I don't disagree, Jack. As I said, the real problem is that cranks are trying to get creationism taught in school as a "scientific" alternative. For many children that might seem more appealing, because it's backed by the bible, which they've heard of, rather than by various difficult scientific specialties that they haven't.

As for "consequences," I was thinking of metaphysical consequences. Certainly, as you say, it would be wrong to implant the idea, even indirectly, that most scientists are arbitrary egotists who force-fit the "facts" into their theories to contradict God. That, of course, is what creationists do.