If Science Were a Crossword Puzzle

A blogger called "Saint Gasoline" has an anti-creationism post called "If Science Were a Crossword Puzzle." The cartoon depicts a crossword puzzle "accurately" completed by a scientist committed to naturalism, and "inaccurately" completed by a creationist:

The blogger portrayed what he considered "obvious" (and everything within one's worldview is self-evident, obvious, and needs no defense). He writes, "The questions and the size of the boxes, of course, represent the evidence."

Of course.

But the cartoon really illustrates what happens when a proponent of naturalism sets the rules.

Note, for example, the “proper" answer to # 3 down: "Is the flagellum irreducibly complex?" The "proper" answer according to the naturalist is supposed to be "no." But (brhahaha!) look what the idiot advocate of intelligent design put down: What's a two-letter word for "yes." Uh, "si"?

And then there's #7 across. The statement: "____ mutation causes genetic change." The "proper" answer is supposed to be “random.” Only a proponent of the theory that life resulted from blind chance would say that, but of course, that is how the crossword puzzle is set up.

This is actually a perfect illustration, but not of how "creationists" can't operate within the scientific method. Instead, it illustrates the way that proponents of a naturalistic worldview have set the rules and require everyone to conform to their worldview.