How's that "creation research" coming along, boys?

It's been about 40 years since "intelligent design" decided it wanted to be taken seriously by the scientific enterprise, after losing the court case Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987 and feeling the need to run damage control. The big boys at the top - all allegedly "top scientists" - put their heads together and formed the Discovery Institute in 1991. They drew up The Wedge document in 1998, outlining their strategy as a social, cultural and political (notably not scientific) pressure group, and then got smacked once more at Kitzmiller v. Dover in 2005. Since then it's been little more than posturing and coping about how they're on the edge of overturning "Darwinism" (the 1850s called, they want their lingo back).

Meanwhile, conventional science has made incredible leaps and bounds in the last 40 years or so - in biology in particular from micro to macro, from research to applications (just a few examples here). All manner of new discoveries, prompting new explanations of old puzzles, and biotechnological advances yielding innovations in medicine, agriculture, conservation and much more.

I thought I'd remind everyone how non-existent, useless and pathetic "creation science" is in terms of a field of study in comparison.

Creationists, answer any of the following.

• give just one example of a verified fact found by a creation scientist while doing creation research.
• give just one example of a piece of evidence in nature that points towards creationism over evolution.
• give just one example of a real-life application of creationist-exclusive research.

Should be the easiest question(s) on the planet for you!

In reality, the reason why there is no creation research is because research is not the goal of organised creationism. The "research" is a facade for gullibles can point at to reinforce their existing dogma.

Science is the modern miracle, and everyone knows it - including creationists. Science as a body of knowledge commands authority in society, and creationists desperately wish they could say the same. That's why they feel the need for the facade of being sciency in the first place.

On a tangentially related note - zero non-Christians believe in a young earth: isn't that a bit odd if the evidence is supposed to support it? A few atheists sustain a head injury (or the mental equivalent) and then convert to conservative Christianity, and then start yapping about how they came to believe in YEC, but why did they have to get indoctrinated before all this magical evidence came to pass for them? Evidence should be available and consistently interpretable by anyone, and yet YEC has no such evidence.