I have to enter into this discussion.  Having been a scientist for most of my adult life, I have to point out that there is a HUGE degree of creativity in science, at least within the areas of science I have pursued.  Until a little over  a year ago I was a reproductive scientist, which was a fairly new arena when I entered the field in 1983.  This meant that much of what has now become "standard practice and proven science" in  the field was, at one time, the result of someone's "intuition" and vision of how to achieve the desired results, my own included.  To me, that's the same thing as art, and maybe it's no coincidence that the acronym for the field is ART - Assisted Reproductive Technology.   Yes, there was real science involved, but you have to have an idea of somewhere to start looking, and that's often been REALLY creative.   I don't believe in harsh black and white opinions.  There are too many shades of gray--look at some of the best "black and white" photos!  Science bleeds into creativity, or we would never have had the development of the whole photographic process; and creativity bleeds into science, or the many thousands of babies I've personally assisted into existence likely wouldn't be here.  I don't think this is something we need to waste our energy arguing about!

There.  That's my two pennies worth!