You thought you had presented a challenge that would be impossible for me to respond to.
Yes, I did think that. I still do. The only way to support the claim that grantors only fund certain experiments is to show that there are possible unfunded experiments which aren't being performed. You've failed to meet that challenge.
The issue isn't my mistake at omitting the word "possible". The issue is that science is already performing any and every experiment that has anything to do with creationism. Every time carbon dating is performed on an old enough object, creationism is being tested. Every time a solar eclipse happens, Newtonian gravity is being tested. Experiments have shown creationism to be false(at least young Earth), and they have also shown Newtonian gravity to be false(at least not as true as Relativity).
Experiments for evolution are already, by extension, testing creationism. They are called "crucial experiments", where the results could support either one hypothesis or the other. Depending on which hypothesis the results support, that is the one which is true. Tens or hundreds of thousands of crucial experiments(with standardized and controlled protocols) have been performed to select between creationism and evolution. In each and every experiment (100%), evolution is shown to be true in place of creationism. These absurd numbers aren't my exaggerations. They are real. This is why we laugh at you when you try to make a case that evolution is false. You simply don't understand how much support there is for it.
It's not a matter of changing protocols. It's not a matter of limited or biased funding. Every objection you have has been answered. Science pursues the truth, not in association with human bias, but
in spite of it! For all the pseudoscientists trying to sell us Kinoki foot pads and theories of 100 dimensions, there is the hidden filter of peer review that makes sure such nonsense does not make it into respectable science journals. If you see the garbage and blame science for pseudoscience, you obviously don't understand the peer review process. If you think "protocols" are the variable that would make your beliefs true, then you need to show how. It's an arrogant attack on a system you don't understand, with no supporting evidence nor reasoning, with the only purpose being you can continue to believe the findings of science are false.
You no longer have any reason to think there's a worldwide conspiracy theory that's deluding millions of intelligent people. Due diligence, which you claim is lacking, is actually abundant in spades. No one is ignoring creationism. We are cognizant of it, and of the fact that it's been falsified. If a scientist were to ask for a grant to research a flat Earth, he would be laughed at. The same holds for a young Earth, for the same reasons. It's simply... (simply) false. There is no debate. The earth is not flat, and it is not young. Anyone asking for a grant to research these things is stupid, and not worthy of a grant.
If you want more debate points about the fact that I didn't include the word "possible", that's great, you can have them. But make sure you read this post again, from the perspective that I'm actually correct, so that you actually understand me. You won't champion that perspective, I know. So you won't understand me. Wasted words, all of these.
