[Phantasy]

Where is there "scientific evidence" of a CREATOR?

Creationism and ID both have valid answers that evolution does not, such as the start of life, the universe, and everything. Not to mention the many flaws in evolution that should lead us to look for possibilities that can fill these evolutionary unfillable gaps.

[Borges]

In science you can't just offer 'answers', you have to offer empirical evidence. And tautologies (the world couldn't be this way without a Creator) don't count.

[Rudder]

Creationism and ID both have valid answers...

I think you've just perverted the meaning of "valid."

[Clemenza]

They have METAPHYSICAL answers that is true. But Metaphysics is a whole 'nother subject.

The point is that ID and Creationism have no PHYSICAL SCIENTIFIC evidence to back up their claim of a "creator."

I speak as one who believes that even secular schools should include classes in theology and philosophy. Making up "science" to fit a metaphysical agenda, however, does not belong in any serious study of the hard sciences, however.

[b_sharp]

"Creationism and ID both have valid answers that evolution does not, such as the start of life, the universe, and everything. Not to mention the many flaws in evolution that should lead us to look for possibilities that can fill these evolutionary unfillable gaps.

You seem to have a grasp on things I lack. Could you describe one valid answer creationism has that evolution lacks? Please make sure it is in the purview of evolution, I don't want to have to stray from the evolutionary path too far.

While you're at it could you describe one of those unfillable gaps and how that gap damages the ToE?