To say Creationism is useless is to say that Christianity is useless.
I know of no Christian who does not, as an article of faith, believe that God created the Universe.
Do you?
Who gave you the authority to hijack the lexicon and arbitrarily alter the meaning of terms? That’s the tactic of those who look to smear a whole people by demeaning their identity. 0bamatrons and admirers of Goebbels would applaud your calumny. Not many others.
What is the definition of Creationism offered by the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, revised edition 2003? Does it differ materially from other definitions?
Science, as it has been developed by our Judeo-Christian Western Civilization is successful because it is of use. So useful, in fact, that I claim it to be Judeo-Christianity’s happiest inspiration.
Some people have seized upon the readily observable phenomena of Natural Selection and have projected it into the religion of Darwinism; with “Evolution” as its most holy of sacraments. Like most religions, Darwinism is jealous of other religions. Unlike the Judeo-Christian Tradition, Darwinism has not learned to control its jealousy, so it seeks to drive Christianity not only from the public schools, but entirely from the public common.
The prohibition against the establishment of religion is an onus that falls entirely on the state. Government may not establish a religion or prohibit its free exercise. The prohibition may not act on individuals or private institutions. The Constitution limits and defines the powers only of government.
As a scientific methodology, creationism *is* useless.
That isn't to say that Christianity is useless. Clearly, it has great use, in that it shapes the moral fabric of our society and influences our legal structure. It simply is not the proper tool to use, e.g., for investigating phylogenetic relationships of strains of the papillomavirus when trying to determine whether a specific strain is oncogenic.