Creationism would not and could not exist without unquestioning faith in the accuracy of the unfounded and unconfirmable stories of the bible.
Evolutionary theory originated from well documented evidence that is available for all to analyse.
Q: Which of these origins has a basis in science and which does not?
Creationism has never predicted a single thing regarding as yet undoscovered evidence it would expect to find as a logical consequence of it's theories. All it can ever do is provide implausible alternatives for evidence once located by proper scientists.
Hundreds of fossil finds have been consistent with predictions by the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin. The mechanism for inheritance (genetics) has also been found to be completely in accordance with evolution by natural selection as proposed by Darwin who knew nothing of genetics. The genetic tree of life is absolutely in accordance with that predicted by evolution by means of natural selection and genetic mutation.
Q: Which theory provides random, dispirate and disjointed explanations for physical phenomenon once they are found and which theory has passed various potential refutations to produce an elegent all encompassing theory of the origins of species little changed from it's original?
Creationist conclusions are based on unfounded and uncorroborated biblical accounts of creation which their "scientists" then seek out evidence for.
Evolutionary conclusions are based on physical evidence and the details of the theory (the mechanism by which inherited change takes place) have changed as new physical evidence and scientific understanding has been gained.
Q: Is there a single creationist conclusion that is based solely on physical evidence with no initial reference to biblical creation? If it has no scientific conclusions how can it be considered science in any way shape or form?
It is worth noting that all creationists are Christian fundamentalists but not all atheists are scientists (in fact very very few). Frankly most scientists are happily going about their business relatively unaware that "nutjobs" like you and me take this whole thing seriously enough to spend our time debating it. THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY.
You live in a fantasy land where you are the persucuted minority with some sort of secret truth that the rest of the world, and scientists in particular, are conspiring to withold.
It is, indirectly, for sharing this paranoid view that the good professor has been ridiculed and rejected by his peers (along with his other various indiscretions that have already been pointed out)