As a Physics teacher said long ago: 1.) Science is observable; 2.) Science is repeatable; 3.) Science is testable.
Creation is none of the above. And Evolution is none of the above. Both are historical theories.
If it isn't obvious, I believe in Creation, but unlike the Fundies of TMN's fevered fantasies (and there are probably some somewhere who believe what TMN attributes to them, less TMN's tendentious word-crafting), I believe both ideas should be taught at the concept level (i.e. neither a detailed exegesis of Genesis, nor the current detailed ancestral tree of man that will be junked 10-30 years hence - textbooks I saw in school still included the fraudulent Piltdown man as a human ancestor).
If a "scientist" walked up to TMN and told him that his quite complex computer was undesigned, had evolved over the course of billions of yearss of years of random accidents from sand and other elements at a beach and in the sea, he'd, rightly, laugh at the "scientist". But when "scientists" tell him humans - whose each and every cell is vastly more complex than TMN's computer - evolved through billions of years of random accidents from non-living elements and compounds, TMN laps it up.
