Your analogy is just ignoring reality.
The reality is that the round earth hypothesis replaced the older flat earth hypothesis because it better explains the evidence, and in the same way Darwin's evolution replaced older creationism hypothesis because it better explains the evidence.
This is not some made up fairy tale - like your little story above - this is reality. This is what actually happened.
I find that very unlikely. The chances of you doing anything that looks at real biology is absurdly remote.
I commend your honesty when you wrote that
Darwin's evolution replaced older creationism hypothesis because
it better explains the evidence.
You are simply saying that Darwin and supporters of Evolution are trying to falsify Creationism, since all of you think that Creationism is stupid in science.
Why Creationism is stupid in science?
Creationists are claiming that an agent/deity had created X, and to support that narrative, they relied on their holy books.
When asked by scientists with simple question like this:
how can you differentiate a created X and uncreated X in science, to support Creationism? Creationism cannot answer that. The question is fair, reasonable and scientific.
Since Creationism cannot answer the question, then, Creationism is stupid. Ken Ham is stupid and all other religious folks who are claiming something in science.
Stupidity is quickly concluding without knowing everything.
So, once again,
1. Darwin was trying to falsify a religious explanation. Thus, it is fair to say that Evolution was based on religious basis.
Science does not falsify religion. Science does not care about religion. Science studies reality, But Evolution, as you agreed, was based on falsifying religious explanation, thus, Evolution too is based on religion.
2. No Universal Criteria - The stupidity
Since Creationism has no universal criteria between created X to uncreated X, Darwin had solved that,
or at least, he tried. Darwin had used simple and complex, unperfect to perfect etc when he was explaining the eyes.
To explain the unexplained criteria from Creationism, Darwin had this in his mind, and wrote them in books:
CREATED X = perfect X or complex X
UNCREATED X = unperfect X or unperfect X
Darwin had added more, if you will study his narratives:
CREATED X = quick-made X and non-random X
UNCREATED X = gradually-made X and random X
Michael Behe thought that Darwin was a genius and correct in the above universal criteria, thus, Behe had used
complex as the main weapon to battle in Dover Trial. He had rearranged the criteria of Darwin as "irreducible complex", which mean that
CREATED X = irreducibly complex X
UNCREATED X = reducibly complex X
That criteria was made on 1860 AD by Darwin, and many inventors of the definitions of words, as found in all dictionaries, thinking that Darwin was a genius, they defined words and phrases, to be used in science and in society - by basing Darwin's criteria as written above.
Thus, if you open your dictionaries, in all formats, in all languages, you will see that the topic of intelligence and non-intelligence (and its variants words) were greatly badly affected by following Darwin's stupidity.
3. What is the Problem of Darwin's Universal Criteria?
You cannot test or confirm, or falsify, or even define them.
There is NO numerical limits that we can measure.
How gradual is gradual? How quick is quick?
What percentage is perfect X and what percentage is simple X?
No answer, therefore, no science. Thus, stupid.
My suggestion, you, Evolutionists, must submit science article to
Nature or anywhere, inventing a universal convention of limits for Evolution. Just cite my name on that paper,
Write like this:
"Evolution must have a numerical limits of change, for if not, the father and founder of new
Intelligent Design will call us "stupid" in CARM. Since we cannot allow that, we are inventing
numerical limits for Evolution. Thus, in this article, we proposed the following limits to be
used in all Evolutionary explanations. They maybe wrong, but Evolution is wrong anyway, but we hope, this
limit will help."
4. So, what is exactly the new ID?
First, on 2005 AD until 2011 AD, I discovered that universal limit, or universal boundary line (UBL) and its universal numerical limit, between intelligence and non-intelligence (and all of their variant words).
They are all correct and applicable in reality. Thus, I have models and patterns and limits to fight Evolution that
has none to offer - maybe, you will submit that article. GO FOR IT!
Then, I applied that in biology. I can apply that too in Cosmology, or anywhere since the UBL is universal.
Then, I made a new model/theory in Biology, the Biological Interrelation, BiTs. Then, I submitted that to
major science journals, but the are all stupid, so I am here.
Supposed to be, in ideal science ordeals, I will be receiving a Nobel Prize for I falsify Evolution, replaced it with Biological Interrelation and discovered those limits.
But, sad to say, I am fighting a religious group which called themselves scientists.