[Dimensio]

I suppose it's only benefit,

Read my tagline.

is to give certain folks a sophisticated way of explaining away the obvious.

If it were that obvious, it would have been theory more than 150 years ago. It's taken a few recent advances.

It cannot make predictions except of what will be found in the static record (just as can creationism as I've demonstrated).

Yes, but it can make predictions before the fact, rather than retro-fitting predictions into existing discoveries, or making blanket "predictions" that really can't fail.

Creationism, OTOH, is bold enough to proclaim dogs will be dogs till the end of time. Let's see if that prediction comes true, shall we?

Okay, that's a prediction. What mechanism does "Creationism" propose that prevents speciation of that nature? That is, what fundamental aspect of creationism requires that speciation be impossible lest all of Creationism be proven false?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Amusing that at least one Creationist has risked his entire religion on whether one group of dogs cannot backbreed with their ancestors.

[Fester Chugabrew]

If it were that obvious, it would have been theory more than 150 years ago. It's taken a few recent advances.

No. The obvious has been running its course for several millenia. It was only 150 years ago or so that some folks thought it keen to try and explain it away through sophistry.

Yes, but it can make predictions before the fact, rather than retro-fitting predictions into existing discoveries, or making blanket "predictions" that really can't fail.

That is precisely what it cannot do. It only predicts what will be found in the static record (which God also created for real scientists to discover). Evolutionists avoid predictions about the process of evolution like the plague because they do not know what drives it or which way it will go. They only cobble it up as a way to view history.

The static and dynamic records belong to creationists, for they are the ones who, according to their theory, predict evidence of a living God that constantly sustains His creation, and a God of order. They predict that the laws of nature will operate just the way God designed them unless, or until it suits His purpose to override them.

All of which may appear arbitrary, but no more arbitrary than conjuring up billions of years as a way to dismiss His activity and insert some other random process in His place. In view of the amount of consistency and design in the universe creationism makes far more sense.

"God did it" is not satisfactory enough? Fine. What other mechanism do you propose for the organization of the material universe? Everything evolutionists so far tout as evidence only points more to intelligent design.