Sure. You start with the answer and bend the facts to fit.
Science starts with a question... considers an answer, and then searches for facts to support that. If the facts point elsewhere science investigates that avenue instead.
In creation science, if the facts point elsewhere, you discard them and look for other facts. The answer is established. The "facts" can only prove that, because no other answer can be considered.
Paula, creation science is a subjective misnomer, there is no such thing. Call it creationism, and you describe it objectively.
A scientific fact is objective, right or wrong it is objective. The scientific method, you know ..
"Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry) Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject) Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[46] from the hypothesis or theory) Experiments (tests of all of the above)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
covers that .. philosophy once was seen as a science, but using the modern meaning, explanations, ideas, notions, such as creationism, are not even hypothesis, but simply human imagination at work ..
The mathematics leading to best practice principles of engineering, arizona, mentioned .. objective .. right?
The science of global warming is the best objective fact on climate change we have .. it is supported "believed" by, what is it? .. some 89% of scientists and some 99% of climatologists .. it could be wrong, but it's objective, it's science .. the predictions are based on the best models we have .. it is corrected when found in err.
If one looks at it objectively then one has to accept that .. any rejection of the science is simply a subjective rejection of the best climate science available to us .. that's it, seems to me.
On your .. "Even scientists filter their understanding of science through their personal understanding and experience."
YUP, I know where you are coming from, but .. another excerpt ..
"It is for this reason that scientific methodology prefers that hypotheses be tested in controlled conditions which can be reproduced by multiple researchers. With the scientific community's pursuit of experimental control and reproducibility, cognitive biases are diminished." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
This article, i think, deals a bit with the subjective approach to objective scientific fact you are getting at ..
Is Scientific Evidence or Subjective Experience a More Effective Way to Convince Someone of a Scientific Fact?
Although almost all scientists agree that global warming is occurring, according to a 2010 Gallup poll, .. http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-Continue-Drop.aspx .. only half of American adults report holding such a belief. Given that people seem not to simply consult expert opinion, what variables influence people’s belief?
In our research, we find that people’s scientific beliefs can be influenced by their subjective experience, even when that experience provides them with no diagnostic information. For example, we find that when people feel warmer—either because they are out in the hot sun or even because they are in an overheated room—they believe in global warming more. .. http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/is-it-hot-in-here-or-is-the-climate-changing-27710/ .. Our results suggest that warmth influences belief because it causes people to more vividly imagine what a hot world would be like. The clarity of this simulation, in turn, makes people more likely to believe in global warming. In another experiment, we found that participants who were led to experience thirst by eating pretzels were more likely to agree that desertification and drought will increasingly threaten people’s ability to find fresh drinking water. This further validates the finding that people will judge a certain condition of the world as more likely if it fits with what they are experiencing at that moment. .. http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/marketing/faculty/seminars2011/Jane_Risen/Global_JPSP_inpress.pdf ..
Although our research documents how subjective experience can influence scientific belief, it is important to note that our studies do not compare the role of subjective experience with the role of scientific evidence. If people were presented with scientific evidence in our studies, it is likely that the evidence would also influence people’s belief.
Let us consider two factors that may make subjective experience an especially effective method for convincing people of a scientific fact.
First, subjective experience is most likely to influence beliefs that are informed by a process of imagination or simulation. Our results suggest that people’s belief in global warming is informed by imagining what a hot world would be like. If people are unable to simulate an outcome or process, however, then subjective experience may play less of a role. For example, the belief that HIV turns into AIDS is unlikely to be informed by someone’s subjective experience.
Second, if people are motivated not to believe scientific evidence because it challenges their broader belief system, then subjective experience may be more effective in “sneaking under the radar.” We found that feeling warm influences liberals and conservatives similarly. If our participants were presented with scientific evidence, however, it is very likely that those participants who were motivated not to believe in global warming would doubt the evidence that was presented to them.
Although there is no doubt that scientific evidence is an important method for convincing people of scientific facts, our research suggests that factors that facilitate the ability to picture what that future event would look and feel like may at times exert a strong (if not stronger) effect.
LOL, to your drawing mention .. you probably know .. to help eliminate subjective interference an excellent technique is to draw the space, instead of the object.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
