<<<I do not recall making any statement that could be interpreted that way.
In fact, I made it quite clear (as did Elliott Sober, in the portion which
I quoted), that I accept the possibility that a scientific theory of
creation could be formulated. I simply expressed doubt whether a robust,
descriptive, and "scientific" theory of creation (ie. one that stands
on its own and makes substantive, positive statements) had yet been
formulated. In other words, if scientific creationism doesn't exist as
a well formulated research program, I strongly suspect that it has much
to do with its own formulation (and formulators) and less to do with the
scientific "establishment" defining it away. I hesitate to blame one
person for another's shortcomings. Let's get our own houses in order
first>>>
You are correct; in looking back at my post, I should have been clearer.
There is a definitional problem here. I used "scientific creationism" in
the sense of "creationism that is regarded as science;" I don't want to put
words in your mouth, but I would interpret your use of the term to mean,
basically, "creationism other than theistic creationism."
However, the creationist seeking the scientific establishment's acceptance
of his model as "scientific" (in either sense) is caught on the horns of a
dilemma: *Theistic* creationism is defined as nonscience. *Non-theistic*
creationism - creationism that doesn't posit a creator - is regarded
(correctly, IMO) as logically absurd.
Chuck