evolutionist

To K.T.:
I know that scientist theories do not last forever, they are revised and eventually completely displaced by other, more consistent. The problem is that when you say "Evolutionary scientists" you suggest that there is a creationist branch inside the scientist community with more or less the same authority as those which are in favor of Evolution, but that is not the case. Curiously I never studied that alternative theory to Evolution at school (a catholic one). I didn't even hear of the "flaws" that the Evolution theory has. This is what I found about the Intelligent Design theory at Wikipedia:

"The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[10] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[11] The National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[12] Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[13]"

There are actually NO creationist biologists. If there are, they are certainly considered biologists only to themselves. That doesn't mean faith can't be believed, but these people have more reconciled belief, that bible cannot be interpereted literally etc.

And if having been driven off from Eden, Adam and Eve's offsprings first degraded to monkeys because of tough conditions, then they got accustomed by and by and finally evoluted back to people - how the followers of such theory should be called?

There would be no Intelligent Design theory without their biologists, geologists, etc. That's rather closed-minded to say.

Yes, Skippy, but their biologists etc are not truely scientists because when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts their vision of the history of the world (as "revealed" in Bible), then it's the interpretation of data that must be at fault. So, they're not interested in data, science or truth, they just want to believe in their simple myth.