So you say....but it is inconsistent of so-called amoral science to claim others are moral or honest or immoral or dishonest when science itself can not speak to or against moral absolutes...it can only deal with data and its "posited" meaning!
Similarly, scientists cheat when they attempt to use the morality of Creationists against Creationists. Honesty is a moral trait that science can not speak to. It is gibberish to hear so called secular minded scientists to speak of the morality of those Creationists they posit as dishonest in their intent since science can not speak as to the tautologous absolutes that undergird much of Judeo-Christian morality. It might be argued that religion knows nothing about morality,then the converse is also true!
In the end, Science is going to have to prove creationists wrong by reason and logic(and by inventing a time machine that can go back and actually observe what happened in the "beginning"), not by nit-picky put down comments about Creationists using "God" to "fudge" the data. For as the posted article implies, many secular minded scientists aren't above "fudging" their own data to make their "hypotheses" workable, many of whom I'm sure who have scoffed at the "Creationists"!
The ultimate horror to science is that some of these hypotheses may actually lead to real life workable solutions and products despite some of the data being "made up" or "guessed at"... in that case science has something completely different to grapple with...the notion of hunches or "inspirations" that lie completely beyond the scientific method!
"It might be argued that religion knows nothing about morality,then the converse is also true!"
That line should read "It might be argued that Morality knows nothing of science, then the converse can also be argued as true that science knows nothing of morality"
My apologies!