[Non-Sequitur]

Shouldn't the expectation be that they bring evidence for creationism? This is not an either/or scenario. Bringing evidence that evolution may be flawed does not mean any other single theory is right by default. The goal should be demonstrating your theory is correct based on evidence and let it stand on that.

[xenophiles]

Shouldn't the expectation be that they bring evidence for creationism [not just against evolution]?... The goal should be demonstrating your theory is correct based on evidence and let it stand on that.

I respectfully disagree. Strong evidence against evolution (such as an anachronistic fossil, an anomalous genome or a chimera that violated the "tree of life" scheme) would be a tremendously important discovery, whether or not anyone had a coherent alternative theory to explain it. And besides, as I'm sure you realize, there can be no such thing as evidence for a "theory" that makes no predictions.

[metmom]

Shouldn't the expectation be that they bring evidence for creationism?

People try, but it gets rejected by the "scientific" community off hand. Besides, theories are supposed to be disproved. Have the evos disproved creation?

This is an interesting little tidbit...

There's this curious little molecule that's rather important in the body. It's called *laminin* and has a very interesting shape....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminin

Shaped like a cross. Imagine that....