The "method?" Looks like making a new statement, not standing my the old one. Old statement:
That's too bad because while I have problems with evolution per se...I am not generally anti-science.
This one says you have no problem with most of the acquired content of science, not just the "method." Supposedly, the problem is just with something called "evolution." As I pointed out, however, "evolution" is a term most readers will understand as Darwinian/biological evolution: common descent with variation and natural selection operating over many generations. When a creationist says what you said, however, the amount of science being rejected is far greater than the narrow understanding of the term implies. Furthermore, the equivocation on the word "evolution" gives the creationist cover as being less anti-science than he really is.
Your new statement looks like a confirmation of my earlier suspicions. No rush to say, "No! I accept radiometric dating, even when it supports conventional interpretations of the geologic column and transitional fossils! I accept paleontology! I accept geology! I accept the age of the Earth!"
Creationists spend no time defending whatever crazy model they support, a lot of time attacking evolution, and often a lot of time denying who they are and what they are doing.
This should not be necessary if everything were on the up and up. First of all, get a horse to put in the race. That would be a defensible theory. Second, realize that attacking any other theory doesn't give you a defensible theory. Third, if you had a theory that made any sense against real-world evidence you wouldn't need to do this "Don't dismiss me as a nutcase!" dance because you wouldn't then be a nutcase for believing your theory against all evidence.
Where dishonesty occurs in not admitting to the hidden agendas that drive the main agenda in a man...
You took out one irony meter earlier. I'm splashing water on the replacement.
... whether creationist or secularist scientist...
That's close, anyway. But the side that's following the real-world evidence does not have to apologize for insisting on following the same in questions of science.
Furthermore, unfortunately, you preceded that paragraph with this one:
I simply reject the hypocrisy of those so "called" scientists who criticise the creationists of resorting to unscientific A Priori Biases when those same scientists have not dealt with their own unscientific A Priori biases!
You are rejecting 150 years worth of evidence because you don't like the seeming "hypocrisy" of some criticisms of creationists? That's the reason? That's the sequence of events?
I suggest you rethink this. It sounds kind of illogical; you're confessing to a considerable fallacy if true. However, I wonder if you didn't reject evolution and accept creation first, THEN decide the scientists were hypocritical etc. etc. etc. That strikes me as far more likely. First you join the Holy War, THEN you start thinking like a Holy Warrior nutcase.
Oh now you are expanding the conversation so that you are accusing Creationists of advocating Holy War and Jihad and are the bane of all free thought...
I was suggesting that (and as the posted article suggests) that those of the realm of science are not free of dishonesty and denial that some creationists are accused of and then you launch into Holy War Jibberish...
Are you off your anti-psychotic meds or what? Are you really that paranoid?