Here's why Creatards might be right

[robvalue]

People disagree. That doesn't mean that in each case, each opinion is worth the same. If it were, we'd have to seriously consider every lunatic unfalsifiable opinion. Or even falsifiable ones.

If someone disagrees with a well established scientific theory, but cannot present adequate evidence for why they disagree, then their opinion is worth squat. Especially if they are unable to show they even understand what the theory says.

You know what just happened? Me an' Rob for the two-man tag team Chainsaw of Logic Takedown™!!

Haha! You bet Thanks for starting off my day with a big laugh!

There one more thing I'd like to highlight, which is crucial in deciding what is science and what is not.

A scientific hypothesis must make testable predictions. This means it is not merely describing observations that have been made, it is demonstrating a level of understand sufficient to know in advance what other observations will be. It must do so in a very precise way, so that there is a clear success and failure criteria. Then these predictions are tested. Only when the model is shown to be consistently correct over many rigorous tests is it promoted to being a theory.

Intelligent design is not a theory. It's not even a scientific hypothesis. It makes no testable, falsifiable predictions whatsoever. If it did, they would falsified immediately. This is the trick every bit of religious pseudo-science plays, along with religion in general. Because it makes no predictions, it cannot be demonstrated to be true, and it is of no practical use to anyone. Instead it uses the argument from ignorance that it can't be proved false as justification for being true. This is bullshit.