Creationism and intelligent design are sometimes referred to as if they are different, but rational skeptics tend to group them all together, and distinguish them from naturalistic alternatives like abiogenesis and Darwimian evolution. The essential difference is between an intended outcome guided by an intelligent agent and a blind process.
Creationism / intelligent design involves a spectrum of ideas, all of which invoke a god, whether that be biblical literalism over six days, an ancient form of intelligent design, or more modern incarnations that allow for geologic time, but still have a god forging mankind. It matters little over what timeframe this is believed to have occurred.
I still find creationists interesting. They don't have much to offer about how the world works, but I enjoy deconstructing the apologetics. I enjoy looking at how faith based confirmation biases affect the way people view evidence, for example.
I enjoy it when a faith based thinker tells me my evidence is inadequate or my beliefs are preposterous.
Our method, the application of reason to evidence and arriving at useful conclusions has been wildly successful productive. Faith has given us no useful knowledge about reality. If that counts as intellectual superiority, and I think it is the litmus test of it, then yes, we have a superior program at our disposal. So do you, but you seem to prefer faith.
I haven't seen any. Rebuttals have to be good in the eye of he that is rebutted or they are ineffectual.
Virtually all creationist apologetics falls into a handful of categories, none of which produce good rebuttals. Most commonly, they are of the form of something that hasn't been observed yet or isn't understood yet makes evolution wrong, or perhaps some statistical sleight of hand like Hoyle's fallacy, or that the world is too complex to have arisen undirected (the creationist just can't envision it, so it didn't happen), or that naturalistic hypotheses require that something counterintuitive happened, often in a form like "nothing exploded into something and then rocks turned to polar bears, " or using the science you don’t mind against that which you do mind as with thermodynamic arguments.
Let's look at arguments that focus on what is not known yet, or what hasn't been found yet - so-called god of the gaps arguments, the fallacious implication being that if you can't explain A, B must be true: " we have no hard evidence that we have ever had a creature change genre." Science is based on what has been observed, accounting for it, unifying the observations, suggesting mechanisms, making testable predictions, and useful applications of the knowledge, not on what hasn't been or observed.
For example, we are commonly told by creationists that the hominin fossil record cannot show lineage. That would be immaterial. Why would we need to do that for the theory of evolution to be correct? Yes, it is very difficult to determine which hominins are our ancestors, and which diverged from our line of descent from a common ancestral ape to generate cousin species.
But the absence of that knowledge is not a weakness of the theory. What is important is what we DO have and know - something predicted by the theory and pretty inexplicable from a creationist standpoint. The theory predicts that we will find older forms that are less human looking, and later ones that are more manlike, which is what has been found. Those fossils have no business being there if there were divine creation but make perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint
