A false Premise will not lead to a true Conclusion.
You know, if I was a proponent of Intelligent Design ("ID"), I would not take the stance, We need to teach ID in the classes so the students will learn critical thinking. Because I would not want critical thinking within a 100 yards of ID.
Take, for example, the Earth is 6000 years old. A calculation arrived at by an Irish bishop who assigned an arbitrary number of years to each generation or "begat" in the Bible and used that to calculate the Earth was 6000 years old.
(Archbishop Ussher in 1650 in his book, Annals of the Old Testament.)
That is NOT scientific in any shape, way or form. That is not even good critical thinking. All this bishop did was speculate - that's all he really did.
Any decent high-school debate team would be able to take the proposition, "The Earth is 6000 Years Old," and rip it to shreds. It is logically indefensible. And that means the bishop was doing nothing more than speculating. And yet that is presented to us as rock-hard fact.
Compared to THIS, any inconsistencies in Evolution pales to insignificance.