I am a purveyor of creation science. Am I therefore a "clown"?
I personally know several of these so-called "clowns", and none of their ideas or behavior merit the label of "clown" being given to them. What do you cite as your proof of calling them "clowns"? What makes them "clownish"? Disagreeing with them does not count. I strongly disagreed with Gould, Sagan, and Asimov, but I do acknowledge they were brilliant men.
Dr. David Menton (creationist "clown" who holds a PhD in Cellular Biology) told me that on many occasions he has debated a professor friend of his. Dr. Menton said, "Our debates were often lively. We would disagree, he'd call me a liar, and then I'd take him out to lunch."
We do not indulge in ad hominem remarks on thie web site. Permit me to refer you to a recent article in Scientific American which has enough information to allow the thoughtful observer to reach his own conclusions: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense . We had a thread recently, with over 2,000 posts on that article. There was another thread about a response published by "Answers in Genesis" on their website. It's all been thrashed out here on FR, and I'm fairly certain that no one has changed his mind as a result of all this. I haven't changed mine, and I suppose you won't change yours. That's how it goes.