Thanks for your comments. I can understand how debates with people who have a fundamentalist disposition can be very frustrating and in some ways provoke a similar response. I assure I have no axe to grind on this subject. There may be ideas put forward through certain forms of creationism that I simply do not believe because it contradicts the available scientific evidence and I may find certain claims put forward as science exaggerated. It would not stop me reporting those beliefs if they represented a significant number of people or if they had a significant impact in a given society even though they were only held by a minority, albeit influential, section of the community. For example if a country has only small minority of people who believe in a literal six days account of creation yet they have an disproportionate influence on that society, for example in education, politics or the media, then I would cite the best available work(s) I know that support their idea but I would also put in the best arguments against them in a concise summary of the issue with links wherever possible to other articles that examine particular issues in more depth. I approach these kind of articles by imagining that I am an open minded reader who knows little about the subject but would like to see what the main issues are without anybody censoring or filtering out material they personally do not believe in. This imaginary reader likes to form his own opinions based on the best available information with a preference for top down structure in the article, i.e. general outlines of the issue followed by a more detailed exposition. I hope this helps you understand my outlook.  Finally I am sorry for offending you, it certainly was not intended, and if our paths ever cross on the sea be sure to say hello!