I believe in both science and religion - I believe these are distinct and compatible areas of inquiry. There are those who would blur the distinction, however I believe the interests of neither are served by confusing them with each other. Perhaps this is analogous to Hume's is-ought problem - it seems that those who attempt to derive one from the other either fail or else trivialize them into something useless. With respect to science, maybe there are no shortcuts to the scientific process? And also in religion, maybe there are just no shortcuts to faith? Think about it - would God really have provided such a shortcut? Or perhaps ours is not a God of shortcuts?

As a Christian, I do not believe in creationism. I also do not believe the sky is made of water, separated from the waters below by a firmament - not in any literal scientific sense. Creationism is not good science, since it attempts to bypass the scientific process. Just as importantly, creationism is not good religion, because it trivializes the deeper meaning of our faith.

There are today some creationists who attempt to bypass the forums of scientific primary research. These individuals do so by trying to influence forums of secondary research - such as Wikipedia, *before* they have first won their case in the scientific forums of primary research. Such attempted shortcuts are fundamentally dishonest, except for when they are due to a simple misunderstanding of the scientific process. In any case, to maintain the quality of Wikipedia we must ensure that all scientific articles describe only that which official fora of scientific primary research have actually vetted.