"claiming that they are the lofty , unprejudiced seekers after truth."

Although the likes of Dawkins give that impression, it totally unrepresentative and virtually every scientist I know possesses far more humility and understands tang of their own failings as unbiased interpreters of their data. This is why we have methodology in place to eliminate any bias as much as we can. It's worth pointing out that science is a collective endeavour and scientists are very robust in their insistence on making sure any flaws in method, results or conclusions are addressed.


" it's description of life producing"after it's kind" is in accord with observational science, and evolutionism is not."

You've forgotten Bill's link earlier Pete? The 'observational science' argument is a falsehood, plain and simple. Also, it's 'evolution' we can observe, not 'evolutionism', which if it were an acceptable name, is a different thing.


"It is just as credible to begin with the bible as to exclude it"

But it's not. A creationist starts with the massive, immovable and uncontestable assumption that God exists, and any evidence that is reviewed is only considered viable of it confirms the existence of God. This isn't science, plain and simple so there's no point in creationists feeling scientists they're doing it wrong; we know what we are doing.