"believing that you reinterpret science to fit in with your presuppositions would be correct."

. . . Except I don't, or rather I try to the abustle best of my ability not to otherwise it makes what I'm doing worthless. Question everything. If I do interpret my data to fit my own presuppositions then the peer review process will pick that up when I publish and I will have to go back and start again or whatever.

My point about creationists arguing against science is they must use scientific method to support their hypothesis (the world was made in seven days by god) if they want to be taken seriously by scientists, otherwise they are simply shouting gobbledygook.

I don't have a problem with religion and science (Buddhists positively embrace it) and many scientists are people of faith who happen to understand how science works and it makes not one jot of difference what they believe if they are doing good science, and bad science is the sole domain of anyone, but a universal scourge.

It's the constant distortion that bothers me, the creationist desire to rubbish honest endeavour and attempts to change a system that humankind have developed to deal with the questions raised by scientific philosophy over millennia. This refusal to address the issues by actually making the effort to understand modern science looks lazy and rather petulant, a sort of cultivated ignorance that is quite depressing to witness.