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.

Sure, I accept that the Bible has some historical accuracy. I tend to suspect that Jesus was historical--I put my confidence in that around the same as my confidence that Socrates was historical. That still doesn't mean that every word of the Bible is accurate. I accept that Osman, founder of the Ottoman Empire, was historical. Still the stories of his rise to power include something like riding on a fire-winged falcon and I don't think those are accurate. All historical texts should be taken as one potential source of information and misinformation. They may misinform intentionally or not.

So the Bible is not conclusive proof of resurrection. We can debate the point more extensively if you want to get down to it. But given that I have never personally witnessed any supernatural event, it would seem rather suspicious if were happening all over the universe just not the part that I happen to be observing. So I assign claims of the supernatural a very low probability, which I think is rational, and would only believe them upon very strong evidence. Very strong evidence would have to be on par with something like: Being able to reproduce them in a controlled and carefully observed and measured environment. Basically, it would have to rise to the level of scientific evidence.

I don't trust Russian news, I don't trust most Muslim religious institutions, and I could go on, but in general: I don't trust most sources that exist to defend a conclusion or interest. I don't trust sources that rarely or never admit mistake. I don't trust sources that attempt to use emotional manipulation and intimidation to argue their points. There are many reasons to not rationally trust a source, and random creationist sources check many of those boxes. If you want to actually make an argument for why one should trust this particular site, go ahead. But just making accusations of bias are pretty inert and ironical, and make me distrust you in the process.

Evolution does make predictions which have been observed. For instance it predicts that similar organisms will be observed in a similar region at similar geological strata--which we discovered and continue to discover. It predicts that older species, dated by various means like historiography or radiometric dating, or other means, will be discovered at deeper strata--which we discover. It predicts that there will be a natural carrier for genes--which we discovered to be DNA. It predicts that the DNA which is shared between family members will be similar to the DNA to found in species that are biologically similar--which we found and continue to find. It predicts that groups which are reproductively isolated will over generations become genetically distinct to the extent that we observe morphological and reproductive differences even to the point of becoming reproductively incompatible and therefore different species--which we observe. There is apparently mitochondrial DNA evidence which is also extremely compelling, but I don't know enough genetics to fully grok what that's about. I'm currently studying Physics and will hopefully soon study Chem and after that Bio. Right now I'm on Electricity and Magnetism and progress is going fairly swift, but I'll let you know when I've learned enough to make the case from mitochondrial DNA.