I'm going to kick myself for following in another switch of topic, but anyway.
Good, a creationist way of thinking has not contributed to science. Thanks for admitting that.
No, it is not. Evolution is a scientific theory and a scientific fact. We can observe it happening and it leads to testable hypotheses. Creationism doesn't do that. It cannot be tested, or if it can it has been falsified. It is not science.
No, it is not. It is a testable theory. How is it a religion? What characteristics of cult thinking or religion does it have?
And the hallmark of science is that it is testable. Evolution is, creationism is not, or where it is has been falsified. That is why evolution is science and creationism is not.
The point we make is that those scientists holding to creationism, never use creationism in doing science. Meanwhile, scientists holding to the theory of evolution do use that to do good science. See the difference?
Great, how about horses? We'll trace horses back all the way. Allright? Will you stop changing topics if we do that? If you say yes, I'll be happy to start a thread on it. But you'll have to stay on topic in that for a change.