Sure, it certainly does that but If I said to you that creation is a THEORY would you apply that same rule?
I think the theory of creation also has many, valid "Scientifically" observable evidences in its favor, that it helps the actions of society and gives predictable results within certain constraints.

Here is just one "Scientifically" observable evidence
If archaeologists can pick up a stone and say, see the way its been chipped and worked to form this nice edge, designed as a cutting tool by ancient man. If they can conclude that the rocks shape shows evidence of design and therefore there must be a maker.
How can they then turn around and mock creationists for expressing that very same principle. That principle is either valid, or, it is not valid.
I see exquisite design in everything, all around me. I am forced to conclude that there IS a maker for what I believe to be a far stronger reason than the archeologist had.
If evidence of design prooves the rocks shape had a maker then the infinitely superior evidence of design in the universe and everything it it also prooves a maker.


How can anyone say that the THEORY of evolution dosn't need absolute proof to be believable and
then mock and insult the intelligence of a creationist for not needing absolute proof for believing in the principle of design necessitates a designer and a maker? Why dosn't the principle of "Seeing is believing" apply to evolution also?

Sorry not actually directing the "mock and insult" bit at you, it's more a general statement of observation.
Not that it worries me either, I see things the way I do and for the reasons that I have and if anyone thinks I am stupid for it then good.
I just see that many evolutionists will believe anything that a scientist tells them and not apply the same critical thinking that they encourage creationists to do.