Continuing the discussion from Nathaniel Jeanson and Herman Mays: A YEC-Evolutionist Debate:
This is very important point of scientific thinking that is often misunderstood. When @evograd says “best explanation” there is very specific criteria for determining “best”. @vjtorley put it really well when pressing @hunter in an exchange about my article, http://peacefulscience.org/evidence-and-evolution/.
Do you accept that if hypothesis A readily explains an empirical fact F and hypothesis B does not, then F (taken by itself) constitutes scientific evidence for A over B? Or putting it another way, if a fact F is predicted by hypothesis A, and compatible with hypothesis B but not predicted by B, then do you agree that F constitutes scientific evidence for A over B? If not, why not?
Now, that was in question form, but in there is nuggets of why special creation (without a lot more to it) does not constitute a good scientific explanation, even if it were to be true.