[orionblamblam]

> Scientific progress is generally made by those who question current paradigms, not by those who accept them without question and mock anyone who puts forward new ideas.

Thus spake Charles Darwin. Guess what: he challenged the existing paradigm, the evidence backed him up, and the previous world-view was shown to be laughable. And so far, nothing has come along that even comes close to challenging evolutionary theory as an explanation. No other notions even have a scrap of evidence to back them up.

It is not enough to simply say "I doubt." You should have some sort of servicable alternate theory. And dredging up old and discreditted notions that do not even rate as creditable hypothesis is just lazy... and makes one a valid target for pointing and mocking and laughing.

[Dimensio]

You should have some sort of servicable alternate theory.

Well, even absent an alternative theory, showing that the existing paradigm is completely impossible would be sufficient for some level of fame. Creationists can't even do that much. Sure, they claim to have "proof" that it's all a sham, but examination inevitably reveals it to be founded in ignorance of basic scientific principles (such as just about any argument founded in thermodynamics), ignorance of the theory of evolution itself (such as in Hovind's case where he argues against claims that evolution does not make) or sometimes outright appeal to illogic (such as "if evolution is true then we're all just animals").