My "church" is doing all the scientific inquiry and has all the scientists who are still asking questions.
Your post confirms that creationists think everything's about religion. That's why the people who are still creationists make lousy scientists. They're the people who have stopped asking questions, or maybe never were asking questions.
The people who still are asking questions stopped being creationists in the 19th century.
To communists, everything is a class struggle. To a child with a hammer, everything's a nail. Same thing.
Bold statements from an armchair quarterback.
My "church" is doing all the scientific inquiry and has all the scientists who are still asking questions [that "I" consider valid].
Your post confirms that creationists think everything's about religion. That's why the people who are still creationists make lousy scientists. They're the people who have stopped asking questions, or maybe never were asking questions. The people who still are asking questions stopped being creationists in the 19th century.
Not necessarily true. There is an assumed "valid" or "proper" in your sentence. People still ask questions, but it is the evolution-as-fact lobby that has ceased to ask questions.
I don't have a problem with "YEC" science being criticized as being non-scientific. I do, however, have a problem with religious-atheists attacking anything secular or non-secular that challenges their presupposition that their pet theory is unquestionable.
My post merely, and rightly IMO, makes the point that the rabid defense of a specific hypothesis, or even "theory" is not science either. Once you refuse to question it, then it becomes doctrine.