The scientific evidence for evolution is solid but it doesn't follow that creationism is irrational in the way that many evolutionists assume. Creationism follows rationally from theism. I recognize that this argument is not likely to please many people. The evolutionists fear to question the premise while modern/moderate theists fear to question the conclusion.
Suppose that you find a watch in the forest. If you know there is no watchmaker then the theory of evolution is a brilliant and compelling explanation for the presence of complexity without design. But suppose that you know a watchmaker exists then surely the simplest and most compelling explanation is that the watchmaker made the watch. Any other explanation, particularly one so improbable (see extension) as evolution would seem to be preposterous and beside the point.
Thus for someone who knows, really knows, that god(s) exists (and there are many people who claim to know that god(s) exists) then some form of creationism (see the extension) follows as a rational deduction from the premises. It's no point telling these people that creationism is unscientific because given the premise that god(s) exists creationism is scientific. If god(s) exists then evolution is almost certainly false, if not in every particular then surely in the grand claims of a undesigned nature.
Evolutionists don't like this argument because they know that if the public is forced to choose between evolution and god they will choose god every time. Better inconsistency, they say, than a foolish consistency. Moderate theists don't like it either because they wish to maintain their theism whilst still being modern, scientific and progressive.
Only creationists and atheist evolutionists are consistent, everyone else is in a muddle.
Comments are open. I trust that all will remain civil.
I say that evolution is an improbable theory in light of Holmes’s dictum that "when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Excluding god as impossible leaves us with the improbable but true theory of evolution. Fail to exclude god and evolution is nothing but an improbable theory.
Theism implies some form of creationism but not necessarily the ‘on the 7th day he rested’ version. One could of course so weaken theism as to make it consistent with anything (e.g. deism) but in practice this is amounts to atheism or agnosticism. Any theism worth its name, i.e. postulating a god that works his or her ways in the world today is bound to be inconsistent with evolution. It makes no sense to assume a god that intervenes to answer prayer but who never has done any genetic engineering.