Correlation does not necessarily imply casuation, but it also does not disprove causation.
I can see your problem here, is that you are getting your understanding of the scientific method from a youtube video produced by CCP, instead of learning science at, say, a university. Most scientific research involves the establishment of correlation. Most scientific evidence is in the form of correlated data. You are falling into the fallacy of concluding that correlation should be dismissed.
I refer you to Novella (2009): Evidence in Medicine: Correlation and Causation | Science-Based Medicine
Pseudoscientific proponents, on the other hand, praise science, they just do it wrong…
Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables – they tend to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation… However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not imply causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence…
For example, the tobacco industry abused this fallacy to argue that simply because smoking correlates with lung cancer that does not mean that smoking causes lung cancer. The simple correlation is not enough to arrive at a conclusion of causation, but multiple correlations all triangulating on the conclusion that smoking causes lung cancer, combined with biological plausibility, does.
In other words, correlation (despite the words of your CCP science advisor) does imply causation, and identifying correlation is a critical first step in concluding that there is indeed causation. A reasonable person can look at the data and make reasonable assumptions. If you feel the conclusion is erroneous, it is up to you to provide some evidence to show that this correlation is not due to causation.
In conclusion, correlation is an extremely valuable type of scientific evidence
