>> As a creationist who is also a scientist I don't know where that puts
> me. Not that I really care.
I see a difference between a creationist who is a scientist and the
doctrine of Scientific Creationism; don't you? It seems to me that
creationism, evolution, astrology, theism, and atheism are all matters
of faith. Any can have their inner logic explored in a scientific way.
None can be established by argument without begging the question.
Scientific Creationists believe that logic alone establishes the
correctness of their view; that's their silliness.
Two fallacies cloud these discussions: the argument from disbelief (I
can't believe it, so there's no way it's true) and the argument from
splendid ignorance (I don't see another explanation, so it must be
true). Both fallacies are the same at their core, stemming (it seems to
me) from arrogance.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.