The panel gives you a 2.75 out of 5. Valerie Bertinelli abstained from voting.

"First off, there's a difference between theoretical science and applied science." It's still the same universe. There's a difference between the Batmobile and a Toyota Camry, it has nothing to do with the roads. Creation science requires a different universe to exist that contradicts the gestalt of knowledge that both practical and theoretical science relies on for consistency. Here is some light reading on the nature of knowledge.
http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant-prolegomena.txt

The practical applications of the truth are the manipulation of the universe, saying something isn't practical if it's a search for truth is ridiculous.

In other words, science isn't your imagination, it's the universe killing the stupid parts of your imagination right in front of you like it was your son, Isaac, only no backsies.

Are you getting enough iron in your diet? Has there been an illness lately? Where are the foot notes?

It doesn't matter if it's in the same universe. The application of science is a question for people involved in the application of science; Kent is not so involved, therefore, he is not obliged to speculate on possible applications. Now you can feel free to object to creationism all you want, on whatever grounds you wish, but you cannot escape the fact that the question of whether creationism is pseudo-scientific bunk (it is) is separate from the question of whether Hovind needs to defend it by citing an application.

Besides, I've *given you* a practical application for Creation Science; an application which frankly, if true, would be a far sight more world-changing than the applications of some lame fish gene studies. So Dr Geneticist's underlying conceit - that creation science is "bad science" because it "has no practical applications" - is demonstrably false!

I can totally empathize with people who want to believe that Kent got totally PWNt over the course of this exchange, but the only point which Dr Geneticist successfully demonstrated was that Kent doesn't understand what an "application" is - which shouldn't surprise anyone, given that Kent's a bit dumb, and which doesn't matter, given that his field of expertise lies elsewhere.

For example, I've got two old prep school friends, both of whom work as scientists. One is a chemist who specializes in fluid viscosity; he works for the oil industry now, and all of his work has a ton of direct, practical applications, usually involving the construction of newer, better oil drills and pipelines. I bet if you asked him to cite an application of the work he's doing right now (well, not RIGHT now, he's probably watching sportsball at the moment, but you know what I mean), he could give you TWELVE in less than the time it took for me to type this sentence.

The second friend is a biologist. He's really interested in, fuck, I don't even remember, I think it's some kind of obscure Baltic sea sponges. He's interested in their reproductive habits. What practical applications will come from his research?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
MAYBE THIS SPONGE HOLDS THE SECRET TO A CURE FOR CANCER. But, no, probably not. It's just a fun subject for him, one which expands the scope of human knowledge for the sake of knowledge itself - and until some Big Pharma company decides it needs to copyright the genetic material of said sponge, that's about as "applied" as the subject's likely to get.

Science[nb 1] is a systematic enterprise that creates, builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

"Creation Science" is an oxymoron, since you can neither test nor predict anything about it.

How can we test whether or not god created the universe? And if he did, so what?

There have been countless "predictions" based on this or that scripture or belief rubbed out by some guys living in caves a thousand or more years ago and unsurprisingly, none of them have been effective in proving Jack Fucking Squat.