Forgive me, but I need to dwell on creationism for another minute. Still reading the same creationist banner ad from Corpse Divine today [link], I would like to make some stylistic observations. These are argumentative flaws that consistently appear in creationist writings. First, honest statements by scientists about the limitations of their current knowledge are highlighted. As in this quote from "NASA's famed evolutionist, Robert Jastrow":

At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet.

Two things have been accomplished: 1) a "famed" scientist has been invoked, and 2) a tidy binary distinction has been established. They find as many instances as possible of scientists saying "I don't know" about something: "...it has left paleontologists grasping for an explanation..." "...there is no way of answering the question..." Surely, if scientists don't have complete answers for everything, then they must not know that creationism isn't right. Paraphrase: "You don't know for 100% certainty that I'm not right, so I must be." Second, they reduce the opposition (most of modern ecology, geology, paleontology, and cosmology) to one or two key arguments. They present evolution as though it is 100% dependent on the "primordial soup" concept. They do this to establish and amplify a false dichotomy. Prior to invoking the famed scientist, they identify "abiogenesis" as an "unproved assumption." This is a false classification. The claim that life originated through non-living chemical processes is a theory, not the key assumption on which evolution is based. Early life could come from some mystical beyond, or from outer space, or (my preferred theory) from the future, without changing much of evolutionary theory. Third, why are they so snide? Example: "DINOSAURS-TO-BIRDS THEORY— A THEORY FOR THE BIRDS, NOT ABOUT THEM." Is that science? Snickering at conflicting theories? Maybe it's a psychological ploy: "scientists may snkicker at us, but we can snicker back, ha ha!" Exclamation points also help a lot:

evolutionists now are faced with the possibility that birds may have evolved from moles instead of reptiles! Consequently, many scientists are trying to discern how it is that animals that normally burrow in the ground suddenly decided to abandon their usual environment and “just fly away.” [We imagine that a goodly number of farmers would be interested in learning how to get these pesky creatures to abandon their fields and “just fly away”!]

Fourth, any argument can benefit greatly from reducing the oppisition to a logical contradiction. Example: cite the "law of biogenesis, that life comes only from life of its kind, and that this law is the cornerstone of all biology." Offer no particular reason for this assertion, but note that if this law is violated, it is violated. Then claim that as evidence for creationism. Baffle your readers by tossing in some Platonic-sounding gibberish right at the end: "the Universe is contingent, and that contingent entities ultimately are dependent upon a non-contingent entity." Having studied some epistemology and some metaphysics, I can honestly say in response to this: "Wha?" Follow that up with the complaint that "that is something the evolution model cannot begin to explain." No shit. Last, toss out that tried and true "evidence" from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is the closest thing to positive argument for creationism. Unfortunately it is completely bogus, and relies on horrible equivocation between different concepts of "entropy," a side-stepping of formal definitions in favor of analogical reasoning. When I was in high school I thought long and hard about entropy, because I realized it was the best argument creationism had. I ultimately thought too hard about it, and decided to stop being a creationist because their use of entropy was incorrect, and they had no other serious leg to stand on.