I gave an example a while ago of a creationist scientist who says on AiG that he is struggling to find a YEC explanation of the life cycle of a star. Instead of considering that there might not actually be one because stars have been around for billions of years, he continues to look for ways to show that his predetermined ideas must be right. This is not how science works -- scientists do research and base their ideas on observations. Yet AiG openly says that people need to form their ideas first and then find the evidence to support them. Any person calling themselves a scientist, who works in this way, is nothing of the kind and I have no sympathy if they lose their job.

Quote
If the book teaches science it's a science book.


You have so far been unable to give evidence that what it teaches is science. If you want to pursue the idea of moving parts you presented in another thread, which petered out foggily, I'll repeat that you are welcome to go there and take it up again.

Quote
Don't expect me to take your word on the court's motive(s).


No, you just say that the judges and the courts are dishonest when they don't rule in favour of what you believe in.

Quote
You claim it teaches religion? How come none of the dozens (minimum) of evolutionists who've gone over it with a fine-toothed comb haven't been able to find even one single reference to religion


ID=creationism=religion. I repeat my invitation to you to present a single example of an IDer who is not also a fundamentalist Christian.

Quote
any empirical test is compatible with creation science
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a pretty simple sentence. Which term is giving you trouble?



I'd like to know what test is compatible with creation "science." How do you test for a creator?

Quote
Based upon the observation that a helium balloon rises, I don't think gravity works. That's an example of an argument which isn't based upon incredulity.


You claimed that "this X is too complex, based upon a, b, c" is not incredulity." This is still just an argument from incredulity which explains why someone is incredulous. I think you've illustrated the whole point well with your example above, which illustrates why the argument from incredulity is not scientific.

The rest of your inflammatory rhetoric would bring the house down on me if I were to say similar things here, and lead to more accusations of how I am a hateful Christian-basher. I'll remind people of how you call people "clowns" etc. next time they complain.