Creation theory does predict micro-evolution.
This is false. Creation theory does not predict micro-evolution. The fact that you can interpret micro-evolution as being consistent with creation does not mean it predicted it. Predictions are more concrete:
Evolution predicted that DNA within related animals would be similar even before DNA was discovered! If DNA had no hierarchical pattern between species, evolution would have been falsified.
How would Creation be falsified if micro-evolution did not happen? It wouldn't, thus creation does not predict micro-evolution. The main problem with creation is that it predicts nothing and is not falsifiable. Therefore it is pretty much worthless as a theory and teaches us nothing about our biology. It does not add to our body of knowledge. Worse, it hinders the progress of knowledge in biology and other fields.
rem, you seem to admit that creation is at least possible on this level.
Yes, I agree that creation is at least possible at this level, but at this point I don't believe it is probable. The reason is that there is no unambiguous evidence of an intelligent creator or creators. With such lack of evidence I have two choices:
1) An uncaused or always existing being or beings created the universe and ultimately life through natural laws
2) The universe is uncaused or always existed and life formed through natural laws
Option one posits an extra being with no evidence, thus logically it is less probable because it just makes the problem more complex. This is not to say that it is not true - only that logically it is less likely to be true than number two is.
In fact since self-replication is so complex it would appear that creation should be considered as the preferred explanation.
Creation does not adequately explain the complexity of self replication because all it does is add an even more complex entity to the equation. There is no evidence that complex self replication is impossible through natural laws. It is theoretically possible, though it has not been observed in practice. Note, though, that this is still an immature field of study.
Again, please do not interpret what I'm saying as evidence for abiogenesis. I'm just saying that both the creation model and the abiogenesis model seem to be at least theoretically possible. Logically, though as explained above, the abiogenesis model is more probable. I'm not asking anyone to take this as gospel, though. The study of the origin of life is not nearly on the same level of confidence as evolutionary theory.
Thus a prediction of creation seems to be supported by the evidence.
Creation does not predict that self replication is complex. Simple to moderate self replication would not falsify creation.
Can you find a way to falsify creation? If you can, then you should be able to provide an unambiguous prediction that creation theory makes. If creation theory cannot be falsified or does not make any meaningful predictions, then, again, it is worthless and adds nothing to the scientific body of knowledge. It does not help us cure and understand diseases, make vaccines, perform epidemiological studies, help us learn to best preserve life forms through conservation, aid in genetic engineering, etc. etc. etc. Can you name one field of study that creation theory itself has had an unambiguous, positive impact in broadening and deepening our scientific knowledge base?