Wow I can't believe that this question hasn't been responded to yet. Here are some resources for that info. Answersingenesis.org and www.icr.org are good starting places.

Creationism doesn't require - much less rely on - evidence. The method to that madness is faith and nothing but faith

There is none, certainly no peer-reviewed theories. The only argument they have is that "Other theories to Evolution should be looked at." In some sense there correct but the other theories need to go through the same rigourous testing that Evolution has went through to become a theory. For over 150 years Evolution has stood the time and is still a theory (theory being the highest conclusion in science). If Creationism got into science books without going through the same way Evolution went through (or any theory for that matter), then that would be an insult to the WHOLE science community and to human intelligence as a whole. Creationism is a joke and not even a funny one at that. Religion should stick to Religion and stay away for pseudo-science. I believe Creationism does more harm to religion than good, because it makes Religion look desperate to keep up with modern times and its not doing a good job.

Straight from a fundy's mouth: "Explain how in 100 years of science attempting to dis-prove the existence of GOD, Christianity still grows... For nearly two thousand years the scriptures of the Holy Bible have been disected and discredited. Yet people still believe. Like an anvil surviving many hammers. Beaten but it's heart still beating, a river of life continues to flow from it. Leaving in the disagreements between fellow believers in scripture and the decisions against the direction given, GOD seems to succeed in spite of us." http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/random.aspx?archive=1

Because God said so and you can't argue with God.

It seems like many creationists are evolving into new agists, who like to combine theories of creation and evolution. This way they can use both Bible verses and scientific evidence to support the debate de jour. I just cannot decide if they should be called "crevolutionists" or "evolationists".

First of all what is the definition of science? Science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world." If you say that creationism does not completely fit into that category, you would be correct. Creationism is not science in the truest sense of the word. On the other hand, when you look at evolution, most of it doesn't fit into the category of true science either. Much of it cannot be proven by scientific methods and is based upon speculation, guess-work, opinion, and rearranged rhetoric. Consider the following. Many educated people accept the theory of evolution. But is it true? Curiously enough, our existence as human beings is one of the best arguments against it. According to evolutionary theory, the traits that offer the greatest advantage for survival are passed from generation to generation. Yet human reproduction itself argues powerfully against this fundamental premise of evolution. If human beings are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can't we? If evolution is true, what went wrong? Let's take it a step further. If human beings are the result of evolution continually reinforcing characteristics that offer a survival advantage while eliminating those that hinder perpetuation, how can we explain a human infant? Among thousands of species the newly born (or newly hatched) are capable of survival within a matter of days or, in some cases, only minutes. Many never even see their parents. Yet a human infant is utterly helpless—not for days but for up to several years after birth. A human baby is reliant on adults for the nourishment, shelter and care he or she needs to survive. Meanwhile, caring for that helpless infant is a distinct survival disadvantage for adults, since giving of their time and energy lessens their own prospects for survival. If evolution is true and humanity is the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, why does a process as basic as human reproduction fly in the face of everything that evolution holds true? Regrettably, such obvious flaws in the theory are too often overlooked. In light of the above, what really makes more sense, evolution or creation? I'm sure that DR and vitriol-filled comments will follow. They usually do when something can't be explained away or a precious theory is questioned

hehehe creationists are hilarious

Intelligent design has it's roots in science and isn't necessarily religious in nature. The intellectual roots of intelligent design theory are varied. Plato and Aristotle both articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science. Indeed, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. During the past decade, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity in the natural world. Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action. Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences. It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design begins with observations about the types of information produced by intelligent agents. Even the atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins says that intuitively, "[b]iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Darwinists believe natural selection did the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role." Intelligent design implies that life is here as a result of the purposeful action of an intelligent designer, standing in contrast to Darwinian evolution, which postulates that life exists due to the chance, purposeless, blind forces of nature. Intelligent Design through the Scientific Method: The Scientific Method i. Observation: The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design. ii. Hypothesis: If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects. iii. Experiment: We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly. iv. Conclusion: Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.

Creationaism is a model. Evolution is a model. Both are false, by definition, since models are not the thing they model ("Ceci n'est pas une pipe") in the same sense that a map is not the thing it maps. The question, then, is one of utility in which we ask model is more useful to us. For me, saying "God dunnit" isn't a very useful model, so I discard it in favour of a model which has practical applications, evolution. Creationism isn't a science, but it is a scientific model. A bad one.

How else would you explain George W. Bush? You don't think he evolved do you? If he wasn't 'created' I don't know what/who was!

Creation is not a science... It is a belief on how everything began... With that being said, I believe you take all observable evidence and see if what you believe goes with it... But it is not a science...