Confidence states:
You are talking as if no creationists can be scientists. This in itself is ignorant and lends discredit to your position as an evolutionist. For there are plenty of scientists who are creationists.
According to Newsweek via Religioustolerance.org at
Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation
quote:
According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%
Evidently it all depends upon one's definition of "plenty."
And their "work" is of no less value than a scientists with an evolutionary stand.
Evidently not, according to 99.86% of all scientists that work directly with 'creation science' evidence.
Both have the same evidence at hand, but their interpretations differ due to their different presuppositions.
No, they have the same data. Before such data becomes evidence, it must be interpreted according to a rational framework. The real debate is if your framework is logically derived, or built upon obvious misinterpretations and intentional falsehoods.
ABE - Oh, almost forgot, welcome to EvC
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.