Reply #45: I agree-very well put

[dwckabal]

The problem arises in that there are many different factions of the "Creationist" camp.

From http://www.trueorigin.org/creationism.asp

1. Old universe, old earth, old life: This view is commonly held by theistic evolutionists, or those who claim Christian beliefs regarding Jesus Christ but do not accept Genesis as a straightforward account of the beginning of all things. This model accepts ancient ages based on man’s knowledge of science and the laws science is aware of today. This is the compromise position, basically, between creation and evolution. When there is seeming opposition between the Bible and current science, science wins and the Bible is considered either incorrectly translated or incorrectly understood. Although God is acknowledged in this model, He is generally relegated to the position of “clockmaker” in an almost deistic fashion; He set up the universe and life and established the laws by which it has run ever since.

2. Old universe, old earth, recent life: This position is held by those who subscribe to what is often referred to as the “Gap Theory” of Genesis, wherein it is believed that the universe and the earth are quite old, but that, at one point or another, and for one reason or another, the early earth was either destroyed and re-created or simply held in abeyance until the creation of recent life. This is the official, or semi-official doctrine of some churches.

3. Old universe, young earth, recent life: This position, not as commonly held, considers the universe to be old, but earth itself, and, subsequently life, to be young. This is also the position of some parts of Christianity.

4. Young universe, young earth, recent life: This is the classic Christian model which is so widely disputed by those of the evolution camp. In this model the entire universe, including, of course, the earth and all life, is less than 10,000 years old. This is in keeping with the most straightforward reading of the Genesis account in combination with the lists of generations in Genesis 5, 10 and 11.

It is the fourth model, which is the commonly considered definition of “creation” as it is discussed today. This is the model, along with—to a lesser degree—models 2 and 3 which is ridiculed and fought against by many in professional education, science, and communications. Within the last three models there are several “sub-groups” as well.

----------

Probably the most dangerous (from a scientific point of view) are those promoting "Intelligent Design". To a fault they claim to be non-religious, but their ideas have a very religious undercurrent, and the conservative right-wing have embraced them to help get religion back into school, because of the "science-y" nature of ID. But ID is still pseudo-science because of their notion of "irreducible complexity"--that at the cellular level (and even some organs-such as the eye) if you remove one component, it would no longer function as intended; an indication of intelligent design.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/design.html