Thanks Dan.

I came to the conclusion that the creationist piece wasn't serious science, but was an attempt to cobble some dodgy stats together to back up a conviction that had been reached on an intuitive or religious level and far divorced from any real evidence.

Thanks for more confirmation.

I would add that as I know quite a few Creationists, I wouldn't accuse them all of being dishonest, just lacking in good dispassionate scientific methodology.

Blacknad.