Here's to science!

[TLK Valentine]

The OP says creation-ist ... not creation scient-ist.

I hope you don't lump all creationists in with creation scientists, as the OP seems to be doing.

In fact, there are creation scientists and then there are creationist-scientists, or 'creationists who are scientists'; but 'creation scientist,' in my opinion, is a contradiction in terms; and I have stated as much many times here.

Right after you explain the difference to me, why don't you explain the difference to the "Creation scientists"?

Of course, as long as they have people duped into thinking that what they do is legitimate science, they're not going to care about your opinion any more than they would care for mine.

 

[TheReasoner]

The OP says creation-ist ... not creation scient-ist.

I hope you don't lump all creationists in with creation scientists, as the OP seems to be doing.

In fact, there are creation scientists and then there are creationist-scientists, or 'creationists who are scientists'; but 'creation scientist,' in my opinion, is a contradiction in terms; and I have stated as much many times here.

Creation scientist? No such thing. Creationism is a pseudoscience, not a science. You can have a scientist who is also a scientist, like Newton believed in alchemy. But that does not validate creationism any more than Newton's affiliation with alchemy validates alchemy. No matter how much you say it fits it still won't. This is not just a square peg in a round hole you're proposing, which could "fit" if you just use a sledgehammer. It's worse than that.