Except that Dr Adequate is correct. Engineering isn't a science, but rather a discipline which ideally should make use of the findings of science, but doesn't always. In fact, we've had engineering a lot longer than we've had science. Basically, engineers only concern themselves with what works and what doesn't and they don't care why something works.
I'm a retired software engineer with a strong background in hardware (first trained as a computer systems technician, took a number of university EE classes for fun) having worked closely with EEs for most of my 35-year career. Science is about discovering what's happening and why, hence developing theories is very important. Engineering is only about getting something to work, thus caring next to nothing why something is happening; hence engineers care nothing for theory. The strongest rebuke that an engineer can receive is to be derided for conducting a "science project".
In one job, I was designing the software interface to a new sensor (a humidity sensor, as I seem to recall). Part of that is to take the ADC value (digital form (0 to 255) of an analogy voltage level (0-5 V)) and convert it to the units (eg, % relative humidity). The data sheet only gave us a graph. So I started working on conversion formulae derived from curve fitting. Our EE put an immediate halt to my "science project" and ordered me to just build a look-up table.
In my Linear Circuit Analysis class, our professor had worked as a EE and he often expressed his contempt for scientists and mathematicians as well as for theory. When he introduced the subject of convolution, he told us the story of the delta function. Basically, the delta function is a pulse with an area of 1 and whose pulse width gets shrunk down to zero such that when you apply it to a circuit you're hitting that circuit with an instantaneous signal of infinite amplitude. Engineers came up with it and put it to practical use. It took mathematics about a century to prove the delta function and our professor just laughed at those idiots and their silly fixation with theories and proofs.
Next time you read a list of "creation scientists", notice how many of them are engineers (also how many have degrees in theology and in "food science").
There was confusion about the term “naturalism”. I responded and cleared that up.
No, you did not. Please stop lying.
The term in question was not "naturalism", but rather "the naturalistic theory". That is not the same thing. Furthermore, all you did to "clear it up" was to tell us to look it up, then later from Wikipedia you gave a definition for something other than "the naturalistic theory". Of course you couldn't find that definition since it doesn't exist. "The naturalistic theory" is just something that you made up or else you got it from a creationist who had made it up.
I told you to look on YouTube for a video debate between Aron Ra and Mr. Kent Hovind. The reason is because they both use the term "evolution", but entirely differently from each other. Aron Ra uses it correctly, so if you were to look the term up (as you chided us to do) you would find that that definition agrees very strongly with how Aron Ra uses the term. However, Hovind's definition (which he only hints at, because keeping parts of it hidden makes it more useful for deception) is completely at odds with the definition. They both use the same word, but Hovind is talking about something completely different. We would be very justified to ask Hovind to explain what he's talking about, something that would not be satisfied by your glib "Go look it up!".
So our question to you still stands unanswered: Just what exactly do you mean by "the naturalistic theory"?
"Bible Science" is the one that totally gets me. It's offered at the first University I attended. All they did was reading different versions of Christian Bibles. A degree in Theology followed. That's it. They call themselves scientists after the 3 years of taking that course.
As I suggested to PnC, take a standard creationist "list of scientists who believe in creation" and read what their degrees are.
Several have degrees in theology or directly related to theology (eg, Hovind's albeit fake PhD in Religious Education). As you just noted.
Several have degrees in education.
A large number have degrees in engineering and in other technical fields. For example, I have seen two with PhDs in "food science", a valid field (read the O'Reilly book, "Cooking for Geeks") but what the frak does that have to do with evolution (not counting the truly stupid creationist argument asking how food evolved)?
Some do have degrees in the sciences, but they are definitely the minority in those lists.
You were not asked to classify the fossils as either Ape or Human.
This was the question asked after the image:
"A" is a chimp and "L" is a modern human. The rest are laid out in chronological order. This sure looks like macroevolution to me. If you disagree, please tell us what features these fossils are missing that you would need to see in order to accept it as evidence for macroevolution.
Please comment on this. After all, this forum is there for dialogue.