Janet Stemwedel at Scientific American blogs takes a look at Virginia Heffernan’s reasons for being a creationist, and finds that they’re not very reasonable.
I find Herffernan’s essay thought-provoking. She clearly doesn’t understand the relevant science, and she’s happy to admit as much.
I don’t see her saying that people who are scientifically literate should be creationists, she just saying that she in her ignorance, finds creationism “more compelling”:
I guess I don’t “believe” that the world was created in a few days, but what do I know? Seems as plausible (to me) as theoretical astrophysics, and it’s certainly a livelier tale.
Picking a few examples of weak or poor science (e.g., evo psych) and supposing that this undermines the strength of science (or evolution) as a whole. (Cherry picking.)
Going beyond agnosticism to supporting something in ignorance (even when she knows that she is ignorant).