""when it is rather a case of competing ideas which interpret the data variously.""

You certainly got that right Pete!

two methods of interpreting data!!

The scientist taking the data and questioning whether it is self consistent and logical and seeking peer review for whatever conclusions derive from it, and even when the data proves valid and fits all the criteria of the many disciplines it must satisfy, he does not speak of proof, truth, or completion. He is open to the idea that his conclusions may be superceded as new data emerges.

The Creationist "knows" God did it 6000 years ago in seven days and makes the data fit that preconception by ignoring or suppressing any inconvenient evidence to the contrary.

You deviously skirt round the fact that your claim of scientists drawing conclusions based upon preconceptions falls at the very first hurdle.

Tell me Pete, what preconceptions do you suppose the devout Christian, Charles Darwin, acted upon? THERE WAS NO PRECURSOR, so his conclusions were based purely upon the evidence which he found in his explorations, and being a Christian, he agonised for years before publishing.

How does this fit with your preconceptions of what scientists do, or are?

Don T