Creationism should not be dignified with the label: “Creation Science”.  How can I say such a thing?  Because "creationists’ hypotheses" do not involve the advancement of "creationism".  Shouldn't a branch of science have some theories?  You'd think so.  But creationism has no theories.  A theory is a scientific explanation of a physical phenomenon or event-- an explanation that makes specific predictions, that is substantiated by a wealth of physical evidence and experiments, the results of which must be duplicable by a third party, and must be potentially falsifiable.

For example, nowhere in creationist literature will you find the sentence: "The explanation of the Creation Scenario is..."  Nor will you find the phrase: "The Creator (or Intelligent Designer) used the following creative processes and methods in making living organisms..."  Nor will you ever hear a creationist say the following: "We have just unearthed evidence that reveals clues as to the method by which the Creator put living organisms on this planet."  They offer no explanations of how it was done. They have found no physical evidence which can shed any light on this problem.  Very simply, creationism is not a part of science. Why doesn't creationism offer evidence in support of their notions?  Why should they?  They don't need proof-- their idea of creation is already fully supported in the Book of Genesis. They don't offer creationism to convince bible-believing Christians... those are people who don't need convincing.  Creationism is used for an entirely different purpose.  I'll get to that in a minute.

Science is not a body of knowledge.  It is a process-- a process of investigation that does not assume it's own infallibility. It is a process that has built in error correction, and looks for its own mistakes.  But Creationism, by its own admission, is infallible-- incapable of making an error.
 

"It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture.  There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of science can contradict the Bible." -Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey

Hence, creationism is not science.

An important part of the scientific method is the rejection or modification of a theory if the theory does not fit the observed facts.  But in creationism, it is the other way around. If the facts don't fit the theory, then deny the facts, and curse the finder. Find some way to reject the data, at all costs.
 

"But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it!  No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."  Dr. Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science  (1970) p.32-33

Thus, creationism is not science.

Science starts with observations.  From the observations may come Scientific Laws, or detailed descriptions of physical phenomena. But science goes further than that. If a scientist can see connections, patterns and regularity, an hypothesis can be formulated to explain the observations.  If enough data is gathered that supports the hypothesis, and experiments confirm the idea, and no contrary observations can be found, a scientific theory is put forward.  Theories are the goal, the pinnacle, of science.  But in creationism, the observations don't come first--they don't even count at all. Creationism starts with the bible, a bunch of words printed on paper, and will not deviate from what is written. All data, observations and conclusions must conform with their interpretation of the bible, or be rejected out of hand.
 

"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model." - Henry Morris President, Institute for Creation Research

As you can see, creationism is not science.

Scientists are devoted to seeking out the truth, no matter where it may be, even if the conclusion points away from their original idea. They are open to the possibility that their theory might be wrong.  But in creationism, they are absolutely opposed to the notion that they might be, in the slightest degree, wrong in their conclusions. Creationists even agree to sign a "Statement of Beliefs" when joining the Creation Research Society, wherein they declare that they believe the literal truth of the bible, and nothing on earth, no data, no evidence, no matter how solid, could ever make them doubt that their conclusion is the correct one. Their faith becomes their proof.  For them to doubt their doctrines would be harmful to their chances of salvation. If you don't believe this, just ask a creationist this question:

"What would make you doubt that creationism is true? What scientific proof, evidence or observation could change your mind?"

The answer (if they even answer at all... the most common reply is a deafening silence) is "Nothing could."  To creationists, a model of the origin and diversity of life must have no areas of uncertainty or incompleteness.  An explanation of origins that has an admission of uncertainty, one that says "We don't know that yet", is, in their opinion, worse than worthless.  They would rather cling to their set of unchanging dogmas, their 'Rock', even after science has long proven its incorrectness.

So you see, creationism is not science.

They are not interested in discovering the truth, because they believe they already have it in a book. Why investigate when you already know? Their purpose is to calm and placate their believers, and influence school boards and legislators into removing evolution from our public school system.

