Then you know precious little of chemistry, engineering or science. This offers an excellent opportunity to set a common baseline for further discussions, if you are open to it.
Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) considered scientific inquiry to be a species of the genus inquiry, which he defined as any means of fixing belief, that is, any means of arriving at a settled opinion on a matter in question. He observed that inquiry in general begins with a state of uncertainty and moves toward a state of certainty, sufficient at least to terminate the inquiry for the time being. In 1877 he outlined four methods for the settlement of doubt, graded from least to most, by their success in achieving a sound fixation of belief:
1) The method of tenacity — persisting in that which one is inclined to think.
2) The method of authority — conformity to a source of ready-made beliefs.
3) The method of congruity or the a priori or the dilettante or "what is agreeable to reason" — leading to argumentation that gets finally nowhere.
4) The scientific method — whereby inquiry actually tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself.
If we can agree that the evolution - theistic evolution - creation debate cannot be resolved to your satisfaction by anything other than methods 1 & 2 we really have no platform fro scientific discussion and no reason to discuss this further.
Its already resolved.
To date, each and every piece of physical evidence discovered on Earth demolishes the foolish idea of evolution, and that is in perfect agreement with God’s word, thus there is an ideal situation; the scientific method is affirmed by God’s word.
Now all we need is for the evos to stop wasting our time and money.
If so, after reading this mush (What Pragmatism Is) I don't think I would call upon him for anything involving clear thinking and definitions.