You've read too much at Slashdot.
"Creationism" and "science" are not mutually exclusive - hence the term 'Creation Science'.
"Science", literally defined, means 'study of'. To understand something, one must study it, correct? In science, when one wants to study something, one employs the principles of the Scientific Method:
from Wikipedia, since it saves me time
The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and orderings of the following:
* Characterizations (Quantifications, observations, and measurements)
* Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements)
* Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from hypotheses and theories)
* Experiments (tests of all of the above)
The difference between Creationists and Evolutionists is the set of pre-conceived notions, or assumptions, that a person takes with them and applies to their scientific study. Now, I love it when people say, "There are no assumptions in science (or more directly, in evolution)," because nothing is further from the truth.
Each of us carries around with ourselves a set of assumptions - about yourself, about the world around you, about how you believe people should act and think and feel about any given situation. This is commonly called a worldview. Everyone has one, from the atheist to the Christian to the shintoist to the muslim - and everyone in between.
To say that an ardent proponent of evolution carries no assumptions into a scientific study is both silly and laughable, yet that is precisely what they charge Creationists with doing, as if that alone somehow destroys their claims.
Creationists, or more to the point, Christians (and believe me, not every Christian is a Creationist) are supposed to believe that a sovereign and all-powerful God created the earth, the universe, and everything in it in a span of 7 literal days (which is a topic I could also write a book on, as many already have done), when in fact there is no empirical evidence for its occurrence. No human was there to witness it firsthand and write down observations. (Yes, one could claim Adam was, but he arrived at the tail end of the deal and was not in any position to observe anything beyond his immediate surroundings)
Evolutionists, regardless of faith or sect or religious affiliation, charge that this notion is absurd, and that the universe was 'created' from the Big Bang. Now, mind you, it should be the Big Bang Theory, because there are indeed other theories out there, but by and large the Big Bang is being taught as fact, when in fact there is no empirical evidence for its occurrence. No human was there to witness it firsthand and write down observations.
Both systems of 'science' now must seek out ancilliary evidence to back up their claims. And both do so, utilizing the Scientific Method under their particular individual worldview.
If this is not enough, and you are still of the opinion that Creationists are just blindly accepting what an ancient text has to say about how the whole of everything came into being, you'll be very interested to know that several passages in the Bible itself tell believers to "prove all things, holding fast to that which is good" (1 Thes 5:21), and Jesus himself said that we are to love God "with all of your heart, all of your mind
, and all of your soul." (Matt 22:37, emphasis mine). In order to love God with all of our minds, we must use them to understand and believe Him, and believe what he had to say. That is not accomplished by reading the Bible only, for the Creationist. That means learning about and discovering for ourselves how things work and why things occur and how things got to be the way they are, so that we might better understand and love God as He instructed us to do.
The Bible also says that all of Creation declares the glory (power) of God - so that no one is without an excuse not to believe in Him. Creationists (which should be all Christians) are out to do just that - show that what God said in the Bible is true.
Qualifying that last statement - the Bible is not a science textbook, nor is it a history textbook. It does, however, have much to say, both about science and about history, which went on across the 1500 years in which it was written.
AND ... *pant pant pant*
If you're still unconvinced, then I suggest you take a look at the founders of the major branches of science, and what their beliefs were.
The Scientific Method - Robert Boyle
Antiseptic Surgery - Joseph Lister
Bacteriology - Louis Pasteur
Calculus - Isaac Newton
Celestial Mechanics - Johannes Kepler
Chemistry - Robert Boyle
Comparative Anatomy - Georges Cuvier
Dimensional Analysis - Lord Rayleigh
Dynamics - Isaac Newton
Electronics - John Ambrose Fleming
Electrodynamics - James Clerk Maxwell
Electromagnetics - Michael Faraday
Energetics - Lord Kelvin
Entomology of Living Insects - Henri Fabre
Field Theory - James Clerk Maxwell
Fluid Mechanics - George Stokes
Galactic Astronomy - Sir William Hershel
Gas Dynamics - Robert Boyle
Genetics - Gregor Mendel
Glacial Geology - Louis Agassiz
Gynaecology - James Simpson
Hydrography - Matthew Maury
Hydrostatics - Blaise Pascal
Ichthyology - Louis Agassiz
Isotopic Chemistry - William Ramsey
Model Analysis - Lord Rayleigh
Natural History - John Ray
Non-Euclidean Geometry - Bernard Riemann
Oceanography - Matthew Maury
Optical Mineralogy - David Brewster
... all Christians, with a Christian worldview. They may not all have agreed on all of the tenets of the faith, but all believed in the Christian God as Creator. Were it not for their achievements in their respective sciences, the world would be a much darker place.
Kepler himself stated that science was "thinking God's thoughts after Him." And it is to that which Creationists hold.
Hope some of this makes sense to you.