[lasereye]

there's Naturalism, the Method, and Naturalism, the Philosophy. The first simply uses physical techniques to investigate the real world; it's the only effective way. The other is a doctrine which says that natural physical causes are all that exist and all that are needed to explain the world. Many scientists reject the second even as they employ the first. Luddites who despise science for contradicting their creation myth attack the first for being the second.

No, evolution clearly falls into the second category. Various evolutionists have asserted that creationism is a priori unacceptable because it means there's a supreme being. In other words it must automatically be rejected, regardless of scientific problems with evolution and regardless of any scientifically based creationist arguments. Scientific creationism uses naturalism the Method just as much as evolution does.

[VadeRetro]

Scientific creationism uses naturalism the Method just as much as evolution does.

Really? Where are the important scientific creationist discoveries?

All I ever notice creationism saying is "You'll never find a fossil in that gap!" Or sometimes, "You'll never understand how that works!"

Many of its predictions are already wrong when uttered, but it just fumes and hisses on. It's heckling science, not doing science.