I.D. proponents: Make up your mind!

How many of these creationist scientists are doing original creationist research and testing creationist hypotheses? How many of these studies are getting published in peer reviewed journals?Scientist is not a title. It describes an activity. But you can't do science by inserting unevidenced and untestable variables into your hypotheses. Negative argument fallacy. Science has zero proof that Leprechauns do not exist, and yet I don't see why scientists should make them a part of science. Can you explain why Leprechauns should not be a part of science since no one can prove that they don't exist?

Can you name a single instance where adding God into a scientific theory has improved our knowledge of the natural world? If we add God into Newton's formulas do they suddenly become more accurate?

Shouldn't you figure this out first before insisting that God be included in science? But why would this missing variable be God? A good example is Newton's Laws of Gravity. As it turned out they were wrong. They were missing a variable. Newton's Laws of Gravity could not explain the observed precession in Mercury's orbit. That missing variable was not God. The missing variable was the warping of spacetime, a completely natural process that does not require any reference to any deity. If that were so then you should be able to show how including God improves science. You haven't been able to do that.