science has provided many benefits, but also weapons of mass destruction, so I guess it,s a mixed bag.

Yes, and science "provided" rat poison, dynamite, cyanide ampoules, Enigma machines, iPads... No, science bloody didn't! Science is neutral, and proudly so. What produces all those good and bad things is the application of science. Einstein lamented the misuse of his science in the making of nuclear weapons, but he knew that nuclear weapons were not his fault. So cut out that particularly nasty slice of dishonesty, if you don't mind. Examine your rotten conscience for once.

either way that has little to do with origins science, which by its very nature is not subject to the scientific method of observation, testability , repeatability except in a much more limited sense.

It is subject to exactly the same rigour as any other science. Your problem is that you do not understand "origins science" (Christ on a bloody bike), nor, actually, do you understand science at all.

it does of course suit the evolutionist to equate both aspects, as if one is unscientific if they don't evolutionism.

When you have a minute, perhaps you could entertain us all by telling us what the bloody hell you're on about.

stu objects to the faith of "medieval peasants" being taught to our children. well we object to fanciful ideas of evolutionism being taught as though it were proven scientific fact.

No-one teaches any scientific theory as if it was "proven fact". You know, we do try to tell you this, ad nauseam, but you don't hear us. One other thing: you have no evidence for the Godly myth-as-truth you teach to children, whether now or in medieval times. We have evidence for evolution by the truckload. Your dishonest attempt at equivalence will catch you out every time, you nasty little man.

creation, shimrod, was standard Christian teaching long before US politics.

We don't give a shit.