[Coyoteman]

again, you misrepresent science. A study doesn't always have to do a scientific method as you and others define it. And science by the definition given to us by the dictionary includes much more than naturalism. You are not being honest with your terms or you are just completely blinded by the negative and anti creator voices and thoughts in your head. Why don't you question some of your thoughts?,/i>

I do science, you do apologetics. Apologists do not define the rules of science.

(And I do not listen to "voices" in my head.)

[fabian]

there is obviously an objective definition of science which is given to us in the dictionary. My point was that it includes creationism but it's the darwinists that are weakly trying to exclude it calling it apologitics. Where is the academic freedom...when some scientific obserations disagree with toe you guys try and put them into a different category in order to diminish it. As many creation scientists know; that simply doesn't hold water. It may work for a while in a controlled school environment where dissent is made risking your sanity. But eventually many find the amazing scientific observations of creationism and find it very interesting.