Quote:

In fact, just because we deal with natural explanations doesn't mean we specifically discount creation. It just means science would only deal with natural evidence for creation. Not that we immediately know creation didn't happen, simply because God isn't natural. In that case, we just can't scientifically know God.


Science is about explanations. But explaining something with a cause that "isn't natural and can not be explained" is no explanation at all.

Quote:

Why don't scientists tell people that the fossil record doesn't back up evolution? Why don't they tell them that they have no idea how life might have started on its own? Why don't they tell them that cosmic evolution doesn't happen, nor have we seen any evidence of it happening? Why don't they tell them we can't observe macroevolution?


Because scientists normally dislike lying.

Quote:

For instance, genetic similarities will exist in animals that should have nothing in common, but that's because evolution can do the EXACT SAME THING twice, or dozens of times.


Genetic similarities between species are in fact strong evidence of a common ancestor... and thus one of the big problems of creationism.

Quote:

So then let's imagine an alternate universe, where God created the universe. The people in the universe might not know it, but for the purpose of this demonstration we're omnipotent so we know it. In this universe they say, "Well, things can only have a natural explanation so we automatically weren't created."


You do not need an alternate universe. Just imagine a computer simulation that contains artifical, intelligent people. If they knew that they live in a world that was created by a programmer, would their scientists deny it? Of course not. The programmer is a natural, scientific explanation.

Creation per se is not unscientific. Only believing in creation despite otherwise evidence, or believing in a supernatural creation that can not be explained, is irrational and unscientific.