Creation Museum a House of Cards Sitting on Old Old Earth Rocks

In my view your explanation is extremely charitable. I doubt that one Creationist in fifty has any real appreciation of the science that they deny. Yeah, Senator Paul Broun from Georgia, the medical doctor who insists that evolution is 'lies from the pits of Hell', maintains that position in the face of the evidence. Michael Behe knows better, but maintains his silly positions. But that kind of 'indomitable will' isn't what I'm seeing here. Unless you think a bag of hammers has super enhanced will power.I understand that it is rude and elitist to say it, but for the most part, the Creationists here seem to be composed of folks whose last science course was a painful, junior high school memory with the occasional poster who has taken some kind of physics/biology for poets course under duress. Maybe there used to be lots of exceptions to that who posted here, but apparently those guys are long gone.I suppose I ought to say something positive. That Leonardo da Vinci was an absolute genius.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That's fine. I admit to holding some non-rational beliefs.Being compassionate and understanding is one thing. Excusing pigheadedness is fine. But elevating ignorance and illogic to the level of being virtues is something else.

The above reasoning is wrong. A scientist is someone who practices the scientific method in a field in which he has the requisite expertise to address a particular inquiry. A PhD in mechanical engineering would be expected to have sufficient academic background necessary to conduct scientific inquiries within his particular field of expertise some of which might easily be classified as basic science. Whether or not Dr. Brown is or is not a scientist would depend on whether he carries out such inquiries or not.What we can say is that Walter Brown's credentials alone don't make him a practicing scientist. And we can easily criticize his work on Creation Science without even looking at his credentials.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I would find it surprising and a bit pompous to hear someone with a BS degree in any subject calling themselves a scientist simply by way of having received such a degree. That is certainly not what is done in the US. Quite frankly, even a BS degree in biology, chemistry, or physics does not make you a scientist.My understanding is that just as in the US, British schools offer BSc degrees in subjects like economics and mathematics.

That is of course true. But generally speaking, people new graduates with a BS degree even in scientific disciplines do not work as scientists. They are mostly working under scientists. There really is no distinction between a B.Eng and a BS in Engineering. Schools have some leeway to call their degrees what they will, and there seems to be a lot more variation in what UK schools and others do compared to what US schools do. BS degrees are generally more rigorous than BA degrees, at least at schools that offer both. I'm not sure what point you are making here. I am certainly not advocating dismissing Dr. Brown for not being a scientist simply because he has an engineering degree. I have actually made the argument that we should not do that. Your description does not advance or provide an argument that your friend is a scientist. But what of it? Not being a scientist is no insult to an engineer. It is only an insult to people who are attempting to do science and have failed to do so.I graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Physics. I have never considered myself a scientist because I generally don't conduct scientific investigations. But that is not the same thing as saying that I don't approach scientific manners in a scientific method or that my thought processes are somehow inferior to those of scientists

The reason why not is because following 'rational objective models in trying to understand our world' is not the definition of scientist. Your definition might exclude astrology, but it would not exclude numerology in general or ID. Not all logical pursuits are sciences.