Best evidence for Creation

I think the best evidence for intelligent design or creationism is that it can be observed and has been observed for centuries.We see creation all around us every day: intelligent agents arrange different objects for a specific purpose. People created the wheel, the motor, the computer. Even animals are observed creating nests and tunnel systems. So the theory that complex systems are the product of purposeful design by an intelligent agent is grounded in observable arguments.Evolution, on the other hand has never been observed in a way that could account for life. Sure we see changing features within species but nobody has ever observed the evolution of random proteins into a living cell or the evolution of one species to another.Therefore, if science is based on observable evidence, then creation is a better scientific theory than Darwinian evolution, no?To frame my post I would like to add I am not religious. I do not believe in the bible, hell or heaven. But I am fascinated by the evolution vs creation debateEdited by Kevin123, : No reason given.

lyx2no, thanks for the correction.My question now is can the same thing be said about the evolution theory's explanation of the origin of life? Has anybody ever been able to generate an irreducibly complex system using only completely random forces?I have heard many theories on how it might be possible for this or that to have happened but never see any experiment or observations to back it up.

Coyote, the theories except for a) require an intelligent agent..Considering the mathematical improbability of the evolution by natural selection, I don't understand why anyone would follow that theory if an intelligent agent had to be introduced to explain origin. If an intelligent agent seeded/planted the early earth would it not be more logical to assume that they used a mixture of seeds (one for each family or genus) rather than a single seed from which all known organisms evolved? It would be easier than trying to explain how all these complex systems might have evolved and they wouldn’t have to explain the missing fossils for the millions of intermediary animals. Therefore, I consider ToE and origin to be closely linked.Lynx2no says: You're welcome, but it wasn't a correction, it was an argument.How is that an argument? Yes I only presented an observation that shows intelligence can be the source of complexity. Can ToE boast as much? What have evolutionists observed could accounts for an animal sprouting a new organ or what observations lead to the belief that one species becomes another? Mutations as far as we have observed are always harmful. Why would evolution be the exception billions and billions of times?Lyx2no says: that still would not support creationism until such time that "creationism" is defined in a much less nebulous fashion.I agree, unfortunately religion seems to be holding ID back. I think fewer people would have a problem accepting ID as a scientific theory if religion was not always brought up.Lyx2no asks: Have you been looking in the right places? Your questions so far cast suspicions about where you have been looking.Please enlighten me, where do I look or what should I read? So far everything I’ve read contains a lot of “might have”s and “could have”s with some nice illustrations. The only proof I’ve seen from evolutionists is changes within species, some flat headed animal and a bird with teeth. I really am open to any theory but I want proof based on observation and experimentation not based on creative thought.