Absurd in the highest degree

Carl supplied me a link to the theory of evolution which has a few short videos regarding the theory of evolution. Since I currently have computer problems I was unable to watch the videos, but did read the accompanying article (found here http://www.AllAboutScience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm)

Some things to note:

1) For a web site called “All about science” it seems rather heavily slanted towards creationism, which is not a science at all. Science proposes models about the nature of reality, and produces predictions which we can use to test these models against. The use of such things as double blind tests, control groups, and statistical analysis sift out personal bias and random chance, leaving us with bare data. This data will either support the original notion, or discredit it. Creation science make NO predictions which we can use to test its authenticity.

2) The article makes quotes Darwin in the following way

“…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.”

Thus, Darwin conceded that,

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
— Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

What the article neglects is Darwin’s next paragraph, where he explains the objection:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.”
— Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

This is GOOD science. Darwin lists a number of potential problems with his theory, and addresses each in turn explaining them. In other words, Darwin admits there are ways in which his theory might be proved wrong.

Where is the “creation science” equivalent? How could “creation science” be proved wrong? In what way is “creation science” falsifiable?