re: #79 gwangung

Basically, summarizing these arguments and taking them at face value seems overly credulous; accepting there is no religious basis seems overly credulous and dismissive of the scientific evidence…which runs counter to the argument he was quoting. At best, he is being willfully blind; it does not seem to me that being a young earth creationist is out of the realm of possibility.

That’s the way I see it as well. Scalia was basically playing the “teach the controversy” game there, and being coy about his own religious beliefs.

However, as Scalia himself said, those beliefs are irrelevant. What was significant here is that Scalia would have apparently upheld the LA creationism law. That makes him a creationist.