> Often they have actual science in them.
No, not actual science but pseudoscience. They are proof that if you litter bullshit with enough fancy and scientific sounding words there will be people who believe that there’s something to it.
> That being said, 'Creation Science' has a lot of good points to make. A pure-random-evolution model doesn't make a lot of sense.
It only doesn’t make sense if you don’t understand what it means. Evolution isn’t purely random, the mutations are random and are then acted upon by various environmental pressures, resulting in natural selection, and these pressures are extremely environmental in most cases. One problem is that creation science attempts to nail evolution down to bigger, faster, smarter, stronger. This is so unbelievably flawed that if you do believe this is what evolution is, the best thing you could possibly with your life is to go and take a course on evolution aimed at 11 year olds.
> A "guided evolution" model [whether the guidance is gods, aliens, cosmic consciousness of a species, or who-knows-what] seems to make more sense.
Only if you believe that humanity is some kind of end goal. It’s not. We might have reached a point where, given universal healthcare and basic empathy, we can forego the efforts of nature to improve our species, and it might be the case that because of this we have effectively put the brakes on when it comes natural selection, but evolution hasn’t stopped and this can be seen in the likes of sickle-cell anaemia. Sure you’ll die if you so much as require any kind of oxygen transfer in your blood, but you’re now immune to malaria, guided? My arse!
> Catastrophes (as a stresser) might actually trigger evolution for a species to survive. Not random, but perhaps a species-wide choice of sorts?
Extinction level events don’t trigger evolution any more than relegation from a higher league triggers better sportsball players. The skill of your players rises and falls naturally as players join and leave the team, relegation simply cuts that team from the pool. The disappearance of the non-avian dinosaurs wasn’t because they all evolved, no they all died out. <insert dead parrot sketch>
> So I'd point out that Creationists (at the least) have a point to make, i.e. 'Intelligent design', and they're "not wrong" about a lot of the stuff they're saying.
No, they are wrong about a lot of the stuff they’re saying, and the only parts they aren’t getting wrong aren’t right, they are just word salad.
> So maybe "their science" and "mainstream science" can contribute to a more accurate origin model? I think human+dino footprints in the same mud is interesting. It may simply suggest that what we see in the rocks is NOT the "entire picture".
The human and dinosaur footprints were debunked well before it became an on-line argument, and no, there’s no value in ‘their science’. What we see ‘in the rocks’ isn’t the entire picture, but then nobody is actually claiming that it is. Palaeontology is just one of several lines of study that agree with each other over these facts, so it’s not just ‘HIGHLY unlikely’ but it is impossible.
> Even though modern dating methods make a LOT of assumptions, there are some things that are VERY hard to "fake up" into 6,000 years. Light from distant stars is one of them.
Modern dating methods make only one assumption, and that is that reality is measurable, if you delete that assumption then all you are left with is hard solipsism, and you’re left denying that even you might exist yourself. We have a world, and the assumption that it’s measurable is given even more verifiability by the fact that everyone measuring it is getting the same answers. Dating methods can be used to verify each other, not just radiometric dating but other dating data such as dendrochronology or ice core dating, they all tie in together and match what we observe today. Next you’ll be claiming that dating is circular because the rocks date fossils and fossils date rocks.
> (not on the same level as 'Flat Earth' believers, who have to literally DENY SCIENCE to believe the earth is flat)
Denying science like modern radiometric dating? Intelligent design makes the exact same denial of science that flerfers do.