As I mentioned in my previous post, Opal Formation – An Example of "Creationist" Research, anti-creationists can not get past the name "Creation Science" because they have a simplistic, inaccurate view of what this term means, and they reject the idea of it a priori.  As I alluded, Creation science operates on the same scientific principles as naturalistic science, but has differing underlying assumptions, i.e. different underlying philosophies of science.

A Theory of Creation: A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists outlines the differences between the two views of science, and how creation science is both scientific, and superior as a scientific model.  Any anti-creationist who wants to move past low-brow mockery of creation science ought to start by understanding this article.

And here’s a snippet:

Comparison of the Evolutionary & Creationary Origins Theories
Phenomenon/Condition

Creation
Hypothesis

Evolution
Hypothesis

Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems[7]

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection

Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years

Empirically Falsifiable?

Yes

Yes

Empirically Falsified?

No

Yes

Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information[8]

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation

Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years

Empirically Falsifiable?

Yes

Yes

Empirically Falsified?

No

Yes

Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms[9]

Indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms

Residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors

Empirically Falsifiable?

No

No

Empirically Falsified?

No

No

Billions of Organisms quickly Buried in sedimentary Rock Layers laid down by Water all over the Earth[10]

Global Flood & aftermath

Millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial

Empirically Falsifiable?

No

No

Empirically Falsified?

No

No

The Ice Age[11]

Post-Flood climate compensation

Unknown

Empirically Falsifiable?

No

No

Empirically Falsified?

No

No

Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics[12]

Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation

Contradicts, postulating mechanism-free constant increase in order, complexity, and genetic information

Empirically Falsifiable?

Yes

Yes

Empirically Falsified?

No

Yes

Apparent Order or Sequence in Fossil Record[13]

General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected

Strict pattern of million-year depositions from “simple” to “complex”; variations (i.e., anomalies) problematic

Empirically Falsifiable?

Yes

Yes

Empirically Falsified?

No

Yes

Erratic “Ages” given by Radiometric and various other Uniformitarian Processes[14]

Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood

Selective and dogmatic use of supportive “ages” & dismissal or disparagement of any conflicting indicators

Empirically Falsifiable?

Yes

Yes

Empirically Falsified?

No

Yes

Table 2.  The so-called “non-existent” creation theory, when examined with a measure of objectivity, manages to explain most empirical data with at least as much credibility as the evolutionary counterpart.