[Sabertooth]

The gaul of the naturalists to sit there and honestly claim that they are some how "more objective" than the opposition is the height of absurdity.

A height equalled frequently by literal Creationists when they beat their heads against the wall with the same bad science over and over again.

I find it a reasonably accurate prejudice to assume that Creationists make bad scientists and Evolutionists make bad theologians.

I will agree that Evolutionists are not so aware as they should be when they are tramping in theological woods.

[Exnihilo]

Again, I'd ask, as I've done a thousand times before on these threads that never end, for a complete and thorough definition of "Creationist" that we can all agree on. Clearly, scientific data would conflict with a literal 6-day interpretation of Genesis. That being said, what is a "Creationist" and why do you think it is that the naturalists who adhere to Darwinian orthodoxy shout "Creationist!" at their opposition as though they were shining a bright light on a dark corner of the world and exposing something? It's quite telling that the mere accusation is something that, presumably, is to be feared, avoided, and skirted at all costs in order to remain in good intellectual standing with the naturalists.

[Texas_Jarhead]

"I find it a reasonably accurate prejudice to assume that Creationists make bad scientists and Evolutionists make bad theologians."

I realize that you mean this more or less as jest. But truth is, many of the great Western scientists of the last five centuries were religious Christians (therefore creationists), some extremely devout.