OK. I'll bite on this. As @Boris B knows, I have problems with both the biblical creation story and evolution. As far as humans go, I currently believe that the Sumerian texts are more accurate than the canonical Bible or the Torah. I think humans were "created" in the sense that we were genetically engineered by beings who we would consider "gods" because they were far more technologically advanced than we are even today. Where are these gods now? I honestly cannot answer that. At least not definitively. I can speculate based upon biblical evidence and gnostic lore that they fled to the mountains during the cataclysm that occurred 13,000 years ago. This is also supported by the fact that the Greek pantheon, among others, was said to be at the top of Mount Olympus. It is also supported by the fact that Moses met "God" (I have strong reason to believe that it was actually Enlil) on Mount Sinai.

I also have issues with evolution. Except for ring species and a select few other instances, there is very little evidence of one species evolving into another one. Sharks have always been sharks. Tigers have always been tigers. Jellyfish have always been jellyfish. Algae haveaalways been algae. I also believe, despite scant evidence to the contrary, that whales have always been whales. I'm not buying that whales and hippos share a common ancestor. I know that the fossil record only represents twenty percent of all the species that ever existed at best. Still, based on what we know, there is little definitive evidence that one species evolves into another completely different one.

Needless to say, this presents a problem. If all of the more than a millions different species of flora and fauna weren't created and they they didn't evolve, how did they get here? Even if you take something like Lloyd Pye's Intervention Theory, the animals and such had to come from somewhere. So, that leaves the question unanswered.

Then, Joseph Sparrow, let us get back to the question: science or not.

As I described, it is about the methods that are being used.

Scientists are suggesting models how single cellular organisms may have evolved to multiple cell organisms and they do suggest and execute experiments to validate their models.

They do not just claim they are right.

The opposite is the case: the openly admit, that their models are definitely never perfect and may even be completely wrong.

That's why they do so many experiments.

There may be people who just claim: evolution happened and it happened this or that way.

That is indeed not science.

Science is: applying scientific methods to find out what happened and happens.

It is only remotely conected to the categories wrong and right.
In fact: science explicitly includes the possibility of a model being wrong.
It is all about probability and searching and applying methods to discover if one may be proven wrong or right.

That's what creationism simply does not do.

That says nothing about being wrong or right, only about science or not.

Or shorter: scientists at least attempt to find out how single cell organisms may have evolved into multiple cell organisms and prove their models as being right, or flawed, or outright wrong.

Creationism does not apply those methods.

That may be, Joseph Sparrow.

Scientists may be wrong.

They may continuously fail.

In fact: the serious ones amongst scientists assume and openly admit that they can only ever come up with incomplete and flawed knowledge.

Still they get remarkable results.
We would not be able to comunicate over the Internet without science.
We would be less healthy.

On the other hand: there would not be nuclear bombs without science.

For some time scientists supported and attempted to prove racism (though racism did never need science).

Science is performed within the society and heavily influenced by many factors that do not only restrict knowledge but even support thoughts and ideas that are outright wrong.
However, science can, did and does gather knowledge, that, when applied, turns out to be valuable.

Obviously that is not sufficient.

Science has its limits.

Human society requires and reproduces more than science.

But then, the question was, whether or not creationism is science.

If I get you right we agree: it is not.

And your view is: science gives wrong answers about the question how the world, including us, arose whilst creationism gives valid answers.

I respect that view.
There are arguments in favour of it which I do not refuse as being dumb.

That does not mean I share that view.

It is just a matter we will not be able to agree about and I don't think we have to.

You don't have to share my view and I not yours.