Creation Bits

There seems to be some disconnect between creationists and evolutionists in what level of proof creationists should come up with in order to include openly creationists conclusions in their work, as opposed to simply referring to them as "unsolved problems in theoretical biology" as Lambert did or other such walks around the issue. Evolutionists always say that the problem with creationism is that their ideas aren't good enough. After all, evolution is all the rage in peer-reviewed literature.

Anyway, my guess is that this is the bar set for creationists. I could be wrong, but from conversations with evolutionists I'm pretty sure its something like this:

1) since we all know that evolution happened, anything that says it didn't happen must be scientifically flawed
2) we are willing to rethink #1 if you can prove in your experiment evolution to be false. It has to be proof, however, not just doubts about evolution.
3) any external references used in #2 must be to peer-reviewed sources, which have had to go through this same process, therefore eliminating any previous work done by creationists
4) any reference to existing work done by evolutionary biologists cannot be used for support of creationism no matter what the data says or we will accuse you of quote mining.

Is this a valid bar to set for new ideas? That an idea must, without reference to any other work, be provable with a single experiment to the exclusion of any other possibility? Anyway, just thought I'd point that out.