I've got two points to make about Creation Science, coming from my little corner of things.
I hear these arguments that go something like this.
Well, there are all of these gaps in the fossil record and attendant evidence that evolution hasn't explained yet, so clearly evolution is basically a load of hooey.
To which I, as an evolutionist, reply: bingo.
This is a problem with the teaching of science in general that I see. Science is not, as I experienced ever so delightfully, having an extremely large book thrown at you and being told to more or less memorize it. Science is not about books.
Science is about discovery and experimentation. Of course it hasn't explained all the evidence. If it had, Steve Gould would be out of a job, among other nasty consequences.
The thing you do with a imperfect theory is improve it, not roundfile it. This makes me belive Asimov's idea that Creation Science isn't about science, but something else, whether it be politics or something else more or less nefarious. Either way, it doesn't merit being called science.
So a lot of the creation scientists now can just call what they're doing "improving" evolution and it'll all be good, right? Thus, my second point.
I'm no biologist, but I've spent more time than I care to admit among them and in biology classes. And one of the things I noticed is that evolution isn't just a branch of the tree, it's the trunk. I'm not sure you can say that you think that the rest of biology is all cool, and you'd like to keep all the nifty genetics and taxonomy and other neat stuff, but not evolution. The logic and structure just wouldn't make sense; the scientific equivalent of a pink elephant in the room.
I've got nothing against creation science as a theory. It's a perfectly good theory. It is, however, a poor science. I find it no small oxymoron to teach the scientific method in one month of a class and creationism in the other.