OK, this gets me a little ticked. Not a you personally Sam but the statement that science supports creationism is totally false. Science supports evolution.
I'll say this again .... If science supported creationism most of the scientists would hold that model up as the one to follow. However, this is not the case. Not even close. This goes especially Young Earth Creationism.
I could site a great many web sites, books, articles from astronomers, chemists, biologist, anthropologists, physicists and geologists but the fact remains that a clear majority believe that the universe is many billions of years old because of the evidence that supports it.
If you wanted to argue creationism from a scientific standpoint and say that god started the universe billions of years ago fine. Science doesn't claim to know what started it. Though the question to be asked is what was god doing for the billions of years before he created earth? (Rhetorical question, this doesn't need to be answered) And even then, the stories of the bible on world-wide events don't hold up with the evidence that we have found. Evolution on the other hand holds up. If it didn't we would see some other model pop up to explain things better. However, what we see instead are modifications or tweaks on the broad evolutionary theory as we get more info. There has been nothing that has brought the evolutionary theory crumbling to the ground.
You could argue evolution by intelligent design but then why were we created with the ability to contract awful diseases or birth defects? Here we find a paradox (at least in my head):
If we were created intelligently to contract awful diseases or have birth defects then what does that say about god?
If we were created and then contracted awful diseases and/or birth defects then the design seems to be poor.
Intelligent design doesn't seem to make logical sense.