You must be mistaking me for a proponent of creation teaching injected into scientific disciplines. Bringing creation into science is no more necessary than bringing in evolution. These only serve to muddy the discipline of observing and testing the given universe. Both viewpoints exceed the bounds of science in the strict sense when they rely upon the unobservable. If they want to incorporate notions of history into their explanations, fine, but don't call it "science" in the strict sense.
Since it makes predictions that are testable, evolution is science in the strictest sense. There are observations that would cause the modern theory of evolution to be found false and either modified or abandoned. I assume when you refer to science in its strict sense, you mean that it must be concerned only with what is directly observable. If that's the case, then the heliocentric model of the solar system, the general theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, the standard model of subatomic particles and various other scientific ideas must not be science in the strict sense. If I have assumed incorrectly, then please define what you mean by science in the strict sense.