Although I tend to agree with you, Walter, most of the time, and I don't disagree here, I'm a little puzzled at why you're making this distinction. When discuss

Although I tend to agree with you, Walter, most of the time, and I don't disagree here, I'm a little puzzled at why you're making this distinction. When discussing the evolution of humans, it was already a past event before any explanations were even possible, and creationism and evolution are both (in this context) offered as explanations for something that happened in the past, like the Tunguska Event. We can't really make predictions about Tunguska, just figure out what explanation is most likely. For creationism vs evolution of humans, predictions, except maybe about things that haven't been found in the fossil record but will be, don't seem involved. It's not faith vs. theory; it's plausibility of explanation vs. explanation or mechanism vs. mechanism. But if we're talking about something going forward, which excludes the origin of humans, evolution definitely makes predictions (and creationism has nothing to say, AFAIK). We can see evolution in action with our own eyes in those recent "evolution of drug resistant bacteria" videos, and we can definitely make predictions about that and run cool experiments, but creationism isn't a part of those conversations. It's only about where humans first came from. I'm not defending creationism (more generally: things that even a human isn't smart enough to do but yet WERE done, were done by being(s) smarter than humans) as an explanation, which I believe was only the most likely until we discovered a clearly superior and powerful explanation, but I'm a little puzzled at the "creationism is faith, evolution is theory" response. Evolution as explanation for the past seems like the same kind of thing as creationism, and creationism is only about explaining the past.