You should publish your findings in a peer reviewed geological journal; somehow all geologists who don't have a prior commitment to a belief in a global flood haven't been able to recognize the evidence of a global flood for nearly two centuries. You will surely win a Nobel Prize for such paradigm shattering evidence!

Awesome!

The geological record does indeed provide evidence of a global Flood.

You should publish your findings in a peer reviewed geological journal; somehow all geologists who don't have a prior commitment to a belief in a global flood haven't been able to recognize the evidence of a global flood for nearly two centuries. You will surely win a Nobel Prize for such paradigm shattering evidence!

That was the creationists of 200 years ago; the ones who were willing to admit that the geological record did not provide evidence of a global flood. Today's creationists, far from believing in a rational cosmos, speculate about ad hoc miracles to explain away the evidence.

The geological record does indeed provide evidence of a global Flood. "Ad hoc" miracles? No more than the "ad hoc" miracle which supposedly occurred at the "Big Bang" - at least the Creationist version is rationally consistent with everyday experience….life comes from life; without intelligent intervention, information degrades, etc..

What do you suggest? Steel tipped boots and bats?

Not at all, and that approach wasn't necessary to defeat creationism in Kansas, Ohio and Michigan. It does require concerned citizens be aware and active.

You should be more nice to them (creationists); since you get to base your labeling of what is science and what is pseudoscience against the theme of a rational cosmos that came from their biblical approach.

That was the creationists of 200 years ago; the ones who were willing to admit that the geological record did not provide evidence of a global flood. Today's creationists, far from believing in a rational cosmos, speculate about ad hoc miracles to explain away the evidence.

According to a news article in the Columbus Dispatch, the Ohio Board of Education voted 14-3 to scrap further consideration of the proposal by one of its subcommittees. Chalk up another pyrrhic victory for the Darwin lobby. Darwinists seem oblivious to the fact that every time they try to censor open discussion on Darwinism (and now on other issues as well), they expose for all to see the bankruptcy of their position. If Darwinists really believed that the evidence for Darwin's theory is overwhelming, they wouldn't act so petrified every time someone suggests that students and teachers ought to be able to discuss different scientific views. Darwinists are apparently so insecure that they now believe the only way to preserve their theory is through one-sided indoctrination enforced by the state. We've come a long way from John Scopes, baby. ~ John West

"As I said in another thread, I'm not concerned about the coming theocracy."

I know. You are one of the few critics who acknowledge the vacuity of the theocracy rhetoric.

"However, the reason that creationist efforts to inject pseudoscience into public school curriculums in Michigan and Ohio failed is because of very hard work by concerned citizens."

If we compare the budgets of the various groups, I think we'll find that it were the people pushing for curricula changes that put in the greatest effort. However, none of that matters, as I have never claimed that ID critics should stop their activizing. This illustrates the beauty of democracy, where concerned citizens got together and stopped special interest groups from co-opting education (of course, if we didn't have a centralized school system, we wouldn't have these special interest groups to begin with, but that's a different rant).

What would be important in polling is seeing the effect a few years from now of these developments on the graduates. Do they accept ID despite being in a post-wedge world?

becoming complacent just allows the creationists to come back for a second try

What do you suggest? Steel tipped boots and bats? You paint 'creationists' up to be such an underhanded, deceiving group. They are just pushing their ideals to the fore as you push yours.
And that ol' creationist perspective (that you call pseudoscience) comes from the same source that gave you the idea that the universe is rational and follows immutable laws. You should be more nice to them (creationists); since you get to base your labeling of what is science and what is pseudoscience against the theme of a rational cosmos that came from their biblical approach.