Creationism exclusively concerns itself with the efforts to refute evolution.  Creationism should be renamed to "anti-evolutionism".  It simply is not the offering of Biblical Creation as science.  All creationism debates and lectures are along the lines of: “Come and hear how we've discovered that evolution couldn't have happened!”

But their refutations are a nonsense.  Their claims are based on misconceptions, poor science, outdated information and discredited data, scripture, faulty logic, lies, hearsay-- all driven by a need to protect their dogma.  Consider how much they have to lose, if they insist on sticking to biblical literalism.  For the biblical literalist, if evolution is true, then there was no historical Adam and Eve.  If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin.  If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved.  If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion.  As you can see, they will fight tooth and nail, to the bitter end, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.  Creationism is like a wild, cornered animal that has no way out, clawing and snapping at everything it can.

Do creationists try to prove their version of origins to evolutionists?  You'd think that they would.  But they don't.  They realize that, unlike themselves, scientists won't accept the bible in lieu of physical evidence of a special creation. What they try to do instead is knock holes in evolution, to make us see the error of our ways, and to convince the public that all scientific attempts at understanding the origin of life are pointless, and in the end there can be only one explanation.  This is exactly their tactic.  They throw up rebuttals as fast as they can, on every point they can, in order to cause doubt and confusion, even if the “refutations” are wildly invalid.  (For example, consider creationist Duane Gish’s remark that for some sections of DNA, human genes are more closely related to frogs than to chimpanzees.  After being pressed for several years for evidence of this claim, he was finally cornered in a live debate and admitted that he had none, and he said made the claim out of a misunderstanding. Maybe.  But he saw fit to let the statement stand for years, and would have continued using it indefinitely had he not been pressed into recanting it.)

I have even had creationists come out and admit to me that they had made a statement simply to cause doubt among the public.

Why do they do all this?  To keep evolution out of the public school system at all costs.   And guess what?  They are winning on that front.  The controversy and confusion have scared school administrators and teachers from touching on the subject.  But the tide is turning.

But, in the end, creationism is a good and useful thing.  It has provided the motivation for evolutionists to amass a great wealth of knowledge in support of evolution.  In the end, creationism has in fact strengthened evolution.

However, the tactics of evolution proponents needs to change.  We need to hold the creationists' feet to the fire, and turn the tables, and switch to attack instead of defense.  We must press creationists to offer theories, predictions, observations, and verifiable evidence in support of their claims.  In PUBLIC and in the MEDIA.  That is the way to pull them into the light, so that people may see them, their agenda and their tactics for what they are.

But, isn't creationism science in some sense?

Here is just one example of why creationism is NOT SCIENCE, why it should be ABSOLUTELY EXCLUDED from public science classrooms, and why creationism avoids offering testable theories.

The Great Flood is a cornerstone of creationism. It provides creationists with accounts for the geological strata and the presence of fossils. There are MANY problems with accepting this event as a historical occurrence, but I won't address those here. Here is a URL explaining why the Global Flood never happened.

But consider this example as a reason for keeping creationism out: There is not enough water on the earth to cover the land as it is specified in the flood hypothesis. It would take several times the earth's water supply (even with the polar ice caps melted) to cover all the world's mountains. Where did all the water come from, and where did it all go?

Here is another big reason why creationism is not science:
The only way to explain the appearance and disappearance of all the water is to invoke the power of God. YOU CAN'T GET AWAY FROM IT. And that's just fine as a matter of faith. But it is not science in any sense. In science, one must be prohibited from making appeals to divine intervention. Miracles are not allowed for science to remain science. Miracles are not testable, verifiable, or falsifiable. They do not conform to any laws of nature, they are not repeatable, or even understandable. Science can never confirm them. They are not a matter for science. Science looks for regular patterns in nature for its explanations. Once you have used a miracle as an explanation, you have left the realm of science, and waved the magic wand of religion.

Belief in miracles is a matter for church and home. BUT THAT'S WHERE IT BELONGS. NOT in PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

No creationism with our evolution. No witchcraft with our medicine. No astral projection with our aviation. No astrology with our astrophysics. No palm reading with our psychology. NOT IN SCHOOLS, at least.