They can't. They have no body of theory to work from. They have only scripture to adhere to.
That some creationists occasionally make claims which are shown to be accurate is not very convincing. A stopped clock is right twice a day.
Where is the body of ID theory that can be tested and used to make successful predictions? Given the need to adhere to scripture above all, there is no such body of theory as is required to be a part of science.
I myself have used "space aliens" as an example of possible "intelligent creators", because ID isn't directly linked to Scripture for all of us.
I remember a FReeper South-something coming at the "junk DNA" argument using the logic of computer programming a couple of years ago.
Where is the body of ID theory that can be tested and used to make successful predictions?
If I was working in science, I'd probably be trying to find an explanation for "instinctual" behaviors. I'm talking nature versus nurture. Some behaviors can best be explained by a complex "code". The more complex the instinctual behavior, the more complex the "coding" for it would need to be.
Beyond instinct, the simplest autonomic functions are complex activities. Current thinking is good at explaining what, but why remains a huge mystery. Yes, I know that matter has no intent & it just responds to the laws of nature. We're left to describing motion, not how that motion began. That which is in motion tends to remain in motion, etc...
Given the need to adhere to scripture above all, there is no such body of theory as is required to be a part of science.
Your statement is premised on the belief that all who read & believe in Scripture follow a single train of thought about what it says & means. By stating that, you make a mistake.
Can we say the same for scientists? Seems to me that when scientists make claims which are shown to be accurate, they use said claims as evidence of their alleged superior objectivity and reasoning skills. But when creationists are accurate, it gets poo-pooed?
Not very objective of you.
Where is the body of ID theory that can be tested and used to make successful predictions?
And what besides where to look for more fossils, can evolution be used to predict?
That *some* change is going to happen? A mutation that might do exactly what?
What's the next step in human evolution?
For once you are right. They have "no body of theory". They only have facts, unlike the evos who only have theories and no facts.