Statler: Just because a scientist happens to BELIEVE in creationism will never make creationism a scientific fact. That is where you are confusing BELIEF with KNOWLEDGE and it is KNOWLEDGE that SCIENCE deals with. Belief always should belong in the realm of philosophy and then you can arm yourself with the semantics that seemingly makes your belief convincing.
To use an example: A scientist who encourages the BELIEF in his or her children that Santa Claus exists and is real does not make Santa Claus REAL.
As an aside, let us posit that creationism is testable and verifiable, do you honestly think that the replication of results would all lead to one final answer? Do you honestly think that all the world religions would agree to the consensus that you are hoping for? You are arguing for only one result, and I highly doubt that an Islamic Scientist would agree with a Christian Scientist on who is the creationist.
It is this kind of consensus that makes the notion of creationism more suitable for Philosophy and unsuitable for the laboratory.
To use an example: A scientist who encourages the BELIEF in his or her children that Santa Claus exists and is real does not make Santa Claus REAL.
As an aside, let us posit that creationism is testable and verifiable, do you honestly think that the replication of results would all lead to one final answer? Do you honestly think that all the world religions would agree to the consensus that you are hoping for? You are arguing for only one result, and I highly doubt that an Islamic Scientist would agree with a Christian Scientist on who is the creationist.
It is this kind of consensus that makes the notion of creationism more suitable for Philosophy and unsuitable for the laboratory.
