Of course, scientists have historically been open to discovery and trial and error research --but now we have closed-minded evolutionists who don't want to hear the interpretations of their professional fellow scientists suggesting that life's basic components are too interdependent to have survived in an evolutionary sequence without each other co-existing --whereas evolution says the cells became more complex --when, in fact, the creationists say that's not possible. They started out complex and become more simple with natural selection. Creationists DO believe in natural selection --just don't believe it accounts for all species evolving from one celled amoeba.
Evolutionists defend with the equivalent of religious fervor the orthodox Darwininan interp of fossils, etc.
It was interesting to watch the history channel on Atlantis the other night and hear the researcher say that there probably WAS a great flood since it is mentioned in the oldest writings and mythologies of various groups around the globe. Of course, creationists attribute many of the geology findings to flood strata and other catastrophes rather than the great ages and years of erosion of Darwin's defenders.
e.g. Darwin concluded deep canyons were eroded for millions of years by rivers (he needed millions of years or more for his theory of atheistic origins)--whereas creationist geologists surmise that the canyons were formed quickly, more likely by floods and earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. and the waters were channeled into the resulting crevices. They claim mt. St. helens demonstrates their theory.
Here's the beginning of an article by a creationist on why evolutionary origin of life is impossible:
"It is said that DNA is the secret of life. DNA is not the secret of life. Life is the secret of DNA. EVolutionists persistently claim that the intial stage in the origin of life was the origin of a self-replicating DNA or RNA molecule. There is no such thing as a self-replicationg molecule, and no such molecule could ever exist. The formation of a molecule requires the input of a highly selected bype of energy and the steady input of the building blocks required to form it. To produce a protein, the building blocks are amino acids. For DNA and RNA these building blocks are nucleotides, which are composed of purines, pyrimidines sugars, and phosoporic acids. If amino acids are dissolved in water they do not spontaneously join together to make a protein. That would require an input of energy. If proteins are dissolved in water the chemical bonds between the amino acids slowly break apart, releasing energy (the protein is said to hydrolyze). The same is true of DNA and RNA . To form a protein in a lab the chemist, after dissolving the required amino acids in a solvent, adds a chemical that contains high energy bonds (referred to as a peptide reagent). the energy from this chemical is transferred to the amino acids. This provides the necessary energy to form the chemical bonds between the amino acids and releases H and OH to form H20. This only happens in a chem lab or in the cells of living organisms. It could never have taken place in a primitive ocean or anywhere on a primitive Earth. Who or what would be there to provide a steady input of the appropriate energy? Destructive raw energy would not work. Who or what would be there to provide a steady supply of the appropriate building blocks rather than just junk? In speaking of a self-replicating DNA molecule, evolutionists are reaching for a pie in the sky."