[j. d. worthington]

As you say, Anthony, when it comes to fixed, unchangeable positions, science doesn't deal in facts. To clarify, however: when it comes to the things upon which the "theories" (a term which means something entirely different in science than it does in common usage) are based, it does deal in facts -- or, if you prefer, evidence. That is, the facts of observable reality, which can be tested, retested, challenged, etc.

The problem with creationism is that it simply does not take this as the basis for drawing conclusions, but looks only for "facts" that bolster an already existing position. This is no way to arrive at the truth; this is rationalization. That being the case, there is no reason whatsoever for any scientific writer/magazine to pay any attention to creationist "theories" (common usage) until they alter their approach and begin with the existing facts (or evidence) and work from there, rather than the other way around....