To borrow a leaf from our creationist brethren on these threads, "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack."
Isn't the lack of evidence the evalutionist's problem?
Not to make this a crevo thread, but have you actually read 1 percent of the mountains of biological literature out there on the subject? Not creationist or religious tracts, by the way, but actual scientific work? Probably not. I like the subject and I find it difficult at times to get past the abstract of a paper and into the actual meat and potatos of the work done. However, it can be rewarding. On the other hand, there are the geared-for-the-layman science magazines that usually (not always) do a good job of distilling the work into every-day speak.
I'd daresay, if you actually took the time to study this stuff, you'd come away thinking the standard creationist arguments sound horribly childish.
Now, as for an actual "Theory of Creationism" that could be testable, that would be wonderful and give researchers some direction and something to sink their collective teeth into. Unfortunately, nothing has come along the pike that even purports to be testable, but one can always hold out hope.