Yes, I'm aware of the attempts at discrediting evolution by claiming that it's all based on examination of evidence of things that occurred in the past. By that criterion, we can't solve murders, either, because we can only look at evidence in the presence and have no ability to look in the past to see what "really" happened.
Very few scientists that I am aware of are actually trying to look at how life started. That isn't to say that they can't make hypotheses about it that can be tested in the lab. Most of us look at the ongoing process of evolution. Public health, for one thing, depends on it.
With this distinction in mind, creationists argue that both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science.
Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past.
Creationists would get a lot further if they could come up with plausible alternative (and testable) hypotheses to explain the fossil record, phylogenetic trees, genetic drift, etc. Instead, they just deny that the evidence exists. That doesn't give them a very strong case.
RE: By that criterion, we can’t solve murders, either, because we can only look at evidence in the presence and have no ability to look in the past to see what “really” happened.
I don’t think the creationists are saying that at all. If I understand them correctly ( and I do try so that I don’t miscomprehend them), they are saying that because origins science deals with the origin of things in the pastunique, unrepeatable, unobservable events, one’s INITIAL PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUMPTIONS will come into play regarding how one interprets the data, such as fossils.
They argue that both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different INTERPRETATIONS are devised to explain what happened in the past.
So, they insist that Creationists produce scientific theories but the Biblical account is used as a starting point, just as Evolutionists produce scientific theories but pure materialism without any reference to any external intelligent being are their starting point.
Creationists then insist that their resulting theories make TESTABLE predictions many of which have been successful.
Example of creationists theories with successful predictions include Dr Russell Humphreys’ model of planetary magnetic fields which successfully predicted planetary magnetic field observations, including the recent measurements of Mercurys magnetic field.
So, Creationists see the Bible as an historical Document. That is events described in the Bible are real historical events. The Bible is not just a collection of religious stories or a collection of myths, neither is it history mixed with myth. When possible historical documents are the best way to study the past, and the Bible is the best preserved ancient historical document known. In fact archeologists in Israel often use the Bible as a guide.
So Creation Science can be defined as the study of history and the physical sciences in light of the Bible. The key is not confusing scientific evidence with a particular interpretation.
At least, that’s how I understand their arguments.