It doesn’t matter to me if they want to ignore origins when it suits them, I’ll simply remind people they do include origins, when it suits them.
They get to define what they do? That’s curious, because other scientists don’t get to “define what they do”.
In fact anytime a creation scientist so much as criticizes evolution, they’re attacked and their work is labeled as religion or anti-science.
Their work is also defined the same way.
“Bridges didn’t start as they are now. The original bridge was probably a log. They evolved from that to logs lashed together and then rope bridges and later stone. The concrete and asphalt bridge down the road from me is a 20th century development. These various solutions have evolved to better solve the same problem.”
Not even close to the point. No matter how primitive, they were still designed to serve a purpose by some form of intelligence.
Perhaps if creation scientists had a competing theory for one of the evolutionary theories or some research to show, they would be taken seriously. Throwing rocks from the sidelines isn’t impressive.
The point about the bridges is that the design was produced by an evolutionary process. The evolutionary process is the result of an aggregate of intelligent minds working through time to solve a single problem.