Do you usually ignore the substance of a post to concentrate on a minor bit hyperbole?
"You state that you hope that some technique that you infer to have something to do with evolution,..."
I inferred nothing; the scientists who did the research stated that their techniques were based on evolutionary principles. Unfortunately the part of my post that demonstrated that got cut out the first time I posted it, so you might want to go back and reread that part. Essentially the evolutionary algorithm, as it applies to proteins, involves the random assembly or alteration of protein amino acid sequences and the subsequent selection of useful functions from useless ones. These researchers randomly cut, then recombined, homologous genes to form random sequences of amino acids, then selected out those sequences that showed improved and/or novel functions. The fact that this was done by people in a laboratory is irrelevant; it is still evolution.
"...will someday provide some useful function."
These techniques already have, but up until recently pharmaceutical companies have been slow to adopt these new techniques. As such, the benefits have not yet made it out to the public. But the benefits have already been developed, and more are sure to be developed soon.
"You then use this hope to 'put the lie to [present tense]' some assertion that creationists have made regarding the failure of evolution to contribute anything to modern society."
Are you denying that creationists have made this claim?
"I hope I am safe in assuming that this lapse was due to overzealousness on your part, and is not an indication of your inductive logic."
I may have chosen my words poorly, concentrating on future possible benefits than discussing the benefits already developed, but the implication in the creationist claim is that evolution has not, in fact cannot, contribute to modern society because it is false. The evolutionary techniques I have described, however much you may quibble over the timing of their benefits development, nonetheless have already achieved some benefits and will undoubtedly achieve more in the near future. In this sense they have definitely refuted the spirit of that creationist canard if not the letter.
Now, perhaps you would like to comment on the substance of my post.
Kevin L. O'Brien