The argument from design is obviously the most convincing creationist argument - millions worldwide have been persuaded by this argument. Of course, almost none of them are scientists, and the argument from design hasn't yet been formulated into any testable scientific form, but that's not what this thread is asking.
Ironically, the most pure distillation of the argument from design, what we today call intelligent design or just ID, has not only been rejected by US courts, but even by mainstream creationists, because it gives insufficient consideration to Biblical inerrancy. Behe himself accepts an earth that is billions of years old where most of life's diversity developed through natural evolutionary processes, not a position that attracts many Biblical literalists. Most creationists who come here espouse either traditional YEC views or some combination of YEC and ID views. The pure IDist is a rather rare bird these days.
Scientific arguments make testable claims. Whether the world rides upon the back of a giant turtle is a testable claim. Whether there was a worldwide flood 4500 years is a testable claim. Religions that make testable claims about the real world will always conflict with science.
And that is perhaps why the argument from design is so effective and therefore also so insidious. It really makes no scientifically testable claims and so can't be shown wrong by any science.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.