[tacticalogic]

Well, if not having a degree in science is irrelevant to whether someone is called a scientist or not and Darwin can be considered a scientist with only a degree in theology, then there's no justification for the evos to reject any of the claims of being a scientist made by IDers or creationists,

That's an interesting proposition. If you can't do it based on academic credentials, then you can't do it at all.

I think there's valid reasons other than academic credentials that might be applied. You're free to argue that there cannot be any other basis to make that determination, but I'll be skeptical of the objectivity of that argument.

[metmom]

It’s the ToE Litmus Test.

What it gets down to every time credentials are debated is that if someone is a avid supporter of the FRevo version of the ToE, he’s a *real scientist* regardless of his (lack of) credentials.

If someone questions the assumptions made that support the ToE and doubt the conclusions hard core evos have come to, then no amount of education in the sciences will earn the recognition that the person is a scientist and knows what he is talking about.

Here you’re willing to give Darwin a pass on the lack of science degree, but rather having a degree in theology because....... Why?