An argument NOT to use if you are creationist, is, "if evolution was true there would no longer be monkeys".
I find another argument pervasive on the internet even though it has a very clear flaw, that is the request; "why doesn't any creationist literature get accepted by peer review?"
This is such an obtuse red-herring. I don't know if it is just ignorance from evolutionists but it is common knowledge that anything ID or creationist is considered by the scientific community to be pseudo-science, meaning they will reject the paper immediately.
So it's like saying, "here is a loaded dice, it has a weight so you can't ever score a six, now please throw the dice and score a six".
For those evolutionists who are ignorant here it is very plainly for you; how can creationist literature be peer reviewed if they immediately reject it if they see it is creationist, and count it as "pseudo-science"?
Evolution scientists regard ID and creation as the God-of-the-gaps, because they employ methodological naturalism, meaning a scientific explanation has to be natural, without any inference to supernature.
Recently an article was rejected, a famous case, you may remember it. It was rejected because it appeared to give credit to intelligent design to a Creator or implied a creative inference rather than giving the credit to evolution. (Lol, kind of like being told off for giving the credit for the design of a differential in a car, to a designer.)
An obvious contradiction since clear design is evidence of a designer, but they don't let a little thing like the law of non-contradiction bother them in the evo-club, because they just want the explanation to be naturalistic.
Anyway, this paper caused a storm on twitter, people saying it was outrageous it was published as it was ID. So they rejected the paper. Basically because of the language barrier, I think they were Chinese and the translation of "creation" or creative acts, could have actually not referred to a Creator as such.
But have you noticed that they would have accepted the paper as passing peer review had they simple accredited the design of the human hand to evolution? So logically that PROVES that the same paper should be sound and regarded as valid if it favours an intelligent designer.
What does that tell you about peer review? It tells me that they don't have any intellectual integrity whatsoever - the correctness, truth-value, validity and soundness of the paper, didn't even come into play.
Conclusion; Pretending peer review is some type of intellectually meritorious filter, is utter CODSWALLOP. If they value what the paper says, it shouldn't be relevant whether it's a designer or evolution, as long as the paper is correct and sound in it's argumentation.
STOP ARGUING that creation doesn't get accepted by peer review. It is like saying, "please show me you can run 100 metres fast at an official event," when you know they won't let me run the race because they have banned me. Does that prove I can't run 100 metres fast?
No indeed - it proves they won't let me run because I will beat them in the race.