I understand your posting and feelings regarding the scientific nature regarding evolution...but that was not my point...my point was that should evolution be debunked either by better theory OR Deux Ex Machina revelation that science would not totally crumble...evolution is not a foundational science the way math,physics, geology, and chemistry our as examples. I don't think Creationists are going to picket a high school chemistry class!
Based on my experience with creationists over a few years in these threads, the truly hard-core variety, or full-blown creationists, would do exactly that. (Evolution first, then the rest.) They already don't like geology, because geologists think the earth is billions of years old (and they were coming to that conclusion before Darwin). They don't like astronomy for the same reason. They don't like physics because they don't like the results of radiometric dating -- how horrible that it supports the age of the earth! And they definitely don't like the speed of light, as it indicates the universe is more than 6,000 years old. As for chemistry, the example you used, well ... they already don't like organic chemistry, because they don't like how a complex molecule can self-assemble itself. They much prefer that angels are required to do such work. Whenever a creationist realizes there's something in science that doesn't jibe with his personal reading of scripture, he'll oppose it. Guaranteed.
> my point was that should evolution be debunked either by better theory OR Deux Ex Machina revelation that science would not totally crumble
Actaully, it would. If the nature of reality coudl be fiddled with at whim, all the basic precepts of science can thus obviously be changed without warning. "Pi" could go to 4 for a few minutes. And at that point, observation would cease to have any validity to it whatsoever. Someone *today* says they saw a gint pink flower-breathing dragon dancing with Dom Delouise... he's a nut. But in a Deux Ex Machina world, what reason for doubt is there?