Left2Right announces some good news for creationists—they've got a chance at becoming a credible contributor to the scientific community, just like Alfred Wegener.

Of course, there's also some bad news:

Good news is often accompanied by bad news, of course, and this case is no exception. The bad news for creationists is this. Since the front door of the scientific establishment is clearly open to you, as demonstrated by the eventual acceptance of the Pangaea hypothesis,- you have no excuse for trying to sneak in the back door, by using political pressure to insert your views into science textbooks. Pangaea made it into the textbooks the honest way, without any help from lobbyists. Your theory, too, can make it into the textbooks -- as soon as you have won over the scientific establishment, as the proponents of Pangaea did.

Until then, you are not entitled to complain about receiving skeptical treatment.  Every hypothesis gets the skeptical treatment, and rightly so.  If you insist on forcing your way past the skepticism of scientists, society should treat you as insurgents seeking to undermine one of its greatest institutions. If legitimacy is what you want, you'll have to accept the task of convincing the experts -- the task that Alfred Wegener was engaged in when he died on the ice of Greenland.

Yeah, you've got to work to earn respect. That's only fair, after all.

However, I have to say that their chances of winning out are very, very slim, and nonexistent as things stand now. The reality of the situation is that there is a vast amount of data in support of evolutionary theory, and any theory that manages to replace evolution is going to have to also accommodate that data. The current crop of creationists are either oblivious to that data, or intent on ignoring or destroying it. Any theory that does reconcile all the available information and incorporates the beliefs of creationists is not going to be recognizable as creationism, and is not going to resolve any conflicts. It might even generate more conflict: I would think a persuasive heresy more of a threat to religious creationism than outright apostasy.