Fair enough, who needs character attacks when you've got so much else to chew on.
Why is it that “pure” creation science is not given a fair shake by the scientific community?
Number 1, it's not science, it's absolute, "pure" crap. It doesn't even approach science. It ALWAYS leaves us wondering about the mechanism, and the mechanism always ends up at a god. NOT SCIENCE, MYTHOLOGY. Period.
Number 2, if it was science, it would most definitely get it's fair shake. In fact, there are certainly plenty of scientists who would kill to debunk evolution even accidentally, just for the fame and fortune of such a breakthrough!
Number 3, Where is the science, exactly? Where is the science that you so adamantly claim is not being considered? WHERE IS IT? If there were ANY science at all, there would be PLENTY of interested parties to take a look at it and consider its merits.
Why is it, by and large, disregarded as worthy of hypotheticals in light of inability to provide solid evidence for speciation?
If I had to guess, I would think he is asking why creation science hypotheses are disregarded in light of the ToE's inability to provide solid evidence for speciation? Shoot, who knows what this question was attempting to get at.
If my guess is correct, I would just make a couple of points:
1. Hypotheses are always welcome, as long as they have some basis to begin applying the scientific method against, in order to begin forming a potential theory. Creation science has no such thing, and is thus disregarded wholly by actual scientists (God's scientists certainly disagree, of course.)
2. There is more solid and irrefutable evidence for speciation than is even necessary to completely take it as scientific fact. That you ignore it for personal reasons is the more serious problem here. When speciation occurs in a laboratory, in front of everyone, and is repeatable by anyone with a lab coat and a tongue full of bacteria, there's little reason to even discuss the evidence with people who think like you. Perhaps if you stand on a stool or a ladder and re-read this reply, it won't go completely over your head?
Why is evolutionary archaeology not more interested in demonstrating that the fossil record be used to establish that speciation might be due to Intelligent Design?
Intelligent Design is Creationism. These two things are one in the same, this has been proven in a court of law, when it's adherents were caught red-handed. I won't link to the case because I'm certain that BS is going to separate ID from Creation despite this little fact.
The honest, and hard-working scientists from all different fields have been working with the theory as it was posited and written about by Darwin. Even though we have learned so much more than Darwin even could have imagined, we know that Darwin was right on target. There is literally NO REASON for any credible scientist to jump into some rabbit hole in search of some designer, because there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that points in that direction. None. Zip. Nada. Zero.
If such evidence existed, we would have competing theories, now wouldn't we? Oh, no? We wouldn't...because...because...the evil scientists couldn't stand to have all of their hard work flushed down the toilet by A MYTHICAL MAGICAL GOD...sob...sob...sob...
Creationism is crap. It's a fairy tale, connected to another fairy tale, written before humans realized they were whirling through a universe on a tiny planet in the middle of fucking nowhere. If God were real, we might be looking into whether this god created stuff, or kicked off life, or caused evolution, or whatever. But God isn't even close to real, so we don't consider it worthy of much time and effort when we have real work to do (sorry UP, all Gods are imaginary)