scientists can predict what we will learn in the future about the past.
Whoa, dude - sounds like thought conditioning.
Scientists approach all new data with skepticism, even if that data would appear to support existing theory. That dilligence is what separates science from faith, and evolutionists from creationists.
Methinks you have fallen for the: evolutionist scientist is good scientist / creationist scientist is bad scientist ruse.
Let's be real here - the evolutionist scientist can be a good or bad scientist AND the creationist scientist can be a good or bad scientist (just like his/her evolutionist brother/sister). The creationist scientist though would assuredly be a bad "evolutionary" scientist, but, I'm sure he/she can live with that.
A "creation science" can of course be a "good" scientist. He could apply the scientific method to his specific field and not to the rest of science. Makes him a great scientist within his field, but for other branches, not so much.
Oops, sorry I inadvertently missed your answer to my earlier question.
scientists can predict what we will learn in the future about the past.
Whoa, dude - sounds like thought conditioning.
Nonsense. That's the hallmark of a good theory - it predicts future discoveries. We know there are gaps in the fossil record, and we can speculate on their nature based on what we already know. And this has borne out time and time again.
"Thought conditioning?" What do you mean?