Of course you are guilty too!! But your conclusion is still Your opinion, and opinion Only!
I accept science Fact. I chose to interpret the evidence differently than you. You do not "own" science (the word or the discipline). Your claim that Creation Science (or your words religion) is not science, is only again opinion. God believing scientist choose to look for and find scientific evidence to prove their belief (or theory as you may call it) is as valid as your claims. As to the rest of your post, I would agree to most of it;
However: (you said)
"...As soon as you begin with some other doctrine -- regardless of how divinely inspired it may or may-not have been -- you could well be right, but you are not being scientific.
In this case? I'd rather be Right!! You can be scientific but still be wrong! (as per your point)
To be scientific, you have to start with evidence, and not just those items which support your hoped-for results. ..."
Those who ascribe to evolutional Bias will so interpret the data likewise. To say differently would be terrible dishonest.
Only if words themselves have no legitimate meanings -- if you can redefine words to mean whatsoever you wish they would have meant.
But if words do have real meanings, then science is science and your religion is not.
And if words do have real meanings, then your attempt to pretend your religion is just another branch of "science" is, in reality, a Big Lie -- perhaps even a child of the Father of Lies?
kimtom: "I chose to interpret the evidence differently than you.
You do not "own" science (the word or the discipline).
Your claim that Creation Science (or your words religion) is not science, is only again opinion."
Of course I don't "own" science, but in fact, science can and does speak for itself, through the words of recognized scientists, and science does not accept your mis-interpretations.
Your efforts to wrap religious doctrine in the mantle of "science" are found by science itself to be laughable and dishonest, FRiend.
kimtom: "God believing scientist choose to look for and find scientific evidence to prove their belief (or theory as you may call it) is as valid as your claims."
If that is truly their methodology, then it is by definition not "scientific".
True science requires that you begin with evidence and follow it toward whatever conclusions it leads.
Then after forming some hypothesis, you must now begin to test to falsify it -- and if your tests fail to falsify, then you can begin to assert your hypothesis is a confirmed theory.
No such conditions exist for any "new earth" hypothesis.
kimtom: "I'd rather be Right!! You can be scientific but still be wrong!"
Of course many scientific hypotheses are proved wrong every year.
Indeed, it would be safe to say that far fewer pass all their falsification tests.
In fact, the very word "science" does not mean "always right", but rather it means: "we will test scientifically to determine which hypotheses are right and which wrong, regardless of somebody's preconceived ideas."
kimtom: "Those who ascribe to evolutional Bias will so interpret the data likewise.
To say differently would be terrible dishonest."
I'd say it's "terrible dishonest" to claim that science should be moved by some religious doctrine, or that your particular doctrine is somehow "scientific".