What sort of evidence for creationism would be acceptable-? If you are claiming it is a science, then scientific evidence is needed. Not lecutres about the "evils" of evolution, not more lectures (Russ) saying "know thyself" etc.

There are plenty of theists in the world. The vast majority of them are peace-loving, well-meaning people. And their views do not conflict with the discoveries of science. What we're looking at in this particular forum is the belief some people have that their faith requires them to claim that the earth is 6000 years old and that all life was created as it is now.

As I've stated elsewhere, if you want to call this "creation science," and if you want it taught in schools, then you need to show how it is science. There is no logic in then claiming that it should be exempt from the scientific method, which includes presenting evidence for claims.

Now if you're happy to call creationism a religion, and to say that everything is a miracle of God, then I doubt if many people would try to argue with you. What I find particularly objectioniable is the fact that if I lived in certain states in the US, my child might get a science teacher who wants to teach creationism as a valid alternative to evolution.

If this really is what you want, then you need to show it's a valid alternative. Evidence for that here is lacking so far.