Actually, Creationism, the foundational belief in a rational Creator, was the foundation of science. (You'll answer "no it's not!", but oh well)
Those cultures (Chinese, Muslims) which didn't have this foundational belief gave up on scientific advancements as futile because they had no expectation of consistency or rationality in nature.
A little reading would broaden your understanding, but, I know, you're married to evolution for some reason.
Belief that the universe obeys laws is aided by belief in a law giver, certainly. But science can only use those rational physical laws. It cannot use a priori insistence upon a particular time table as interpreted through revealed wisdom. Creationism is useless for making accurate predictions. Science is of tremendous use. Creationists oppose not just evolution, but also geology, physics, paleontology, astronomy and any other branch of science that refuses to stick with their useless precepts.
Excellent observation, MrB!!! Thank you!
What evolutionists seem not to wish to explain is how a purely "blind, random process" can generate consistency and rationality in nature.
Another way to put the question (as Plato did): If natural phenomena are solely the products of ceaseless change (i.e., "evolution"), then how can anything ever be anything at all?
tacticalogic, allmendream: Care to take a stab at that question?
It seems the fundamental duality of the Universe consists of that which does not change, and that which is capable of changing. Evolution entirely omits the former from its mindscape....
Which is why Darwin's theory appears to be so irrational to me. FWIW.
He's married to evolution because it allows his mind to go on permanent vacation, an autopilot rationalizing of his rebellion against his creator.
When it's broken down to it's very most basic buidling block, liberalism amounts to a rejection of God.