To Tosta Dojen:
In your writeup, you take issue with "the knee-jerk reaction to creationism as something that cannot possibly be scientific". You then go on to state that "creationism can be held as a worldview with no supporting evidence".
Many philosophers of science would say (following Hempel; Popper goes even further, and as JerboaKolinowski rightly insists requires falsifiability by the possibility of contradictory evidence) that a worldview with no supporting evidence is ipso facto not scientific. It would help your position if you could explain in what sense you claim something is "scientific" which has no supporting evidence. Also, please note that the converse assertion is not true: something with supporting evidence might still not be scientific (e.g. the folkloric correlation between Yom Kippur in Jerusalem and hotter weather).
In actual point of fact, you can generate reams of supporting evidence for creationism. Say I assert that the world was created (say) 5761 years ago (at the time of writing of the original writeup), but with the appearance of much greater age (complete with oil, coal, fossil record, consistent astrophysics, and other facts indicating a much greater age). Clearly, there is much supporting evidence: all the appearances match a much greater age, which fits my assertion. But it's still not scientific: there is no evidence for the veracity of the most important part of my assertion (which too matches my assertion -- I specifically state that all facts point to a much greater age!). Popper and Popperians could rest at this early stage: such a theory would not be falsifiable. If, for example, my wife pointed out I'd been keeping 5763 year old cottage cheese at the bottom of our fridge, I could still claim that the world had also been created with what appeared to be 2 year old cottage, which had deteriorated slightly in the meantime...
But followers of Hempel are willing to accept more things as scientific than Popper, or at least they have a less stringent set of requirements. Accordingly, we have to go on a bit further to show the oxymoronicity of "Creation science".
In the case of "the world was created 5761 years ago with evidence consistent with earlier creation", it is by no means the simplest thesis consistent with these facts. It requires me to believe in all of modern science (so as to be able to interpret all signs as pointing to a much older world) AND in the specific claim of misleading evidence. This is ad hoccery of the worst kind, and flunks Occam's razor. Hempelians require explanation of all relevant data, but also the simplest explanation of all relevant data.
Finally, please note that many things are not scientific that could be claimed true. Popperians might say this of mathematical truth: despite claims on the lines of 1 cloud + 1 cloud = 1 cloud, which do nothing to contradict mathematics in general and 1+1=2 in particular, 1+1=2 has no possibility for falsifying evidence. Neither does modus ponens. Hegelians might talk of mathematics as being scientific (though I don't). But statements such as "If 1+1=3, then I'm green" are true, though unscientific due to lacking supporting evidence.
"Creation Science" specifically tries to claim scientific status, which implies having to produce supporting evidence, a coherent explanation for observations, and simplicity of the type required by Occam's razor. And without supporting evidence there is no science.
So one might hold Creationism as a worldview. I believe that to do so is a grave mistake, that on the one hand prevents us from properly investigating the world we find around us, and on the other hand forces us to accept many very complex constructs. But it is never a scientific belief.
If one believes in an omnipotent deity, and if in addition one goes by one of several religious beliefs which require it, then one may be forced to accept Creationism into one's worldview. Note that, by accepting Creationism as part of a larger system, the cost of accepting such very complex constructs may be lessened. In effect, one is "amortizing" the costs of belief in Creationism over other ("less expensive") beliefs, maybe a particular moral code, some aspect of the value of human life, or perhaps better chances of avoiding some vengeful God. But it always goes in this direction: because X believes in God and some sect's theology, X accepts their cosmology which includes Creationism. Just don't try to push the theology from the cosmology on scientific grounds: it doesn't work that way.