Creationism doesn’t really come in many flavours: Young Earth, Old Earth and ‘science, but God did it’ are basically the groups. Each of them believes that God seeded life and the Universe. The first two believe that God created life as is, and that no evolution has ever taken place, but they disagree about how long ago that happened. The latter variety believes evolution happened, and that God was the cause of something analogous to abiogenesis. Each has faulty reasoning.
The ‘science, but God did it’ variety doesn’t believe that evolution is enough to create something as amazing as the human body. But ‘amazing’ is subjective. I don’t think my spinal cord is amazing, I think it gives me medically redundant headaches; I don’t think my shoulder is amazing, I think it’s a mess of tendons and nerves that keep getting injured; I don’t think my eyes are amazing, despite their singular purpose to see they have a blind spot. The archaic and defunct early forms of each of these things—the spinal cord and shoulder or a quadruped, and a pre-retina eye—explain this stuff. But evolution with foresight doesn’t.
On top of that, if your understanding of evolution requires an intelligent guidance then your understanding of evolution is flawed. Broad variations and selection by survival really does explain speciation.
Old Earth and Young Earth creationists basically have the same arguments. And they rely heavily on the misuse or misunderstanding of the terms, the science and even the theory itself. No one accepts the evolution as creationists present it as true. In fact, in light of everything we know about DNA, entropy and chaos, if evolution were to happen the way creations suppose then God would be an unavoidable conclusion.
A “transitional form” is one of those misunderstood terms. Everything is a transitional form: my dad is a transitional form between my grandparents and me. What we really want, though, is an example of a species that falls between a modern species and an older species. So we radiometrically date some fossils and we find that the order by age of the series of fossils is A > B > C > D. The age is not the only thing that gives that pattern, if we put them in a progressive order the series is still A > B > C > D for cranial size, locomotive dynamics of the pelvis, jaw bones, teeth etc. We see this pattern in the late Ardipithecines > Australopithecus africanus > Australopithecus afarensis > Homo habilis. We see that pattern a lot, if you care to research it. Evolution is the mechanism by which we can explain why a series of fossils put in age order can show gradual progression. But for many creationists, that is not what they’re looking for. A lot of creationists are looking for a ‘Crocoduck’; an intermediate between two existing animals. That is not what evolution does.
Another misunderstanding is a “kind”. Do you agree that there are many types of mammal? Yep. There are. Mammals are a “kind”. What about canines? Yep. There are many types of them too. Canine is also a “kind”. “Kind” is a term that can refer to any point in a taxonomic hierarchy (see here), and so is too flexible to actually have any meaning. Yet, still we hear “bacteria only gives us bacteria” and “dogs only ever give us dogs”, so how do we have so many “kinds” of life? And evolution is meant to be stumped by that question as if diversity (and complexity) isn’t exactly what evolution does explain. The first mammal only ever gave more mammals. The first primate only ever gave more primates. The first chordate only ever gave more chordates. The first feline only ever gave more felines. That is what evolution expects. If octopi started giving birth to mosquitoes we’d have to throw the theory of evolution out. The origin of species then would be absolute chaos.
The problem is that this misunderstanding is a creationist’s real understanding of evolution. They think a cat should birth a daffodil, and that a half-Plankton/half-Earthworm creature should exist according to evolutionary theory. Their misunderstanding is foundational, at the very basic level of what evolution is and how it works. And someone has taught them to tie that ridiculous idea up with their theology, on an emotional level.
This is why I no longer engage with creationism.
Related reading from this blog