Why I am creationist

Science does not rely solely on direct observation. Events can be - and often have been - inferred from other evidence.So long as the evidence is observable and the observations can be repeated direct observation is not a requirement.And obviously when reconstructing a particular event we can't repeat the event - but the evidence identifying a nebula as the remains of a supernova is no less scientific just because we cannot rerun the supernova.

And science typically proceeds by inference to the best explanation.Evolution is still the best explanation for biogeography, for the nested hierarchy of traits that taxonomy is based on and for the extinct life forms we find in the fossil record.

It is quite proper to speak of science as a practice - andto say that science as a method frequently relies on inference to the best explanation.And what you seek to write off as a mere opinion is a fact. Creationism has utterly failed to explain these things in the full sense of explanation required by science. Evolution, on the other, hand explains - for instance - why remote islands have their own unique species, why taxonomy forms as neat a hierarchy as it does and why we found so many transitional fossils like icthyostega or ambulocetus. Creationism doesn't predict any of that - God can put species wherever He wills. God can create as He wills and there need be no convenient pattern. And there is certainly no need to find fossils indicating links between seperately created species.