Pete: I've been pretty busy with my shop and with the weather, so I'm just popping in to answer this:

"...whether scientist is qualified by "creationist" or "evolutionist" it denotes their belief system..."

No.. it does NOT. I have made the point half a dozen times. There is a huge difference in the basic concepts involved.

The very word **believe** means something not easily testable.

A couple of dictionary definitions:
"A vague idea in which some confidence is placed."

"A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny."

The whole point of science is that it **IS** testable. The fact that testing is ongoing does NOT mean that the basic lines of discovery are 'just beliefs' in the same way that 'faith in the authenticity of a religious text' is a belief. ALL genuine evidence points toward certain general facts about reality and the basic age of the Universe & the Earth .. and US. The details are constantly being revised and updated, but NOTHING suggests that science is off in the basic parameters.

Religion is a **belief** because there is essentially NO new evidence for its claims... and because of what is 'believed', there can BE no new evidence for the fundamental beliefs of religion. One just believes because one believes... and finally, because someone TOLD you what to believe. Scientists are always going out and double-checking each others data and conclusions.

In my lifetime, evidence (not 'beliefs') of the age of the earth has been updated several times as new data came in. All religion can offer is repetition by many believers, based on the desire to adjust the answers to a 'literal' interpretation of religious texts.

People wrote those texts, and barring a Face in the Sky parting the clouds and convincing everyone that 'IT' inspired the texts, there will be no updating of the evidence.