I am not sure how you can defend this logic.
I'm trying to explain to you why they wouldn't accept your argument.
I am not saying there is an alternative.
You said it wasn't an either/or... then there must be another, no?
TOE is here to stay. Creationism/ID would need to stand on their own evidence regardless of the TOE. That is why the creation/ID crowd trying to attack TOE is so ridiculous. Why don't they spend time trying to validate their "theories"?
Because they're not trying to do what you're assume they are.
They're not trying to validate their theories, they're simply trying to remove the invalidation. That way, they aren't believing something that has been shown to be wrong.
Granted, there are many who do try to validate their theory, but I'm discussing the postion that IGIT is holding in trying to find "chinks in the armor".
It most certainly does. The TOE being true deligitimizes creationism/ID. If the TOE is wrong, then at least they aren't being crazy by believing in something shown to be false.
Creationism/ID can be delegitimized without TOE even existing.
Irrelevant.
They are delegitimized because there is no evidence.
I disagree. Believing in something with inadequate evidence is not crazy like believing in something that has been shown to be wrong is.
As I said before if TOE was proven wrong tomorrow, that does not make creationism/ID a default winner. They would still have to show evidence.
Not to be not-crazy, no. And where they have "winning" as not-invalidated, proving to themselves that the TOE is wrong IS winning.
Too, for the ones that subscribe to the either/or logic, if the TOE is wrong then creationism is the position by default, aka "won".
In you way of thinking if I saw something I couldn't identify flying through the air but I knew it wasn't a plan, then it would have to be a flying saucer from out of space.
Its more like this (and its their way not mine):
If they saw something they couldn't identify flying through the air but they knew it wasn't a plane, then it
could be a flying saucer from out of space. If you prove that it was a plane, then they'd be crazy to believe it was a flying saucer. But if they can show that it has not been proven to be a plane, then they can hold their belief that it was a flying saucer without being crazy.
™ Version 4.2