[El Cid]

...Creationism can in no way withstand the rigor of scientific examination...

Which process do you think stands up better to the "rigor of scientific examination"?

Darwinism
m + e + t = abiogenesis

'Creationism'
m + e + t + i = abiogensis

where m = matter, e = energy, t = time, i = useful information

In the first case: a random mixture of elements plus unguided energy plus the magic elixir of time creates a process that defies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - and all observed phenomena,

In the 2nd case, a process that is consistent with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - but requires a one time event in the past (Creation) implemented by a Creator (the one who provided "i" in the second equation).

No, we aren't going to reproduce God in the laboratory. We aren't going to draw a circle around HIM - and have HIM kneel to our bidding. But once you accept the fact that God made the Creation (as HE said HE did) - you have a process that matches what we observe in nature.

The first process (Darwinism) defies science and observable law - regardless about how large we make 't'. In fact, the larger the 't', the less likely this process (as chemical processes seek equilibrium, and less usable energy - not upward complexity).
The second process adheres to observations -- after the one-time Creation event, thus it is a better scientific explanation than darwinism.

[Fichori]

'Creationism'
m + e + t + i = abiogensis
[excerpt]

According to Answers.com:

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis ( ā'bī-ō-jĕn'ĭ-sĭs)
n.

The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.

So abiogenesis is a process of development.

And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7

Adam was assembled and his engine started, all in less than a day.
(After all, God had to save time for all the other critters made on day 6)

To me, as a YEC, abiogenesis doesn't describe Creation very well because there was no development involved in Creation.

Not like you asked my opinion. ;)

[antiRepublicrat]

creates a process that defies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

I guess you didn't get the memo. The leading creationists have said not to use this gross misapplication of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to attack abiogenesis and evolution anymore.

[stormer]

Well, first of all, and I know you know this, what you call “Darwinism” (or correctly, the Theory of Evolution) makes no statement whatsoever regarding the origin of life.

Secondly, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only applicable in closed system, i.e. one not subject to the introduction of material and energy from outside sources - unlike Earth (but you probably know that as well).

The Theory of Evolution is supported by 150 years of research, countless peer reviewed scientific publications (in which people delight in finding the errors of others), and parsimonious scientific deduction. Creationism is, well, about as valid scientifically as astrology, necromancy, phrenology, of any of a thousand other metaphysical scams.

Sorry about your belief system - it's wrong.