Bruce Salem examines the "Creationism" opposition to education.

The problem is that the politics of organized oppostion to the
teaching of evolution in school as an established scientific fact have
forced people, who have what is essentially religious objections to
evolution, to lie and say that they don't have such objections and that
instead that they have a legitimate scientific alternative. The reason
for this lie is that the state cannot be seen to support opinion which
seems to favor one religion over another, and one which does not meet
the proper criterion for what is science.

The people in this group have replied to this underhanded
tact of Creationists disguising religion as science by nailing everyone
of them to the wall on the lack of basis for there so-called science.
This doesn't stop Creationists and their sympathizers from comming on,
as if sown from dragon's teeth.

I think that this group needs to get past the Creationism
vs. Evolutionism debate, and beyond religion vs. science. The
ground rules which allow the Creationists to go on the offensive,
and them get fed lunch, while their convictions are never really
questioned, doesn't work.

We should begin with the assertion that Creationism is
based on religion, Christianity mostly, and decide what beliefs
support this line of opinion, while at the same time why not
all Christians arrive at the Creationist conclusion. We should
put this information in the FAQ. We should find other threads
of opposition to evolution and state them as philosophical
assertions. And above all, we should explore the supposed
consequences of evolution and its alternative and thereby
arrive at what emotions force people into this debate.

 So to begin with:

 1) Creationism is based on religion, ONLY.

 2) The belief that nature connot organize itself
    into complex, irreversable states, without
    intelligent outsize help, is a common objection
    to evolution.

 3) The teleology of the Genesis Creation requires
    lumping of events that science judges to be
    separated by vast expances of time. Yet justifying
    the moral message of this teleology compells some
    to ignore, or try to discredit, the science.