A friend who is REALLY trying to defend "creation science" says this: "The key word is "interpretation". It is inevitable! We all have the same evidence derived from scientific data-- we just interpret it differently. It is unfair to say that creationists “take the bible and then tries to fit stuff in front of it to make sense” implying that real scientists don’t do this. That is the VERY nature of the scientific method you argue so strongly for! Inasmuch as can be done with historical science, starting with a hypothesis, whether it be what the Bible predicts or what evolution predicts, and trying to find solid, sound evidence to support that hypothesis…

Calling it the “theory of evolution” is actually a mischaracterization scientifically-speaking. It is still no more than a hypothesis and never will be if by no other reason than the strict definitions by which you apply the scientific method.""

I did reply: "REAL scientists don't do that. A hypothesis is far different from already having a conclusion. Science may say "we think that if we do X, the outcome will be Y." Sometimes X does fit Y. Sometimes it does not. But it does not become a theory until it is shown that it does it reliably.

Creationism says "The bible says Y. Let's fill in for X.""

I really want to shut him down, though.