Yes, and this is precisely the arena in which both evolutionists and creationists have common ground.
Absolutely. You would therefore consent to provide positive evidence for creation?
Also (and really, I feel silly for mentioning this), I would like to reiterate that since competing scientific theories are necessarily independant, you'll naturally have to refrain from referencing arguments against evolution as support of creationism.
"Evidence" is not the issue. Both theories deal with the same evidence. Both have nothing to draw from other than reason, senses, and experience. The problem arises when conclusions are drawn from the evidence. Evolutionism, by virute of it's preconceived biases, is inclined to rule out intelligent design when confronted with the evidence. It thereby disqualifies itself from proper adherence to the fundamentals of scientific method.
What gall, to fill the world with such "expertise" while expecting the rest of the world to fall in lock step behind the ignorance, as is seen by the reaction to an innocuous little disclaimer placed on a textbook!
Perhaps you are asking that I provide evidence that would lead one to conclude that creation theory is positive, or "true." I would not pretend to supply evidence that would satisfy the intellectual apetite of anyone who has already ruled out the possibility of intelligent design. An individual can be faced with a fact so simple as 2 + 2 = 4 and convince himself it is not true if he is ignorant of numbers or too proud to admit realities outside himself.
Otherwise, however, the grand scale of design as seen throughout the universe is self-evident testimony to an unimaginable intelligence, from the smallest object we've been able to observe to the greatest. Would you consent to providing proof-positive that I am wrong in assuming intelligent design as a factor in the universe as we know it? If so, please begin. If not, then why deny my point of view equal time in the public arena?
". . . competing scientific theories are necessarily independent . . . ."
Logic may lend itself to this conclusion, however it is conceivable that both theories could co-exist. In other words, I see no reason to consider them absolutely mutually exclusive, especially where available evidence is concerned.
Evolutionists are certainly reasonable with the evidence they present, and not completely unreasonable in the conclusions they draw. It is not difficult to understand why they adhere to their beliefs so tenaciously, because on the surface of it, the answers all seem to be there. Those who are engaged in the serious pursuit of evolution sciences, however, are the first to admit that much is missing from the picture.
What I find laughable are the ones who scramble their biases and excuses every time reaosnable evidence is posited that legitimately tests their own conclusions.
You have it and have seen it on these threads - the intelligent design of the universe, the impossibility of abiogenesis, the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagella, the miracle of 100 trillion cells perfectly arising from a single one in a human being. Those are examples of creation. Now what clear scientific examples of transformations do you have?