I apologize for the misunderstanding. I was wrong. Joshua is obviously deeply invested in basic questions in science relevant to evolution in the areas of basic natural history, paleontology, systematics, biological diversity, speciation, natural selection, and biogeography entirely independent of any practical application or ideological agenda. He is simply interested in these sorts of questions on their intrinsic merits devoid of any ends either practical, philosophical, or theological. Better?
However, in my experience I have not seen that level of interest in basic science in these areas for creationists like Nathaniel Jeanson. They seem to me incapable of mustering any interest for the aspects of the natural world that are the subjects of evolutionary biology beyond employing those facets of nature to serve a religious narrative.
I think they value science primarily in a utilitarian sense and that spills over in how they mesh science with religion. I think utility as the primary goal of science is in fact a common perception of science that I think that permeates even some scientists outside of the creationist sphere, and many university administrators eager for biomedical and engineering funding.
Let’s just say I have yet to have any conversations about the distribution of island passerines in East Asia or the distribution of birds across Wallace’s line with creationists where it wasn’t discussed in reference to some Bible beliefs (I’ll narrow my criticism to YECs and other creationists who do not believe in evolution if that helps add clarity).
That is my experience. If there are creationists (see above caveats as to what that means) with deep abiding interests in natural history without any consideration of the Bible I would love to meet them.