem that under this definition much of science, is not science!

No. You are not doing science in a lecture hall. If you do testable, repeatable experiments in the lab that produce results that corroborate your hypothesis, you are but a fly in the wall of the mountains of other experiments that have done the same results.

Please, if you would, link to a creationist experiment. What have the creationists tested that provides a prediction of future phenomena, as a scientific theory would? I'll wait...

Empirical observation is the only method for arriving at a realistic conclusion. Getting your "truth" from a 2000 year old book and co-opting modern knowledge into that, I'm sorry, is not a reconciliation of truth. It's wish granting, and I'll not be a part of it.

Are you saying, that unless something is observed, it is not science?  Can science make an inference based on what is observed, to come to a conclusion about what was likely the cause (which was not empirically observed)?

And now you're mincing words. One does not need to witness a gene mutating in order to witness the evidence that it leaves. I don't need to be there to see a Mt. Vesuvius erupting, but by dating the igneous strata and exhuming the mummified remains of the Pompeians, we can tell a story. Be careful in tugging at this string, because it will unravel your sweater.