>>
>>Of course evolution has not yet quite dotted all it's i's nor crossed all it's t's, but it does have scientific data and arguments, tests etc. Intelligent design has one argument. Once you say "this could not have evolved by accident. There must have been a designer", you're done. There is nothing more to say. There is nothing to test, nothing to predict, nothing to prove. How can anyone argue that a single statement of debatable fact is 'science'. Where is the scientific method?
>
>I guess you could say that there is only one pool of evidence. You choose to look at it from an evolution point of view, I choose to look at it from a creation point of view. We both have the same evidence - just different beliefs.
>
>This sums it up very well: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

Well, I think some of his arguments are a bit specious. We aren't all simply interpreting the same 'facts' differently. Carbon dating isn't an issue of 'interpretation'. We know the fact of how long a half-life carbon has. Dating things using that is science. Rejecting that carbon dating is simply rejecting facts that one doesn't like. Creationists teach the world is 6000 years old, and science doesn't just differ in interpretation, it differs in fact.