Was just watching the Cosmos series again the other night, and Sagan eloquent and passionate as always, explained that there have been multitudes of competing theories that attempt to explain the origins of the universe etc., and because one theory appears to be wrong, the scientific method insists that it be given all possible latitude to prove it’s case.
Creationists are almost certainly wrong, but the world needs all ideas to be explored to their fullest before judgements are made.
Science and God are not mutually exclusive. Many evolutionary biologists are religious. Who’s to say that evolution was not God’s tool to get here from there?
If the Creator truly left as much evidence for Evolution as we have, but Evolution didn’t actually occur, then our Creator’s name is Loki.
God
Creationists are almost certainly wrong, but the world needs all ideas to be explored to their fullest before judgements are made.
Creationists are welcome to join in the discussion. But if they are going to try to do science, they have to play by the rules of science. These require that they bring evidence to support their arguments, and that evidence is subject to testing. The problem we see so far is that the evidence they bring gets disproved but the creationists still cling to it as if it supported their case. Irreducible complexity is one example; Behe's case has been disproved, but IC is still pushed as the "magic bullet" that disproves the theory of evolution. The RATE Project is another example; creationists spent over a million dollars to show that the beta decay rate was a variable rather than a constant. They found evidence that supported what science said all along, but they refused to believe their own evidence.
These examples, and many more, are why creation "science" is not treated seriously by real scientists. It is apologetics, not real science.