One of the biggest claims used by evolutionists against creationists is that we do not do real science. Now there are some for whom the quality of the research and presentations of evidence are poor, but it is unfair to judge all creationists by this standard. If you take any group of people engaged in an activity, you will find some who do the activity well and some who do not. The same thing goes for creationists, there are those of us who seek to do science as well as possible and then there are those whose research is of low quality.
One approach by which creationists do scientific research is to look at the Bible and use its contents to propose a theory that can be tested by future data. Another approach is to use existing data the form a testable theory that is consistent with the Bible. Unfortunately, however dealing with the past they're always going to be some conclusions based on existing data that may not be testable simply because we do not have access to the past.
The best examples of creation science and action have been cases of starting with the Bible and developing theories that can make testable predictions. Among those that have made successful predictions Dynamic Decay theory of planetary magnetic fields, Catastrophic plate tectonics, helium diffusion rates in zircon crystals, and Genetic evidence Eve and Noah with the date indicated by the Bible.
There is also the situation of reevaluating existing data that is accepted by mainstream science to see how the actual data fits into a creationist perspective a theory that makes testable predictions. An example that has produced successfully testing predictions is the Catastrophic Model of Martian Geology. Sometimes, this data while not producing a new falsifiable theory from creation science does support it. Among these are unfossilized dinosaur soft tissue including red blood cells and blood vessels.
There are also examples of data that are generally ignored by mainstream science but are still of high enough quality the revolutionists have to be in a state of denial to argue against them. This also includes human and dinosaur tracks in the same riverbed, as well as other evidence of humans and dinosaurs living together. In each of these cases, excuses are invented to try and make them fit old Earth models, but they are ignored as much as possible.
Unfortunately, there are also hoaxes that are out there that can be easy to fall for, even if you are trying to be careful. In such cases we need to be scientific about things including it has possible evidence while not summarily dismissing it. The best way to handle it is to make its existence known but cautiously. Also in such cases, there needs to be a willingness to admit to being wrong when sufficient evidence is presented to falsify a particular piece of evidence. This should be the case for any area of science.
In conclusion, yes, creation scientists do real science, but we are often hampered by funding and the possibility of hoaxes from external material. Unfortunately, mainstream sources are too quick to dismiss as hoaxes anything that goes against the Big Bang to man evolutionary story consequently proper research is seldom done making it hard to get at the truth in such cases. However, we can develop theories based on the Bible that can be tested. We can develop theories based on existing data from a Biblical perspective that can be tested. Creationists do real science; the problem is that it is relatively underfunded, and often shouted down rather than properly evaluated. The key to understanding the difference is that creationists do accept the possibility of God acting in supernatural ways as described in the Bible and creation is theory is frequently allowed for this possibility.
