>I thought Jim's analysis was sound. If you disagree, why not point out
>his errors rather than resorting to invective? [...]
The ACLU fought against Biblical Creationism. Jim Bell suggested
that it therefore also excluded "Scientific Creationism". I would
suspect that the ACLU would not be against "Scientific Creationism"
if such a scientific theory existed in a reasonably coherent form.
As it stands now, "scientific creationism" really isn't even at the
starting gate. This is not to say that a useful formulation of a
theory of creation may not eventually be developed, just that so far,
it's not really there.
Regards, Tim Ikeda (timi@mendel.berkeley.edu)