Everytime a creationists/IDist says "the evidence is the same only the interpretations are different", everytime they come up with a pet theory that "proves" God/creator must have been involved you can bet your last dollar that their argument will come down to an assertion that evidence in one form or another plus logic is enough on which to draw conclusions. No testing of conclusions is required. No hypotheses need be formed. They have their conclusions and they are valid. As far as they are concerned.
That's because they are doing creation "science" instead of real science.
Creation "science" is nothing more than apologetics, which seeks to justify conclusions already held. There is no need for testing, as the conclusions come from scripture and revelation and are accepted on that basis; all that is needed is to come up with some (any) explanations to counter the doubts in believers' minds when real science fails to support, or (gasp) contradicts beliefs.
In this, creation "science" is methodologically the exact opposite of real science.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
