Goku: Evolution is thoroughly accepted because it has shown to be highly useful as a scientific theory. I know you didn't mean a legal trial in the sense of we should dig up old trials and see what happened, but I do think those trials have useful insights. In a court of law it has been found that creationism is religion and not science. In addition it has been found that ID is creationism re-branded, and that ID refuses to engage the scientific community, and that central arguments of ID have been addressed and dismissed by the scientific community.
But Goku, this is all your arguments boil down to - someone. Someone decided by authority, creation is religion. (an authority). Someone decided ID is creationism, the authority of the scientific community "say" ID can be dismissed.
We are not talking about judgements based on what misguided individuals have said, we are not talking about a majority opinion, we are talking about formally proving or disproving something, according to logical notation. Clear, objective rules, which are independent of some authority that can go against them. You seem to think that "figuring out" things is something that takes a back seat. That tells me you are a lazy thinker. My argument is that CORRECTNESS is not decided by opinion, but that you have to figure out the correct answer. An opinion is just a belief. You don't seem to understand, a judgement call is only sound if it is correct.
It does not matter if the whole world calls creation religion and Id creation, because logically, that would not affect whether creation and ID are a true case. This does not affect the truth-value of creation, which as Stephen Meyer said, is what matters most. He said he doesn't ultimately care about the semantics, that what matters is that intelligent design is true.
So nice try there, trying to move the goal posts, but we are discussing whether evolution as a case, is true/correct, versus creation, and it's correctness. I am afraid that logically, an argument is strong or sound based on logical rules, not based on whether it is science or religion. Once again you try and push your predictable false dhichotomy of, "science = sound, religion = false".
For example, one very clear example I would give is homology, or similar structures in nature. Homology is perhaps the strongest evidence you can get for evolution, in the sense that two diverse species sharing a trait, or many of them sharing the trait, is absolutely what you would expect logically, as evidence from a common ancestor. Therefore, if you can show two species have the same trait and they were never related according to the macro-claim, then logically speaking, whether 400 legal trials disagree with me, and 4 million scientists disagree with me, that will not change that logically speaking, I have a deductive PROOF that the strongest evidence for evolution, is not that strong, because we have examples of falsification in homoplasies which they re-label from, "homology" so as to name-tag the falsification-evidence with a evolutionary name-tag of, "convergence".
This is ASTOUNDINGLY weak conjecture, according to logic, because it guarantees that evolution is unfalsifiable in this regard.
So I can by the rules, show that this line of evolutionary evidence/reason is TENUOUS. They used to argue it was strong evidence for whale evolution, with the mesonychids, because of similar structures of anatomy. NOW, in 2016, these are not considered to be homologous features and are considered a side-branching, meaning that logically this is tantamount to saying the following; "this WAS strong evidence of evolution of whales, but now we don't believe they are their ancestors". Well, then how can it be "strong evidence" if you can change the story? How can they still be regarded as having anything to do with whales if they were mammalian, terrestrial quadrupeds? The level of circular-reasoning, is piss poor beyond words. A retard would know why this is weak conjecture for evolution.
So logically speaking, you can't avoid there are strong arguments against evolution, because homoplasies very clearly deductively prove that you can have homologous features in animals you simply name-tag, "homoplastic" BUT, logically this 100% proves that a homology does not = evolutionary divergence from a common ancestor, and since that is what evolution is, then homologies as the strongest evidence for evolution, are not very strong evidence of evolution since we have factual examples of them existing without any need for evolution. Correct logic agrees with me. I qualify to understand deductive logic, as this game shows, I have the top score of all time and it has been played 13 thousand times. I don't say it to boast though it may seem like that, but I show it because I would like to prove that I understand what I am talking about, so you don't have to take my word for it;
My point is, I do understand when logic is correct, the game shows I can deduce, which is no big deal admittedly, but then you did say, "I need something more than 'if you disagree with me you don't understand logic'." and since you seem to live from some measure of qualfication or credentials, I hope it will be enough to at least convince you I am not making these rules up. I did not invent non-contradiction, when I use logical terms I have fully studied AND understood what they mean. I don't have a phd for that so how else can I convince you except by performing? (let me know, I'm foxed, for surely a person with ability X can only ultimately prove it by showing it.)
what you need to understand is, figuring out that which is correct, should come first in your thinking. Not what Judge Bonehead SAID about creation because a few rudimentary thoughts occurred to him about the issue between brunch and coffee time. Some of us have studied these matters for YEARS. We don't have the title of, "judge" but we have YEARS on the judge.
Parsimoniously, I could then give a very good explanation of how these homological features can be explained according to the necessity of survival and have nothing to do with common ancestors. For example, the seahorse has swivelling, chameleon-like eyes but no relation to chameleons, because it needs that type of eye to rove the surface for food and the other eye to look below it because of the type of swimmer it is. Another example is the pentadactyl pattern, which can be shown to be the most useful for grasping. I can also argue that with this argument, we don't need to invoke millions of transitional species that there isn't a scrap of evidence for, but we can neatly show that both a duck and a platypus needs it's beak for the type of life it lives. Both a bat, and an oil bird, require it's echolocation for the type of life it lives. The designer has given the correct designs. The prototype for the vertebrate skeletal plan, is specifically designed, not with the focus of coming up with a unique design for each species because it is only a moving internal chassis, but instead the intelligence of the designer is so great, that the designer WANTED the same pattern for all vertebrates, so designed the best pattern to fit all of them. This is like killing two birds with one stone, or in the case of God, killing hundreds of birds with one stone. For as an achievement of design there is no greater example, for what person could come up with a design of chassis that could be modified slightly to change the design, so that both boats, cars, bicycles, and planes all had that same chassis pattern? The answer is; "it's impossible, the person would have to be three times smarter than the best inventor in history".
CONCLUSION: I am saying correctness is never on trial. Correctness is what counts, and it takes a lot of thinking to accurately and acutely attain it. While people in these trials have some manner of education and are even experts in certain fields, ultimately they have to show that their arguments are logically correct. I don't think that happens. I have not heard what was said in these trials, I could very confidently predict, formal correctness would be absent. I think I would bet serious money on that.
I do understand why people are convinced by science and the majority view, because it is inconceivable to them that science could be wrong because in their thinking they have given it an almost omnipotent epithetical value. But most people don't study any further. Those who are stubborn like you, study further but take part in selective reasoning and denial, and basically ignore the strongest arguments because they aren't on the side of evolution.