2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.

Creationism should be taught in public schools but not in science class as it is not science. It should be taught in social studies or literature class as part of a curriculum that discusses various creation stories, not just the Genesis one. What 2/3 or even 9/10 of the populace thinks should be taught as science is irrelevant as what is science is not something to be decided by a vote by the general populace but rather by a concensus of scientists, through the peer review process. Creationism or ID fails as science because it cannot pass peer review muster. The fact that one botany professer at a university might be a YECer is not relevant either. He will not be able to publish a paper in a scientific journal advocating creationism. He may be able to publish a paper describing a new plant species or on some aspect of plant physiology as long as he doesn't try to promote unscientific creationist views in it. No one cares what his personal views might be as long as he does not try to promote them as science.

This is not a brilliant argument for design. It is an unresolved biological problem. Otherwise we are just back to the tired old "God of the Gaps" argument. So it is correct not to call this a "creationist paper." Just because a creationist may have written a scientific paper does not make it a "creationist paper" anymore than a paper written by a Roman Catholic is a "Roman Catholic" paper. It is a "creationist paper" if it promotes creationism.

Why should that be "refreshing"? No evolutionist would pretend that creationist articles,overt OR covert, could be accepted in a scientific journal. And why should they? An article on the demon theory of friction would be dismissed a priori out of hand from acceptance in a physics journal, would it not?

That's a convincing argument. Apparently clearly only to you. A host? My dictionary says a host is a multitude. How many is a multitude? 100, 1000, 5000? How many ID scientists are there outside of the handful at the Discovery Institute and how many creation scientists are there outside of a handful at the Creation Science Institute? And so what if there were a host? "Research, work,etc." does not equate to scientific research. There are people doing research, work, etc. on therapeutic touch therapy, palm reading, and astrology as well but that doesn't make them sciences.

Note what the CRS leaves out here. "Worldwide membership" but how many members? And who can be a member? Most scientific societies require scientific credentials in the field. You don't just pay your money and you are in. You usually need a M.S. or a Ph.D. or some equivalent or at least are a student getting one of those degrees (and the student status is for a limited time - if you don't get the degree they drop you).I don't know but my guess is that anybody who signs the loyalty oath and pays the dues is in, regardless of their scientific credentials.

Pretty good example of projection there, not?
How about if we put it this way?It's like if I say the theory of evolution is true, and you insist "God did it!" and no amount of data can convince you otherwise.