Creationism has not once set up PRESPECIFIED hypotheses and PROSPECTIVELY tested their hypotheses.
Example: Creationists disagree with data the demonstrate humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. They assert there are other "interpretations" to immunological cross reactivity experiments, genetic analyses, and fossil evidence. They point out the "problems", but then DO NOT attempt to PROSPECTIVELY refute these data with NEW experiments!
For example, they could gather serum from 15,000 humans (for statistical power) on various continents, and subject to pairwise, factorial, and serial immunological reactions. Assuming there were "artifacts" and "non-specificity" of reactions, this could be used to suggest a wide error margin for such experiments.
Then they could sequence the DNA of various primates using PRESPECIFIED statistical cutoffs and assumptions, and provide actual and real data.
Then they could re-examine the fossil skulls and bones, and using radiometric dating with positive and negative controls, along with electron spin resonance, physically demonstrate that samples are not >6000 years old.
Wait, but that costs money you say? Oh too bad. I guess all the faithful creationism followers just don't donate enough at Church to help out with Creationism research! OR, creationists don't have the ability to do hypothesis driven research. They just critisize and add NOTHING to Science!