Flaws in Evolution as Evidence

In a previous post on evolution versus creationism, I wrote

Beyond that, the existence of flaws in evolution does not mean creationism is right. That seems to be the most common line of 'evidence' for intelligent design and creationism: evolution doesn't explain everything, so creationism is supported. (Witness David Berlinski's "defense" of intelligent design.) That's just silly, and demonstrates exactly why these "theories" should not be taught in schools.

Richard Dawkins puts it much better:

The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. "Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?" If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: "Right, then, the alternative theory; 'intelligent design' wins by default."

Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist's rejoicing in uncertainty. Today's scientist in America dare not say: "Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog’s ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I'll have to go to the university library and take a look." No, the moment a scientist said something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: "Weasel frog could only have been designed by God."