I considered that possibility some years ago.
I tested it by reading several "creation science" books. I picked out some of the arguments that seemed persuasive or intriguing, and spent a number of days in libraries chasing out all the relevant citations to original sources.
The result: I found creationism to be consistently based on shoddy, incompetent, or downright dishonest scholarship; and the countervailing evolutionary / mainstream science positions to be honest and generally solidly based.
I went in agnostic about antievolutionary ideas -- suspecting there was something to them, just not sure quite what -- and came out convinced that antievolutionary creationism had no valid scientific basis at all. I went in suspicious about the foundations of evolutionary theory, and came out having found them far better evidenced than I had suspected.
After that I collected antievolutionary literature for some years, attended meetings of a local creation science group, went to a couple national creation science conventions, and etc, but found the appallingly low level of integrity I'd earlier discovered to lie behind the claims of creationism to be characteristic and persistent.
Very strange. Would you please name some of the books that you read from both sides? How long ago was this?