I'm getting a lot of cognitive dissonance from evolutionists when I explain them about creationism. And actually also some creationists don't get it.
As is well known, in science it's not allowed to talk in terms of what ought and ought not. Since the start of science it has been understood that science does not answer "why" questions, where why is the reason for a decision. Science can't answer why because given the same initial condition, one or the other alternative may be decided on. Science only works for when there is no alternative, or to describe limits of freedom, or to pinpoint that a decision is made, but not why the one alternative was realized instead of the other.
The way scientists since the beginnings of science have solved this problem, is simply to refer the subjective why questions, questions about what ought and ought not, to the spiritual realm. That leaves the material realm for everybody to be perfectly objective about.
The meaning of objectivity is to pass on information, not changing it. The meaning of subjectivity is to decide information. Subjectivity creates new information that didn't exist before in the universe, the information which alternative is realized.
I don't know what happened in science that now many evolutionists seem to think "why" questions are not acknowledged as spiritual anymore, but I fail to see any good reason to tamper with a system that worked, and still works.
You can't talk about what ought and ought not as science, and that means that within science ought and ought not are not material, but spiritual.
I wish for everybody creationists and evolutionists alike to enforce this rule, which means that it might be talked about in a lot of threads, maybe just as many threads as the scientific method is mentioned.
So for example when somebody says science has to be objective, well then that is kind of false, because in science you have to be subjective about what ought and ought not.