You began this thread with the argument that your views deserved representation in science class because "the data calls for this", but now you issue a religious appeal:
Tranquility Base writes:
I generally agree with you but this is a somewhat special case. Whether you like it or not these areas of science are related to religion via the origin of life issue. Hence we strongly believe, and can argue it, that mainstream science is atheistically biased so that even the most obvious arguements for either design or the flood are treated as automatically naive.
You're proposing that we present religious views in science class, views not even shared by your fellow Creationists and not represented in the primary literature. You need to stay focused on views that are supported by evidence.
Instead of stating over and over and over again that (sic) "a small group of PhD scientists see a global flood in the data," you should ask yourself why everyone thinks your evidence does not support your conclusions, including your fellow Creationists. If you can't even sway them, how can you expect to persuade us?
By the way, about the "atheistically biased" statement, you couldn't be more wrong. Many of us so-called evolutionists believe in God.
--Percy