But personally I do expect a journalist for a mainstream newspaper to do a better job describing the issue than your average 10-year old. Even if the main part of the article is about something else. If you're not capable or can't be bothered to do the effort to discuss the issue properly, it's rather wiser not to discuss it at all. And you still don't seem to get it: the ridicule IS solely about the quality of the article. I strongly doubt the author is actually a creationist. Entophile's post seemed to focus on the part about no evidence for evolution, yes, but my and Craig post were about how, as he put it, "both sides of the argument were represented so insultingly poorly".

And as for the 8000 lightyears argument, I have to disagree with Craig, I do think astronomy is relevant in the discussion. But the way that argument is presented is idiotic. If creationists actually believed that there were objects 8000 lightyears away whose light is reaching the earth only now, they wouldn't be creationists to begin with.

On the other side of the discussion, the stupidest part is the "allegory" argument, as the whole point of creationism is that those people *don't* think Genesis is an allegory. The allegory is not an argument for creationism, it's an argument to reconcile the Bible with evolution.

So was the article noteworthy in its mediocrity, well, I don't often see journalism this shoddy in a serious newspaper, no. And since somebody linked to it, I gave my honest opinion about it, as did Craig.