If both sides will forgive me for being a bit sheltered, am I to understand that both sides are claiming scientific support for their theories, but one side has no theories, no research done on these theories, no experiments and no groups even discussing the ideas of scientific theories to support what is arguably the most important part of the debate?
There is not, and cannot ever be, something called "Creation Science".
To even make a claim that "Creation Science" is possible is to pervert the English language and lie to the audience.
n the many years I've followed this subject I have never found anyone that has presented any "Creation" model that did not boil down to "magic".
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
™ Version 4.2
(1)