As an undergrad, you should have taken a course called "Intro to Logic" or somesuch. They're usually offered by the Philosophy Department. But since you obviously didn't, let's take a look at this together, shall we:
The question your undergrad friend asked was incorrect; creationism is a religious belief. Religious beliefs are outside the realm of science and logic, and purely a matter of faith. No amount of science and logic can refute creationism simply because creationism doesn't adhere to or rely on logic: it relies on faith and dismisses logic outright. Frankly any Professor worth his salt would have made that point eloquently, and I assume that the Professor in question did, even though you obviously didn't like the reply.
This simple answer was the reason some creationists thought long and hard and came up with the brilliant idea of taking creationism and dressing it up in a pink tutu that says "I LOVE SCIENCE!" in sparkly letters, calling it Intelligent Design and claiming that it should be given just as much consideration as any other scientific theory.
Under the Intelligent Design "theory" they argue that complex natural life forms can only be created by something they term a designing intelligence.
Of course, the pink tutu changes nothing and doesn't a scientific theory make.
If we allow the creating intelligence to be natural, by the original premise of intelligent design, it too must have a creating intelligence that created it, and so on. And so intelligent design becomes an infinite regress. So, how to go about breaking it? Why by positing a supernatural creating intelligence.
But the moment that proponents of intelligent design choose that option they instantly take their pet theory outside the realm of science -- which deals with the natural and not the supernatual -- and thus automatically forfeit equal status to scientific theories.
See, you paid all that money to get edumacated at University and you could have come to getbig and get help growing your mind as well as your muscles
We've had this conversation here before. And while I respect your opinion, I disagree. Again, you
are discrediting creationism not on it's scientific merit or ability to explain observed phenomena, but based on
your definition of science. Evolution and Creation Science can explain similarities in DNA, but Creation science
isn't a valid explanation because evolutionists (who are mostly atheists, and fervent atheists at that)
demand a naturalistic explanation. Again, this definition is a human construct. Why can't a God be the author of life?
Oh yeah, because philosophers and rabid atheistic evolutionists have told us that God doesn't exist. See, this isn't
a scientific argument. It's a philosophical one, which personally, makes me uneasy.