Imo, you don't understand and are misrepresenting creationism and creationist scientists.
I've always thought it was pretty simple, in essence: ID/creationism wants to introduce non-naturalistic explanations. That's where it stops being science, right there. It's like a destruction of science from within (that is, if they were indeed, as claimed, "scientific"). Just imagine where science would be if the absence of total, 100% complete knowledge would have been reason 300 years ago to just introduce "design" as final explanation. It's ridiculous. Incompleteness of knowledge should not be used to throw the towel, but as an incentive to keep digging further, for NATURALISTIC explanations. The domain of science.
If this view is wrong, please argue why it is. It sounds simplistic, even to a layman like me, but I actually think it IS as simple as this.
™ Version 4.2
