Both or neither.

The fallacy is called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, and it's basically a way of begging the question, or using a circular argument. It generally takes the form:No true Scotsman puts sugar on his cereal.
MacGregor puts sugar on his cereal.
Therefore MacGregor is not a true Scotsman.The conclusion only follows because it assumes the truth of the first premise, which actually seems to be rendered false by the counter-example in the second line.

Did your truth detector run out of batteries? Anything less than 50% is a minority, strictly speaking. What theory? Care to share with us the precise contents of this "theory"?BTW - "God did it" is not a scientific theory. We know for a fact that evolution happens. Just like we know for a fact that this pile of dirt will get bigger if I keep shovelling soil on it. One shovel-full is the equivalent to a "micro-evolutionary" step. Lots of shovels-full amount to a "macro-evolutionary" change. If we know for a fact that shovels-full will pile the dirt higher (i.e that evolutionary changes occur), we can know for a fact that after enough shovels-full, this pile will soon become a hill and eventually a mountain (i.e. macro-evolution happens). Great! Now, tell us what boundaries there are that prevent micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution. To help you understand that the distinction between micro and macro evolution is basically arbitrarily quantitative and not qualitative, perhaps you should also consider what barriers exist that would prevent a pile of dirt from becoming a hill and eventually a mountain given enough shovels of soil. When does a hill become a mountain?[This message has been edited by ::, 01-18-2004]

I asked you this before and got no response so I'll ask it again:What creation theory? What are the exact contents of this "theory" and what testable predictions does it make? "God coulda done it" is not a legitimate theory.

I also asked you this before and got no response so I'll ask again:What barriers do you think exist that would prevent the evolution you recognize from amounting to the evolution that your incredulity restrains you from acknowledging? What's to stop small evolutionary changes from amounting to large ones over time?

I don't think so. Science teachers would be overwhelmed to the point of ineptitude if they had to discuss anything that was possible. Instead what they should focus on is notions that have independent evidence in reality. What evidence do you have of creation? Keep in mind, I mean evidence of an actual event itself, not some stories about an alleged event. That's why creationism needs to compose a theory that is testible and falsifiable for it to compete against real scientific theories.

You certainly may so presume, and in fact I insist. Gaps in evolutionary/geological/etc knowledge are not -- repeat NOT -- evidence of creationism.