So, I pondered jumping in. I hummed and hawed. You will notice that I upvoted your post. I did so on the merits that is was well articulated post and seemed to me that you put a lot of time and effort into it. And, you must know that this is a very decisive topic. Let me state this up front, I'm a Secular Humanist and my family and I are all scientists (ML/AI and Data for me and others are in bio and physics.)

I wrote this huge comment on how the philosophy of science actually strengthens science by forcing critical thinking and constantly forces the challenging of the status quo. I went on to rant about Ken Ham putting a creationist square peg in to a scientific round hole to make creationism work. To wit, all that money spent by the ICR on the RATE project only to have no non-affiliated substantiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RATE_project).

I was scouring your post for minutia ammunition for arguments and then I reread this statement…

The fallacy I see many Christians in apologetics engaged in, is that we are creationists because the "evidence suggests this is so". No, we are creationists because someone told us to be creationists. The source of this belief might be a friend, a relative, God, or what we have read from scripture. We are generally not creationists because we looked at all the physical science information…"

And then at the end of your post this…

It is this type of rigor that creationists need to prepare themselves for in order to adequately argue against existing false viewpoints in the scientific community. To do this properly, you must be more intelligent/knowledgeable than the people you are arguing against.

I deleted my whole comment. I was floored and wrong. I AGREE!

Here's the gist of it. I totally disagree with the claim that evolution is unproven conjecture. The therory of evolution is not a hypothesis. That being said under the philosphy of science everything is questionable (this does not mean it is questioned, ergo, it is disproven.) However, questioning goes both ways. I do agree that if creationists want to present the creationism hypothesis from a scientific platform then the ducks had best be in a row. The data had better be able to withstand scientific scrutiny, criticism and have other non- affiliated scientists substantiate it in order to validate creationist claims.

I wanted to leave off with one of my favorite quotes by Professor Richard Feynman:

I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live, not knowing, than to have answers which might be wrong.

Until then, be well.