Well I do have a framework that I view such things, I outline it all the time.
Science is of use in terms of applications and discovery.
Creationism is useless.
Experience, evidence, and history all support my framework. There is no evidence yet presented that has made me even question it, although I am open to such.
Until then -
science = of use.
creationism = useless.
Note that you use the term “science” and not evolution.
Whether you realize it or not, there’s a reason you did that.
You may think I’m about to say “evolution isn’t science.” Nope.
I’m going to say this: The vast majority of scientific history is a period where virtually every working scientist, including and especially some of the greatest names in scientific history, believed the world had been created by a God or gods. So it can’t be said evolutionism is necessary for scientific discovery, or we wouldn’t have had Newton’s laws or Mendel’s charts.
In short, belief in creation impedes science not at all.
You are conflating terms. The Christian equivalent of science is.... drum roll.... science.
The Christian equivalent of evolution is creationism.
To compare science to creationism is ridiculous and makes you look ridiculous.
If you want to compare creation accounts, by all means do so, but this single minded mission of yours to dis Christians and creationists by disingenuously comparing two different things is, well disingenuous.
Evolution is a philosophical construct to describe events seen with the exclusion of God built in. Evolution does not equate to science because the ToE is not science. It’s extrapolation of data based on philosophical constructs to explain life on this planet without the need of God. It’s essentially the creation account of the atheist and secular humanist, therefore placing it solidly in the philosophy camp.