So we are back to same old evolutionist crap argument.
1)Don't publish anything that talks about design or creation because that's "supernatural" and not science.
2)And don't acknowledge any creation or ID arguments because they aren't published.
You are burying your head in the sand and taking comfort that there are many evolutionist ostrich people with their heads buried next to you.
"So we are back to same old evolutionist crap argument."
I think you have twisted the term "creationist crapsite".
"1)Don't publish anything that talks about design or creation because that's "supernatural" and not science. "
If ID or creation science would come up with some good data, have it peer reviewed and present a coherent explanation of the data, without resorting to misinterpretations of the Baahbull, it would be accepted by science. Until then, yall can whine all you want.
"2)And don't acknowledge any creation or ID arguments because they aren't published. "
They aren't published in science journals because they are not science. That is why you have to have all the creationist crapsites and the charlatans peddling comic book pamphlets for filthy luchre instead.
"You are burying your head in the sand and taking comfort that there are many evolutionist ostrich people with their heads buried next to you."
I understand that ostriches do not bury their heads in the sand. That it is an old wives tale, like all the trash creationists spout. The science is there for anyone to study and draw conclusions it is correct. For those that will be driven from their church if they talk about real science, it is understandable they will live in fear of being shunned. However, that is no excuse for attempting to put mindless superstition in kids science classes.