The scientific method is not "my most precious method". It is
anyone's method who wants it to be. The scientific method is just a
series of steps to be followed when evaulating the truthfullness or
accuracy of statements. Utilizing the scientific method never results
in facts being twisted...people do that. Regardless of the fact that
scientists are humans, humans that are not immune to twisting facts
sometimes, that isn't an excuse to disregard the scientific way of
thinking like you are doing. People rationalize things, the
scientific method does not, and that is it's strength over the
religious way of thinking because *anyone* can go over that checklist
and verify or discount the accuracy or truthfullness of any
hypothesis or theory.
Scientists don't start with the assumption that their beliefs are the
absolute truth like creationists do (I am the way, I am the truth, I
am the life). If one laborotory discovers something new, it will then
be up to the rest of the world to independently confirm that one
laborotory to see if the discovery wasn't just wishful thinking or
just a fluke. Creationists can't and don't do that. Using "your most
precious" creationists as an analogy was a bad move.
You even admit this in a way when you say that...
>>No...It is not science...
Yes, even you can see that your example wasn't science and that is
why it was a bad analogy. It is obvious to outside observers that are
aware of the scientific method when something isn't science. You see,
science has something none of your analogies can have, and that is
checks and balances. While *individuals* can go to astounding lengths
to preserve a treasured version of what is real, the scientific
method has successfully gone to even greater lengths to eliminate
backwards thinking of individuals like that.
The Scientific Method is something that isn't dependant on the skill
of the scientist. The tool itself does all the "thinking" for scientists
as far as determing truth and accuracy. The only skill the scientist
needs is the ability to come up with a hypothesis that will withstand
the rigors of the method.