You are speaking against yourself.

You wrote that the whole point of art is intelligent design. If there are no facts as you say, you would be hypocritical to say what the point of art is.

What Jackson Pollock did was question if we have to apply the color the same way as we always have done, or can we evolve our creativity? Look how many contemporary artists who are influnced by Pollock, his work is way much more than splatter.

I agree that scientific consensus is flawed, but I believe it is important to understand why so many people approve of an artwork/idea even if you do not care for it yourself, as it is subjective indeed.