With that definition, creationism is not science. Yet, neither is macroevolution. If the argument never gets to that level, again free inquiry is stifled. To Believe in the Miracle of Evolution. Suppose evolutionists abandoned the above three problem areas and debated creationists on equal terms.
Microevolution leading to macroevolution, discussed earlier, is one example.
The role of fossils as transitional forms is speculative at best in comparison with documented, trackable microevolution. Also problematic is concluding from molecular biology that there is a common ancestry for all organisms. It does not follow that because all life shares a common biochemical basis, that relationship was brought about through evolution. In engineering this type of creative diversity from the same basic building blocks is good design, the result of a designer. Finally, it does not follow that because religion was wrong about Galileo, it is in error about creationism.