If its "valid" then its "just" science??

Irony of that statement:

Someone on tweeter wanted to discount "creation science".  And their reply was first to use expletives, then followed that by saying that if its valid then its just science otherwise its only "creationism."  Now I find this ironic.

Explanation:

I find this ironic because the academic classroom has become a place of propaganda and brainwashing the likes I've never seen since WWII.  

1.   I have lived long enough that in the academic classroom they actually taught science for science.  Instructing students on "scientific method" and proving or disproving something.  I've seen one theory pushed out, and then taught as a theory that had "evidence" but could not be proven.  I have seen that move to "scientific theory" which is just a play on words, to mean that they dropped the "proving" part, and try and brainwash students to think that this is a high form in science, a unproven theory, and that somehow all evidence should be interpreted through this theory.
2.   In science all theory's should be tested.  This is ironic because, if you erased evolution from academic science, then used the scientific method on evolution, the theory would in-fact implode.  So, although this individual on tweeter wants to claim that if its "valid", it is just science, he/she would do just that and erase evolution from everything science because it cannot be proven valid.  
3. Evolution to be true says [mutations start transitional forms, and there are thousands of transitional forms to go from one kind to another kind].  However, any micro . geneticist (practicing the science and not an academic) will tell you that when you have more than two amoralities in the chromosomes then this can produce mental retardation, and beyond that will produce death or sterility, yet for the mutations needed for evolution are in the hundreds:  i.e., impossible.  
4. Evolution to be true says [survival of the fittest], which by itself is a true statement, however when looked at in evolution compared to transitional forms...again a problem:  how can the original kind and ending kind be still here but all of the thousands of transitional forms not?  especially when the geneticist will tell you that mutations are weak and not strong.....big problem....so again impossible.
5. If you look in other areas as well like fossil records, and earths core, granite, what we can observe today, what we can prove happened in the past and what can be reproduced we start to see the irony in trying to make evolution foundational to science, as well as the irony of the tweet, again if its "valid", then they would erase evolution from science.

Conclusion:

It is truly ironic, because if you would look at the evidence and use the scientific method, they would if they were honest with themselves have to conclude that evolution is invalid.  Whether they want to accept creation or intelligent design, they would have to accept that the evidence points to  those.  That used to be called academic honesty.

So, is "creationism" science?  Well, if the standard is it has to be "valid", then yes creationism is science.