If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we are justified to infer that it probably is a duck. When ant was politely asked to explain his reasons for his ongoing attacks on science, and his apparent sympathy to creationist junk, he failed to give any clear answer, but simply made rude comments about the questions, or just ignored them.
I have found ant's interventions at booktalk entertaining because he seems to be involved in some sort of genuine although confused struggle to reconcile faith and reason, which I agree is an important and complex philosophical problem.
But ant has it arse-about, wanting to base reason on faith, when the correct method is to base faith on reason. And I disagree with Dexter and Johnson and Interbane on this problem of the role of faith, because I consider faith to be a virtue, and not something to be simply dismissed as false.
Again, I think the ethical question of whether faith is good is at the heart of why so many believers have trouble believing in evolution. Believers in God see comments from Dawkins about faith being a vice, and find that attitude so repugnant that they reject the entire scientific worldview.
So I conclude that ant is a duck, or at least a ducker, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever to the contrary, and his constant ducking of direct questions. It is like ant has creationist friends, and he just can't bear to have anything in print that would distance himself from them.
I see the 'ant' at CosmoQuest has now been
banned for a similar attitude to the ant at booktalk. Amazing coincidence in the name and method there, and of course ant did not deny it was him but just falsely accused me of inventing conspiracies.
I watched the evolution video that ant posted from StatedClearly.com and it is excellent, by the way. That looks to be a good site.