yet more sidestepping.
the external frame of reference cannot be scientific, as science is limited to observations of the inside from the inside. creationism of all forms can be explored in philosophy and/or comparative religion courses, it just isn't and cannot be science.
If there is any sidestepping here it is on the part of those who fail to acknowlege to subjective nature of the observer, and the emotional attachment one may have to his perceptions. Evolutionists are champions at hiding their biases while pounding their chests as if they alone hold the key to objective interpretation of the evidence. At least creationists honestly admit they subject themselves to a text they themselves did not spin out of whole cloth. Evolutionists have no guide other than their own opinions and what appears to be consensus among like-minded ideologues. In short, a science that depends upon human observers is no more sound than a science that proceeds on the basis of outside revelation.