>>While "dogma" might not be the most accurate term, the Creationist Theories are based more on "the Bible said so" reasoning than on any solid evidence. Therefore, I would consider it more religious than scientific.
>
>Again. Only if they're closed minded.
>
>They must have a good scientific arguement. And there are many who do. You just got to find them.

What do you mean, "closed minded". I am a quite open-minded person, and in the case of the evolution of life, I am willing to consider any reasonable alternative explanation - in case there is one. At this moment, however, I am not aware of any alternative explanations that actually make any sense.

For example, you shouldn't ask people to be "open-minded" to the possibility that the bubonic plague or some other disease is spread by some evil spirit; to the possibility of Mount Olymp being inhabited by scores of powerful gods; to the possibility that Astrology actually makes any sense; to the possibility that Earth is actually flat and the center of the Universe, or to the possibility that the Universe was actually created in six days.

In other words, if strong evidence suggests that an old belief is not true, then it is time to be open-minded about the possibility that this old belief, quite simply, has no merit whatsoever.

One should always be open-minded to alternative explanations, but that doesn't mean that any oddball theory, or belief from past millenia, should be given equal weight to modern scientific research. While it is difficult to completely rule out one particular theory, let's say that the examples I gave above are, how should I say, quite unlikely.