In the first part of your post, you appear to try to limit the term scientific creationism to what is commonly called Young Earth Creationism (YEC). You rely on various sources in this attempt, but ultimately you fail to accomplish your purpose.
First you quote Henry Morris. I have no quarrel with Morris’s description of what he calls creationism. However, even Morris acknowledges that some creationists accept Old Earth Creationism (OEC). See
Old-Earth Creationism What’s more, he also makes clear that the only real distinction between the two is that OECs stray from a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Next you turn to the National Academy of Sciences.
quote:
Apparently, the National Academy of Sciences agreed with Morris before Edwards v. Aguillard, since they wrote in 1984 that creationism, as advocated at Edwards, would include the following: (1) the earth and universe are relatively young, perhaps only 6,000 to 10,000 years old; (2) the present form of the earth can be explained by "catastrophism," including a worldwide flood; and (3) all living things (including humans) were created miraculously, essentially in the forms we now find them.
—fallen
Here’s the quote from the cite you link to:
The teaching of creationism as advocated by the leading proponents of "creation science" includes the following judgments: (1) the earth and universe are relatively young, perhaps only 6,000 to 10,000 years old; (2) the present form of the earth can be explained by "catastrophism," including a worldwide flood; and (3) all living things (including humans) were created miraculously, essentially in the forms we now find them. These teachings may be recognized as having been derived from the accounts of origins in the first two chapters of Genesis.
Emphasis mine
I have no disagreement with this statement. However, it simply does not bear the weight you place upon it. As the bold faced portion makes clear, the statement is not intended to be a complete description of creation science. Instead, it is a description of what is advocated by the leading proponents. At the time that the NAS made that statement, I would venture to guess that YEC was indeed the leading branch of creationism. But the statement obviously doesn’t limit the extent of scientific creationism to only YEC.
Finally, you argue that the Supreme Court accepted this definition in
Edwards v. Aguillard. It appears that the quote you provide came from this sentence in the opinion:
The court further concluded that "the teaching of 'creation-science' and 'creationism,' as contemplated by the statute, involves teaching 'tailored to the principles' of a particular religious sect or group of sects." Id., at 427 (citing Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 106 (1968)).
A careful reading of the opinion will show that this is not the Court’s acceptance of this description, but instead is it’s recitation of a finding from a lower court. But, beyond that, it is also clear that the quote does not identify the particular religious sect or group of sects it’s referring to, nor does it attempt to describe in detail what the principles of those sects are. Thus, it's of no use to you in limiting the meaning of "scientific creationism."
What’s not clear is why you feel it’s so important to limit the term creationism to include only YECs.
I shall address the remaining points in your OP later, but I think it would be useful to us to try to break this argument up into smaller bites.
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
™ Version 4.2
